What is the test for determining whether a person can be held liable for damages caused by a cat in an enclosure?

For a consideration of the principles involved in an action like the one at bar I cannot do better than refer to the decisions in Manton v. Brocklebank [1923] 2 K.B. 212, 92 L.J. K.B. 624, particularly that of Atkin, L.J. at pp. 228 et seq. That was a case of one horse being injured by another while both were lawfully in the same enclosure. An authority in which the facts were more nearly similar to those of the present case is Buckle v. Holmes [1926] 2 K.B. 125, 95 L.J.K.B. 547. There the owner of a cat was sued for the damage done by it in killing the fowls and pigeons of a neighbour upon the premises of the latter. The headnote in this case puts the matter most succinctly as follows: A cat belongs to the class of animals mansuetae naturae. For mischief done by it in following the common instincts of its kind, its owner is not liable. To make him liable he must have knowledge of some vicious propensity beyond those common instincts.