346 



there, he is reputed a guest for that purpose, and 

 the innkeeper hath a valuable consideration ; and 

 if that horse be stolen, he is chargeable with an 

 action upon the custom of the realm." Jelly v. 

 Clerk, Cro. Jac. 189. The same principle applies 

 of course to inj ury from carelessness or neglect, as 

 well as to theft. A similar opinion is held, though 

 not by all the court, in the case of York v. Grin- 

 stone, Salk. 388 ; and even where the owner is not 

 a guest at the inn, but only sends his servant with 

 the horse, the same rule holds good. Vide Beedle 

 V. Morris, Cro. Jas. 224. On the other hand, I 

 have already noticed the innkeeper's lien for the 

 keep of the horse confided to his care ; but even 

 this privilege is qualified — he cannot use the 

 horse ; vide Jones v. Pearl, 1 Str. 556; and on the 

 authority of the same case, it appears that he can- 

 not sell it, though its keep may exceed its value. 

 Such use, however, as is necessary or proper in 

 the way of exercise, is permissible. Vide Jones on 

 Carriers, page 81. 



There is another important relation between the 

 owner and keeper of a horse which deserves notice. 

 Horses are usually turned out to graze after the 

 hunting season is over. The grazier stands in a 

 different situation from the innkeeper and livery- 

 man. If the animal is stolen or injured, he is not 



