HIEING HOESES. 24!l 



mitted by a carriage and horses hired by the defendant 

 driving against the plaintiff's gig. It appeared that the 

 defendant and seven others were driving in a carriage and 

 four, with two postillions, to Epsom races on the 3rd of 

 June, 1840. The defendant with another party sat upon 

 tJie box. The carriage was not in the line of the vehicles 

 which were going through the turnpike at Sutton, and as it 

 approached the toll-bar the postillions endeavoured to get 

 into that line, in order that they might pass through the 

 gate. The plaintiff and a friend of his, Mr. Mason, were 

 driving in a small gig at that particular place where the 

 postillions attempted to fall into the line. The man on the 

 wheel horses said to the other postillion, "Break in, jou 

 are all right there," and upon doing this the trace of 

 the leaders of the carriage caught the wheel of the plaintiff's 

 gig ; the gig was upset, and the plaintiff was injured and 

 rendered lame for life. Immediately before the accident 

 the defendant called out to his postillions to let the plaintiff's 

 gig pass first, but the order then came too late. As soon as 

 the accident had occurred the carriage was stopped and the 

 owner's name demanded; whereupon the defendant, in 

 order to prevent his party being detained, offered money 

 to the parties, and eventually gave his card. 



On the part of the defendant it was objected, that, even 

 assuming that the fault lay with the drivers of the carriage, 

 the defendant was not responsible, neither the horses nor 

 the carriage being his ; or, at all events, that he was not 

 liable in tresjMss. Chief Justice Tindal left it to the jury 

 to say whether the accident was the result of want of skill 

 or caution on the part of the drivers of the carriage, or on 

 the part of the owner of the gig — reserving it for the Court 

 of Common Pleas to say whether, upon the facts proved, 

 the defendant was liable in this form of action ; the jury 

 returned a verdict for the plaintiff. 



The Court of Common Pleas discharged the defendant's Opinion of 

 rule nisi for a nonsuit, and Chief Justice Tindal said, " Un- common* "^ 

 doubtedly the cases in which the hirer of a glass-coach or a rieas. 

 post-chaise has been held not to be responsible for the act 

 of the driver, depend upon grounds wholly different from 

 those on which the liability of the defendant on this occasion 

 is to be sustained. It has always been held that the /m-er 

 of the carriage, having no power of selection, no fore- 

 knowledge of the character of the driver, is not responsible 

 for any negligence or want of skill or experience on his 

 part ; for that it is the duty of the party who lets, to exercise 



O. E 



