A master is not liable for the wilful trespass of his servant.
This was an ¿otioN of teespass, q. c. f., tried before MaNly, J., at the Spring Term, 1857, of Halifax Superior Court.
The defendants bad, under the authority of an Act of the Assembly, proceeded to lay off a rail road from "Weldon to Gaston, and had let out the construction of the same to certain contractors who were occupied during the year 1852, in grading the road bed. While so working, the contractors above mentioned committed the trespass complained of. The President of the Seaboard and Eoanoake Eail Eoad Company, gave a general superintendence to the work, but there is no evidence that he sanctioned, or even knew of the trespasses in question.
There was a verdict taken by consent of the parties, with leave to set it aside and order a nonsuit, if his Honor, upon consideration, should be of opinion that the jilaintiff could not sustain the action.
The Court afterwards ordered a nonsuit, from which the plaintiff appealed.
No counsel appeared for the plaintiff.
B. F. Moore, for defendant.
Pearson, J.
There is no error. A master is not liable for the wilful trespass of (H servant. He is liable in an “ action on the case ” for an injury, caused by the negligence, or un-skilfulness, of a servant, while doing his business. This.is an action of trespass vi et cvrmis. “ There was no evidence that the master sanctioned, or even knew of the trespass in question.”
Pee CuéiaM. Judgment affirmed.