120 



IKiKSK WAUUAMY 



Uhite. 



(lefi'iidnnt, was fri^litonod l)y a diiji of tliunder, 

 und riiu ovor the plsiiiitiH", who wjis .stiiuding witli 

 Umiimaek others in the carriage road (r). In Hammack v. 

 Wliitv [if], whore a horse, niiturully vieioiis hut 

 not known to he so hy tlie defendant, who was 

 riding it, heeame restive and unmanageahle, and, 

 notwitlistanding the def<'n<hint's eifoi*ts, ran \\\n\n 

 the foot pavement and killed the plaintilf's hus- 

 hand, Erie, C. J., thought the case should not be 

 left to the jury, unless some positive negligence 

 was shown on the part of the defendant. The 

 ])laintitf iu*ged that the defendant should not have 

 ridden a horse he did not know (for it appears ho 

 had only bought it the day befon*) in a very fro- 

 (juented place ; but the C. J. added, " I am of 

 o]iinion a man is not to be charged with want oi 

 caution because he buys a horse without having 

 j)revi()us cxi>erienco of him. There must be horses 

 without number ridden every day in London, of 

 wliom tlif ridt-rs know nothing. A varit'ty of cir- 

 cumstances will make a lioi*se restive. The mere 

 fact of restiveness is not even prima fiicie evidence 

 of negligence." It may be assumed, generally, 

 tluit where horses run away and a person is in- 

 jured, then the driver is not answerable (c) ; but 

 of course tliis may bo rebutted, as by showing the 

 horse, or one of a pair, had ran away on a pi*oviou8 



(r) (libbon* v. J'rpi>rr, 1 Ij<1. Knyinuiid, 3H. 



Cv) H C. B., N. 8. rjH8; HI L. J., C. V. I'JS). 



(j) Rex V. Timmini, 7 C. & P. 600 ; Oibbutm v. f'lppcr, Kiipr.i. 



