Court case[1948] 1 KB 241

At night the plaintiff's dog was worrying in-lamb ewes belonging to the defendant's father. The defendant went out with a gun; when he found the dog it had left the sheep and was some distance away, and, according to the evidence, it turned towards him. He shot and killed it. The owner of the dog sued for its value. The county court judge held the defendant liable on the ground that the dog was not actually attacking the sheep at the moment it was shot.

The Court of Appeal set aside the judgment and ordered a new trial. It held that the defendant would be justified if he proved (1) that at the time of the shooting the dog was either actually attacking the animals, or, if left at large, would renew the attack so that the animals would be left in real and imminent danger unless it was shot; and (2) either that there was no practicable means, other than shooting, of stopping the present attack or preventing its renewal, or that, having regard to all the circumstances, he acted reasonably in regarding the shooting as necessary. The onus of proving these matters lay on the defendant.