HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0575 and id is 1 raw text is: 1 STARK. 286.
DIXON V. BELL
475
Abbott, J. intimated, that had it not been for the expression proved to have been
used by the [286] defendant in warning the witness to beware lest the dog should
bite him, he should have directed a nonsuit. His Lordship afterwards said to the
jury-In order to warrant a verdict for the plaintiff, you must be satisfied that the
dog had before the time of this injury bitten some human being, and that the defend-
ant knew it. It is not necessary now to consider whether such an action might not
be sustained on a declaration charging the defendant with negligently keeping a dog
of a savage and ferocious disposition, because in this case the declaration alleges that
the dog was accustomed to bite mankind, and that the defendant knew it. If you
are satisfied as to both of these points, your verdict ought to be for the plaintiff. I
think sufficient caution has not been used, for whenever a person keeps a savage dog,
he is bound so to secure it as effectually to prevent its doing mischief. After his
Lordship had commented on the facts of the case, the jury found for the plaintiff.
Damages £55.
Scarlett and Adolphus for the plaintiff.
The Attorney-General for the defendant.
[Attornies, Johnson and Ross.]
[2871 Wednesday, June 5, 1816.
DIxoN V. BELL.
(A person before he entrusts a gun to an incautious agent is bound to render it per-
fectly innoxious. In an action for wounding the plaintiff's son per quod servitium
amisit, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of the surgeon's bill although
it has not been paid, but he cannot recover physician's fees which have not been
paid.)
[S. C. Holt, 233, in note. Subsequent proceedings with annotations, 5 M. & S. 198.
Referred to, Admiralty Commissioners v. S. S. Amerika, [1917] A. C. 38.]
This was an action on the case for having negligently and improperly entrusted a
loaded gun to a young mulatto girl, who discharged it against the son and servant of
the plaintiff, and severely wounded him, by means of which the plaintiff had been
deprived of the services of his son and servant, and had been put to great expence
in medicines, &c. for his cure.
It appeared that both the plaintiff and defendant had lodged in the house of one
Lemon, and that the defendant, having taken other lodgings, had removed all his
property, except a fowling-piece, which was loaded with powder, and a quantity of
printing types, and had been left so loaded in the drawing-room which he had occupied.
After his removal, the defendant sent a mulatto girl, his servant, about twelve years
of age, for the gun, with a verbal message to Mr. Lemon requesting him previous to
delivering the gun to the girl to take out the priming. Lemon accordingly examined
the pan, but finding that it contained no priming, he delivered it to the girl, telling,
her to take particular care of it. She went into the kitchen, where there was a child
of Lemon's, and soon afterwards the plaintiff's son, a boy of ten years old, returning
from school, went into the kitchen, she then took up the [288] gun and presented it at
the boy, saying that she would shoot him, and immediately the contents were dis-
charged in his face; in consequence of which, one eye was lost, several teeth struck
out, and his face was much lacerated.
The Attorney-General for the defendant, contended, that he was not liable for the
damage which had been done, since he had used such precautions as he supposed
would have been sufficient to prevent any injury.
Lord Ellenborough informed the jury that they were to consider, first, whether
the defendant had been guilty of negligence in entrusting such an instrument to such
an agent. With respect to the instrument it was in the first instance a dangerous
one, being loaded with types, and the question was, whether'a reasonable and pru-
dential precaution had been taken to render it innocent, before it had been entrusted
to the care of the mulatto servant. The defendant had said that he would send for the
gun, and in the afternoon, it appeared that he had sent the mulatto girl for it, with a
message to Lemon, requesting him to take out the priming before he delivered it to
the servant. Lemon accordingly had examined the pan, and found that the priming
was gone ; this circumstance however did not render the instrument a harmless one,
some priming having afterwards probably been shaken from the barrel, from which
the charge had not been extracted, into the pan. Lemon however, [289] it might be](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0575&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)