218 



INNKEEPERS, VETERINAEY SURGEONS, ETC. 



Ilursclireaker 

 liable tor 

 damage to the 

 horse. 



Horse- 

 breaker's lieu. 



Trainer's lien. 



whose charge a mare 



Horsebreaker, Trainer, &c. 



A horsehreaher is Hable for any damage which through 

 his neghgence may happen to the horse he is breaking. 

 Thus an action on the case was brought, and damages 

 recovered against the defendant, to 

 had been committed, " to be taught to pace " {d). 



The horsehreal:er, by whose skill the horse is rendered 

 manageable, has a lien upon him in respect of his charges ; 

 and such lien being consistent with the principles of natural 

 equity, is favoured by the law, which in such case is con- 

 strued liberally (c). 



It was for a long time doubtful whether in any case a 

 trainer had a lien for the keep and exercise of a racehorse 

 sent to him to be trained ; unless perhaps it was delivered 

 to be trained for the purpose of running a specified race (/). 

 In Bevan v. Waters (g) he was held to have a lien; and the 

 question also arose in Jacobs v. Latoiir (/*), but the case was 

 decided on another point. The doubt seemed to be whether 

 in the contract for training there was a stipulation for the 

 re-delivery of the horse trained for the purpose of racing. 

 And in a later case Mr. Baron Alderson said, " It may be 

 very doubtful whether a trainer would not be considered to 

 be in the situation of a livery-stahle keeper, if by the contract 

 he is to allow the owner to run the horse " [i). Mr. Baron 

 Parke, shortly afterwards in another case, said, " As to the 

 case of the training groom it is not necessary to say any- 

 thing, as it has not been formerly decided ; for in Jacobs v. 

 Latour (A) the point was left undetermined. It is true 

 there is a nisi p)rius decision of Best, C.J., in Bevan v. 

 Waters (j), that the trainer would have a lien, on the 

 ground of his having expended labour and skill in bringing 

 the animal into condition to run at races ; but it does not 

 appear to have been present to the mind of the Judge, nor 

 was the usage of training to that effect explained to him, 

 that when horses are delivered for that purpose the owner 

 has always a right during the continuance of the process to 

 take the animal away for the purpose of running races for 



(d) Lib. Plac. 25. 



(e) Hcarfe v. Murguii, 4 M. & "W. 

 276. 



(/) See Jackson v. C'uij/inuis, .') 

 M. & W. 360. 



(ff) Sevan v. B'uters, 3 C. & P. 

 520. See also Siiiuh'rmn v. BelL 2 



C. & M. 304. 



(h) Jacobs T. Latour, 2 M. & P. 

 205. 



((} Scarfe v. Morgan, 4 M. & W. 

 276. 



0) Becany. Waters, 3 C. & P. 

 520. 



