10 Ex. 352, & 2 c. L. K. 1300; here Piatt, b., said;

" With respect to the argument of principal and agent :

If a orders b to conduct a prosecution, and both know

that the party charged is innocent, A and B are equally

to blame. The fact of B obeying A's command is not

enough to exonerate him, if he acts as the defendant Lander

here acted."

Hiiffh V. Abergavenny (Earl of) (1874), 23 W. R. 40-

here it was held that there could be no agency as between

wrongdoers ; that want of interest could not be any defence

to a charge of tort, although the tort was committed under

the direction of another ; but that the wrongdoer became

personally liable.

Cidlen V. Thomson (1862), 6 L. T. 870, & 9 Jur. N.S.

85 ; here the House of Lords held that an agent or servant

who joins with and assists his principal in the commission

of a fraud is civilly liable for the consequence : for every

one who is directly concerned in the commission of a fraud

is a principal.

Agent's Admissions Evidence against his Principal. —

1. An admission or declaration by any agent is evidence

against his principal, provided that it is either made with

his authority, or is made in the ordinary scope of his

124 TEE LAW OF AGENCY.

employment, with reference to the subject-matter of the

agency.

Peto V. Hague (1804), 5 Esp. 133 ; here it was held that

what was said by an agent respecting a contract or other

matter, in the course of his employment, which contract

or matter was the foundation of the action, was good

evidence to affect the principal : aliter, what was said by

him on another occasion.

Schumach v. Loch (1825), 10 Moore 39 ; here it was

held that declarations made by an agent or servant as to

a particular fact are only admissible as evidence against

his principal when they fall within the nature of his

employment as such agent or servant.

Standage v. Creigldon (1832), 5 C. & P. 406 ; here it

was held that where an attorney's clerk has the general

management of a cause, what he says is receivable in

evidence just the same as if it had been said by the attorney

himself

Kirhstall Brewery Company v. The Furness Railway

Company (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 468; here an action was

brought against the defendants for the loss of a parcel

containing money. The defendants pleaded the Carriers

Act, and plaintiffs replied that the parcel was lost by the

felonious act of one of the company's servants. In the

course of the trial a superintendent of police at U. gave,

after objection by the defendants, the following evidence :

" I know P., the station-master at defendants' railway

station at U. In consequence of a communication I went

to him on Saturday the 30th of July. He told me that H.,

a parcel porter, had absconded from the service ; that a

money parcel was missing, and he. P., suspected H. had

taken it ; would I (the witness) make in([uiries after him ? "