Show THE LAW ANO THE DOG T two ta a in terea DOC decision of questions in I 1 massachusetts courts if one interferes with two dogs dog that are fighting and is bitten by one of them he cannot recover damages unless he shows that lie he was in the exercise of due care the full bench of the supreme court lately so held according ng to the boston transcript in the case of artemus hodgson against charles H 11 hodgson and william T tapley the three parties live in dedham the plaintiff was out riding accompanied by his two dogs A shepherd dog owned by the defendant followed the carriage and got into a fight with one of the plaintiffs dogs he went up to the dogs and seized the defendants dog when it turned on him and bit his hand the suit was brought under public statutes chapter section 93 and the plaintiff claimed he was not obliged to prove at the trial that he was vms iu in the exercise of due care the court holds that he be wm was and says in the case at bar the plaintiff volun submitted himself to danger and we have no doubt that the ruling of the court below was right another dog bite case to call forth an expounding of the law is that of tesse jesse 0 boulester Boul estez of rockville Rocta rille against charles W parsons of walpole the bite in this case was inflicted upon a horse which died in consequence and the plaintiff sued for his loss the plaintiffs brother was driving an express wagon drawn by a pair of horses along a country road and in the rear of this wagon was another horse attached to a single wagon the defendants dog ran out of his in masters asters yar yard d and bit the horse attached to the single vehicle I 1 the defendant defenda fit contended it was negligence on the part of the plaintiff t iff to lead a horse harnessed in ba a a vivieon wagon behind as was this one and thereupon the plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury in substance as follows W S A man has a right to lead a horse in the way and manner described bed and the mere fact that he was so leading a horse is not such evidence of negligence as would preclude the plaintiff from recovering in this action for the bite of the dog the judge at the trial refused so to rule rale and submitted I 1 the question to the jury whether the method of traveling adopted was negligent and was such as to induce an i attack by the dog the jury found foun adfor for the defendant and to the refusal of the court to rule as above the p plaintiff plaintiff lain tiff excepted the full court su sustains the plaintiffs exceptions and says we we are of opinion that the ruling requested sho should ul d have been given in iii substance while the doctrine of contributing negligence has been often said to apply to an action on the public statutes chapter habte r section 93 and andee we have xa no doubt it does apply where the plain plaintiff tift incites or provokes a dog and it may be in other cases the doctrine has no application to the ca case se at bar the leading of a horse behind a wagon was simply a condition and not in a any n sense a contributing cause came of the injury to hold that the question whether leading Is a horse behind a magoji should be submitted jury ss As 1 erl anci mf negligence n ke on the part of th the ail ind iligo attack b by s 6 dog woul ender it necessary ak to submit to question aup aneth eth er q a or b ha h omart V I 1 the wa wagon gonior or c of ther clothes odthe driver iver afi an attack k T tr ta R 4 VV A Q aai got pe aa Q T 1 3 adal r d 4 ao 10 4 |