
    
      GUERNSEY COUNTY
    
    MAY TERM, 1816.
    
    Present — TAPPAN, President: GOMBER, SPEERS and KIRKPATRICK, Associates.
    
    CLARK vs. HITE.
    The presumption of law is, that every man is acquainted with the habits of his domestic animals. In case for keeping a dog accustomed to bite, &c., the scienter is to be inferred from the fact of domestication.
    Case. — The declaration was in the usual form, and ’ claimed damages for the loss of an hog killed by the defendant’s dogs. Plea, Not Guilty.
    Culbertson and Herrick for plaintiff.
    Harper for the defendant.
    It appeared, from the evidence, that the plaintiff’s hog was killed by two dogs belonging to the defendant, in the woods near the field. The dogs had before been seen chasing plaintiff’s hogs, and the plaintiff had given the defendant some notice of it. It was doubtful, however, from the evidence, whether the defendant actually Icneio that his dogs were accustomed to chase and worry hogs.
   The President observed to the iury — That there seemed but little room to doubt, from the evidence, but that the defendant’s dogs had killed the plaintiff’s hog; that the principal point in dispute was, whether the defendant knew that his dogs were accustomed to do such mischief; it was necessary that such knowledge should be averred and proven, to support this form of action — but how proven ? The presumption of law is, that every man is acquainted with the habits and disposition of his domestic animals, so that to make out the fact of knowledge, nothing more is necessary than to prove that the dogs were the property of the defendant and domesticated by him. Verdict for the plaintiff.  