VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
27 
to go to St. Albans on the 20th of August, 1846, hired a horse for 
that purpose on the previous afternoon, for one guinea, from the 
defendant. As the plaintiff resided at Camberwell, he proposed 
that he should ride the horse home at once, and proceed on the 
following day on his journey. The tobacconist accordingly rode 
out of the stables at the close of business ; but he had not been long 
gone when he again presented himself at the stables, and, flinging 
himself off the animal, said he would prefer to start next morning 
from the stables on another horse, as he could not persuade the one 
he had originally taken to face the “ busses” on London Bridge. 
The defendant politely told him, all his stable was at his command, 
and the plaintiff therefore inquired for and selected “ Pope’s mare,” 
with whose performances he had previously made satisfactory 
acquaintance. 
Accordingly, the worthy citizen made a second start on the fol- 
lowing morning at nine o’clock ; but, alas ! with little better success ; 
for having occasion to call at Watford on his way, he put his nag 
up at the Rose and Crown, Avhile he regaled himself with the good 
cheer to be found in that establishment. When “ man and beast” 
had both found the entertainment which they required, the plaintiff 
would have started for St. Albans, but a storm arose which com- 
pelled him, “ nothing loth,” to defer hie progress till the ensuing 
morning. As he was sitting at his breakfast, however, the ostler 
informed him that his “ mare had fell lame,” and on examination 
she turned out to be quite incapable of continuing her journey. The 
result was, that Mr. Jones hired a horse and gig, in which accredited 
vehicle of “ respectability” he made his entry into St. Albans, and 
in which he returned to Watford. Arrived there, he found the mare 
still unfit for service, and he returned to town, like many others, 
in the railway, having in the mean time given notice to the 
defendant to send for his mare. The defendant, however, insisted 
that it was the duty of the plaintiff to return the mare, and he 
refused to send for her, while he insisted on being paid for her hire 
and for the loss of her services so long as she should remain at 
Watford. The parties entertaining conflicting opinions on this 
subject, neither of them retracted till March 1847, when the land- 
lord of the Rose and Crown thought the mare was fast “ eating her 
head off,” as the saying is, and brought an action against Mr. 
Jones for her keep, and the luckless tobacconist was ultimately 
obliged to pay the sum of £32, and, that done, he sent for the mare, 
and returned her to the owner, who forthwith brought an action 
against him for the hire and loss of service above-mentioned ; 
while, as a set-off thereto, the plaintiff brought this action to recover 
the sum paid to the landlord of the Rose and Crown, the sum 
claimed in each being within a few shillings identical. Mr. Chew’s 
