HIRING HORSES. 



231 



giving such security to the other party as the Court may 

 think just, appeal to a Court of General or Quarter 

 Sessions. 



Hiring Horses. 



used by Letting for 

 hire. 



Letting for hire is a bailment of a thing to 

 the hirer, for a compensation in money (r). 



If a horse or carriage be let out for hire for the purpose Warranty of 

 of performing a particular journey, the party letting fl''"^^^^"' 

 warrants that the horse or carriage, as it may be, is fit and 

 proper and competent for such journey (s). 



The fact that the defendant has taken all reasonable 

 and proper care to provide a fit and proper carriage is not 

 sufficient ; it is his duty to supply a carriage as fit for the 

 purpose for vphich it was hired as care and skill can render 

 it, and this was so held in the recent case of Hyman v. 

 Nye it), in which the point was very fully discussed. In 

 that case the plaintiff hired from the defendant, a job- 

 master, for a specified journey a carriage, a pair of horses, 

 and a driver. During the journey a bolt in the underpart 

 of the carriage broke, the splinter bar became displaced, the 

 horses started off, the carriage was upset, and the plaintiff 

 injured. In an action against the defendant for negligence, 

 the jury were directed that, if in their opinion the defen- 

 dant took all reasonable care to provide a fit and proper 

 carriage, their verdict ought to be for him. The jury found 

 a verdict for the defendant, and in particular that the 

 carriage was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was 

 hired, and that the defect in the bolt could not have been 

 discovered by the defendant by ordinary care and attention. 

 A rule having been obtained, calling upon the defendant to Syman v. 

 show cause why there should not be a new trial on the •^^'^• 

 ground of misdirection, and that the verdict was against the 

 weight of the evidence, Lindley, J., in the course of his 

 judgment said, " A careful study of [the] authorities leads 

 me to the conclusion that the learned judge at the trial put 

 the duty of the defendant too low. A person who lets out 

 carriages is not, in my opinion, responsible for all defects, 

 discoverable or not ; he is not an insurer against all defects; 

 nor is he bound to take more care than coach proprietors, 

 or railway companies who provide carriages for the public 



{r) Jones on Bailments, 118. 

 (s) Per Pollock, C.B., Chew 

 Jones, 10 L. T. 231. 



(i!) 6 Q. B. D. 685 ; 44 L. T., N. 

 S. 919; 55 J. P. 554. See also 

 Jones V. Fage, 15 L. T., N. S. 619. 



