Respondent's donkey was found beaten, to death a short distance out-
side appellant's garden. A trail lead from the carcass back to the garden
and indicated that a heavy object had been dragged that way by two
men. Respondent alleged that, his donkey having strayed into appellant's
garden, it had been killed by appellant's servants who had then dragged
the carcass outside in an attempt to evade responsibility. Respondent
sued appellant for damages for .the killing of the donkey, as vicariously
liable for the wrongful acts of his servants. Appellant denied liability on
the grounds that (a) his servants had not killed the donkey-the trail had
been caused by the carcass of a' dead dog being dragged out of the
garden, and ( b) if his servants had killed the donkey, he himself was
not liable for that wrongful act of his servants, since they had acted with-
out his authority.

In the court of first instance judgement was given for respondenf.

Appellant appealed to the Province Governor, Sennar Province, from the
decision of the District Court. The Province Governor -forwarded the
appeal to the Advocate-General who referred it to the Chi~l Justice.

Held: ( i) There was sufficient evidence to support' a finding that
respondent's donkey had been killed inside appellant's garden, and then
dragged outside, by appellant's servants.

( ii) A master is liable for the wrongful acts of his servants" ""if they
are committed in the course of his master's business or with the intention of
furthering it."

Appeal

The facts of the case appear sufficiently from the headnote.
June 13, 1917. Wasey Sterry C. J.: (After stating that an appeal
. from a district court could be made to a judge of the High Court,

           the learned Chief Justice proceeded.)                                                           .

As regards this present case I think you should dismiss-the appeal.

It seems to me sufficiently proved that the donkey was killed in the
garden and dragged outside and there does not seem sufficient reason
for anybody who had killed it other than the defendant or his servants
having dragged it outside. To leave it where it fell was a protection
from discovery to an outsider.

The master is liable for his servant's wrongs if they are com-
mitted in the course of his master's business or with the intention of
furthering it. It seems reasonable to suppose that the do'nkey .was
beaten to drive it out of the garden intending to kill it, by the servants
to protect the master's garden.

I return your proceedings.