T.KTTINO AM) IITUINn IIOUSKS. 1 1 -i 



ns tho servant of tlio owner, or tlio servant of tlie 

 liiror, and it is almost impossible; to lay down any 

 fixed rule on the subject, other than was mentioned 

 above, namely, where the hirer does nothing and 

 says nothing, tlio jobmaster's coachman is tlie 

 servant of the jobmaster, and the owner, the job- 

 master, is answerable for any negligence of his 

 servant (/). If a person hires a horse and chaise iiiicrofa 

 and allows himself to be driven by a friend, he is ^""0 liable 

 responsible for the negligence of the driver, as for f,''.^,Hj|,pnt 

 his owTi negligence (/.•). iinvmK^of 



Whilst jobmasters are, to some extent, put 

 under certain disadvantages by reason of their 

 coachmen or servants, often having to please two 

 persons — one, their actual master, and the other, 

 who may be termed their employer for the time 

 being, it should be remembered that a jobmaster, 

 like any other master, is only liable so long as 

 the servant is properly doing something within 

 the scope of liis employment. If a servant wrong- 

 fully takes a carriage for his own pui*pose, and 

 drives against another carriage, the master or 

 owner is not responsible (/). AVlien the defen- 

 dant's coachman was driving the defendant's car- 



(i) See Lord AV)ingcr'.s remarks in Bradij v. GUea, 1 M. & 

 Rob. 496. 



{h) Whcatley v. Patrick, 2 ^r. .<;: W. 6o0 ; WiUlams v. Holland, 

 10 Biusr. 112. 



(/) Mc.Vanxs v. Cvichtt, 1 East, 106 ; Slcath v. irUson, 9 C. i: P. 

 GOT. 



L. I 



