HOW TO KEEP COOL.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume LVIII, Issue 8941, 16 December 1907, Page 5

HOW TO KEEP COOL.

We strongly recommend all who suffer from the heat to add a few drops of Condy's Fluid to the Daily Bath or Foot Bath. A Condy's Fluid Bath imparts a lasting sensation of Coolness, Freshness and Purity. Tired, Tender or Aching Feet are instantly relieved, and all trace of Odour and perspiration immediately disappear. Beware of dangerous substitutes. Permanganate of Potash Crystals are Poisonous as Coroners' inquests have proved. Condy's Fluid contains no Permanganate of Potash and is non-poisonous. Condy's Fluid is sold by all Chemists and Stores throughout the British Empire. See that" Condy's Fluid "is on the label. Condy's, Goswell Rd., London England.

responsibility of an insurer on innocent persons is a hard rule, though it may be a just one, and it needs to be maintained by very strong evideuoe, or on very clear grounds of policy. Now, the judgment of Fletcher v. Rylauds, carefully prepared as it evidently was, hardly seems to make such grounds ol«ar enough for universal acceptance. No case has been fouud not being closely similar in its facts, or within some previously recognised category in which the unqualified rule of liability without proof of negligence has boon enforced." The rulo iv Rylaud v. Fletcher has beou decided not to apply to damage where the immediate cause of damage is tho act of a stranger. Box v. Jubb, 4ex div 76. Now, in this case, tho immediate causo of the damage was clearly the act of a stranger. A man trespassed on the laud of defendant, drove his waggou against defendant's horse, aud, although the defendant tried hard, he was unable to preveut the horse from getting away. It was Jones who causod tho animal to oscapo, against the efforts of the defendant. Iv delivering judgmeut iv tho Court of Exchequer, iv the case of Nichols v. Marslaud, 46 L. J. Rep. Exchequer 174, Brainwoll B. said: "Suppose a strangor let tho wator loo.so, would tho defendant be liable? If so, theu if a mischievous boy bored a hole iv a cistern in auy Loudou house, and tho water did mischief to a neighbour, tho occupier of tho house would be liable. That cauuot be."

I cauuot see iv this case how the defendant, who has not been in any way negligent, cau be held respousible for tho act of Jones, over whom he had no control, aud who disregarded his order uot to come upou his property. Judgmeut for defendant. Mr P. L. Hollings for plaintiffs gave notice of appeal.