. 
Contemporary Agricultural Law. 
177 
information for employing a male servant without a licence. 
The Divisional Court affirmed this decision holding that the 
man was not a “groom” within the meaning of Section 19, 
Sub-section 3 of the Revenue Act, 1869, which defines “ male 
servant ” as meaning and including “ any male servant employed 
either wholly or partially in any of the following capacities, 
that is to say . . . coachman, groom, postilion, stable-boy, 
or helper in stables . . . or in any capacity involving the 
duties of any of the above descriptions of servants, by whatever 
style the person acting in such capacity may be called.” They 
considered that the major part of his duties being that of a 
farm servant, notwithstanding that in his capacity as farm 
servant he was continually attending to the horses and per- 
forming duties analogous to those of a groom, his employer was 
not liable to pay the duty in respect of this man. 
2. Stock . In White v. Steadman (82 L.J.K.B., 713 ; 1913, 
2 K.B., 537) it was held that the duty of a person who lets out a 
horse of known vicious propensity is the same as that which any 
person is under who allows others to use or come in contact with 
an animal or chattel that is dangerous in itself ; he is under 
a duty to warn not only the person who hires it, but any person 
who he know r s or contemplates or ought to contemplate will use 
it. This duty is not dependent on, and is not created by the 
contract ; it exists independently of the contract and if neglected 
will subject the owner of the horse to a liability for damages 
for injury caused by its vice. 
Two cases on cruelty to animals should be mentioned. 
Waters v. Braithwaite (30 Times L. R., 107) was a case in 
which an information was preferred against a farmer under 
Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act (1 & 2 Geo. 5, 
c. 27) for causing a cow “ to be cruelly ill-treated ” in allowing 
her to be sent to market, according to a common but barbarous 
custom, overstocked with milk. The cow and her calf, which 
was muzzled, were sent to Banbury market, a distance of 
5| miles from the farm. She was a heavy milker and in 
full milk, and on her arrival at the market at 11 a.m. her 
udder was found to be much distended. The teats were also 
distended and they were hard and hot and felt like the skin of 
a drum. Her back was arched, she had great difficulty in 
walking and had to be constantly struck to keep her moving. 
The evidence w T as that the cow had not been milked for 19 
hours. The defence was that it was a well-known custom of 
farmers throughout the country to keep cows unmilked for 
a like period before offering them for sale, and that it caused 
no substantial pain, and that interference with the custom 
would be detrimental to farmers. The justices before whom 
the case came in the first instance found that the udder was 
