EVIDENCE ; DAMAGES. 257 



its value before the injury.^®^ But, in other cases, the loss of 

 use is a proper element of damages.^®'' Where the horse was 

 injured by one carelessly driving against him, it was held that 

 the measure of damages was the expense of his cure, the value 

 of his services while being cured, and the difference between 

 his value before the injury and after the cure.^^* The owner 

 should use ordinary care in looking after the animal and em- 

 ploying a veterinary surgeon, but is not responsible for all 

 the mistakes of the surgeon.^®® The fact that the owner of a 

 horse injured by a defect in the highway kills it, will not pre- 

 vent his recovering its full value, where there was no reason- 

 able hope of recovery at the time of kiUing.^*'*' 



Where the horse was frightened by an object on the high- 

 way and ran away but was not physically injured, evidence 

 that the market value of horses generally depreciated 50 per 

 cent, on their running away was held inadmissible. "The 

 mode of reaching the amount of injury in its market value to 

 a horse because of its running away, without wounding or 

 physical injury to it, on a trial involving that question, must 

 be to prove the habits of the animal before the occurrence, 

 the circumstances attending it and how the particular horse 

 was then and afterwards afifected by it; also a description of 

 the horse and its value prior to the runaway. These are facts 

 to be established by proof." ^"^ 



^"' Page V. Sumpter, 53 Wis. 652. 



^" See Brown v. Southbury, S3 Conn. 212; Wilson v. Troy, 60 Hun 

 (N. Y.) 183; Gillett V. Western R. Corp., 8 Allen (Mass.) 560. 

 See also § 61, supra. 



™ Streett v. Laumier, 34 Mo. 469. '"'" Page v. Sumpter, supra. 

 "" O'Neil V. East Windsor, 63 Conn. 150. 

 '" Van Wagoner v. N. Y. Cement Co., 36 Hun (N. Y.) SS2. 



17 



