While it is not illegal to keep wild animals, nevertheless, on account of the danger inherent in such animals, the owner is obliged to use the greatest care in their custody, and is liable for any injury which they may cause.5 It is not necessary that the owner should have had particular notice of the dangerous character of such animals, such notice being conclusively presumed from the general character of the species to which the animal belongs.6 Thus, in an action to recover damages for personal injuries, sustained by plaintiff from an elephant which was exhibited by defendants, the jury found that the defendants did not know the elephant to be dangerous. It was held, however, that defendants were liable, as the animal belonged to a class which, according to the experience of mankind, is dangerous to man, and therefore the owner kept such an animal at his own risk, and his liability for damage done by it, was not affected by his ignorance of its dangerous character.7

3 For a full discussion of the Subject of deodands, see Holmes' The Common Law, p. 7, et seq.

4 2 Pollock and Maitland 's History of the English Law (2nd ed.), 473, 1 Blackstone's Commentaries 300; Street's Foundations of Legal Liability, Volume I, p. 51.

5 Decker vs. Gannon, 44 Me., 322;

69 Am. Dec, 99; Muller vs.

McKesson, 73 N. Y., 195;

29 Am. Rep., 123. 6 Keeman vs. Gutta Peicha, etc.,

Mfg. Co., 46 Hun. (N. Y.), 544;

Mass. vs. Partridge, 9 111.,

App. 490.