drive it. 



] 10 HORSE WAUUANTY. 



lie could not prove acluiil nogligonoo by the de- 

 fondant, antl must run the risk of a horso falling 

 owing to loose stones, ioe, slippery pavement, or 

 llie like {!>). But a hirer has no right to ovor- 

 Avork a horso or to pursue a journey with a horse 

 unfit for -work. In C/ieir v. Joiics, quoted ahove, 

 it was held that if a horse falls lame on a journey 

 Hirer of ^Jjq lii^er may leave him at the nearest stable, 



liorso must . '^ , i i -i. • j. 



net ovir- giving notice to the owner, whoso duty it is to 

 send for him. But in Brai/ v. jrat/no (c), where 

 a hirer continued to drive a horse after it was 

 exhausted and refused its food, it was held that 

 the hirer had done wrong, and he was fixed with 

 the price and value of the horse which had been 

 overdriven. A hirer of horses gives an implied 

 undertaking, when ho hires the animals, that he 

 will use the same degree of care which a prudent 

 man would use towards his own hoi*scs (</). 



In the cases mentioned before, the law has been 

 ajipliod to facts where the horse has been di'iven 

 (»r ridden by the hirer himself or by his servants, 

 the ride being that if a carriage and horses are 

 let out to hire by the day, week or job, and the 

 owner of the turn-out or of the hoi-ses selects and 

 appoints the driver, then the owner is responsible 



(i) Cooprr v. Burton, 3 Camp. 5. 



(<•) Gow, N. P. C. r. 1 ; llamlford v. ralmer, 6 iMooro, 79. 

 («/) Sco per Lord Kllcnborough in Drati v. Keatfy 3 Ciimp. 4; 

 flud Hand ford v. I'titiner, '_' Bro. & Biujf . 3.>a. 



