fully kept a dog, well knowing him to be of a ferocious and mischievous disposition, and accustomed to attack and bite sheep [or other animals, as the case may be]. day of 19 at 2. That on the the said dog, while in the keeping of the defendant, attacked and bit [or hunted, chased, bit, and worried] the sheep belonging to the plaintiff. 3. That in consequence thereof, the said sheep of the plaintiff, of the value of $ died, and became of no value to the plaintiff, and the residue of the said sheep of the plaintiff, being also of great value, were injured and rendered of no value to the plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 923-By guardian ad litem, for damages against owners of vicious animal. (O'Rourke v. Finch, 9 Cal. App. 324; 99 Pac. 392.) [Title of court.] John H. J. O'Rourke, a minor, by Frank J. O'Rourke, his guardian ad litem, plaintiff, V. J. T. Finch, John Doe, and Jane Now comes plaintiff, by Frank J. O'Rourke, his guardian ad litem, and complains of defendants, and for cause of action alleges: 1. That on the 24th day of July, 1906, said guardian ad litem filed with said court a verified petition to be appointed the guardian ad litem of plaintiff, who is a minor under the age of fourteen years, and that said petition came on to be heard by said court on the 24th day of July, 1906; that upon the hearing of said petition said court, by its order and decree duly given and made on said date, appointed the said Frank J. O'Rourke the guardian ad litem of the plaintiff to commence and prosecute this action. 2. That the true names of defendants John Doe and Jane Doe are unknown to plaintiff, and for that reason are sued herein under the fictitious names of John Doe and Jane Doe. 3. That at the times hereinafter mentioned defendants kept a vicious and ferocious dog, accustomed to attack and injure persons, and that defendants well knew said dog to be vicious and ferocious and accustomed to attack and injure persons. 4. That the defendants, while they kept said dog as aforesaid, negligently suffered said dog to go at large without being securely or otherwise guarded or confined. 5. That on the 14th day of June, 1906, on Sixth Avenue, near Pt. Lobos Avenue, in front of the home of the plaintiff, in the city and county of San Francisco, said dog, while in the keeping of defendants, and while at large, and not securely or otherwise guarded or confined, attacked, bit, and wounded plaintiff; that said dog bit and tore the head, ears, and face of plaintiff in such a manner that fifty-two stitches were and had to be taken in the head, ears, and face of plaintiff; that the right ear of plaintiff was by said dog nearly torn from the head of plaintiff, and all to the damage of plaintiff in the sum of $4,500, all of which was caused by the negligence and carelessness of defendants in permitting and suffering said dog to go at large without being securely or otherwise guarded or confined. 6. That plaintiff, by reason of said injuries as aforesaid, now does suffer, and ever since said injuries were received by him has suffered, great pain; that plaintiff will be disfigured and marked for life by reason of said injuries; that prior to the time of his receiving said injuries plaintiff enjoyed the best of health, but that ever since said injuries were received as aforesaid, and as a consequence thereof, plaintiff has been, and now is, sick and in poor health, and he can not rest; that by reason of said injuries plaintiff has been obliged to have a nurse to care for and wait upon him at all times herein mentioned, to the further damage of plaintiff in the sum of $200; that plaintiff is now indebted in the further sum of $200 for medical services, which he was obliged to have by reason of said injuries; that plaintiff will be damaged in the further sum of $100, for medical services to treat the injuries hereinbefore mentioned, in an endeavor to effect a cure thereof. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants for $5,000, and costs of suit. [Verification.] Don R. Jacks, Attorney for plaintiff. FORM NO. 924-By next friend, for damages for personal injuries caused by negligent shooting. (In Morgan v. Mulhall, 214 Mo. 451; 114 S. W. 4.) [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff for his cause of action showeth to the court: 1. That on the 24th day of May, 1905, upon the petition of said Ernest Morgan, the said circuit court did appoint Joseph Morgan as his next friend to commence and prosecute this suit, and said Joseph Morgan has consented in writing to act as such next friend for said purpose. 