* * * * *
If a sound body and a sound mind, which is as much as to say health
and virtue, are to be preferred before all other
considerations,--Ought not men, in choosing of a business either for
themselves or children, to refuse such as are unwholesome for the
body, and such as make a man too dependant, too much obliged to please
others, and too much subjected to their humors in order to be
recommended and get a livelihood.
* * * * *
I am about courting a girl I have had but little acquaintance with;
how shall I come to a knowledge of her faults, and whether she has the
virtues I imagine she has?
_Answer_. Commend her among her female acquaintance.
* * * * *
To the Printer of the Gazette.
According to the request of your correspondent T. P., I send you my
thoughts on the following case by him proposed, viz:
A man bargains for the keeping of his horse six months, whilst he is
making a voyage to Barbadoes. The horse strays or is stolen soon after
the keeper has him in possession. When the owner demands the value of
his horse in money, may not the other as justly demand so much
deducted as the keeping of the horse six months amounts to?
It does not appear that they had any dispute about the value of the
horse, whence we may conclude there was no reason for such dispute,
but it was well known how much he cost, and that he could not honestly
have been sold again for more. But the value of the horse is not
expressed in the case, nor the sum agreed for keeping him six months;
wherefore in order to our more clear apprehension of the thing, let
_ten pounds_ represent the horse's value and three pounds the sum
agreed for his keeping.
Now the sole foundation on which the keeper can found his demand of a
deduction for keeping a horse he did not keep, is this. _Your horse,_
he may say, _which I was to restore to you at the end of six months
was worth ten founds; if I now give you ten pounds it is an equivalent
for your horse, and equal to returning the horse itself. Had I
returned your horse (value 10_l._) you would have paid me three pounds
for his keeping, and therefore would have received in fact but seven
pounds clear. You then suffer no injury if I now pay you seven pounds,
and consequently you ought in reason to allow me the remaining three
pounds according to our agreement._
But the owner of the horse may possibly insist upon being paid the
whole sum of ten pounds, without allowing any deduction for his
keeping after he was lost, and that for these reasons.
1. It is always supposed, unless an express agreement be made to the
contrary, when horses are put out to keep, that the keeper is at the
risque of them (unavoidable accidents only excepted, wherein no care
of the keeper can be supposed sufficient to preserve them, such as
their being slain by lightning or the like.) _This you yourself
tacitly allow when you offer to restore me the value of my horse._
Were it otherwise, people having no security against a keeper's
neglect or mismanagement would never put horses out to keep.
2. Keepers considering the risque they run, always demand such a price
for keeping horses, that if they were to follow the business twenty
years, they may have a living profit, though they now and then pay for
a horse they have lost; and if they were to be at no risque they might
afford to keep horses for less than they usually have. So that what a
man pays for his horse's keeping, more than the keeper could afford to
take if he ran no risque, is in the nature of a premium for the
insurance of his horse. _If I then pay you for the few days you kept
my horse, you should restore me his full value._
3. You acknowledge that my horse eat of your hay and oats but a few
days. It is unjust then to charge me for all the hay and oats that he
only might have eat in the remainder of the six months, and which you
have now still good in your stable. If, as the proverb says, it is
unreasonable to expect a horse should void oats who never eat any, it
is certainly as unreasonable to expect payment for those oats.
4. If men in such cases as this are to be paid for keeping horses when
they were not kept, then they have a great opportunity of wronging the
owners of horses. For by privately selling my horse for his value (ten
pounds) soon after you had him in possession, and returning me at the
expiration of the time only seven pounds, demanding three pounds as a
deduction agreed for his keeping, you get that 3_l._ clear into your
pocket, besides the use of my money six months for nothing.
5. But you say, the value of my horse being ten pounds, if you deduct
three for his keeping and return me seven, it is all I would in fact
have received had you returned my horse; therefore as I am no loser I
ought to be satisfied: this argument, were there any weight in it,
might serve to justify a man in selling as above, as many of the
horses he takes to keep as he conveniently can, putting clear into his
own pocket that charge their owner must have been at for their
keeping, for this being no loss to the owners, he may say, _where no
man is a loser why should not I be a gainer_. I need only answer to
this, that I allow the horse cost me but ten pounds, nor could I have
sold him for more, had I been disposed to part with him, but this can
be no reason why you should buy him of me at that price, whether I
will sell him or not. For it is plain I valued him at thirteen pounds,
otherwise I should not have paid ten pounds for him and agreed to give
you three pounds more for his keeping, till I had occasion to use him.
Thus, though you pay me the whole ten pounds which he cost me,
(deducting only for his keeping those few days) I am still a loser; I
lose the charge of those {352} days' keeping; I lose the three pounds
at which I valued him above what he cost me, and I lose the advantage
I might have made of my money in six months, either by the interest or
by joining it to my stock in trade in my voyage to Barbadoes.
6. Lastly, whenever a horse is put to keep, the agreement naturally
runs thus: The keeper says I will feed your horse six months on good
hay and oats, if at the end of that time you will pay me three pounds.
The owner says, if you will feed my horse six months on good hay and
oats, I will pay you three pounds at the end of that time. Now we may
plainly see, the keeper's performance of his part of the agreement
must be antecedent to that of the owner; and the agreement being
wholly conditional, the owner's part is not in force till the keeper
has performed his. _You then not having fed my horse six months, as
you agreed to do, there lies no obligation on me to pay for so much
feeding._
Thus we have heard what can be said on both sides. Upon the whole, I
am of opinion that no deduction should be allowed for the keeping of
the horse after the time of his straying.
I am yours, &c.
THE CASUIST.