Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1913-07-22

II
ing certain hounds that chased his
chickens and harried his hogs, al
though the owner Of the dogs pro-
tested that because Of their distin-
guished descent and careful training,
1t was absolutely foreign to their
nature to hunt anything except wild
animals
| About the legal soundness Of the
historic verdict in the case of dog
Tray. the authorities are divided.
Thus, under a Kentucky statute, al
though any dog found worrying or
injuring cattle, even outside their
owners enclosure, may be killed, it
was held that a dog may not be killed
merely because he was found In the
company Of other dogs that had been
previously worrying cattle. Yet other
courts have held that such vicious as
sociation exonerated the executioner.
Mere proof that sheep have been wor-
ried by dogs is not admissible upon an
action against the owner of the sheep
for killing a dog unless there is
some evidence to connect the animal
with the slaughter.
Although to warrant redress, the
damage inflicted must be real and
serious, succession of petty annoy
ances by dogs may amount to such an
aggregate as to constitute nuisance,
and be enjoined in an appropriate
action. In a case where dogs barked
continuously, night after night, q
judge granted an Injunction against
the owner, remarking that to murder
sleep was as reprehensible as any
other offense, and as liable to pun
ishment.
If dog is unlawfully killed, the
measure Of damage for such killing
Is the value Of the dog. and that value
is determined, not exclusively by the
market value, but by the usefulness
OF the dog or the attachment between
1t and its owner. Nor does the ques-
ton OF value determine the fact OF
property or ownership. Thus the law
definitely recognizes the sentiment
tha, exists between the dog and its
master. The newsboys mongrel Is as
carefully protected as Is the most
highly bred and trained animal AL
though strictly punitive damages are
not allowed, II the circumstances at
tending the killing reveal viciousness
or wantonness, the circumstances may
be shown. and may affect the amount
OF damages.
Concerning the liability Of the own
er for injuries inflicted by dogs, q
few general remarks can be made.
If the dog Is rightfully In the place
where the injury was inflicted. the
owner will not be liable unless he had
knowledge Of the vicious propensity
of the animal. In an action for any
such injury, the complainant need
only prove such knowledge; he need
not prove negligence on the part OF
the owner-that viii be presumed.
lISo if the owner Of dog knows the
animal to be dangerous. he is bound
at his peril to keep 1t secure; If any
one is injured by 1t, the owner will be
liable for all the damages sustained.
II, on the other hand, person with
knowledge of the evil propensities of
dog wantonly excites the animal, or
voluntarily and unnecessarily puts
himself in the way Of attack. he will
be adjudged to have brought the In
jury upon himself, and will not be en-
titled to recover damages.
knowledge on the part Of the own
er may be established by what hap
pens at the time Of the injury COM
planned Of; 1t Is not always necessary
to prove prior cases Of injury. II,
however 1t is shown that a dog has
once bitten person and the owner
had notice thereof, the proof Of
knowledge will be complete. There
are some exceptions, but the only
safe course for the owner OF
savage dog to take, is to restrain the
animal that 1t cannot injure person
who is rightfully going about his busi-
ness.
In estimating the damage from an
injury inflicted by a dog, the fears
concerning the future bad results, the
permanence Of the injury, and the
degree Of disagreement are all prop
er matters for consideration. More
over, II the owner is proved to have
been negligent In allowing q dog to
run about unmuzzled, exemplary or
punitive damages may be awarded.
Statutes have been enacted In Diff
ferent states that impose additional
liability on the owner Of vicious dogs,
but the principles stated above can
safely be followed. For an example
Of the exceptions, there is a Massa-
chusetts statute that provides for
double the amount Of damages sus-
tanned under some circumstances.
Under this statute, the keeper Of
dog was held liable for double the
amount Of damages sustained in con-
sequence of a sudden attack that made
the plaintiffs horse unmanageable.
So, also, under q similar Michigan
statute, the owner Of dog that as
saulted a person travelling the high
way was held liable for double dam
ages, because the dog attacked the
mans horse, and caused it to kick
him in the face and run away.
Many states provide by statute that
the proceeds Of dog license shall be
paid into a fund from which the town
compensates persons injured by dogs.
The statute particularly applies to
injuries to sheep. Although the town
is thus primarily liable, 1t recovers
from the owner Of the dog the dam
ages 1t is compelled to pay. In many
states, the owner Of sheep thus injur-
ed by a dog can kill the dog II he
knows its identity; and in other
states the owner Of sheep can recover
double damages for heir death or
injury. In none Of these cases need
the owners knowledge Of his dogs
vicious habits be shown. The fact Of