2. And the plaintiff further showeth to the court, that on the 18th day of June, 1904, in said city of St. Louis, and on the grounds of the Louisiana Purchase Exposition Company, the defendant, by shooting into a crowd of people negligently, shot the plaintiff, Ernest Morgan, with a pistol; that by said shooting the bowel of plaintiff's abdomen was perforated in front and rear, and plaintiff's hip socket was shattered, and the head of his thigh-bone destroyed; that it was necessary for the surgeon in treating said wounds to cut open plaintiff's abdomen and close the bowel where perforated, and thereafter to cut off and remove the head of said thigh-bone; that, as a further result of said injuries, Bright's disease was developed in plaintiff; that plaintiff's life was saved by his surgeon, but plaintiff suffered on account of said injuries most excruciating pain and anguish of body and mind; that his constitution has been permanently weakened, his leg permanently shortened, and he now suffers, and will continue to suffer, great bodily and mental pain and anguish, all to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $20,000, for which amount and his costs he asks judgment against the defendant. Thomas F. Gault, Attorney for plaintiff. The petition in form No. 924 was pronounced by the court to be "uncommonly laconic and crisp in its charging part, but it well charges that plaintiff was negligently shot by defendant with a pistol, and that averment charges an actionable wrong. At the very worst, the most that can be said against it is that it is a general charge of negligence. In that case, absent a motion to make more certain and specific, absent any objection to its sufficiency prior to verdict,-as here,-the petition must be held good after a verdict." (The court further on states that the averment is more than a general charge of negligence, and, in the main, commends the pleading as being direct and free from the circumlocution of much of the pleadings in the courts): Morgan v. Mulhall, 214 Mo. 451, 114 S. W. 4. FORM No. 925-For damages caused by waters from roof. [Title of court and cause.] day of The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That on the 19 the plaintiff was lawfully possessed of a dwelling-house and premises, situate in the county aforesaid, and in which the plaintiff and his family then lived. 2. That the defendant wrongfully erected a building near the said dwelling-house of the plaintiff, in so careless and improper a manner that by reason thereof, on said day, and at other times afterwards. and before this action, large quantities of rain-water ran from said. building upon and into the said dwelling-house and premises of the plaintiff, and the walls, ceilings, papering, and other parts thereof were thereby wet and damaged, and because thereof plaintiff's said house became unfit for habitation, to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 926-For damages caused by falling snow and ice. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: adjoining Street, which in front of which build possessor of a building abutting and was a public street, in the city of ing, as part of said street, there was a sidewalk, over which people were accustomed to pass at all hours of the day. 2. That on said day, and before that time, the defendant carelessly and negligently suffered and permitted large masses of snow and ice to accumulate and remain on the roof of said building, so that the same was dangerous to persons passing on said sidewalk, the same being liable to slide therefrom in and upon said sidewalk. 3. That on said day the plaintiff was lawfully passing along on the sidewalk in front of said building, and said snow and ice slid from the roof of said building down and upon the plaintiff, by reason whereof the plaintiff was thrown down upon said sidewalk and greatly injured in [specifying injuries and expenses incurred in their cure, and other special damages], to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] FORM No. 927-For negligent collision with carriage [or automobile]. [Title of court and cause.] The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges: 1. That on the day of 19, the plaintiff was the owner of a carriage [or automobile], in which carriage [or automobile] he was riding on said day along a public highway in the town of 2. That the defendant was then possessed of a certain other carriage [or automobile], which was then passing along said highway, then under the care and direction of the defendant [or of the defendant's servant]. 3. That the defendant [or his said servant] then and there so carelessly and negligently drove and managed his said horses and vehicle [or so carelessly and negligently managed his automobilej that, by reason of his negligence, the same violently collided with, and struck the plaintiff's carriage and horse [or automobile], and thereby broke and damaged the same [or otherwise describe the accident according to the fact, and state the injuries sustained], to the damage of the plaintiff in the sum of $ [Concluding part.] $387. ANSWERS. FORM No. 928-Defense alleging plaintiff's own negligence. [Title of court and cause.] The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition], and alleges: Defendant denies that he was guilty of carelessness or negligence, or improper conduct, as in the complaint [or petition] alleged, or otherwise, or at all, and alleges that the injury therein described, if any there was, was caused by the fault and negligence of the plaintiff himself, in this: [Here specify the particulars in which the plaintiff was himself negligent.] [Etc.] . FORM No. 929-Denial of defendant's ownership of the thing causing injury. [Title of court and cause.] [After introductory part:] Defendant denies that he was at the time of the grievances in the complaint alleged [or at any time or at all] the owner, or in the |
