#### Stanley Ciecierski, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Hermanski, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 17,615.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Animals, § 47 * —questions for jury. Whether owner of dog had knowledge of his mischievous propensity or that the plaintiff’s injury was attributable to owner’s neglect is a question for the jury.

2. Animals, § 15*—proof of scienter. Scienter may be proved by attendant circumstances, without the necessity in all cases of proving prior cases of injury.

3. Appeal and error, § 1467*—when admission of evidence not prejudicial error. In an action to recover damages for a dog bite, admission of a certified copy of the records of the Municipal Court of Chicago showing that defendant had been fined for permitting his dog to run at large unmuzzled, held not prejudicial error.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Pet, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 9, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Stanley Ciecierski against Martin Hermanski to recover damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of being bit by a dog belonging to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for seventy-five dollars, defendant brings error.

John C. Curtin, for plaintiff in error; A. S. Lakey, of counsel.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.