185 Mass. 181 | Mass. | 1904
This action was brought to recover damages for the bite of a dog of which the defendant was alleged to be the owner and keeper. The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant was the keeper of the dog,
This exception presents the only question before us. The issuing of a dog license has effect, as evidence of ownership in the licensee, only when knowledge is brought home to him in such a way as to connect him with it. The independent act of the town clerk, or the action of the clerk at the request of another party, is not evidence against the person named as licensee. The fact that one’s name is on the voting list of a city or town is no evidence of his residence there, unless it is shown that it was put on the list with his knowledge and consent. Sewall v. Sewall, 122 Mass. 156,162. The act of assessors in taxing property of a person as owner is no evidence of ownership unless he pays the tax, or is otherwise connected with the assessment. Mead v. Boxborough, 11 Cush. 362. Commonwealth v. Heffron, 102 Mass. 148,152.
In the present case the act of the town clerk lacks all the elements necessary to give it effect as evidence against the licensee, or in favor of third persons. See Burns v. Stuart, 168 Mass. 19.
Exceptions overruled.