324 



NEGLIGEXCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



of negligence imputed here is either that the defendant 

 was unskilful in the management of the Horse, or im- 

 prudent in taking a vicious animal, or one with whose 

 propensities or temper he was not sufficiently acquainted, 

 into a populous neighhourhood. The evidence is, that the 

 defendant was seen riding a Horse at a slow pace, that the 

 Horse seemed restless and the defendant was holding the 

 reins tightly, omitting nothing he could do to avoid the 

 accident ; but that the Horse swerved from the roadway 

 on to the pavement, where the deceased was walking, and 

 knocked him down, and injured him fatally. I can see 

 nothing in this evidence to show that the defendant was 

 unskilful as a rider or in the management of a Horse. 

 There is nothing which satisfies my mind affirmatively that 

 the defendant was not quite capable of riding so as to justify 

 him in being with his Horse at the place in question. It 

 appears that the defendant had only bought the Horse 

 the day before, and was for the first time trying his new 

 purchase, — using his Horse in the way he intended to use 

 it. It is said that the defendant was not justified in 

 riding in that place a Horse whose temper he was unac- 

 quainted with. But I am of opinion that a man is not 

 to be charged with want of caution because he buys a 

 Horse without having had previous experience of him. 

 There must be Horses without number ridden every day 

 in London of whom the riders know nothing. A variety 

 of circumstances will make a Horse restive. The mere 

 fact of restiveness is not even prima facie evidence of 

 negligence" (o). 

 Manzoni v. And where a Horse drawing a Brougham under the 



ou(/ as. ^^^^ ^£ ^j^g defendant's coachman in a public street 



suddenly, and without any explainable cause, bolted, and, 

 notwithstanding the utmost efi'orts of the driver to control 

 him, swerved on to the footway and injured the plaintiff, it 

 was held that there was no evidence of negligence to go to 

 the Jury : and it was also held, that the fact that the 

 Horse had cast a shoe shortly after he bolted, and that the 

 driver did not under the circumstances in which he was 

 placed call out or give any warning, did not alter the 

 case {j)). 

 Horse run- J^ all cases, therefore, where a Horse riois away and 



nmgaway, inflicts an injury, if the rider or driver have not acted in 

 such a manner as would lead a Jury to suppose that his 



(o) Hammack v. White, 11 C. B., C. P. D. 145; 50 L. J., C. P. 289; 

 N. S. 588. upholdiiitr Hnnunark v. Whiti; kIiI 



( p) ]\r(inznni y. Bnuf/laa, L, R., 6 foq). 



