
    Hillsborough, )
    June 28, 1923.
    Louis Roulias v. George P. Crafts.
    The owner of an automobile is not liable for injuries caused by the negligence of his chauffeur while driving it on an errand of his own.
    Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. There was evidence of negligence on the part of Boisclair, the defendant’s chauffeur, at the time of the accident. It appeared that on the evening of the accident Boisclair drove the defendant and his wife to the Chateau, located about a mile south of his home, and left him there about 7.45 p.m. Defendant then ordered him to return for him at 9.30 or 9.45. The chauffeur went to defendant’s home, did some work, and started back down town about 8.30. Meeting his brother-in-law, he took him to Fellows’ box shop, about a mile south of the Chateau, and left him at the shop. His brother-in-law was not employed by Mr. Crafts, and no part of the trip to the box shop was on defendant’s business. The accident happened at the corner of Spruce and Elm streets in Manchester, as the chauffeur was returning from the box shop. The defendant excepted to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict and a bill of exceptions was allowed by Kivel, C. J.
    
      James A. Broderick, for the plaintiff.
    
      Tuttle, Wyman & Starr, for the defendant.
   Young, J.

Although the evidence shows that the plaintiff was •injured by the'negligence of the defendant’s chauffeur while driving the defendant’s car, it also shows that he was driving the car, not for the defendant, but on an errand of his own; that is, shows that he was acting for himself and not for the defendant when the accident happened; consequently the plaintiff cannot recover. Danforth v. Fisher, 75 N. H. 111; Dearborn v. Fuller, 79 N. H. 217; Wilkinson v. Company, 79 N. H. 335.

Exception sustained.

All concurred.  