CAVE CANEM

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 97, 21 October 1926, Page 5

CAVE CANEM

LAW OF DOG AND CATS

ANCIENT DOCTRINE IN MODERN LIFE

PASS AS A LEGAL MARTYR.

"There on the left hand, as we went in, close to the porter's lodge, was a gigantic dog on a chain, painted on the waif, and over him in large characters were the words, 'Cave Canem.' " Thus Petronius, who wrote in the first century, describes what was usually to be seen at the entrance to a typical Boman villa in his day (writes G.B.U. in the Melbourne "Age"). The accuracy of this description may be verified to-day in the excavated ruins of Pompeii, which was buried in ashes from Vesuvius about the time that Petronius wrote, for there, executed in mosaic, is a drawing of a fierce-looking dog chained to a wall, with the words "Cave canem" written on it. Every public school boy knows (or would know if Latin were still generally taught) that these words mean "Beware of the dog." Just as the Boman householder twenty centuries ago warned his visitors that there was a dog on the premises, so his modern prototype, with equal solicitude for the safety of those whose business or pleasure brings them to hjs house, puts up the waftung, "Beware of the dog," though he omits the illustrative drawing. Sometimes, possibly, there is no dog in the yard, and the sign is merely a fiction displayed in an attempt (usually unsuccessful) to keep off those bugbears of the busy housewife —itinerant beggars and vendors of dispensable trifles. Generally, however, the notice is given as an honest warning to visitors whose intentions are bona fide. But is it solely for their protection! Are we to credit the householder who displays this modern "Cave canem" on. his side gate with a purely altruistic motive? Naturally he would grieve to see his visitor bitten by the housedog, however slight the injury, and he does his best to avoid such an accident "by giving ample warning of the presence of the animal somewhere on the premises. Thus he shows his concern for the safety of his visitor. But he is just as much concerned to insure that his visitor, if bitten, shall not have a good case against him for damages, and so he takes steps to protect himself against legal proceedings by Baying in effect to all who venture to come in, "Take care; there is a dog here, and if you come in you do so at your peril"; in other words, "Your blood lies upon your own heard." THE SOCt'B ONE BITE. By the common law, the owner of a dog which has bitten-another person is not liable for damages unless the owner was aware that the dog was accustomed to bite mankind. How can such knowledge be acquired unless the dog was known by his owner to have bitten someone else previously? Thus we have the proposition that every dog is entitled to one bite. This old common law doctrine has a very ancient origin, reaching back even to the days of Moses. For the old Mosaic law declared that if. an ox gored a man so that he died the owner should be free, but "if the ox wore wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner and he hath not kept him in," then tho owner, too, must be put to death. So to obtain damages from your neighbour for his dog having bitten you, you must show that the beast had a ferocious reputation, and that his owner knew this— not always an easy fact to ( prove. Some years ago, when a case of this kind was before Lord Russell of Killowen, his Lordship said the law was unsatisfactory; it would be more mi accordance with sound reason and principle to make a man responsible for what his dog did; in other words, that a man who kept a dog should take the risk of keeping it. But the common law has always protected the domestic dog and allowed him his one bite, and it required an Act of Parliament to deprive him of this privilege. If the dog enjoys this protection at the hands of the law, why should it not be extended also to-the cat —"the harmless, necessary cat"—the "domestic animal that catches mice," as Dr. Johnson defined it. ..If I am not liable for Ponto's misdeeds, unless I knew of his propensity for biting my fellowbeings, on what principle am I to be held responsible for Tabby's scratches unless I have had previous experience of her bad temper? This profound legal question came before the High Court in England a few years ago, the facts that occasioned it being unusual and somewhat amusing. A lady with a Pomeranian dog in her arms went into one of Lyons's tearooms in London, accompanied by her husband. They sat down to afternoon tea, and she put the dog "on the floor. Unfortunately for the dog and for its owner, there was a cat in the .rooms, and, what was worse, the cat had a family of kittens. No sooner did the cat see the dog than she flew at him, without any provocation. A LEADING CASE ON CATS. Naturally the owner of the dog rushed to save him from pussy's claws, picked him up, and handed him for safety to her husband. If the interesting proceedings had ended there we should not have had a leading case, for up to this point it was a mere cat and dog set-to. But no sooner had the lady got rid of the dog than the cat sprang upon her shoulder, where the dog had been, and bit her arm. Then followed an action in the Westminster County Court by the owner of the dog against the proprietors of the tearooms for. injuries to herself and to her dog. The jury awarded the plaintiff £100 damages, but the defendants succeeded when they appealed against the verdict. Applying the same rule to cats as applies to dogs, the Divisional Court discharged the defendants . from liability, because it had not been shown that they were aware of the cat's vicious propensity. The natural hostility of cats towards dogs was judicially acknowledged. But a cat is a domestic animal, not fierce by nature (ferae naturae, as the old law books have it), and like tho dog is entitled* to one bit, or to one scratch. Was it a wrongful act to keep a cat with kittens? "If so," said Mr. Justice Brayin this case, "a good many people are doing wrongful acts every day, arid the breeding of cats must be stopped. The law recognises that it is proper and useful to keep cats, and how ( is that to be done if the cats are not to have kittens?" Recently the escapades of another cat led to litigation which was carried from an English County Court right up to the Court of Appeal. A member of the Leeds Flying Club and of the National Homing Union kept racing pigeons in a pigeon cote in his garden. Some of his valuable birds disappeared mysteriously, and his suspicions fell on his neighbour's pet cat. These were soon confirmed, for he found the peccant cat in flagrante delicto, gave chase and tracked it to his neighbour's yard. The owner of the cat, when satisfied of its guilt, took extreme measures, and made any further depredations by her impossible, .for h,e was a neighbourly person and sympathetic with the pigeon-fancier. But his sympathy did not extend so far as to compel him voluntarily to pay compensation for the loss of the birds. Had not he, too, suffered the loss of his cat, and might not this be fairly set off against the

loss of the pigeons? But the owner of the destroyed pigeons was insistent, and sought to enforce reparation by bringing an action in the County Court for damages. Here, however, Se was met with a proposition of law which at once put him out of Court, for he was judicially informed that, having regard to the roaming character of cats and to the recognised custom of allowing them to roam at will it was his duty to keep his pigeons out of harm's way. He was further told by the Judge that in any event the cat's owner was not liable unless he had previous knowledge of his pet's predilection for pigeons. Questioning tho correctness of this view of the law, the plaintiff tested it by an appeal to a Divisional Court, and on failing there, carried the question up to the Court of Appeal. But even there he found that the law was against the pigeons and in favour of the cat. Their lordsbipß saw no reason for putting the domestic cat in a different category from the domestic dog; every argument in favour of the dog was .equally applicable to the cat. There is, therefore, now no reason why the domestic dog and <Sat should not lie down together irt amity, congratulating each other that the old common law principle known amongst lawyers as that of seienter protects them equally should they venture from home in pursuit of neighbouring live stock. The pity of it is that before this profound question of law could be finally settled Puss had suffered the extreme penalty at the hands of her master. At least it may be put to her credit that she sacrificed her life in the interest of legal learning, and, like Gray's cat that was drowned in a bowl of goldfish, her death points a moral if it does not adorn a tale. After all, despite the law and lawyers, "the cat will mew and dog will have his day."