'^0:1 NEGLIGENCE OF OWNERS OF FERRY. 



possibly <nflbct any other persons tliau those who frequent that phice, 

 and are familiar -nith that usage, it A^•ould not bind the plaintiffs, Avho 

 "were not shown to be persons answering that description. LittMalc J., 

 however, intimated that he had some doubt whether he should have 

 agreed with the rest of the Court, in Lawrence v. Ahcrdcin, on the 

 construction of the word " mortalif//." 



WiUouffMnj and olhcrs (appellants) y, Horrhlgc (respondent), was a 

 case of very r/ross negJiyence on the j'art of the lessees of a ferry, who 

 provided steam-boats for the conveyance of caftle, passengers, and 

 goods from Liverpool to Birkenhead, and also slips for landing. The 

 plaintiff rode his mare to the liirkeuhead ferry, paid I*-., led her on 

 board himself, and remained with her till they were alongside the 

 floating-stage at Liverpool, when he led her off it along the slip, which 

 had nothing broken in its appearance to attract attention. The com- 

 pany were held liable for the full value of the mare, who sustained a 

 f\ital injury, in consequence of such landing-slip (of the dangerous 

 state of which they had been forewarned) giving way, although she was 

 at the time under the control and management of her owner ; and the 

 ruling of the County Court judge, that to permit a using of the slip 

 after two accidents, one of them that very morning, was so careless and 

 culpable an act, as to make the defendants responsible for the con- 

 sequences, was confirmed. One of the hand-rails of the slip had been 

 broken in the centre, where a sharp-pointed upright supporter of iron 

 entered it, by a horse a fortnight before ; but the rail had been merely 

 tied by a piece of cord, and used as usual. On the very morning be- 

 fore, another horse had fallen against it and broken it ; but in spite of 

 a distinct caution from the policeman on duty, it was put together 

 again, and the plaintiff's mare pressing against the spliced rail, it 

 parted, and the iron upright pierced her so severely, that she had to be 

 destroyed. 



The 8Gth section of the Raihraij Chtuses Consolidation Act, stat. 8 & 9 

 Virt. c. 20, is permissive only, and a railway company who under it 

 elects to carry goods is subject to no greater liability than attaches to 

 carriers at common law ; and therefore such a company is not bound 

 to carry every description of goods, and between all places on their 

 line, but only such goods, and to and from such places as they have 

 publicly professed to do and have convenience for that purpose {John- 

 son v, 77/e Midtand Raitaxiij Company). The first of a long line of 

 cases in which railvays mdeavovred to restrict their common law liahility 

 as carriers, by the special terms of their looh'ny tickets, was that of 

 Palmer v. Grand Junction Railway Company. Here the plaintiff', who 

 was a horse-dealer at Northampton, booked nine horses at Liverpool, 



