IJ^S CATTLE ESCAPING ON TO llAILWAY THROUGH STATIONS. 



the dangerous nature of the trade carried on by the defendants cast 

 upon them an obligation to adopt more than ordinary precautions." 



" Bex V. Pease, however, is a distinct authority the other way. The 

 legislature has authorised the formation of the railway, and has done all 

 it thought necessary to protect the public and the adjoining land-owners, 

 by requiring the company to fence off the land adjoining the railway. 

 For these reasons, it seems to me the defendants are entitled to the 

 judgment of the Court." Williajns J. added, "The principle of the 

 common law and the authorities on this subject are placed in a very 

 clear point of view in the case of Bovasfon v. Payne. Here the plaintiff's 

 sheep, it is conceded, had escaped into an adjoining close through the 

 plaintiff's own default, and were there trespassing. The only question, 

 therefore, is whether the liability thrown upon the defendants by tlie 

 statute is limited to the common-law obligation to fence against the 

 adjoining lands, or is a general liability to fence against the whole world, 

 so as to bring this case within the principle of Fawceit v. Yorlc and 

 Korili Midland Railway Company. I am of opinion that the act of 

 parliament creates no such general duty, but only a duty as between 

 the company and the owners of the adjoining lands and those in privity 

 with them, and that a stranger as this plaintiff is cannot found an action 

 upon an alleged breach of that duty." And 2)er CressweU J. : " The 

 case of Pex v. Pease is a strong authority to show that the legislature 

 having legalised railways, they are not subject to any liability beyond 

 the ordinary common-law liability, except where the legislature had 

 thought fit to impose it. It seems to me that the duty or obligation 

 cast upon this company by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 68, for the protection 

 of the o-miers or occupiers of the adjoining lands, is co-extensive with, 

 and goes no further than the prescriptive liability of the servient tenant. 

 That being so, sheep trespassing upon a close adjoining the railway arc 

 not within the protection." 



This case was followed by the Manchester, SlieffieJd, and Lincolnshire 

 Pailivay Com])any (app.) v. Wallis (resp.), which was an appeal by the 

 Company, the defendants below, against the ruling of the Leicester 

 County Court judge in an action to recover damages for the destruction 

 of two horses belonging to them, which, owing to the alleged neyliymce 

 of Die comjKiny's servants in leaving 02mn a gate and other openings leading 

 on to their railvay, had got upon the line and been killed by a train of 

 the defendants' running against them. £35 was claimed as the value 

 of the horses, and £0 for expenses incurred in attending on them after 

 the accident. The plaintiffs, who were two farmers, residing in Torksey, 

 Lincolnshire, had two horses in a close of their occupation, through 

 which two public highways pass. At each end of the close there is a 



