234 



LIVERY-STjiBLE KEEPERS, AGISTERS, ETC. 



Where hirer 

 is answerable 

 at all eyents. 



deviation. 



Wlere negli- 

 gence must 

 be proved. 



Where horse 

 falls lame. 



Where the 

 horse is ex- 

 hausted. 



addition to breaking the contract, the defendant by driving 

 the horse at an excessive speed, and unduly flogging and 

 otherwise illtreating and negligently and carelessly using 

 him, has committed a separate and independent wrong 

 apart from the contract, he will be liable for that wrong 

 in the action, and the plea of infancy will afford no 

 defence {d). 



A hirer is answerable at all events, if he keep the thing 

 hired, after the stipulated time, or use it differently from 

 his agreement (e). 



If a man hire a horse to go from A. to B., he ought 

 to go by the usual road, and should not unnecessarily 

 deviate from the usual , and customary way. And if he 

 make a material deviation, and any damage ensues, he 

 would appear to be liable for it at all events (/). 



Where there has been no material deviation, and the 

 horse has not been kept after any stipulated time, there 

 must be positive proof of negligence, to fix the hirer. 

 For instance, if an action is brought against him for using 

 a hired horse so negligently that it broke its knees, it will 

 not be sufficient for the plaintiff merely to show that the 

 horse was a good horse, and not in the habit of falling {g). 



If the horse falls lame on the journey, the liircr may 

 abandon him at any place M'here he turns out unfit, and 

 give notice of that fact to the party letting him out, whose 

 duty it is to send for him {h). 



Where the strength of a horse which has been hired 

 or borroired is exhausted, and it has refused its feed, the 

 hirer or borroicer has no right to pursue his journey with 

 it. This was so held in Bray v. Mayne ii), where a 

 person had a horse on trial for some days on conditioa 

 that he should pay 10/. for its hire if he did not like it. 

 The horse at that time had a slight cold, but on the last 

 day of trial, after the horse had been driven twenty miles, 

 it was discovered that there was a swelling under its 

 throat and it refused its feed. The defendant, however, 

 drove it on to London, which was about twelve miles 

 further, notwithstanding that it was much distressed during 

 part of the journey; and when brought to the plaintifl's 



{(t) Walley v. Eolt, 35 L. T., 

 N. S. 631. 



(e) Jones on Bailments, 121. 



(/) See Davis v. Barrett, 6 Bing. 

 71U. 



[g) Cooper v. Burton, 3 Camp. 



5, n. ; 13 E. E. 736. 



(A) Per Pollock, C.B., Chew v. 

 Jones, 10 L. T., Ex. 231. 



(i) Brai/ v. JIai/m; 1 Gow, 1 ; 21 

 R. R. 786. 



