The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-05-12
THE LAW AND THE DOG.
Two Interesting Decisions of Queseioas b
Massachusetts, CoureA

Two Interesting Decisions of Questioas IN
Massachusetts CourtA
If one interferes with two dogs that
are fighting and is bitten by one OF
them he cannot recover damages UNI
less he shows that he was in the exer-
else Of due care. The full benchsof the
supreme court lately SO held. accord
ing TO the Boston Transcript. in tho
ease of Artemus Hodgson against
Charles II. Hodgson and William T.
Tapley.
The three parties live IN Dedham.
The plaintiff was out riding, accom-
panied by his two dogs. A shepherd
dog owned by the defendant followed
the carriage and got into fight with
one of the plaintiffs dogs He went
up to the dogs and seized the defen-
dant's dog, when it turned ON him and
bit his hand. The suit was. brought
under public statutes, chapter l02, 5ec-
ton 9S, and the plaintiff claimed he
was not obliged to prove at the trial
that he was in the exercise of due care.
The court holds that he v-as and says:
"In the case at bar the plaintiff volun-
we have no doubt that the ruling of
the court below was right"
Another dog-bite case to call forth
an expounding of the law is that of
Jesse o. Boulester. of Rockville,
against Charles w. Parsons, of Wal
pole. The bite in this case was in
ficted upon a horse, which died in con-
sequence and the plaintiff sued for his
loss. The plaintiffs brother was driv-
ing an express wagon, drawn by a pair
of horses, along q country road; and in
tho rear Of this wagon was another
horse attached TO a single wagon. The
defendants dog ran out of his masters
yard and bit the horse attached to the
single vehicle.
The defendant contended IL was
negligence on the part of the plaintiff
to lead a horse harnessed in a wagon
behind as was this one, and thereupon
the plaintiff requested the court 70 In
struct the jury in substance Is follows;
"a man has a right TO lead horse in
the way and manner described. and
the mere fact that he was so leading q
horse is not such evidence of negli
gcnce as would preclude the plaintid
from recovering in this action for the
bite of the dog" The judge At the
trial refused so 20 rule, and submitted
the question TO the jury whether the
method Of travelling adopted was neg
hgent and was such as 10 induce an
attack by the dog. The jury found for
the defendant and TO the refusal Of
the court to rule as above the plaintiff
excepted.
The fun court sustains the plaintiffs
exceptions and says: We are o1
opinion that the ruling requested
should have been given In substance
While the doctrine OF Contributing |
negligence has been often said 70 ap
ply TO an action on the public statutes.
chapter Io2. section Sc, and we have nc |
doubt II does apply where the plaintiff |
incitss or provokes a dog. ard IL r,sy |
be in other cases the doctrine has nc \
application 20 the case .. bar. The |
leading OF q horse behind . wagon wa
simply . condition and not n any l
jury To hold that the ones
ton whether leading a horse De htDd .
wagon should be Submitted 20 tho Jury /
as evidence OF negligence on tie part
OF the plaintiff n inducing An s.tscx
or dog. would render i: necessary 20
70 the jury the question vE.e.b-
er the color of the horse or Of the
v-.Gon. or Of the clothes Of che 6riv.,
might not have induced an attack. The
lav does no. pay this respect 20 -
or p-ejudices OF 6er-