Rex v Huggins - Case Note: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A famous case on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, in this case Rex, an incontinent beagle — a mansuetae naturae with no known history of urinating o...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
A famous case on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, in this case Rex, an incontinent beagle — a [[mansuetae naturae]] with no known history of urinating on his master’s [[neighbour]] | A famous case on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, in this case Rex, an incontinent beagle — a [[mansuetae naturae]] with no known history of urinating on his master’s [[neighbour]]s’ trousers. | ||
Nothing in this case note is true, by the way. | Nothing in this case note is true, by the way. | ||
Revision as of 10:56, 4 November 2016
A famous case on the subject of a master’s liability for its beasts, in this case Rex, an incontinent beagle — a mansuetae naturae with no known history of urinating on his master’s neighbours’ trousers.
Nothing in this case note is true, by the way.