
    Vrooman against Lawyer.
    vseowner of a it™u¡aMe“or miytavecímí sStfel custnmea to do
    IN ERROR, on certiorari to a justice’s court.
    The defendant in error, who was plaintiff in the court below, brought, an action against the • plaintiff in error in .the court below, and proved that the bull of the latter had gored his horse; but there was no evidence that the bull -had ever before done similar acts, or that he had ever before been unruly. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, the defendan t in error. >
   Per Curiam.

The judgment ds clearly .wrong. If damage be done by any domestic animal, kept for use or convenience, the owner is not liable to an action on the ground of riegligence,. without proof that he knew that the animal was'accustomed to do mischief. (1 Ld. Raym. 109, 2 Ld. Raym. 1583. Buxendin v. Sharp, 2 Salk. 662.)

Judgment reversed, 
      
       1 Chitty on Plead. 69.
     