Action for injury to horse and cart by hirer. What is a bailment. Liability of a hirer of chattels, Of a bor rower of chattels. Bailments (a). Action for Misusing a Horse and Dog-cart hired by the Defendant. 1. On the 19th September, 1875, the defendant, who resides at M., in the county of C., hired from the plaintiff, who is a cab (a) A bailment is constituted by the delivery or transfer of a chattel from one person to another, in order that something may be done with it, either for the benefit of the owner or of the party who receives it as the temporary possessor, or for the mutual benefit of both of them, and the word is applied to contracts for the letting and hiring of chattels, as well as to contracts for the delivery of them to persons for safe custody, or to workmen to be worked upon or dealt with in the course of their employment. Liability of hirer of chattels.]—The hirer of a chattel is bound to use it in a proper and reasonable manner, to take the same care of it that a prudent and cautious man ordinarily takes of his own property, and to return it to the bailor at the time appointed for its return, or within a reasonable period after request, if no such time has been fixed, in as good condition as it was at the commencement of the bailment, subject only to the deterioration produced by ordinary wear and tear and reasonable use, and by injuries caused by accidents which have happened without any default or neglect on the part of the hirer. If the chattel is secretly stolen, the hirer is liable, unless he proves that he took such precautions for its safety as a prudent man ordinarily takes. In case of robbery, the hirer must show that it was taken by force. If the chattel is destroyed by fire or perishes, the hirer is not liable if he has not been guilty of neglect or want of due care. (Taylor v. Caldwell, 32 L. J. Q. B. 164.) A hirer of a ship for a particular voyage will not be liable for her loss in a storm unless he has deviated from the ordinary course, and needlessly encountered risks not contemplated by the owner at the time of the hiring. Whenever a chattel bailed to a hirer has sustained a partial injury through an inherent defect in the article itself, or by reason of some inevitable accident, which threatens its total and immediate destruction, and the effects of such partial injury may be obviated, and the chattel preserved for future use by repairs promptly provided, there is an implied authority from the owner to the hirer to order the necessary repairs, and incur the necessary expense. (See Addison, Contr., 7th ed. 619, 620.) Liability of gratuitous borrower of chattels.]-There are two kinds of gratuitous loan of chattels, viz., the mutuum or loan of things which are consumed in the use, or the use of which puts it out of the borrower's possession, such as wine or corn, and the commodatum or loan of a chattel which is not destroyed by the use, such as a horse or carriage. In the former case the liability is to return an equivalent in value or quality. In the latter, viz., the commodatum, the borrower is bound to return the chattel in as good a condition as when it was borrowed, subject only to the deterioration resulting from inherent defects or produced by ordinary wear and tear, and the reasonable use of it for the purpose for which it was known to be required. But the borrower is bound to the strictest care and diligence to keep the goods so as to restore them back again to the lender, and if guilty of the least neglect, will be liable for injury or loss. (Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Sm. L. C. 188, 6th ed.) He is bound to that degree of care and diligence which the most prudent man exercises with regard to his own property, But he cannot be made liable for inevitable accidents or casualties he could not have foreseen, and which no human prudence cart. proprietor at M., and licensed to let horses and vehicles for hire, Misusing a a mare and dog-cart, for the purpose of carrying himself and horse and one other person from M. to C. and back; and it was expressly agreed that the defendant and one other person only should be carried on any part of the journey in the said dog-cart, and that the mare should be driven from M. to C. and back, and not elsewhere. 2. The defendant, in violation of the aforesaid conditions carried, on the return journey, three other persons besides himself in the dog-cart, and also drove the mare a greater distance than from M. to C. and back, namely to B., which is four miles beyond C., and then back to M. could have guarded against. If a horse is put into his stable by the borrower and is stolen therefrom, the borrower is not liable, unless he or his servant has left the door of the stable open. (Coggs v. Barnard, 2 Ld. Raym. 916; Doctor and Student, Dialogue 2, ch. 38.) If a person use a thing lent to him for another purpose than he stated to the lender when borrowing it, then he will be liable for an injury or accident to it while so used, even without the least neglect. If a horse is lent for an ordinary journey, if the borrower travel by bye-ways dangerous to the horse's footing, he is liable in the event of accident (ib.); but if a horse is lent to a person to ride it at a hunt, the borrower is not liable for an accident to it while being ridden at the hunt after the usual fashion, as the risks must have been in the contemplation of the lender. (Williams v. Jones, 33 L. J. Ex. 297.) Liability of pawnbroker.]—If the chattels pawned be such as will be deteriorated by wear, the pawnee may not wear them; but if not such as are damaged by wearing, as jewellery, the pawnee may wear them subject to liability, if they are stolen or robbed from his or her person, whereas he would not be liable if stolen from the proper place for depositing such things for safe custody. The pawnee is bound to use ordinary diligence (the media diligentia of the Roman law); and if he uses such diligence he is not liable in the event of loss or injury, and may claim the amount of the advance from the pawner. (Donald v. Suckling, L. R. 1 Q. B. 585.) If, however, the principal and interest are tendered to the pawnbroker and he does not deliver them, he then becomes absolutely liable in the event of loss or injury, apart from any question of negligence, as he became a wrongdoer by detaining them. (Maughan v. Sharpe, 34 L. J. C. P. 19.) Liability of a pawn broker. Liability of gratuitous mandatory.]-The mandatory is liable for Of a gradamage caused by his neglect, after he has undertaken to do something tuitous to goods and entered on the doing of it. (See Coggs v. Bernard, 1 Sm. mandatory. L. C. 6th ed. 188.) But he is not responsible for neglecting to do what he has merely undertaken to do. (lb.) Liability of paid mandatory.]