case mason against keel question Cox v burbidge c b n S follow sander v Teape  l t a declaration in a action on the case for a injury do by the defendant dog  must state that he know a the dog be of a mischievous nature or have do  mischief before for state that he be a mongrel mastiff greatly ferox and not  muzzle and that he fariose et violent impetivi et violently momordi et cannot  be injured the plaintiff c be not sufficient S c ld ray dalt c action on the  case in which the plaintiff declare that on the twenty of June in the eleven  of the king the defendant a certain camem hunting dog hound greatly wild do  keep and let he go lose unmuzzle per publican crossroads so that pro  diminution cur of the defendant the plaintiff be bit and worry by the say dog  as he be peaceable go about his business in such a street there be another  count in which it be lie that the defendant know the dog ad mordend accustom  to the first count there be a demurrer and to the second not guilty and it be  strong insist that the lie it to be camem greatly wild and suffer to go about  the street unmuzzle and pro diminution cur supply the want of sciens c for it  be say to be part of the excellency of the law of England that it leaves no  man without a remedy that have suffer a wrong through the fault of another it  be agree there be financial loss without in an unjust manner but that only be  when it happen without the commission or omission of any but never when there  be neglect in another through which I be damnified and the rule of right of  way for cattle non be party in law suit nisi man sit rea hold only in capital  offence and therefore if a infant or a lunatic commit a trespass they shall  answer it in damage and yet it can be say to be scienter hale p cor if one  keep a beast use to strike and it kill a man a butler v rews post king v mayor  of Kingston Mod stram but see king v Lord Montacute black Rep a see Kinnion v  Davis cro car Bolton v bank cro car Buxendon v sharp salk Jenkins v turner ld  ray smith v Pelah stram modern report er p it be hold by some to be even  felony but by other to be only a great misdemeanour and the neglect without  knowledge where damage ensue subject the party to action a soldier at his  exercise discharge his gun hurt another though plead to be involuntary et per  misfortune yet action lie a and the rule in chief justice Jones be that  nothing but a unavoidable necessity shall excuse from repair a injury to a  three person through his default and here be no necessity for the defendant  keep modern report camem Valde wild much less to let he go unmuzzle about the  street and it be lie in the declaration and confess by the demurrer to be pro  diminution debit cur of the defendant and that it be greatly ferox and this  opportunity be give by the defendant to such creature to do mischief what then  can there be more reasonable than to repair the wrong there be no default in  the plaintiff for he be go about his lawful occasion and there be sure a great  fault in the defendant to let such a fierce creature range the street of  London unmuzzle nothing be more probable than that such a dog as this let lose  among a crow of people will do mischief and it will be needless to give notice  of its be likely to do so and like tell a man that fire will burn or a tiger  will do mischief and this be within the same reason with a action for  negligent keep his fire for that be pro def debit guard of fire and this pro  def debit cur of his dog and the case of fire be a much hard one for there be  none but must trust his servant with fire and the accident be many in I vent  notice be take of a case which happen before that time and be this a butcher  let lose a ox and it be lie that for want of the due pen of his ox the  plaintiff be hurt by it and there the action lie for want of due pen of his ox  and this be for want of due care of his dog and here be equal prospect of  mischief in both case if a man have a unruly horse which break through his  close or stable and do mischief a action will lie for it and it be hard that  one shall have a remedy for the least trespass do in his land and none for a  trespass do thus to his person by wound or maim suppose one keep several  mastiff shall he be exempt from a action for mischief do by every one of they  till he know that he have do a prior mischief that be no care be to be take to  prevent the first mischief this seem to be contrary to the policy of the law  which delight more in prevent than punish and the maxim be Prstat caution how  cure it be object that if a action be countenance upon this declaration a  lapdog or spaniel shall not snap at a man but a action shall be straight bring  for it and so it will introduce a multiplicity of action which the law abhor  but I answer that there ought to be sciens c or that which be tantamount that  it be ferox as here and then no inconvenience modern report it be also object  that the precedent be all sciens but I answer that will be all aggravation of  damage and precedent imply only that it will be the sure way so to do