170 ENTRUSTING A HORSE TO AN INCOMPETENT PARTY. 



out of liis way Avas not sustained, and the traiLway company 

 were found liable in damages, (a) 



135. Leaving a Horse Unattended. — If one leaves a 

 horse and cart standinj? in the street, or his servant does 

 so,(6) he must take the risk of any mischief that may ensue. 

 Thus, an owner was found liable in these circumstances though 

 the damage was occasioned by the act of a passer-by in 

 striking the horse,(c) and also where a child was injured who 

 was partly to blame. (cZ) But where a driver of a cab at a 

 stance at a railway station got down from his box, took 

 a bag of oats and filled his horse's nosebag and turned to put 

 the bag in its place which was only ten feet oflf, and mean- 

 while the horse bolted, causing injury; it was held there was 

 no fault on the driver so as to make his master liable, not- 

 withstanding a regulation by the magistrates that the driver 

 when on his stance must be either on the box or at the 

 horse's head.(e) In another case, where injury was done to 

 a horse by a ]3ony and chaise running against it, there was 

 evidence in defence that the defendant's wife was holding the 

 pony by a bridle, and that a Punch-and-Judy show came 

 past and frightened the pony which ran off Avith the chaise 

 and caused the damage ; it Avas held that if this Avere true 

 the defence Avas good.(/) 



136. Entrusting a Horse to an Incompetent Party. — 



Negligence Avill also be inferred from entrusting a fractious 

 horse to one unaccustomed to horses and unskilful in their 

 management. Thus, AA'here a father in the knoAvledge that 

 his son, a boy of fourteen, had neither strength nor experience 



(a) M'Dcrmaid v. Edinburgh Street Tramways Company, 1884, 12 R. 16. 

 (h) Frascr v. Bunlop, 1822, 1 S. 2ii8 ; Jiaird v. Hamilton, 182G, 4 S. 790 ; see 

 also M'Laren v. Mae, 1827, 4 Mur. 382 ; Miller v. Harvie, 1827, 4 M. 385. 



(c) JUidgc V. Gooduin, 1831, 5 C. and P. 190. 



(d) Lynch v. Nurdin, 1841, 1 Q.B. 29, where the English decisions are collected. 

 {c) Shaw V. Croall, 1885, 12 R. 1186. 



(/) Goodman v. Taylor, 1832, 5 C. and P. 410. 



