NEGLIGENT DEIVING. 301 



However, the jury disbelieved the defendant's evidence, and 

 found a verdict for the plaintiff {j). 



In the following case, a servant was sent with a van and Emining over 

 a horse on some errand by the defendant, with directions ^.P^rs°i ^* 

 to bring back with him another horse, which had been left 

 on the road. When the servant obtained possession of the 

 second horse, which seemed to have been in the habit of 

 following the van without being tied, he gave a boy per- 

 mission to ride him. As the servant drove on, he came 

 upon the plaintiff who was returning home late at night 

 with a hand-barrow, and, seeing him, he turned his horse's 

 head out of his direct line to avoid him. The boy and 

 horse behind, however, went on without noticing the plain- 

 tiff, and the consequence was they both fell over him and 

 severely injured him. On the trial Chief Baron Pollock 

 nonsuited the plaintiff, being of opinion that the defendant 

 was not liable for this, and ruled that the declaration was 

 not supported, as the horse which did the injury was not 

 conducted or driven by the servant of the defendant. And 

 the Court of Exchequer afterwards held that the Chief 

 Baron's ruling was correct, and that the facts clearly showed 

 that the injury sustained by the plaintiff was the result of 

 the purest accident (A). 



This was held to be the case, where the defendant's Where it is 

 horse, being frightened by the sudden noise of a butcher's ^'^^ r^"]*"^/' 

 cart, which was driven furiously along the street, became ^j ^ horsef 

 ungovernable, and plunged the shaft of a gig into the breast 

 of the plaintiff's horse (/). Bo, too, where a horse ridden 

 by the defendant was frightened by a clap of thunder, and 

 ran over the plaintiff, who was incautiously standing with 

 others in the carriage-road {m). 



In Hammack Y . White (n) , the defendant having bought Sammackr. 

 a horse at Tattersall's, the next day took him out to try '^■^»^«- 

 him in Finsbury Circus, a much-frequented thoroughfare. 

 From some unexplained cause the horse became restive, 

 and notwithstanding the defendant's well-directed efforts 

 to control him, ran upon the pavement, and killed a man. 

 It was held that these facts disclosed no evidence of negli- 

 gence, which the Judge was warranted in submitting to 

 the jury ; Erie, C.J., saying, " I am of opinion that the 



ij) Goodmans. Taylor, 5 C.&F. 213. 



410. (m) Oibhons v. Tipper, 1 Ld. 



(k) Bird v. Sharpe, Ex. Nov. 5, Eaym. 38. 



1853. («) Hammaek v. White, 11 C. B., 



[l) Wakemany. Robinson, 1 Bing. N. S. 588. 



