176 
Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
of the workman’s employment, the Court stating that the 
protection given by the Workman’s Compensation Act, 1906, 
to a workman does not extend to his going to and from his 
work unless there are some special circumstances. In Bradley 
v. Wallaces , Lim. (82 L.J.K.B., 998 ; 1913, 3 K.B. 629), 
the dependants of George Bradley, a teamster, claimed 
compensation for his death. Bradley, whilst engaged in 
his work at his employer’s yard, was kicked and fatally 
injured by a horse which belonged to a third party and 
was standing there unattended. The employers admitted 
liability but claimed indemnity against the owner of 
the horse under Section 6 of the Workmen’s Compensation 
Act, 1906, which gives a right to indemnity to employers 
paying compensation to a workman where some person 
other than the employer would be under a legal liability 
to pay damages for the injury. This claim was resisted 
by the owners who proved that the horse which caused 
the injury was not known by them to be vicious. It was 
contended that the horse had no right to be in the yard, and 
was, in fact, a trespasser there, and was left unattended through 
the negligence of the owner’s carter, and that they were there- 
fore liable*for the results of the negligence. The Court held that 
the owner of a horse is not liable for an injury caused by the 
kick of the horse if it is not known to be vicious, and that the 
damage claimed was too remote, as it is not the natural or 
ordinary consequence of a horse, which has shown no vicious 
propensity, being improperly on land which does not belong 
to its owners, that it should when there kick human beings 
without provocation. The claim was therefore disallowed. It 
is to be observed that the defence which defeated the claim 
against the owners of the horse was not available to Bradley’s 
employers in respect of the claim against them by his depen- 
dants because the latter claim being under the Act no question 
of negligence arose, and it was sufficient to show that the 
accident arose out of and in the course of the workman’s 
employment. 
Wolfenden v. Mason (11 L.G.R., 1243) raised a question as 
to the liability of a farmer and breeder of horses for payment 
of the duty imposed by the Revenue Act, 1869, Section 18, on 
“ male servants,” in respect of a man employed by him. Mr. 
Mason advertised for “ a groom, single, to live in, able to ride 
and drive and make himself generally useful.” He engaged a 
man at 8s. a week in addition to receiving board and lodging. 
The justices found that the man was employed by Mason in the 
capacity of a groom and general servant and that the major part 
of his duty was attending to horses kept by Mason in bis 
business as a farmer and horse breeder and they dismissed the 
