196 Cental'u ; 



tramcars, but no extra means of controlling him were provided. 

 There was no evidence that the defendants' car driver had 

 knowledge that the horse was a shyer. It was the duty, under 

 these circumstances, of the plaintiff's driver, when his horse 

 became restive, pranced and jumped about, to have promptly 

 signalled warning to the engine driver by some more efficient 

 means than holding up his hand ; or that he should have used 

 some more efficient means to restrain his horse than pulling the 

 reins. Upon these facts my judgment is for the defendants by 

 reason of the contributory negligence of the plain iff's servant. 

 Costs to follow. (Defendants' costs — £b 8s. ; taxed at £i Is.) 



On this subject the Midland Evening News, of January 12th, 

 1885, has the following severe comments, which we re-produce 

 without remark : — " The perils of the road to drivers of 

 spirite 1 or restive horses have always been numerous, and in 

 most cases unavoidable, but when to th^se are superadded the 

 graver perils arising from the introduction of ' steam tramcars ' 

 on the public highways of the district it may ea^i y be con- 

 ceived that the life of an own r of a vehicle is by no means 'a 

 happy one.' A case which was heard in the County Court some 

 time ago, in which a grocer sued a steam tramway company for 

 damages su-taine 1 by a collis'on between a steam tramcar and 

 tha plaintiff's horse and trap, forcibly illustrates the imminent 

 danger to life and limb which every driver of a vehicle has to 

 brave in his daily occupation. The plaintiff alleged that as he 

 was driving along the road his horse became restive at the 

 approach ot a tramcar, which he calculated was going at a speed 

 of 16 miles an hour. He signalled to the engineer to stop the 

 tram, but as the latter was stooping down at the time the signal 

 was unnoticed, and the tram, t.erefore, ran into his horse. For 

 the defence it was alleged that the car was only travelling at a 

 speed of between four and six miles an hour, and that the plaintiff 

 contributed to the accident by his inefficient control over his 

 horse. Sir Rupert Kettle said the case Avas of so much importance 

 to the travelling publ c that he should take time to consider his 

 decision. That decision has just b en given, and we anticipate 

 that vehement exception will be taken to it by the ' travelling 

 public ' If the decision had been given at the conclusion of the 

 evidence it would still have been open to objection, but it would 

 have escaped the animadversions which will be passed upon it 

 now that it has been pronounced after deliberate consideration. 

 Sir Rupert Kettle t.rst of all finds that the eng neer endeavoured 

 to bring the engine to a standstill withn the meaning of the bye- 

 law III. as soon as he became aware of impending danger ; and next 

 that he was guilty of negligence in not keeping a sufficient look 

 out to have seen that the plaintiff's horse, by its restlessness, 

 caused an impending danger, necessitating the bringing of the 

 en^^ine to a standstill. So far, then, it is clear that the en/dneer 



