15a COMPANIES BOUND TO LEAVE GATES SHUT. 



lu Fohcrh V. 77ie Greed Western BaiJwedj Company the question was 

 whether a company were bound to fence off one part of their j^remises 

 from another. The declaration stated that the defendants were pos- 

 sessed of a railway and station, and yard adjoining, through which 

 cattle carried by the railway to the station were obliged to pass in 

 going from the station to a highway, and that by reason of the premises 

 the defendants were bound to maintain <70or? and sufftcient fences hetaren 

 the railwai/ and the yard, so as to prevent cattle lawfully in the yard 

 from straying on the railway, with a breach that they did not maintain 

 such fences, whereby the plaintiff's bull was killed, was held by the 

 Court of Common Pleas to be insufficient, as there was no such liability 

 to fence as alleged. And })er Croivder J. : " I see no ground at all for 

 holding the defendants liable, for there has been no argument, nor 

 reference to any case, to show that there was any legal liability to 

 maintain a good and sufficient fence between the railway and the yard. 

 This is a case of not taking proper means to prevent the cattle from 

 straying, and if there were such a duty an action would lie. But the 

 declaration rests on this, that the defendants were bound to maintain 

 fences, and they clearly were not ; and as the loss is said to arise from 

 that want of fences, the defendants are not liable." And per Willes J. : 

 " It is c[uite consistent w'ith the declaration that the animal was 

 allowed to remain in the yard till it suited the owner to take it on, and 

 that it was not in the charge of the company at all. It may be a 

 question whether in respect of carrying on a dangerous trade the defen- 

 dants would be liable, but I say nothing as to that." 



Necjlect of i)laintiff to fasten gate oi)ening on to railway. — Fawcett y. 

 York and North Midland Railway ComjKiny (16 Q. B. 610), was cited 

 in Haifjh v. London and North Western Railway ComjKiny, where 

 pony strayed on to line and was killed. The evidence was that 

 plaintiff's practice was to fasten gates by a catch by day, and a lock by 

 night only, and that defendants knew it. The gate might have been 

 blown open by the wind. The Court of Queen's Bench thought that 

 the plaintiff had the means of making the gate secure, and had not 

 used them, and confirmed the defendants' verdict. 



Company hound to leave gate shift where tramway adjoins railivay. — 

 In Marfell v. South Wales Railway Comjiani/, the defendants' railway 

 ran for some distance parallel to a tramway, being separated from it by 

 a fence, also their property, down to a point whore the tramway crossed 

 the railway. At this point the defendants had placed gates which could 

 be shut, so as to separate the tramway from the railway, but which by 

 plaintiff's evidence never were shut. The plaintiff was licensed by 

 defendants, on payment of a certain toll, to use the tramway with 



