214 



INNKEEPEilS, VETERINARY SURGEONS, ETC. 



When answer- 

 able for liis 

 servant. 



Action 

 against a 

 farrier for 

 pricking ii 

 horse. 



Collins V. 

 Itodway. 



sustained by the non-payment of his money occasioned by 

 tbis"(«). 



And where a horse has been injured in shoeing from the 

 negligence of a farrier's servant, the master is hable [o). 

 But not if the wrong be wilful, as if the servant maliciously 

 drives a nail into the horse's foot in order to lame him (p). 



An action lies against a farrier for pricking a horse 

 when shoeing him {q), and where one smith lends a horse 

 to another, and the second pricks him in shoeing, the 

 action lies against the first, or the second, in the option of 

 the owner (r). 



The rule of law as to the extent of a farrier's liability in 

 shoeing a horse, is fully and clearly laid down by Chief 

 Baron Pollock in the case of Collins v. Rodicay (s) ; and as 

 that case does not appear in any of the reports, it will 

 here be given at considerable length. The following is 

 compressed from an exact copy of the shorthand notes which 

 were taken at the trial, and afterwards published in the 

 Veterinarian. It was an action brought against the defen- 

 dant, a farrier, for unskilfulness in the shoeing of two 

 horses sent by the plaintiff to be shod at the defendant's 

 forge, which he carried on for the purpose of shoeing horses 

 with a shoe for which he had a patent. 



The one, a grey mare pony, was sent on the 16th of 

 July, in the evening after working hours, and was shod at 

 the particular request of the plaintiff's father. On the 17th 

 she was driven with two men in a gig to Barnet, and it was 

 admitted that for three miles she had gone sound. On the 

 20th the shoes were taken off by the apprentice of Beck, 

 another farrier. On the 21st the defendant received notice 

 of her lameness, and on the 26th, after her feet had been 

 cut about and poulticed, she was reshod by Beck and after- 

 wards worked. It appeared that subsequently she had 

 been turned out for nine weeks. 



The other, a black entire pony, was sent to be shod on 

 the 18th July. On the 21st the shoes were taken off by 

 Beck, and blood was said to have followed the withdrawal 

 of two of the nails. It was admitted that this pony's feet 



(«) Ererard v. Hopkins, 2 Bulstr. 

 332 ; and see Longmead t. Sollidaii, 

 6 Exch. 764. 



(o) 1 Bla. Com. 431 ; Randlesony. 

 Murraij, 8 A. & E. 109. 



(p) Jones T. Rart, 2 Salk. 440. 



(<?) Nat. Brev. 94 d. ; 17 Edw. 4, 



43; 11 Edw. 4, 6; 66 Edw. 3, 19; 

 3 Hen. 6, 36 ; 14 Hen. 6, 83 ; Orig. 

 106 a; 48 Edw. 3,6, pi. 11. 



(r) 12 Edw. 4, 13. 



(s) Collins V. Modway, before Pol- 

 lock, C.B., Guildhall, Dec. 15, 1845; 

 14 Veterinarian, 102. 



