250 



LIVERY-STABLE KEErEIlS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



termined by 

 selling the 

 goods. 



Where the 

 Horse is 

 stolen from 

 the Hirer. 



Where the 

 Horse is 

 stolen by the 

 Hirer. 



the bailment, and the bailor may maintain Trover against 

 the purchaser, though the purchase was bond fide {n). 

 Thus, where a person Iiircd a Horse and sold it to a third 

 party, it was held by Mr. Justice Bosanquet that the Owner 

 might recover its value from the purchaser, although he 

 had acted bond fide, and had given the Hirer the full value 

 for it, as the Hirer could give him no better title than he 

 got himself (o). 



If through the ITirer^s negligence, as by leaving the 

 door of his stable open at night, the Horse be stolen, he 

 must answer for it ; but not if he be robbed of it by 

 highwaymen, unless by his imprudence he gave occasion to 

 the robbery, as by travelling at unusual hours, or by taking 

 an unusual road. The Hirer is liable in the same way for 

 the negligence of his servant when acting under his direc- 

 tions either express or implied (p). 



If a person gets a Horse out of the possession of the 

 Owner under the pretence of hiring it, and then go and 

 offer it for sale, there will be no Felony at common law 

 until the sale is actually effected. In the following case 

 the prisoner was indicted for stealing a Horse and gig 

 which he had hired of a Livery-stable keeper in Stratford 

 Mews, near Manchester Square, London. It appeared 

 that he drove it off for some distance, and offered it for 

 sale at a small price to an Innkeeper, who, under pretence 

 of getting him the money, procured a constable and gave 

 him into custody {q). 



On the trial Pearls case (r), Charleuvod^s case (s) 

 and SempJe's ease it) were referred to, and the following 

 passage from the latter Cjuoted : — " But, on the other 

 hand, if the hiring was only a, j^refenee made use of to get 

 the Chaise out of the possession of the owner, without any 

 intention to restore it, or to pay for it, in that case the 

 law supposes the possession still to reside with the owner, 

 though the property itself has gone out of his hands, and 

 then the subsequent conversion will be the Felony. ^^ 



And Chief Justice Tindal said, " This case comes near 

 to many of those which have decided that the appro- 

 priation of property, under circumstances in some degree 

 similar to the present, amounts to Larceny. However, 



{n) Cooper V. WiUomatf, 1 C. B. 

 C72. 



(o) ShcUi/, Administratrix, v. Ford, 

 5 C. & P. 313; and see Stolen 

 Horses, ante, Chap. 3. 



(p) Jones on Bailments, 8S. 

 {q) Hcff. V. Uroolcs, 8 C. & P. 295. 

 [r) I'car^s case, 1 Leach, 212. 

 (.v) CharlnvoocVscase, 1 Leach, 409. 

 {t) Scmple's case, 1 Leach, 420. 



