I.KTTINT. AM) irilUNf; IIOUSl.S. 110 



was not liaLlo, as tlio injury coinplainod of was 

 not done by the carman in the course of liis em- 

 ployment. In connection with the case last quoted 

 sliould be road Wliatman v. Pearson (o) : the de- 

 fondant, who was a contractor, oraployed men 

 with horses and carts to load earth. The men 

 were not allowed to leave their horses and carts at 

 dinner time, but were supposed to remain at hand 

 while the horses baited. One of the men, however, 

 went home to his dinner, some little distance from 

 the work, with liis cart, and left it standing at his 

 own door, with no one to attend to the horse. Tlie 

 horse ran away and ran the cart against the plain- 

 tiff's fence, thereby injiu'ing it : the court hold 

 that it was properly loft to the jury to say, whether 

 the carter was acting within the scope of his em- 

 ployment, and that the jury were justified in say- 

 ing that ho was. This case of Whatman v. Pearson 

 would appear also to overrule Sleath v. Wilson {p)y 

 a case much quoted to show a master's liability, 

 and which had been previously modified by Sey- 

 mour V. Green icood (q). There an omnibus pas- 

 senger, slightly intoxicated, refused to get out and 

 pay his fare to the conductor when the omnibus 

 arrived at its destination ; the conductor drajrffed 



' Co 



him out and caused him to fall under the wheel 

 of a passing cab ; the omnibus proprietor was held 



(o) L. R., 3 C. P. 422. 



Ip) 9 C. & p. 607. 



(v) 6 H. & N. 359 ; affii-med, 7 H. & N. Soo. 



i2 



