NEGLIGENCE BY VETERINARY SURGEON. 213 



for the /os-s of a mare tr/tich he (lUeged had been desiroijed hij tlic improper 

 admirustration of a draiight hjj his servant. The man, according to the 

 evidence of the plaintiff's servant, had fastened tlie mare's head to a 

 beam, and poured the draught down ; and the mare coughed and kicked 

 about, and showed such pain that plaintiff came into the stable and told 

 the man he had killed her. Ten days afterwards she died ; but the 

 defendant's witnesses attributed her death to pleuro-pneumonia, and 

 proved that there were tubei'cles in the left lung in various stages, as 

 well as a broken abscess and adhesion between the lungs and ribs. 

 Evidence was adduced for the plaintiff to show that the pleuro-pneu- 

 monia arose from some foreign substance (in this case the medicine) 

 having gone the wrong way, and got into the air passages. The defen- 

 dant and his witnesses admitted that it was improper to fix a horse's 

 head when giving medicine; but the man said that he had merely tied 

 the halter to the beam by a slip-knot, and could in a moment set it free 

 by pulling the cord. Lord CampUll C.J. told the jury that if they 

 were of opinion that there had been improper treatment, which had 

 accelerated the death or done any harm whatever to the mare, the jury, 

 in point of law, must find for the plamtiff, which they did, with £b 

 damages. 



A curious case of liability came before the Court of Common Pleas 

 in Holmes v. Onion. Tlie defendant had hired one Simpkiu as a 

 thatcher, but no time was mentioned at which the service was to com- 

 mence. About a month after this Simpkin hired himself to the plain- 

 tiff. Some conversation ensued between the latter and the defendant ; 

 and the defendant said, " I must have my wheat cut, and if I give 

 Simpkiu up you must pay me as much as I should have had if he were 

 thatching for me." To this the plaintiff assented ; and Simpkin did a 

 portion of the thatching very negligently, and left it before it was 

 completed. The defendant then sent another man, at the plaintiff's 

 request, to complete it : sued the plaintiff in the Newmarket County 

 Court, and recovered for the w^hole work done. An action was then 

 brought by the plaintiff at the Cambridgeshire Spring Assizes against 

 the defendant for the negligent thatching of the stacks ; and the 

 defendant had a verdict, leave being reserved by Pollock C.B. to enter 

 the verdict for the plaintiff for £5, if the Court should think that there 

 was any evidence of a contract between the plaintiff and defendant, so 

 as to make the defendant liable for Simpkin's negligent execution of 

 the work. The Court made the rule absolute. 



CressweJl J. said : "The case of Quarman v. Burnett (6 M. & W. 499) 

 shows that Simpkin would be Onion's servant, and Onion the contracting 

 party. The defendant buys the services of an able thatcher, in order to hire 