but not  that sciens be absolute necessary it be say that it be necessary in case of a  action for bite sheep and therefore a acquire a see Edward pl so per townsend  but there it be not deny but that if a dog of a chase the sheep of b into the  soil of c whereby a action be give to c against b that b shall have a action  against a and there be no comparison between the bite of cattle and bite of a  man for the law have a great regard to the life and safety of a man than of a  beast and everybody be presume to know that a dog greatly ferox will be apt to  do mischief if let lose in a street among a crow of people but it be also  object that it may be punish by indictment and I believe it may and from  thence I infer this action will lie by any that have a special damage as in  Inst a and it be a true maxim quod whoever it be debet ita in order that his  ut one non to do harm Raymond contra some book say that the law take notice of  the nature of a mastiff and that be that he be tame and domestic or conversant  with man and therefore a action do not lie for the bite of such a dog without  a sciens what be it then can distinguish this case from that it be say that  this be a mongrel cur greatly ferox and that let lose in a highway be a public  nuisance and even in that they fail for they only say that he let he lose per  crossroads and that do not necessary signify a street or highway for Latin  author use it for a court or yard before a man door nor do I know of any  authority that it be a nuisance to let a dog a hob a vide Ed wonder pl modern  report er p go at large and there be a diversity between a ox that range the  field far from the society of man and a dog which be animal household member  breed among they and therefore can be presume to be prone to mischief as the  other and they can say that it be the nature of dog to be fierce and to say  that a averment of its be fierce will support a action be to oppose the whole  current of authority which all require sciens and it may be fierce and the  owner know nothing of it for they do not aver be do know he to be fierce and  as to the rule of law that no man wrong shall be leave remodels there be few  rule without exception and the case of Hobart and Jones be not like this for  everybody know that a gun charge if it go off be apt modern report to do  mischief but not so of a dog and a indictment will not have lie here without a  knowledge of the ill quality gold justice No doubt but in the case of sheep  there ought to be a sciens because that be a accidental quality and not in the  nature of a dog and as to property of a dog the book distinguish for a man  have a property in a dog that be a mastiff or spaniel for the one be for the  guard of his house the other for his pleasure but this here be a mongrel and  lie to be greatly wild and that must be a innate fierceness and not accidental  and if a dog be accustom to bite cow and the master know it that will not be  sufficient knowledge to make he liable for his bite sheep beside this case be  distinguishable in respect of the place for the law take notice of highway and  be a security for passenger and it will be dangerous to keep such dog near the  highway where all sort of people pass at all hour and to maintain this issue  they must give a natural fierceness in evidence holt chief justice if it have  be say that the defendant know the dog to be ferox I shall think it enough the  difference be between thing in which the party have a valuable property for be  shall answer for all damage do by they but of thing in which he have no  valuable property if they be such as be natural mischievous in their kind be  shall answer for hurt lone by they without alley notice but if they be of a  tame nature there must be notice of the ill quality and the law take notice  that a dog be not of a fierce nature but rather the contrary and the  presumption be against the plaintiff for can it be imagine a man will keep a  fierce dog in his family wit if any beast in which I have a valuable property  do damage in another soil in tread his grass trespass will lie for it but if  my dog go into another man soil no action will lie see the case of Milan v  Hawtree a that scienter be the get of the action and so be cro where it be  doubt whether the scienter shall go to the keep or quality nor do it appear  here but it be a accidental fierceness or suppose it be a innate one to this  dog particular and it have be give to the owner but a hour before shall he  take notice of all the quality of his dog at his peril or shall he have his  action against the giver for bestow he a naughty dog in case a dog bite big  which almost all doff will do a scienter be necessary b and I do not doubt but  if it be general lie that a dog be use to bite animal modern report and the  defendant know of it it will be enough to charge he for bite of sheep c and by  animal shall not be intend frog or mouse but such in which the plaintiff have  property and judgement be give for the defendant by holt chief justice and  Turton justice gold justice mutant belief svan c