Morris v Nugent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 1836 |
| Date | 27 July 1836 |
English Reports Citation: 173 E.R. 252
IN THE COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
Attornies-Summers, and Parry.
[572] July 27th, 1836. morris v. nugent (To justify shooting another per&on\s dog, it is not sufficient to shew that the dog was of a ferocious disposition, and was at large To justify shooting him, he rnunt be actually attacking the party at the time , therefore, where the defendant was passing the plaintiff's house, and the plaintiff's dog ran out, and bit the defendant's gaiter, and on the defendant turning round, and raising his gun, the dog ran away, and he shot the dog as he was running away, it was held that the defendant was not justified in so doing ) Trespass for shooting the plaintiff's dog Plea-That the said dog was of a misckievous disposition, and unfit to be at large, whereof the plaintiS had notice ; that the dog attacked the defendant, and would have bitten him, had he not defended himself ; wherefore, in self-defence, and to protect himself from being bitten, he killed him. Replication-de injuna. On the part of the defendant evidence was tendered, to shew that the dog was of a mischievous disposition, and had bitten others J. Evans objected that such evidence was inadmissible, as being irrelevant to the issue. Lord Denman, C. J.-I think it was unnecessary to state in the plea, either that the dog was of a mischievous disposition, or that the plaintiff knew it, for the fact of the dog having attacked the defendant, would be a sufficient justification for shooting him in self-defence, whether the dog was of a mischievous disposition or not : but you ought to have demurred to the plea for setting out irrelevant facts having taken issue upon the plea, I cannot say that the evidence is immaterial. It appeared that, as the defendant was passing the plaintiff's house, the dog ran out and bit the defendant's gaiter, and that, on the defendant turning round and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kellett v Stannard
...KELLETT and STANNARD. Baynes v. Brewster 2 A. & E. N. S. 375. Morris v. NugentENR 7 Car. & P. 572. Janson v. BrownENR 1 Camp. 41. Protheroe v. MathewsENR 5 Car. & P. 581. 156 COMMON LAW REPORTS. M. T. 1851. Exchequer. KELLETT v. STANNARD. Nov. 18. Trespass, for shooting a dog.-The deÂÂfend......