RIGHTS AM) J.IAlill.HTE.S OF INNKElirKRS, ETC. 1U(J 



IIo is also lial)lo for an injiuy done to a horse of If pticst's 



a guest Avliile in liis stable, if due care be not taken j'.^r'ca at' 



of (111' anini.il according to express directions (,/'). genccby'' 



Where a guest's horse is injured at an inn, there Jmikecpnr 



. "' presumed. 



is always a presumption of negligence against the 

 innkeeper. AVhether this negligence can bo re- 

 butted, by anything short of actual negligence by 

 the guest is doubtful. In Daicson v. Chamnc]) (g) 

 evidence was given of such skilful management on 

 the part of the innkeeper, that the jury were of 

 opinion that the damage could not have been 

 occasioned by his negligence, and we find in 

 Addison on Torts, 4th edition, p. 500, that " The 

 innkeeper is not responsible for injui'ies which 

 the horses of guests inflict upon each other in 

 the stables of the inn, provided he has taken all 

 due care to prevent the introduction into the stables 

 of vicious and kicking animals." Perhaps this view 

 of the law is too naiTOw, and the reader should con- 

 sult Morgan v. llavci/ (//), where C. B. Pollock, in 

 delivering the judgment of the Court of Ex- 

 chequer, said, " AVe think the cases show there is 

 defaiJt in the innkeeper whenever there is a loss 

 not arising from the plaintiff's negligence, the act 

 of God, or the queen's enemies." 



(/) Lcggc v. Tucker, 1 II. & N., Exch. 500. 

 (y) 13 L. J., Q. B. 33; .3Q.B. IGo; 7 Jurist, 1037; D. .*c M. 

 34S ; Cashlll v. Wrii/ht, 6 Ell. & B. 896. 

 (/f) 30 L. J., Exch. 131 ; 6 H. & N. 2Go. 



