LIABILITY OF OWNER OR KEEPER. 407 



not such knowledge? But if the owner transfers the custody 

 of an animal which he knows to be dangerous without com- 

 municating his knowledge and mischief ensues, it is he who 

 being in fault ought to be responsible. Mr. Shearman draws 

 a distinction between a gratuitous borrower and a borrower 

 for hire. The latter has a right to have information of the 

 quality of the article let on hire, and a claim against the owner 

 if any damage results from that information not being com- 

 municated. The borrower for hire, says Mr. Shearman, has 

 a claim over the lender 'which affords more grounds for hold- 

 ing him responsible for the possession of the information to 

 which he has thus a right.' But if the borrower has not the 

 knowledge, he is not responsible to^ third persons. If he suf- 

 fered damage himself, he would have a claim against the 

 lender. And surely the borrower's claim against the lender 

 afifords no ground of liability in a question with third persons. 

 The claim possibly might not be efifectual. The lender may 

 be a man of straw from whom nothing could be obtained. In 

 a question with third persons, the relations between the 

 lender and the borrower do not seem of any importance." ^^^ 



The question of liability often rises as between employer 

 and employee. It has been held that the employer is not 

 liable for mischief done by a dog belonging to a hired laborer, 

 where the dog was in the habit of following its master daily 

 to his work on the employer's farm and of returning each 

 night with its master and staying at his house.^®^ 



Where a dog belonged to a hired man living with the de- 

 ^fendant and there was no evidence that it was kept for the 

 latter's benefit or service, it was held that the question 

 whether he was the keeper of the dog was for the jury, not for 

 the court.i''* 



"" 25 Jotir. Jurisp. (Sc.) 528. And see Cowan v. Dalziel, S Rettie (Sc. 

 Ct. Sess.) 241. 



'"' Auchmuty !». Ham, i Denio (N. Y.) 495. And see Simpson v. Griggs, 

 S8 Hun (N. Y.) 393- 



'" Whittemore v. Thomas, 153 Mass. 347. 



