JUDGMENT

Walmsley, J. - The petitioner has been held liable for damage caused to a lamp-post by his motor car. It is found by the learned Judge that the car was taken out by a chauffeur, that the cleaner accompanied him, that the chauffeur stopped, the car when he came to an obstruction, that he left the car in charge of the cleaner while he went to a shop on business, and that while he was abseut the cleaner put the car in motion and brought it into collision with the lamp-post. The defendant's statement that the cleaner was employed only to clean the car, and had been forbidden to drive it, has been accepted.

2. It is clear that the master is not liable merely on the ground that the cleaner was his servant, for the reason that driving the car lay outside the scope of the gleaner's employment. The learned Judge does not rest his conclusion on that ground: he holds that the chauffeur was negligent in allowing to the cleaner the chance to drive the car; and in taking this view he relies on the decision in the case of Engelhart v. Farrant & Co. [1897] 1 Q. B. 24U. The rule stated in that decision is that the master is liable for the negligence of the servant if that negligence is an ef