—Paid mandatories are divided into two of a paid classes, viz., 1. Those exercising a public employment in virtue of which mandatory. they receive the chattel, such as common carriers, hoymen, &c., as to whom the law is that they are liable at all events, being insurers. (See post, 254.) 2. Private persons to whom the thing is delivered to have it carried or something else done with it. These mandatories are bound to use the best diligence they can, and are not liable should the chattel be stolen, lost, or injured notwithstanding. Misusing a horse and cart. Action for injury to furniture by lodger. Defence and counter-claim. 3. The defendant also, instead of using due care and diligence in driving the said mare at a reasonable pace, as it was his duty to do, drove her furiously, carelessly, and negligently, and beat her and otherwise ill-treated her, and likewise caused great damage to be done to the dog-cart. 4. The injuries to the mare and dog-cart by reason of the negligence, misuser, and improper conduct of the defendant on the said 19th September, were so great that the plaintiff was obliged to have the mare destroyed on the 18th October, 1875, and incurred great expense in and about repairing the dog-cart. The plaintiff claims £300. Injury to Goods in Furnished Apartments by Lodger. Street, B. 2. On the 10th of May, 1876, the plaintiff let to the defendant, and the defendant hired from the plaintiff, a suite of three furnished rooms, at Street, B., aforesaid, at a weekly rent of 30s. 3. On the 15th of May, 1876, the defendant entered into the occupation of the said furnished rooms, and continued in the occupancy of the same until the 10th of November, 1876. 4. During his occupancy of the said rooms the defendant broke and destroyed several valuable articles of furniture in the same, and greatly injured and damaged other articles. Particulars have been delivered to the defendant of the destruction and damage committed by him. 5. When the defendant left, on the 10th of November, 1876, two weeks' rent was due and in arrears, and the defendant has not since paid the same. The plaintiff claims: (1.) £50 damages. (2.) £3 arrears of rent. Statement of Defence and Counter-claim. 1. The defendant denies the 4th paragraph of the statement of claim. 2. As to the 5th paragraph of the statement of claim, the defendant denies that when he left, on the 10th of November, 1876, two weeks' rent was due and in arrear as alleged. He Injury to admits that one week's rent was due at the time. And by way of set-off and counter-claim, the defendant lodgings. says: 1. That it was a term of the agreement by which the defendant hired the furnished rooms mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the statement of claim, that he should receive a fortnight's notice from the plaintiff before he should be required to give up possession of the same. 2. The plaintiff did not give him a fortnight's notice, but on the 10th of November, 1876, refused to give him admittance into the said furnished rooms, and the defendant was thereby put to great inconvenience and expense in procuring other suitable apartments. 3. On the said 10th of November, 1876, there were in the said furnished rooms at Street, B., two boxes containing wearing apparel and other articles, a number of valuable books, and a case of surgical instruments, all the property of the defendant. 4. The plaintiff detains the said boxes and books and the said case of instruments, and though possession has been demanded by the defendant, she refuses to give up the same. The defendant claims : (1.) £50 damages for the grievance mentioned in the 2nd paragraph of the counter-claim. (2.) A return of the goods mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the counter-claim, and damages for their detention. Reply. goods in furnished Counter claim. 1. The plaintiff joins issue on the defendant's statement of Reply. defence, except in so far as it admits the statement of claim. 2. As to the 1st paragraph of the counter-claim, the plaintiff says that on the 3rd of November, 1876, she gave the defendant due notice to leave the said furnished rooms at the end of a fortnight, whereupon the defendant expressed his readiness to go at a week's notice; and it was then agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, and before breach of the agreement mentioned in the 1st paragraph of the counter-claim, that the defendant's tenancy of the said furnished rooms should determine on the 10th of November next ensuing. Injury to goods in furnished lodgings. Negligent keeping of goods by a bailee. Another claim for negligent 3. The plaintiff does not admit the 2nd paragraph of the counter-claim. 4. As to the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the counter-claim, the plaintiff says that she has a lien upon the articles mentioned in those paragraphs in respect of two weeks' arrears of rent due by the defendant, and that she claims to hold the same until the defendant satisfies and pays such rent. Rejoinder. The defendant joins issue on the plaintiff's reply. Negligent keeping of Goods delivered into Custody of a 1. The plaintiff is, &c. 2. The defendants are the proprietors of a furniture repository, situate in Sloane Square, in the county of Middlesex. 3. On the of, 1877, the plaintiff deposited at the defendant's repository certain household furniture and effects, to be safely kept and taken care of by him in the said repository, on the terms of £2 10s. per month, as the remuneration to be paid to the defendant for the use of his said repository, and for such safe keeping and care. 4. All conditions were performed, and things happened and times elapsed, to entitle the plaintiff to a performance by the defendant of the said agreement. 5. The defendant did not keep the said furniture and effects with due and sufficient care; but allowed certain dangerous and inflammable materials to lie in the same room in which the said furniture was stored without taking adequate precaution against accident by fire. 6. In consequence of the defendant's default mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the said goods were burnt and destroyed, and were wholly lost to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims £1000 damages. Negligence of Bailees in not taking proper Care of Wine in their Warehouse. 1. The plaintiffs lodged with the G. & S. Wharves Co., Limited, to be warehoused in their bonded warehouses, a |