
    Simpson v. Griggs.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    December 10,1890.)
    Animals—Vicious Dogs.
    Defendant, holding, under a lease, a farm on which was a brick-yard, operated by him, employed one W. to work the farm for him. W. occupied a house on the premIses, and brought there a dog, which he occasionally used to churn butter made for the farm. The dog was vicious, and bit plaintiff. Defendant knew nothing personally of the bad disposition of the dog. Held, that he was not liable to plaintiff in damages for the injuries from the biting.
    Appeal from circuit court, Dutchess county.
    Action by John Simpson, an infant, suing by William H. Simpson, his guardian ad litem, against Charles Griggs. From a judgment for plaintiff entered on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J.
    
      H. H, Hustis, for appellant. Sehlosser & Wood, for respondent.
   Barnard, P. J.

The defendant and others occupied, under a lease from Mrs. Hunt, a farm in Wappinger’s, Dutchess county. There was a brick-yard on the farm, which was operated by Griggs & Co. They employed one Ward to work the farm. Ward occupied a farm-house on the premises, and the defendant and his partners had the'proceeds of the farm. Ward occupied the house as a hired man, and the occupancy was a part of the compensation for the labor of Ward. Ward brought a dog with him when he went there, and this dog was kept by Ward at the house he occupied on the farm of Griggs’ land in Wappinger’s. While Ward denied his ownership of the dog, it is manifest that he did own him, and had absolute and sole control over him. The dog was vicious, and bit the plaintiff. The defendant knew nothing of the bad disposition of the dog, other than is implied from a knowledge by Ward that the dog was savage, and would bite mankind. The defendant’s liability was based upon the proof that he employed Ward, and Ward brought the dog with him, and that the defendant’s firm had the proceeds of the farm, and that the employe, Ward, occasionally used the dog to churn butter which was made for the farm. The employer does not harbor a dog because he knows that his hired man has one in his family, which occupies a separate residence. Auchmuty v. Ham, 1 Denio, 495. The defendant knew nothing of the evil qualities of the dog personally, and had no power over him. The judgment and order denying a new trial should therefore be reversed, with costs to abide event.  