Read v Edwards
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1864 |
| Date | 04 June 1864 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 144 E.R. 99
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 31; 11 L. T. 311; 5 N. R. 48.
read v. edwards. July 4th, 1864. [S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 31 ; 11 L. T. 311 ; 5 K R. 48.] An action lies against the owner of a dog, who, knowing the animal to have a propensity for ohasing and destroying game, permits it to be at large, and the dog in consequence "breaks and enters" the plaintiff's wood, and chases and destroys young pheasants which are being retired there under domestic hens. This was an action brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for the destruction by a dog belonging to the defendant of certain pheasants of the plaintiff. Tha first count of the declaration stated that, before and at the several times ;of the committing by the defendant of the grievances thereinafter mentioned, the plaintiff waa possessed of certain breeding-places for pheasants, anrl of certain pheasant-coops, which aaid breeding-places and pheasainVeoops were then used by the plaintiff for the purpose of breeding and rearing pheasants ; and the plaintiff was also then possessed of divefs tame heris and pheasants, which said pheasants were at and during the times aforesaid, being reared and bred up by the plaintiff in the said breeding-places and pheasant-coops through and by means of [246] the said hens, which said hens were kept and used by the plaintiff to brood, harbour, and cherish the said pheasants in 1QO REA.D V. EDWARDS 17 C. B. (N. S.)2. the said breeding-places and pheasant coops : that the defendant then wrongfully and injuriously kept certain dogs, he the defendant at and during the said several times aforesaid knowing the premises, and also then well knowing that the said dogs were uaed and accustomed to hunt, chase, pursue, and drive about pheasants, and to kill and destroy the same; and at and during the several times aforesaid the defendant wrongfully and negligently behaved and conducted himself in and alwut the keeping and taking care of the said dogs, and the restraining, confining, arid controlling the same ; and the said dogs, whilst the defendant so kept the said dogs (and in the manner aforesaid), on divers days and times, to wit, between the 1st of July, 1863, and the 1st of August, L8G3, by reason of the premises aforesaid, hunted, chased, pursued, and drove about the said pheasants, and killed and destroyed divers and very many, to wit, two hundred, of the said pheasants; whereby and by reason of the premises the plaintiff had been and was seriously damnified and injured, and divers moneys theretofore expended and laid out in and about and incident to the raising, rearing, feeding, taking care of, and watching the said pheasants, became and were wholly lost to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff had been also thereby deprived of the said pheasants, and of the enjoyment thereof, and had been prevented and hindered from therewith stocking his the plaintiff's woods and grounds with pheasants, and from having such recreation and pleasure therein as but for the premises he would have had ; and had also thereby been deprived of divers gains and profits which otherwise and but for the premises he would have derived, and which might and would have accrued to him therefrom [247] and from the disposal thereof; and also by reason of the premises the plaintiff had been necessarily put to and had incurred great expense in and about the watching, keeping, and taking care of the said breeding-places, pheasant-coops, hens, and pheasants ; and also by reason of the premises the plaintiff wag forced and compelled to keep and employ a much greater number of servants and keerpers to attend upon and superintend the same than otherwise and but for the premises he would or need have kept or employed. The second count stated that, on divers days and times, the defendant, then knowing that certain of his dogs were accustomed to hunt for and pursue game, and also then knowing that the plaintiff preserved and had game in the wood and plantation of th^ plaintiff thereinafter mentioned, so negligently and carelessly controlled, kept, and restrained t|ie said dogs near to the said wood and plantation, that through and by reason thereejf the said dogs broke and entered the said wood and plantation of the plaintiff called Hockering Wood, situate at Hockering, in the county of Norfolk, and trod down, damaged, and destroyed the herbage, soil, and underwood thereof, and ran about, hunted, arid chased therein, and hunted, chased, pursued, drove about, disturbed, killed, and destroyed the game, pheasants, hares, and rabbits which were in the said wood : by reason whereof large quantities of the said game, pheasants, barest, and rabbits were greatly terrified and affrighted and caused to leave the said wood and plantation, and were injured ; and by reason of the premises the plaintiff had been and was seriously damnified and injured, and the plaintiff's right to shoot and sport in the said wood and plantation had been spoiled and damaged, and clivers moneys theretofore expended and laid out in and about and incident to the raising, rearing, feedingj taking care of, and watching the said [248] game, pheasants, hares, and rabbits became and were wholly lost to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff was thereby! causgd to incur greater expenses than he would have clone in and about the watching and (taking car£ of the said wood, game, pheasants, hares, and rabbits; and the plainjtiff had al$o been thereby deprived of the said game, pheasants, hares, and rabbits, and of jthe enjoyment thereof, arid from having such pleasure and recreation therein as otherwise and but for the premises he would have had ; and also thereby the plaintiff had been deprived of divers great gains and profits which otherwise and but ior the premises he would have derived, and which might arrcl would have accrued to the plaintiff therefrom and from disposal thereof. Claim, 2501. The defendant pleaded,-first, not guilty,-secondly (to the first count), that the said pheasants were not, nor were any of them, the plaintiff's, as alleged,-thirdly (to the second count), that the said dogs were not his, as alleged,-fourthly (to the second count), that the said wood and plantation were not the plaintiff's,-fifthly (to the second count so far as related to the alleged right to shoot and sport), that the plaintiff had no right to shoot or have sport as alleged,-sixthly (to the second count), that he did not know that the said dogs were accustomed to hunt for and pursue game...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Gayler and Pope Ltd v Davies & Son
-
Fitzgerald v E. D. and A. D. Cooke Bourns (Farms) Ltd
...& Welsby, page 363); the kicking horse, Cox v. Burbidge (already cited); the dog chasing pheasants, ( Reade v. Edwards Volume 17 Common Bench (New Series) page 245); the dog worrying shoep, ( Fleaming v. Orr volume 2 McQueen, page 14); the bitch with puppies biting, ( Barnes v. Lucille 19......