-Plaintiff was in the employ of defendant, and, among other duties, had the care of several horses. On the occasion in question, as plaintiff was leading into a shed with a halter one of the horses; defendant stopped him, and undertook to apply a wash to a galled plaee on the animal’s neck. The horse wаs nervous and restless, and would not stand, so a twitch was put on him, and plaintiff held this with the halter while the wash was apрlied. • After-the twitch was removed, defendant noticed another bruised!
The case at bar is stronger in its facts tiran the one cited, for here there is evidence tending to show the claimed intervening cause was brought about by defendant’s wrongful act. But if it can be said the sixth instruсtion given by the court submitted,to the jury the question of whether defendant was negligent as a matter of fact in striking his horsе, though we must say we are not inclined to give it that construction, there is still another point to be considered.
II. In the ninth paragraph of the court’s charge, the jury were told: “It is not material or necessary for you to find whether or not the act of defendant in whipping or-striking his horse was unlawful.''5’' It was claimed on behalf of apрellant that, if defendant was engaged in the doing of an unlawful act which resulted in injury to plaintiff, such conduct would bе negligence as matter of law. There was evidence going to show that defendant was guilty of a violation of section 4969 of the Code, which imposes a penalty for cruelty to animals. “The general rule of lаw is that whoever does an illegal or wrongful act is answerable for all the consequences that ensuе in the ordinary and natural course of events.” 1 Addison, Torts, 7. In Messenger v. Pate,