216 



INNKEEPERS, VETEEINAEY 8UEGE0NS, ETC. 



be men' 

 tioned. 



Coming at an 

 unseasonable 

 hour. 



requires a degree of skilfulness and care, and it might be 

 hardly possible to operate upon a certain person without 

 something of that sort taking place: and although an 

 accident may happen, such as in this case, it may be that 

 the foot of the horse was in such a state that it would be 

 difiicult to perform the operation of shoeing." 

 Peculiar dil'- " Wherever that is the case, you would naturally expect 



Acuities should gQ^g information given that there were those defects and 

 ° """' difficulties, so that the farrier might be made acquainted 



with the risk he was exposing himself to. You will there- 

 fore have to judge whether you think there was any want 

 of skill in the operation of shoeing these horses. I own it 

 appears to me that I think it is impossible to doubt as to 

 the fact that there was an actual pricking." 



" With respect to the man's skill, he may have done it 

 on this occasion badly, they coming to him at night to 

 insist upon the job being done at an irregular hour; that 

 was partly suggested at one time. I must say it appears to 

 me as a question of law, that it is no excuse. If you 

 go to any place, and call in a surgeon or a farrier, or any 

 person to perform an operation, if the time is inconvenient, 

 and if the light be not sufficient, and if the occasion be not suit- 

 able, he is bound to say ' I will not do it.' If he does it, he is 

 answerable, unless indeed he distinctly and explicitly says, ' I 

 do it at your urgent request, hut I tcill not he responsible for the 

 consequences.' Nothing of that sort appears to have come 

 from him. On the contrary, though there may have been 

 a remonstrance that the man came too late, yet it was 

 done. It appears to me in point of law that if a person, 

 called upon at an unseasonable time, undertakes to do it 

 without declaring he wdl not be responsible, he does it 

 with the same responsibility as if he did it at any proper 

 time." 



The jury found a verdict for the defendant, and the 

 Court of Exchequer afterwards refused a rule for a new 

 trial, which was applied for on the ground that the verdict 

 was against the evidence. 



Under the Police of Towns Act every person who, in any 

 street, to the obstruction, annoyance or danger of the 

 residents, shoes, bleed or farries any horse or animal (except 

 in cases of accident), or cleans, dresses, exercises, trains, or 

 breaks, or turns loose any horse or animal, is liable to a 

 penalty not exceeding 40s. (t). 



Farrying, &c., 

 in the street. 



(<) 10 & 11 Yict. c. 89, s. 28. See also 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 54 (1). 



