222 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Not rebutted 

 by stables 

 being out of 

 bis control. 



relied upon to sliow that this presumption maybe rebutted 

 by giving proof of such skilful management on the part of 

 the Innkeeper, as to convince the Jury that the damage 

 could not have been occasioned by the negligence imputed, 

 But this view of the law was held to be untenable by 

 Pollock, C. B., in the ease of Morgan v. Eavey («), who, in 

 delivering the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, said, 

 " We think the cases show there is default in the Innkeeper 

 wherever there is a loss not arising from the plaintiff's 

 negligence, the act of Grod, or the Queen's enemies" [b). 



And it must be borne in mind that, though there be a 

 private arrangement between the Innkeeper and the Keeper 

 of the Inn Stables or Hostler, and the result of that 

 arrangement be that as between him and the Innkeeper, the 

 Innkeeper has lost all control over the >Stables, yet as between 



7 Jur. 1037. See also Cashill v. 

 Wright, 2 Jur., N. S. 1072. 



(«) Morgan v. Eavcy, 6 H. & N. 

 265; S. C. SOL. J., Ex. 131. 



(i) According to the report of 

 tbe case of Dawson v. Chamncy, in 

 13 L. J., Q. B. 33, and in 5 Q. B. 

 16-1, the Horse of the Guest was 

 left at the defendant's Inn on a 

 raarket day, and given in charge to 

 the Ostler, who placed it in a stall 

 where there was another Horse, 

 which kicked it, and so inflicted an 

 injury. On these facts it was held 

 by the Coui't of Queen's Bench, 

 that in such case there was a pre- 

 siimption of negligence on the part 

 of the Innkeeper or his servants ; 

 but that this presumption might 

 be rebutted by gi-ving proof of such 

 skilful management on his or their 

 part as to convince the Jury that 

 the damage could not have been 

 occasioned by the negligence im- 

 puted. But a material difference 

 will be found in the report of the 

 facts of this case in 7 Jur. 1057, 

 for it is there stated, that " there 

 was no e-vidence of the manner in 

 which the Horse received the in- 

 jury for which the action was 

 brought." It appears that the 

 only report of this case which was 

 seen by the Coui-t, when giving 

 judgment in the case of Morgan v. 

 Eavei/, was that of the Jurist, and 

 that'Pollock, C. B., foimded the 

 only possible reconcilement of 

 Dawson v. C7iamne;/ with the law 

 upon this point, which is the very 



point of discrepancy between the 

 Jurist and the other Reports. He 

 said, " The only case which points 

 the other way is that of Dawson v. 

 ChaDuiei/, and according to the re- 

 port of that case in 7 Jui*. 1057, 

 there was no e^ddence of the 

 manner in which the Horse re- 

 ceived the injury for which the 

 action was brought ; and this may 

 be the explanation of that case, for 

 though the damage happening to 

 the Horse from what occurred in 

 the stable might be evidence of 

 default or neglect, still it was not 

 shown how the damage arose, and 

 it was not even shown that it arose 

 from what occurred in the stable. 

 It might have arisen from some- 

 thing which had occurred long 

 prior to the Horse being put into 

 the custody of the Innkeeper. 

 That would distingiiish this case, 

 and reconcile all the cases with the 

 general current of authority." It 

 matters not indeed, so far as the 

 law is concerned, which report of 

 the case of Dawson v. Vliamncy is 

 authentic, for if that contained in 

 the L. J. and Q. B. Reports is the 

 correct one, it has been overruled 

 by Morgan v. Ravey ; and if that 

 of the Jurist is to be taken, it does 

 not establish the point that in case 

 of loss to the Guest, the presump- 

 tion of negligence on the part of 

 the Innkeeper can be rebutted, 

 otherwise than by proof of actual 

 negligence on the part of the 

 Guest. 



