602 KEEPING SWINE A NUISANCE. 



the other horses that it became of no value to the plaintiff. The defeiiJaiit 

 pleaded " Not guilty ; " and at the trial a verdict was found for the 

 plaintiff, with £7 damages. It was held by the Court of Exchequer 

 that the cause of action was founded on contract, and not on tort, and 

 therefore the plaintiff was deprived of costs by the County Corn-t Act, 

 13 & 14 Viit. c. 61, s. 11. In Stannian v. Davis, an innkeeper was 

 held liable for an injury done to a horse which was taken out of the inn 

 and immoderately ridden and whipped, though it did not appear by 

 whom. And an innlceejyer on a marlcet-day i)lacing a gig Monging to a 

 guest in the open street, according to the usual custom, is liable if the 

 gig be stolen {Jones v. Tgler). 



In Mackenzie v. Cox, three dogs ivcre taken care of hj the ostler of the 

 defendant, a stable-keeper, who was paid to buy them food, and keep 

 them in the defendant's stable with the plaintiff's horse. The plaintiff 

 asked if the dogs would be safe, and the defendant said he never lost 

 anything, and referred him to the ostler. The missing dog was locked 

 up, and stolen between twelve and one o'clock at night, the door having 

 been opened, as it was thought, by a false key. Infonnation of the loss 

 was given at once. The declaration stated that the defendant received 

 the dogs to be kept, fed, and taken care of for reward, which the second 

 plea traversed. Gurney B. put it to the jury, whether the defendant 

 received the dogs, and whether he had been negligent, both of which 

 points the defendant called witnesses to disprove ; and his lordship held 

 that even if a person does take goods into his possession for reward, he 

 is not answerable for their loss if he takes reasonable care of them ; and 

 that it was for the jury to say whether locking these dogs into a stable 

 was not taking reasonable care of them, and that if a dog-stealer came 

 in the night and stole the dog, the defendant was not answerable for the 

 loss. The verdict was for the defendant on both issues. 



The keeping of swine so as to he a nuisance, is an offence within 

 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 59 (Dighy v. West Ham Board of Health). 

 Under a local act following closely the words of the Markets and Fairs 

 Clauses Act, 10 & 11 Vict. c. 14, s. 19, it is no offence to slaughter' cattle 

 elsewhere than in a public slaughter-house, unless there be an intention to 

 sell ths carcase as human food {Elias v. Nightingale). Llogd v. Walkey 

 was an action for negligence in tiot p-operly securing a cow of the defend- 

 ant's in a slaughter-house, and the declaration stated that by means 

 thereof the cow " ran at, butted at, gored, killed and destroyed a cow of 

 tlie plaintiff." Plea, a payment of 30s. into Court, and " that the 

 plaintiff had not sustained damages to a greater amount than the said 

 sum of 30s. in respect of the causes of action in the declaration mentioned.'' 

 Iteplication that he had. It was then proposed to give in evidence for 



