TURING HORSES, 255 



miscondact, and an iujmy ensues, lie is a co-trespasser with 

 them, hecause as he did not endeavour to stop their improper 

 proceedings he has adopted their conduct as his own. 



The Court of Common Pleas entered fully into the McLaughlin v. 

 subject, and laid down the law upon it in the case of ^'''J°^'' 

 MLaughUn v. Pry or (s), in which a tresjmss had been 

 committed by a Carriage and Horses hired by the de- 

 fendant driving against the plaintiff's gig. It appeared 

 that the defendant and seven others were driving in a 

 Carriage and four, with two postillions, to Epsom races 

 on the 3rd of June, 1840. The defendant with another 

 party sat upon the box. The Carriage Avas not in the 

 line of the vehicles which were going through the turnpike 

 at Sutton, and as it approached the toll-bar the postillions 

 endeavoured to get into that line, in order that they might 

 pass through the gate. The plaintiff and a friend of his, 

 Mr. Mason, were driving in a small gig at that particular 

 place where the postillions attempted to fall into the line. 

 The man on the wheel Horses said to the other postillion, 

 " Break in, you are all right there," and upon doing this 

 the trace of the leaders of the Carriage caught the wheel 

 of the plaintiff's gig ; the gig was uj^set, and the plaintiff 

 was injured and rendered lame for life. Immediately 

 before the accident the defendant called out to his pos- 

 tillions to let the plaintift^'s gig pass first, but the order 

 then came too late. As soon as the accident had occurred 

 the Carriage was stopped and the owner's name demanded ; 

 whereupon the defendant, in order to prevent his party 

 being detained, offered money to the parties, and eventually 

 gave his card. 



On the part of the defendant it was objected, that, even 

 assuming that the fault lay with the drivers of the Car- 

 riage, the defendant was not responsible, neither the Horses 

 nor the Carriage being his ; or, at all events, that he was 

 not liable in Trespass. Chief Justice Tindal left it to the 

 Jury to say whether the accident was the result of want of 

 skill or caution on the part of the drivers of the Carriage, 

 or on the part of the owner of the gig — reserving it for 

 the Court of Common Pleas to say whether, upon the facts 

 proved, the defendant was liable in this form of action — the 

 Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. 



The Court of Common Pleas discharged the defendant's Opinion of 



(.v) M'LaughUn v. Fnjor, 1 C. & Marsh. 354; S. C. 4 Scott, N. E. G55; 

 4 M. & G. 48. 



