perly fed by the borrower, and returned, therefore, in as good a condition as he was when the loan was made. I need scarcely mention, that this was a case of hiring, and not of borrowing.

The right of innkeepers is decided in Johnson v. Hill, 3 Starkie, 172, where it is held, that "an innkeeper has a lien upon a horse left with him, for the keep, unless he knows that the horse has been illegally obtained."

The exception in this case clearly means, that the innkeeper, though he may assert a lien on the horse, against the party who left him in his charge, and against all other parties, if he has no notice of a better title to him, cannot detain him from a third party, who has a better title, if he has received him into his stable with notice of that fact. But I infer, though doubtfully, that the innkeeper, to deprive himself of his lien, must not only have such notice, but have done some act of a fraudulent character, accessary to the illegal taking of the horse; for otherwise, he might have maintained him bonâ fide, and as the horse might have died for want of food, if he had refused to receive him, it seems, on principles of common sense, that he is entitled to detain him for his keep.

The case of livery-stable keepers stands on very different grounds. The innkeeper is compellable

by law, to take in strangers and their cattle for reasonable compensation; as, therefore, he has no option to refuse the accommodation, it is equitable that he should be entitled to indemnify himself; but this obligation does not attach to livery-stable keepers; with them, it is matter of choice whether they will receive a stranger's horse; it has, therefore, been held, that a special contract is necessary, but at the same time, where that special contract has been made, it is strictly enforced. The authority on this point, is the case of Wallace v. Woodgate, in 1 Carrington and Payne, 575. "A stable keeper, by special agreement, may acquire a lien on horses for their keep; and if the owner, to defeat such lien, gets them away by fraud, the stable keeper has a right to get possession of them, and for so doing, he will not be answerable in trover; for the lien is not put an end to, by the parting with the possession under such circumstances."

It is very important, however, to observe, that there is also another essential difference between the cases of an innkeeper, and a livery-stable keeper, which affects the safety of those who entrust their horses to their care. The horses in the stable of an innkeeper, placed there for temporary accommodation by travellers, are not

liable to be seized under a distress for rent, but in the case of a livery-stable keeper, this liability attaches to them; and hence it is most material for the owner to be assured of the solvency of the liveryman. Vide Francis v. Wyatt, 3 Burr. 1498, and Rol. Abr. 668; but vide also Crosier v. Tomkinson, 2 Ld. Ken. 439, for a distinction in the case of a stable, underlet by the tenant to an innkeeper during races. I have omitted at the proper place to notice a very important precaution. In taking a warranty, strict attention should be paid to the meaning of any technical expression that may be introduced; as, for instance, a warranty that a horse is "a good hunter," would be only construed to mean, that he takes his leaps well. The warranty should be extended to "a good hunter, and fast," if speed is also required. This instance will suffice to illustrate my meaning.

Ir may be doubted whether the difficulty of buying or selling a horse is greater; but there is this essential difference, that in the latter case, the difficulty is of a man's own creation. If he informs himself fairly of its value, and asks a trifle less, there are few of the large commission stables, at which he will not find a speedy market; if he insists on selling without a loss, the expense of the keep will more than balance the chance of meeting with a liberal purchaser.

The ethics of horse-dealing are very peculiar; there is only one other case in which gentlemen appear, by a sort of conventional understanding, to be excused for leaving their honesty behind them. I have found to my cost, that no man thinks the worse of a friend, for stealing an umbrella on a rainy day, or palming off an unsound horse upon

a neighbour. This is now so perfectly understood, that I must assume that my reader, whatever may be his class, will cheat if he can; but it is my duty to inform him that he cannot go very far with impunity, and if he accepts the definition that I have given of unsoundness, namely, any infirmity or defect that incapacitates a horse for fair and reasonable exertion in the labour for which he is avowedly purchased, he will readily perceive that his power of cheating is circumscribed by very narrow limits. In fact the gentleman-dealer is in a far worse situation to practise successful fraud, than the professed chaunter. Men who can afford to keep horses for their pleasure, can also afford to pay costs! They are therefore worth the trouble of suing. Moreover, I must do "my order" (as Lord Grey has it) the justice to say, that though little averse to the amusement of jockeying a friend, when they can couple profit with a laugh at his expense, there are but few among them so far gone as to brave the opinion of the public, even in a horse-cause; or to attempt to carry the day by suborning a legion of perjured ostlers and stable-boys.

"How then am I to sell my horse?" Very paradoxical it may be; but I reply, "by simply telling the truth!" I have sold my horses with more facility and to more advantage by following