CUSTODY OF HORSES AT LIVERY AXD AT GRASS. 109 



of damages was raised for the loss of a chestnut geldmg 

 which had, while grazing in a grass park belonging to the 

 defender, became infected Avith glanders or farcy, or both, 

 from a pony, which the defender had, loiowing it to be so 

 infected, put into the same field with it. The pursuer, on 

 finding his horse not looking well, took it home, and two 

 other horses in his stable became infected from it, and umw 

 so ill that they had to be destroyed. It was held, that if 

 these facts were proved, the hirer of the parks would be 

 liable, not only for the chestnut gelding, but also for the 

 other horses which became infected and died. The case was 

 afterwards tried, and there being no dispute about the facts, 

 the jury were charged that it was not necessary to bring 

 direct evidence of the knowledge of the disease on the part 

 of the defender, but that presumptive evidence of it was 

 sufficient to found liability, (ct) In one case a defence was 

 set up that the fact of the grazing park being bounded 

 by a river which was fordable was not communicated 

 to the owner of the horse. The Court remitted to 

 the Lord Ordinary to inquire as to the usual care 

 of cattle in the wood, and what care was taken of 

 the horse in question, an opinion being indicated that if the 

 defender showed no undue negligence in looking after the 

 horse in so ill enclosed a field, or in giving immediate notice 

 or in making due search on the loss, the action should be 

 dismissed. (6) In another case, the keeper of a livery and 

 sale stable retained a horse bought from him on the sugges- 

 tion of the buyer with a view to resale, and one of the stable 

 servants over-rode the horse and it died. The stable keeper 

 pleaded ignorance of the horse's condition, and that he rode 

 it at the owner's request ; but he was found liable for the value 

 of the horse,Lord Justice-Clerk Boyle observing: — " I am clear 

 that the keeper of a livery and sale stable has a duty and 

 responsibility in reference to the horses committed to his 



(«) Robertson v. Connolly, 1851, 13 D. 779, 14 D. 315. 

 (b) Davidson, 1749, M. 10,081. 



