204 



1 Jic Coiiiiiiy Gcnilcniaiis Mciga:,!uc 



gegal |lotc 



i?. 



WHO IS RESPONSIBLE/ 



A SELKIRKSHIRE HORSE CASE. 



A SOMEWHAT important case, one of 

 considerable interest to owners of 

 horses, was recently decided by Sherifif Milne 

 — SherifF-Substitute for Selkirkshire — in the 

 Small Debt Court, Galashiels, to which we 

 desire to call the attention of our readers. 

 The facts of the case were reported as follows 

 in several of the daily and local papers : — 



"George Mark, carter, Galashiels, pursued Messrs 

 Murray & Hepburn, blacksmiths, for £6, 4s., as 

 ilamage and loss sustained through the pricking of a 

 horse when being shod by the defenders. The case 

 was heard at a previous diet, when an old Act of 

 James III. of Scotland was founded on (10 James 3, 

 cap. 79, 6th August 1447), intitled " Schoeing of 

 horses in the quick be smiths." The act sets forth that 

 " Beans ignorant smiths through ignorance or drunken- 

 ness spills or cniiks menis horse shoeing in the quick. 

 It is statute and ordained that quhenever a smith schoes 

 a manis horse in the quick, that smith sail make and 

 pay the coast of the horse quhill he be hail. And in 

 the meantime find the man ane horse to ryde upon 

 and do his labour quhill the said horse be hail, and 

 gif the said horse cruiks thro the said schoeing and 

 will not hail, the smith sail keep the said horse him- 

 selfe, and pay the price of the horse to the man that 

 owed him." Evidence was led by the pursuer to 

 prove the facts of the injury, which the defenders did 

 not deny, but brought forward witnesses to establish 

 that "pricking" was a wholly accidental occurrence, 

 ^vhich frequently happened with the best and most 

 careful of tradesmen, and that blacksmiths did not 

 hold themselves responsible for the effects of pricking, 

 when due caution was exercised in the discharge of 

 their work. In giving a decision, the Sheriff gave 

 effect to the views of the defenders, that pricking was 

 accidental and frequently occurred ; and that black- 

 smiths, in the careful discharge of their work, were 

 not responsible, seeing that the formation of the foot 

 was so different in different animals, and that the 

 pursuer was blamable in not taking the earliest oppor- 

 tunity to remove the shoe and apply remedies. Deciee 

 for defenders." 



With all respect for Sheriff Milne, we cannot 



quite agree with him in the view which he 

 took in deciding on this case. Pricking is, no 

 doubt, a matter of every-day occurrence, but 

 that does not detract from the fact that it is an 

 injury inflicted by the smith, which depreciates 

 the value of the animal for the time, and very 

 frequently leads to serious disease in the foot. 

 That horses are more frequently lamed, and 

 permanently injured in the feet in conse- 

 quence of the ignorance or carelessness of 

 blacksmiths than from any other cause, is 

 well known. Unfortunately, a large propor- 

 tion of shoeing smiths know very little of the 

 formation of the foot of the horse ; and when 

 employed in their calling, they hack away 

 at the foot in much the same manner that 

 a carpenter hacks at a block of wood in 

 order to reduce it into shape. 



Now, we do not mean to say that Messrs 

 Murray & Hepburn are workmen of this 

 stamp — they may be the most scientific 

 shoeing smiths in existence for anything we 

 know — but the fact was acknowledged that 

 the pursuer's horse was lamed in consequence 

 of pricking when being shod by them. The 

 defence that the pricking was accidental was 

 accepted by the Sheriff, and George Mark 

 was left to bear the loss. Suppose George 

 Mark or any other man, Sherifif Milne, for 

 instance, had that, or any other horse, on 

 trial from a dealer, either for carting, or the 

 saddle, or harness, and that, while on trial a 

 shoe was cast, rendering it needful to take the 

 horse to a smith, who pricked and lamed the 

 animal in the act of shoeing, how would the 

 case stand? The dealer very naturally 

 would decline to take back a lame, and there- 

 fore unsound horse, when he had given 

 out a sound one on trial, and the party 



