386 THE ADVENTURES OF A GENTLEMAN 



in this case was not at whose expense the horse was 

 to be fed, but whether he had been properly fed by 

 the borrower, and returned, therefore, in as good a 

 condition as he was when the loan was made. I 

 need scarcely mention, that this was a case of hiring, 

 and not of borrowing. 



But I shall hereafter quote one or two cases which 

 will show that even a borrower must be equally care- 

 ful of the animal lent to him. Indeed the principle 

 of law is, that a borrower is answerable for neglect of 

 much slighter degree than is requisite to fix a hirer, 

 for as the lender derives no profit from the transac- 

 tion, it is reasonable that extra care should be taken 

 of his property. 



In Bray v. Mayne, Gow N. P. 1, it is decided by 

 C. J. Dallas, " that after a hired horse is exhausted, 

 and has refused its feed, the hirer is bound not to use 

 it ; and if he afterwards pursue his journey with it, 

 he is liable to the owner for its value." 



But the hirer is not only bound to refrain from 

 using an exhausted horse, but to provide for him 

 proper care and attendance if taken ill during the 

 hiring ; this may be collected from the following case, 

 though it turns not upon the question of neglect. 



