320 NEGLIGENCE IN THE USE OF HORSES, ETC. 



plaintiff by his negligent driving; it was held that the 

 defendant was not liable (/). 



And this is further illustrated by Storey v. Ashton. In 

 that case the defendant, a wine merchant, sent his carman 

 and clerk with a horse and cart to deliver some wine, and 

 bring back some empty bottles ; on their return, when 

 about a quarter of a mile from the defendant's offices, the 

 carman, instead of performing his duty and driving to the 

 defendant's offices, depositing the bottles, and taking the 

 horse and cart to stables in the neighbourhood, was 

 induced by the clerk (it being after business hours) to 

 drive in quite another direction on business of the clerk's ; 

 and while they were thus driving the plaintiff was run 

 over, ovsdng to the negligence of the carman ; it was held 

 that the defendant was not liable, for that the carman was 

 not doing the act, in doing which he had been guilty of 

 negligence, in the course of his employment as a servant {g). 

 But Cockburn, C.J., in delivering judgment in this case, 

 said, " I think that the judgments of Maule and Cress- 

 well, JJ., in Mitchell v. Crassweller (/*), express the true 

 view of the law, and the view which we ought to abide by : 

 and that we cannot adopt the view of Erskine, J., in Sleath 

 V. Wilson (i), that is, because the master has entrusted the 

 servant with the control of the horse and cart that the 

 master is responsible. The true rule is, that the master is 

 only responsible so long as the servant can be said to be 

 doing the act, in the doing of which he is guilty of negli- 

 gence, in the course of his employment as a servant. I am 

 very far from saying, if the servant, when going on his 

 master's business, took a somewhat longer road, that, owing 

 to his deviation, he would cease to be in the employment 

 of the master, so as to divest the latter of all liability ; in 

 such cases it is a question of degree as to how far the devia- 

 tion could be considered a separate journey." 

 Ee-entering The case of Rayiier v. Mitchell (It) is another instance of 



on duty. ^ servant acting beyond the scope of his authority. There 



a carman, without his master's permission, and for a 

 purpose of his own wholly unconnected with his master's 

 business, took out his master's horse and cart, and on his 

 way home neghgently ran against a cab and damaged it. 



(/) Mitchell V. Crassweller, 22L. (h) See note (/), ante. 



J., C. P. 100. (j) See note (e), ante. 



Ig) Stoiri/v.Ashion,L.'R.,iQ,.'B. [k^ 2 C. P. D. 359; 25 "ST. E. 



476; 38L.J., Q.B.223; 17 W. E. 



727. 



