KEGLTGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 333 



pose of bis own, the defendants were not responsiljlo." 

 This direction was held to be right by all the Judges with 

 the exception of Mr. Justice Wightman. 



Mr. Justice Williams in the course of the argument said, If Servant 

 " If a driver in a moment of passion vindictively strikes a "vm^ictively 

 Horse with a whip, that would not be an act done in the Horse with 

 course of his employment ; but in this case the Servant his wliip. 

 was jDursuing the pm-pose for which he was employed, vh. 

 to drive the defendants' Omnibus. Suppose a Master told 

 his Servant not to drive when he was drunk, but he never- 

 theless did so, would not the Master be responsible ?" And 

 in his judgment he said : " If a Master employs a Servant 

 to drive and manage a carriage, the Master is responsible 

 for any misconduct of the Servant in driving and managing 

 it, which must be considered as having resulted from the 

 performance of the duty entrusted to him, and especially 

 if he was acting for his Master's benefit and not for any 

 purpose of his own." 



Mr. Justice Willes said, with reference to the question Instructions 

 whether the injury was done by the driver in the course °f Master, if 

 of his employment, "It may be said that it was no part fmmSeriaf' 

 of the duty of the defendants' Servant to obstruct the 

 plaintiff's Omnibus, and moreover the Servant had dis- 

 tinct instructions not to obstruct any Omnibus whatever. 

 In my opinion, those instructions are immaterial. If dis- 

 obeyed, the law casts upon the Master a liability for the 

 act of his Servant in the course of his employment; and 

 the law is not so futile as to allow a Master, by giving 

 secret instructions to his Servant, to discharge himself 

 from liability. Therefore, I consider it immaterial that 

 the defendants directed their Servant not to do the act. 

 Suppose a Master told his Servant not to break the law, 

 would that exempt the master from responsibility for an 

 unlawful act done by his Servant in the course of his 

 employment ? The act of driving as he did is not incon- 

 sistent with his employment, when explained by his 

 desire to get before the other Omnibus," which desire was 

 prompted by the fact " that he was employed not only to 

 drive the Omnibus, which alone Avould not support this 

 summing-up, but also to get as much money as he could 

 for his Master, and to do it in rivalry with other Omni- 

 buses on the road." 



Mr. Justice Byles, after expressing his agreement with Master liable, 

 the direction of Mr. Baron Martin, said, " The direction '^^0^^*^^'"^^ 

 amounts to this, that if a person acts in the prosecution of benefit. 



