36:2 XEGLTOENT RIDING OX HIGHWAY. 



horse at a walk, wlieu the animal became restive, and rushing on to the 

 pavement knocked down and killed the husband of the plaintiff, but 

 the witnesses for the plaintitf also proved that the defendant was doing 

 his best to prevent the accident, it was held that this was no proof of 

 negligence ; that taking the evidence of the witnesses for the plaintiff 

 altogether, it was clear that the defendant was carried on to the pave- 

 ment against his will, and that there was therefore nothing to turn 

 the scale of evidence against the defendant, and to show that he was 

 responsible for the consequences of the accident, but qiucre whether on 

 an indictment for manslaughter the same presumption would be made 

 in favour of a prisoner as for the defendant in an action for death 

 caused by negligence {Hammnck v. White), 



Xc(]ltgence in riding along a public highicay. — =The plaintiff was driving 

 a waggon with three horses along a highway, walking in the usual way 

 at the head of the leading horse, on his proper side of the road. The 

 defendant and his groom were riding at a foot's-pace (meeting the 

 waggon on the wrong side) when, just as he passed the plaintiff, the 

 groom touched his horse with a spur and he kicked out, and struck the 

 plaintiff. It was held by the Court of Common Bench that the act of 

 using the spur when so near to the plaintiff, was such an improper act 

 on the part of the groom as to justify the jury in finding the defendant 

 to have been guilty of negligence {North v. Smith). 



Kuisance hg hricJc-hurning. — Where a man by an act on his own land, 

 such as burning bricks, causes so much annoyance to another in the 

 enjoyment of a neighbouring tenement as to amount ]»-imd facie to a 

 cause of action, it is no answer that the act was done in a proper and 

 convenient spot, and was a reasonable use of the land, The fitness of 

 the locality does not prevent the carrying on of an offensive though 

 lawful trade from behig an actionable nuisance, but whenever, taking 

 all the circumstances into consideration, including the nature and ex- 

 tent of the plaintiff's enjoyment before the acts complained of, the 

 annoyance is sufficiently great to amount to a nuisance, an action will 

 lie whatever the locality may be, and the decision of the Queen's Bench 

 was overruled by Erie C.J,, Williams J., Bramivell, B., Keating J., 

 and Wilde B. ; Pollock C.B. diss. Thus Hole v. Barlow is overruled, 

 the case upon which the Queen's Bench grounded their judgment 

 {Bamford v. Turnhg). Without expressly overruling Hole v. Barlow, 

 Stuart V.S,, had decided to the same effect in Beardmore v. Treadwell. 



Onus on defendant to show that trade is carried on in a reasonable 

 and proi)er nuinner. — The carrying on a lawful trade in the usual man- 

 ner is not necessarily the canying it on in a reasonable and proper 

 manner, and where to an action for canning on a trade in such a 



