DEALERS AND PRIVATE PERSONS AND OTHERS 417 



Generally, it may be stated that a sale in a fair or market overt is 

 binding upon all persons claiming any property in the thing sold. In the 

 country, market overt is only held upon certain fixed days, in a jalace 

 specially set apart for the purpose; but shops are not market overt. In 

 the city of London every shop is market overt for the class of goods 

 usually sold there, and every day, except Sunday, is a market day. In 

 the case of horses, the general rule as regards sales in market overt are 

 somewhat modified by statute. The first statute dealing with the question 

 was passed in 1555 (2 v. 3 P. v. M.C. 7), and this was followed in 1589 by 

 another (31 Elir. C. 12). They provide inter alia that, in all fairs and 

 markets overt where horses are sold, a toll-keeper shall be appointed to 

 keep the place from ten o'clock in the morning till sunset, and to take tolls 

 for all horses. Such toll-keeper was further rec|uired to enter the names, 

 descriptions, and addresses of buyers and sellers in a book kept for the 

 purpose, together with a full description of the horses sold. These statutes 

 were mainly directed against horse-stealing, and practically effected their 

 object. 



It should be noticed here that a sale at a repository outside the city of 

 London is not a sale in market overt {Sec v. Bayes, 18 C.B. 599, 1856). 



Another class of persons who are liable to the laws of warranty are 

 job-masters. When a job-master lets out a horse or carriage for any par- 

 ticular purpose, he is taken to have warranted it for that purpose. 



This reservation is important, as such liability ceases if the hirer 

 has used the horse for any other purpose than that for which it is 

 let out. 



Thus, if a horse is let out for riding, the hirer must not put it into 

 harness; if he does so, and an accident thereby happens, he, and not the 

 owner, is liable. 



Generally, also, if the hirer keeps the horse for a longer period than 

 that for which it is hired, he is responsible. With these exceptions, how- 

 ever, and certain others which I shall presently notice, the letter is respon- 

 sible for every accident and loss which he cannot prove to have been due 

 to the positive negligence of the hirer {Coo2)er v. Burton, 3 Camp. 5, 1810). 

 What constitutes negligence in contemplation of law is not capable perhaps 

 of exact definition. 



Some acts, however, are clearly negligent. 



Thus, in driving on the wrong side of the road, one is bound to exer- 

 cise more than ordinary care to avoid a collision; if one do not exercise 

 such care, and an accident happens, one will clearly be liable for such 

 accident on the ground of negligence. So, too, a hirer has been held liable 

 for "overdriving" a horse {Walleij v. Holt, 35 L.T., N.S., 630, 1876). 



