BREAKERS' RESPONSIBILITY 177 



In the author's humble opinion, indeed, any reason- 

 able claim for damage would have to be satisfied by 

 the breaker, it being the business of the latter to 

 deal with horses irrespective of any vice which they 

 may be subject to, and to guard against its exhibition 

 to the detriment of persons and property. The 

 same line of reasoning, of course, applies not only to 

 breakers but to the owners of vicious animals whilst 

 they have the latter under their own charge. Take 

 for instance the case of a " biter " which happens to 

 be standing in the street, suppose that someone when 

 passing close to the animal contrives to get seized, say, 

 by the arm. In these circumstances the proprietor 

 is naturally responsible, because he must have known 

 of the existence of the vice in his animal, and con- 

 sequently he ought to have had it muzzled, and in 

 this way have prevented the infliction of such injury 

 as the passer by may have sustained. 



Apart from the imaginary cases we have already 

 considered, there is another which is of interest in 

 this ccnnection. Let us suppose that a breaker is 

 leading a horse in harness, and that some person or 

 persons make a noisy demonstration, of such a sort 

 that the animal takes alarm, and the result of all this 



M 



