In charge to the Jury, the Court laid it down as law, that a servant is not accountable for an injury done to his master’s beast through his mishap, if he is engaged in performing any of the duties for which he was hired, and the animal is commonly used in such services, and the servant has exercised all the discretion in its use which common prudence requires, although he can show no especial order by the master to use the particular animal on such occasion.

Verdict for defendant.