HIRING HORSES. 253 



the Judges of tlie Court of King's Bench, were equally 

 divided, Chief Justice Abbott and Mr. Justice Littledale 

 holding that the Hirer of the Horses was not liable for an 

 injury done, and Mr. Justice Bayley and Mr, Justice 

 Hoh'oyd being of the contrary opinion. 



In the case of Quarmcui v. Buriiett (J:), the owners of Owner held 

 the carriage had always been driven by the same driver, livable m 

 he being the only regular coachman in the employ of the Burnett] ^ 

 Owner of the Horses, who paid him regular weekly wages. 

 The Owners of the carriage paid him 2s. a drive, and 

 provided him with livery, which he left at their house at 

 the end of each drive. Mr. Baron Parke said, " It appears 

 to us that there are no special circumstances which dis- 

 tinguish the present case, and that we must decide the 

 difference between the Judges in Laugher y. Pointer (1). 

 There is no satisfactory evidence of any selection by which 

 this man was made the defendant's servant ; the question 

 is therefore the same as in that case. If the driver be the 

 servant of a Jobmaster, we do not think he ceases to be so 

 by reason of the owner of the carriage preferring to be 

 driven by that particular servant, where there is a choice 

 amongst more, any more than a hack postboy ceases to be 

 the servant of an Innkeeperj where a traveller has a 

 particular preference to one over the rest, on account of his 

 sobriety and carefulness. If, indeed, the defendants had 

 insisted upon the Horses being driven not by one of the 

 regular servants, but by a stranger to the Jobmaster, 

 appointed by themselves, it would have made all the 

 difference." 



" The fact of the coachman wearing the defendants' Wearing- the 

 livery with their consent, and so being the means of in- Hirer's li- 

 ducing third persons to believe that he was their servant, ^^^' 

 was mentioned in the course of argument as a ground of 

 liability, but cannot affect our decision. If the defendants 

 had told the plaintiff that he might sell goods to their 

 livery servant, and had induced him to contract with 

 the coachman, on the footing of his really being such 

 servant, they would have been liable on such contract ; 

 but this representation can only conclude the defendants 

 with respect to those who have altered their condition on 

 the faith of its being true. In the present case it is 

 matter of evidence only of the man being their servant, 



(/.•) Qnarman v. Burnett, 6 M. & {I) Laugher v. Pointer, 5 B. & C. 



W. 499. 547. 



