Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 13.pdf/327

 294

their presence in your potato patch is owing to a defect in your fences for which you are responsible. Legal duties and obligations fall far short of the golden rule, "Whatso ever ye would that men should do to you, so do to them.'' But be careful not to drive the kine further along the highway than is nec essary to keep them off your land. (Tobin г1. Deal, supra: Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 200.) The owner of an animal is liable for the injuries which, by his negligence, he suffers it to commit—for that and nothing more. If he has done all that he, or any other man in his circumstances, reasonably could to prevent injury he is not liable. Every un warrantable entry by a man, or his cattle, or other animals, on another's land is a tres pass, and the man is as much responsible for the trespass of his animal as for that of him self: and the law presumes negligence against him if his animal trespasses; (but see below). The general rule of the Common Law is that a man is bound to keep his cattle on his own land: the owner of a garden is not bound to fence them out. However the Common Law is not common everywhere: oftentimes statutes enact that people must fence in their gardens to protect them from wandering kine and equines. If such a statute exists where you dwell you must govern yourself accordingly: it abrogates the Common Law rule. (52 Ill. App. 200.) The owner of a cow may be liable for her voracious appetite and her hoof prints even though a stranger turned her out of her own proper pasture on the highways. (Noyes г>. Colby, 30 N. H. 143.) The owners of buf falo bulls, whether tame or wild, are re sponsible for their trespasses. (81 Ill. 403: 24 Mo. 199.) If you are fortunate enough and active enough to catch the animal in the very act you can distrain it for damage feasant. and hold it (subject to the rules and regulations duly provided either by Common Law or statute) until the owner has given you sat isfaction for all the damage done: should he

fail to do this you can in due time sell the animal and pay yourself. (Am. & Eng. Ene. Law s. v. Animals.) As to trespassing cats, dogs and chickens, you must not kill them if they are only run ning about and doing no damage: that is quite clear. Even if they are doing damage it is, as a rule, not lawful or wise to kill them. Your safest plan is to sue their owners for the injuries you have sustained. They will probably be held liable to you for your losses: although it is not quite clear that the law will presume negligence in the owners from the simple trespassing of these small fry as it does in the cases of horses and cows. (Matthews 7'. Fiestal, 2 Ed. Smith, 90: Am. & Eng. Ene. of Law, s. v. Animals: Vanluven v. Syke, 4 Denio 127: Dunckle v. Kocker, II Barb. 387: Reed v. Edwards 17 C. B. [N. S.] 245.) If a dog is on your ground and you fear he will kill your hens you may take his life, if he is worth less than your chickens: or if you find your neigh bor's cat in your poultry yard and you can not otherwise save your birds you may kill the cat. But for a playful rush through your strawberry patch or amatory dances over your flower beds you must not take their lives. (Anderson 7'. Smith, 7 Bradw. 354: Hodges 7'. Cansey. 48 L. R. A. 95: Harris v. Eaton, 37 Atl. Rep. 30.) Once upon a time a shopkeeper spread some poison on bread and cheese and placed it under his counter for the purpose of destroying rats; a strange dog came wandering round behind the counter, and ate the bread and cheese, and ate no more, neither did he trespass any more. Nor had the merchant to pay any thing to doggy's master. Vcrbum sat. There are vermin in the garden that you have a perfect right to poison. (Stansfield ï'. Boi ling, 22 L. T. Rep. [N. S.] 709.) Apropos of cats, but not of gardening, do you remember Miss Moore's $75 valuable cat of the seven-toed variety, with a do mestic disposition, and the poetical defence of its murderers by the Roman (N. Y.) poet laureate, D. F. Searle, Esquire? Here is part