HORSES RUNNING AWAY. 335 



the horse, which pulled the halter off and ran away and in- 

 jured the plaintiff, it was held that the latter could not re- 

 cover. "If the horse had bolted before the blacksmith had 

 taken charge of it, the insufficiency of the tying would be 

 evidence in support of the charge against the defendant. But 

 the defendant was not a servant of the blacksmith to tie the 

 horses for the purpose of shoeing them. The defendant's ob- 

 ligation ceased, that of the blacksmith's began, as soon as the 

 latter took charge of the horses. The defendant would not 

 be liable as owner of the horse, unless the horse was vicious 

 and that fact was known to the defendant and the injury to 

 the plaintiff' had been caused by the vice of the animal." ^*^ 



Where an injury was caused by the defendant's horse shy- 

 ing and coming into contact with a street-organ and the de- 

 fendant knew that the horse became restive at the sound of 

 an organ, he was held guilty of prima facie negligence in 

 driving it in a town where such organs abounded, without 

 taking due precautions against accident, which presumption 

 must be rebutted by his showing that he had taken all pos- 

 sible precautions.^*^ 



Where knowledge of the horse's disposition must be shown, 

 the knowledge of the husband will be imputed to the wife.^** 

 Where the defendant was intoxicated and fell asleep in his 

 sleigh and his horses ran away and injured the plaintiff's 

 horse, it was held that trespass and not case was the proper 

 form of action.^*® 



Contributory negligence may, of course, defeat recovery; 

 but one who enters a carriage knowing that the team is un- 

 safe or dangerous does not thereby assume the risk arising 

 from the driver's negligence.^*** And the passenger on a 

 ferry-boat on which there were no animals or vehicles was 



"" Maxwell v. Cooke, 9 Austral. Law Times 92, cited in 22 Ir. L. T. 361. 



'" Mella V. Baston, 72 L. T. 318. 



"' Huntoon v. Trumbull, 2 McCrary C. Ct. (U. S.) 314. 



"" Waldron v. Hopper, I N. J. L. 389. 



""Smith V. Team (Miss.), 16 South. Rep. 492. 



