LIABILITY.

for negligence of driver who, on his return to owner's mews, drove a little way from them to purchase snuff for himself.)

Edwards V. Midland Ry. Co. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 287. (Action for malicious prosecution lies against a company.) Followed in Cornford v. Carlton Bank, Ltd., [1899] 1 Q. B. 392; and see Citizens' Life Assurance Co. v. Brown, [1904] A. C. 423. (See p. 234, n. ().)

Furlong v. South London Tramways Co. (1884), 48 J. P. 329. (Plaintiff tendered half-sovereign for fare defendants' conductor, supposing it to be counterfeit, gave plaintiff in charge.)

Bunch v. Great Western Ry. Co. (1886), 13 A. C. 31. (Plaintiff's luggage handed to defendants' porter at 4.20 p.m. for 5 p.m. train on Christmas Eve. Plaintiff went away to meet her husband and take her ticket, returned at 4.30 to platform: the porter and plaintiff's handbag had disappeared.)

Ruddiman v. Smith (1889), 60 L. T. (N. S.) 708. (See p. 238.)

Smith v. North Metropolitan Tramways Co. (1891), 55 J. P. 630. (See p. 238.)

The Apollo: Little v. Port Talbot Co., [1891] A. C. 499. (See p. 238.)

Ruth v. Surrey Commercial Dock Co. (1891), 8 Times L. R. 116. (Plaintiff employed by contractor, and injured by fall of deal planks which had been improperly loaded. Defendants' foreman admitted that if he saw improper loading he would interfere.)

Dyer v. Munday, [1895] 1 Q. B. 742. (See p. 241.)

Engelhart v. Farrant, [1897] 1 Q. B. 240. (See p. 242.)

Line v. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (1902), 18 Times L. R. 634. (Defendants' rules, but not their Act, permitted their inspectors to give flagrant offenders into custody: an inspector acted mistakenly under this rule.)

Jones v. Scullard, [1898] 2 Q. B. 565. (Owner of brougham, horses and harness liable for negligence of a hired coachman.) (See p. 20.)

Abraham v. Bullock (1901), 86 L. T. 796. (Defendant let out brougham,

NO LIABILITY. defendant's

omnibus to

yard, a Plaintiff

quarter of a mile distant. injured by stranger's negligent driving. No evidence of such necessity as authorized defendant's servants to engage stranger to drive.)

Beard v. London General Omnibus Co., [1900] 2 Q. B. 530. (See p. 232.)

Hanson v. Waller, [1901] 1 K. B. 390. (Plaintiff given into custody by defendant's manager on a mistaken charge of theft; the act not reasonably necessary for protection of defendant's property; therefore no implied authority.) See Stevens v. Hinshelwood (1891), 55 J. P. 341.

McDowall v. Great Western Ry. Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 331. (Defendants' servants shunted trucks which, owing to the means they took, would have remained stationary but for the interference of trespassing boys, who released the trucks so that they injured the plaintiff. Defendants' servants' negligence not "effective cause" of injury.)

Sanderson v. Collins, [1904] 1 K. B. 628. (Defendant sent his carriage to be repaired by plaintiff. The plaintiff lent a carriage to defendant to use while the repairs were proceeding. Defendant's coachman, without defendant's knowledge, took the plaintiff's carriage out for his own purposes, and injured it by his negligent driving.)

Cheshire v. Bailey, [1905] 1 K. B. 237. (Plaintiff hired from defendant a brougham, horse and coachman to drive his traveller about with samples of his wares. Defendant knew the traveller would leave the brougham sometimes, with the coachman in charge of the samples. The coachman, by arrangement, drove to meet thieves, who stole the samples.)

Ruben v. Great Fingall Consolidated, &c., [1906] A. C. 439. (See p. 235, supra.)

LIABILITY.

horse, and coachman to plaintiff to drive plaintiff's commercial traveller. The coachman left the brougham unguarded in traveller's absence, and the goods in the brougham were stolen.)

SCOTCH CASES.

Baird v. Graham (1852), 14 D. 615. (A master sent his servant with glandered horse to a fair at such a distance that the servant was obliged to put up for the night; action by owner of stable for loss of horses and cattle which defendant's horse had infected with glanders.)

Faulds v. Townsend (1861), 23 D. 437; 33 Jur. 224. (A manufacturing chemist, whose business consisted partly in boiling down the carcases of horses for manure, liable in the full value of a stolen horse, which had been purchased by his servant and used for the above purpose.

Gregory v. Hill (1869), 8 R. 282. (Defendant employed foreman and masons to build a house, and paid them wages; he also entered into a contract with a carpenter for carpenter's work; held that the defendant was liable for injuries to carpenter by the negligence of the masons.)

NO LIABILITY.

SCOTCH CASES.

Linwood v. Hathorn (1817), 19 F. C. 327; I. S. App. 20. (The servants of defendant cut down a tree close to a public road; it fell upon and killed a man; the defendant not liable, he being at the time absent, and having given no authority to cut the tree, nor apparently any authority to cut trees in that locality.)

Waldie v. Duke of Roxburgh (1822), 1 S. 367. (R. obtained an interdict against W. from deepening part of the river Tweed; W.'s servant, in his master's absence, and against his express orders, committed a breach of the interdict; W. not responsible.)

AMERICAN CASES.

Wright v. Wilcox (1838), 19 Wend. 343. (Master not liable when a servant wilfully threw a lad off a waggon and drove over him.)

Mali v. Lord (1868), 39 N. Y. 381. (Defendant not liable for the act of his superintendent in arresting and searching the plaintiff, on a charge of stealing goods from the defendant.)

Fraser v. Freeman (1871), 43 N. Y. 566. Defendant, under claim of right, endeavoured to force his way, with the aid of his servant, into premises of plaintiff's intestate; servant shot the latter in the struggle; defendant not liable, in the absence of evidence that shot was fired with assent or by direction of defendant.)