Ill 



HORSK W A UK AMY. 



To make 

 mai^ter 

 liable, ser- 

 vant must 

 be actinia 

 within 

 wojM'of his 

 i'ni]il(>3'- 

 meut. 



ringo throufjh a narrow street, wliicli was blocked 

 up by a lufxpa*:;!* van containing the goods of tlio 

 ItlaintilT, which tho latter was unlnading and 

 taking into his house, and the plaintill's gig stood 

 beliind tho van, and tho defendant's coachman 

 (there being no room for tho carriage to pass) got 

 off his box and by leading on the van liorso moved 

 the van, and so caused a large paeking-caso to fidl 

 on the shafts of the gig and to break them, it was 

 held that the defendant (the master) was not liable 

 for the injury, tho coachman at tho time not doing 

 his master's work and not having moved the van 

 in the execution of his master's orders (ni). 



It is not always easy to determine what acts are, 

 and what are not, within the scope of the servant's 

 employment. In Storey v. As/if on («), the defen- 

 dant, a wine merchant, sent his carman and cU^k 

 with a horse and cart to deliver wine, and bring 

 back empty bottles. They delivered the wine and 

 received tlie bottles, but when tliey p*^i within a 

 quarter of a mile from home, instead of driving 

 there straight and depositing tho empties, tho 

 carman was induced by the clerk to drive* in 

 another direction on business of the clerk's. While 

 they were doing this the cannan drove over tho 

 plaintiff, and the court held that the defendant 



(m) Lamb v. Palk, 9 C. & T. 029 ; but 8CO fnije v. Dr/riri, 7 

 Bout & Smith, 139, in which Blackburn, J., said "at the trial I 

 thotigrht Liimb v. /'aM- wa» not law." 



(«) L. R., J (^ B. J7r.; 3H L. .7., ii. B. 'iJ3. 



