Kessler v. Lockwood — 42 N.Y. St. Rep. 563

Majority

p. 563

Margaret S. Kessler, Resp’t, v. Frank S. Lockwood, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed December 14, 1891.)

Headnote

1. Animals—Ownership.

Plaintiff was bitten by a dog which had been brought by defendant to protect the premises of a Miss B., who afterwards died, and the dog remained with defendant on the premises owned in part by his wife. Held, that on these facts the jury were justified in finding that defendant was the owner as well as harborer of the dog.

'% Same—Knowledge of vicious character.

Proof that the dog had attacked many other persons, even when muzzled, and that defendant had repeatedly called him away when he was attacking persons on the highway,is sufficient to show his vicious character and defendant’s knowledge thereof.

Appeal from judgment of county court, affirming judgment of justice’s court in favor of plaintiff.

Snider & Hopper, for app’lt; A. S Tompkins, for resp’t.

The proof establishes that the plaintiff was bitten by a dog. This action was brought to recover for the injuries she received.

She must establish that the dog was owned or harbored by defendant, and that the dog was vicious and savage and used and accustomed to attack man.

Two juries have found in her favor on these points. The evi

p. 564

deuce on the second trial is abundant to sustain the verdict. The dog was brought by the defendant to protect the premises of a Miss Brown. Some four years before he himself moved into the-premises occupied by Miss Brown; he brought the dog there; subsequently Miss Brown died; the dog remained with the defendant. The premises were owned in part by defendant’s wife. The-defendant is the head of the family, and provides for it. The jury could properly find the defendant owner as well as harborer of the dog on the evidence. The dog is proven to have been a very savage animal. The plaintiff was bitten by the dog while one of the family was with him, and without any provocation except the-savagery of the dog. He is proven to have attacked many other persons. He would assail people with a muzzle on. The defendant had, on repeated occasions, called the dog away when he was. attacking persons on the highway. -

The judgment should, therefore, be affirmed, ’with costs.

Dykjian and Pratt, JJ., concur.