The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1894-06-09
THE LAW AND THE DOG.

are fighting and is bitten by one of
them he cannot recover damages un-
less he shows that he was in the exer-
else of due care. The full bench of the
supreme court lately so held, accord
ing to the Boston Transcript, in the
case 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 102, Sec
ton 9s, and the plaintiff claimed he
was not obliged to prove ut the trial
that he was in the exercise of due care.
The court holds that he was and says:
ssln the case at bar the plaintiff volun-
tarily submitted himself to danger and
we have no doubt that the ruling of
the court below was right"
Another dog-bite case to call forth
IN 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
flicted upon horse, which died in con-
sequence and the plaintiff sued for his
loss. The plaintiffs brother was driv-
ing an express wagon, drawn by . pair
Of horses, along country road; and In
the rear Of this wagon was another
horse attached to . single wagon. The
defendants dog ran out Of his masters
yard and bit the horse attached to the
single vehicle.
The defendant contended It was
negligence on the part of the plaintiff
to lead . horse harnessed in q wagon
behind as was this one, and thereupon
the plaintiff requested the court to in
struct the jury in substance as follows:
"a man has right to lead = horse In
the way and manner described, and
the mere fact that he was 80 leading .
horse is not such evidence Of negli-
gence as would preclude the plaintiff
from recovering in this action for the
bite of the dog" The Judge at the
trial refused SO to rule, and submitted
the question to the jury whether the
method Of travelling adopted was neg
ligent and was such as to 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 full court sustains the plaintiffs
exceptions and says: I'VE are Of
opinion that the ruling requested
should have been given in substance.
While the doctrine of contributing
negligence has been often said to ap-
ply to an action on the public statutes,
chapter 102, section %, and we have no
doubt it does apply where the plaintiff
incites or provokes dog, and it may
be in other cases, the doctrine has no
application to the case 1T bar. The
leading of . horse behind . wagon was
simply . condition and not In any
sense . contributing cause of the in
jury. = =, To hold that the ques-
ton whether leading . horse behind
wagon should be submitted to the jury
- evidence Of negligence on the part
Of the plaintiff in inducing an attack
by dog, would render it necessary to
submit to the jusy the question wheth-
er the color Of the horse or Of the
wagon, or of the clothes, Of the driver
might not have induced IN attack. The
law does not pay this respect to the
~h a ar<nr;a a<ica NJ nrni1,Aicea NJ dnnA