LIEX OF CUSTODIERS OTHER THAN INNKEEPERS. 113 



between tlie veterinary surgeon and the seller there was a 

 conspiracy to defraiul. If, however, the veterinary surgeon 

 is employed by the buyer, or jointly employed by the buyer 

 and seller, he is liable to either party for gross negligence in 

 granting a certificate. 



84. Responsibility of a Smith and Farrier. — A smith 

 or farrier is liable if he damage a horse in shoeing. In 

 England a farrier cannot refuse to shoe a horse if brought at 

 a reasonable time, (a) But in Scotland this is not com- 

 pulsory, and a smith is at liberty to decline to shoe a horse 

 brought to be shod. If, however, he undertakes to shoe it, 

 he incurs responsibility if it is done negligently. (6) If a 

 servant of a farrier shoe negligently, the master is liable, (c) 

 but not if the injury be wilful, as by the servant's wilfully 

 driving a nail into the hoof for the purpose of laming the 

 horse, (d) If there be peculiar difficulties in shoeing they 

 must be mentioned to the farrier, (e) Again, a farrier was 

 found liable for the value of a colt killed by negligence in 

 castration. (/) 



The owner of a stallion, it is thought, must take the same 

 care of a mare sent for cover as a livery stable keeper or 

 farmer when grazing it ; (g) the custody being incidental to 

 the special contract for service ; but this responsibility will 

 be lessened where the owner of the mare sends his own 

 groom with it. 



85. Lien of Custodiers other than Innkeepers. — The 



owner of a stallion has a lien over the marc sent for 



(a) See the various English statutes regarding farriery cited in Oliphant, p. 229. 



(b) Coke, C.J., in Everard v. Hopkins, 2 Bulst, 332. 



(c) § 150-1. 



(d) § 150-1. 



(e) See Pollock, C.B., in Collins v. Rodivay, 1845, reported in Oliphant, 229, and 

 in 14 Veterinarian, 102. 



(/) Pcddie V. Rodtjer, 1798, Hume, 304. 

 {g) § 80. 



I 



