342 



But the hirer is not only bound to refrain from 

 using an exhausted horse, but to provide for him 

 proper care and attendance if taken ill during the 

 hiring ; this may be collected from the following 

 case, though it turns not upon the question of 

 neglect, but of judicious treatment. The decision 

 is Lord Ellenborough's. 



" If, upon a hired liorse being taken ill the hirer 

 calls in a farrier, he is not answerable for any mis- 

 takes which the latter may make in the treatment 

 of the hor?e : but if instead of that, he prescribes 

 for the liorse liimself, and from miskilfulness, gives 

 him a medicine wliich causes his deatli, although 

 acting bona fide, he is liable to the owner of the 

 horse as for gross negligence," Dean v. Keate, 3 

 Campb, 4. But for an accident without proof of 

 neghgence, the hirer is not liable. In Cooper v. 

 Barton, 3 Camp. 5 n., the liorse fell and broke its 

 knees. The owner proved that the horse had been 

 frequently let out, and had not before fallen. "To 

 maintain an action for negligence, however, against 

 the hirer of a horse for an injury done to it whilst 

 in his possession, the owner must give some positive 

 evidence of such negligence/' The action was tried 

 before Mr. Justice Le Blanc. 



Where, however, " the horses are hired out to 

 draw a private carriage, but are driven by the 

 servant of the person who lets them, he shall be 





