The care which the defendant took in this case was not enough, and, therefore, he had no doubt that this action was maintainable. The jury would judge what damages they ought to give. He would refer this to their feelings. They could not avoid commiserating the distress of the family of this poor man. He should, however, observe to the jury, that they must not give vindictive damages; but still he did not think that damages merely to the amount of '£6'. or '£7'., which was stated to be the expense of the funeral, &c., would at all meet the justice of the case. He was inclined to advise them to go beyond that, although he did not plead vindictive damages. There would be costs to be defrayed by the plaintiff, well known in the profession under the head of "extra costs," even although he had a verdict. If the verdict had been at his disposal, he would have taken care that these costs should have been borne by the party that had been the cause of the injury. That appeared to him to be the justice of the case. He trusted that none who heard him would doubt his sincerity, when he said, he lamented the misfortune which had given birth to this action; and, with that qualification of the case, he must say that he was not sorry that this action had been brought. He thanked the plaintiff for bringing it; for it might be of public benefit. It would teach a lesson that would not soon be forgotten, "That a person, who knowingly keeps a vicious, dangerous animal, should be considered to be answerable for all the acts of that animal." There were instances in which very large damages had been given to repair such injuries. He did not say that the present case called for large damages; but, if other cases of the same kind should be brought into court after this had been made public, he hoped the jury would go beyond the ordinary limits, and give verdicts which might operate 'in terrorem' on the offending parties. Verdict for the plaintiff--damages £36. [4] A child was bitten by a rabid dog at York, and became hydrophobous. All possibility of relief having vanished, the parents, desirous of putting an end to the agony of their child, or fearful of its doing mischief, smothered it between two pillows. They were tried for murder, and found guilty. They were afterwards pardoned; but the intention of the prosecutor was that of deterring others from a similar practice, in a like unfortunate situation [5]. In 1821, a physician, at Poissy, was sentenced to pay 8000 francs (£320) to a poor widow whose husband died of hydrophobia, in consequence of a bite from the physician's dog, he knowing that the dog had been bitten, yet not confining him.