NEGLIGENT DRIVING BY A SERVANT. 339 



vant (s). But Cockbimi, C. J., in delivering judgment in 

 this case, said, " I think that the judgments of Maule and 

 Cresswell, J J., in Mitchell v. Crassiceller (t), express the 

 true view of the law, and the view which we ought to 

 abide bj : and that we cannot adopt the view of Erskine, 

 J., in Sleath v. Wilson {n), that is, because the Master has 

 entrusted the Servant with the control of the Horse and 

 Cart that the Master is responsible. The true Rule is, 

 that the Master is only responsible so long as the Servant 

 can be said to be doing the act, in the doing of which he is 

 guilty of negligence, in the course of his employment as a 

 Servant. I am very far from saying, if the Servant, when 

 going on his Master's business, took a somewhat longer 

 road, that, owing to his deviation, he would cease to be in 

 the employment of the Master, so as to divest the latter of 

 all liability ; in such cases it is a question of degree as to 

 how far the deviation could be considered a separate 

 journey." 



The case of Eai/ner v. Mitchell {r) is another instance of Re-entering 

 a Servant acting beyond the scope of his authority. There ^^ ^^ ^" 

 a Carman, without his Master's permission, and for a 

 purpose of his own wholly unconnected with his Master's 

 business, took out his Master's Horse and Cart, and on his 

 way home negligently ran against a cab and damaged it. 

 The com"se of the employment of the Carman was, that, 

 with the Horse and Cart, he took out beer to his Master's 

 customers, who was a brewer, and in returning to the 

 brewery, he called for empty casks wherever they would 

 be likely to be collected, for which he received from his 

 Master a gratuity of Id. each. At the time of the 

 accident the Carman had with him two casks, which he had 

 picked up on his return jom-ney at a public-house which 

 his Master supplied, and for which he afterwards received 

 the customary Id. : and it was held, that the Carman had 

 not re-entered upon his ordinary duties at the time of the 

 accident, and, therefore, the Master was not liable. 



And where a Master sent his Servant on an errand, and Taking the 

 he took and rode a Horse belonging to another person j^^^^iJ^er^ 

 without his Master's permission, and on his way back 

 iniiicted an injury on the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Park 

 said, "I cannot bring myself to go the length of sup- 



(a) Storey v. Ashton, L. E,., 4 Q. ((/) See note ((/), ante. 



B. 476; 38L.J., Q. B. 223; 17 W. (r) L. K, 2 0. P. D. 359 ; 2o W. 



R. 727. R. 633. 



[t) See note (>•), ante. 



