carriers' liability restricted by booking ticket. 233 



and placed them in three horse-boxes, attended by his son. The 

 engine was thrown off the line near Birmingham, owing to a horse 

 having strayed on to it, and one of the horses was killed on the spot, 

 and the rest more or less injured. Some labourers had been working 

 at a culvert, and taken down some part of a fence, and hence the horse 

 had strayed on to the railway. There was contradictory evidence as to 

 whetlier a ticket had been delivered to the plaintiff's son at the time 

 when the horses were booked at Liverpool, bearing this notice, " This 

 ticket is issued, snhjed to the oivners undertaUng all risJcs of conveyance 

 ichatsocrer, as the company will not be responsible for any injury or 

 damages (however caused) occurring to horses or carriages travelling 

 upon The Grand Junction Line" The declaration alleged that the 

 defendants received from the plaintiff divers horses, to be safeli/ and 

 securely carried and conveyed, which allegation the defendants traversed 

 in their second plea. Two questions of fact were left to the jury: first, 

 whether the accident was occasioned by the gross negligence of the 

 defendants ; and secondly, whether the above ticket, by which the 

 company sought to limit their responsibility, ever came into the 

 possession of the plaintiff's son, or any other person acting for the 

 plaintiff. The jury found gross negligence in the defendants, and that 

 DO ticket had been given, and the plaintiff had a verdict for £150. 

 A rule nisi for a nonsuit was obtained on two grounds — first, that the 

 declaration being against the defendants as carriers, it was not sup- 

 ported by evidence which fixed them with negligence in the non-repair 

 of fences, in their character of railway projjrietor ; and secondly, that 

 fourteen days' notice had not been given to the defendants before 

 bringing this action. A rule for a new trial was also obtained on the 

 ground of misdirection on the part of the learned judge {Tindal C.J.), in 

 leaving it to the jury to consider whether the ticket ever came into the 

 iwssession of the plaintiff's agent, instead of leaving to them whether 

 it was not read over, or its contents communicated to him. It was 

 held that the company were not entitled to fourteen days' notice of the 

 action, under section 214 of their act, 3 Will. IV. c. 34 (local and 

 personal), as the action was not brought against them for the omission 

 of some duty imposed upon them by the act ; and that not having 

 restricted their liability by any special contract (of which it was to be 

 assumed that there was no evidence in the present case), they were 

 subject to the liabilities of carriers at common law. At the trial, there 

 was contradictory evidence as to whether a ticket, by which the com- 

 pany sought to limit its liability, had been delivered to the son of the 

 plaintiff (who denied that it had) ; and the learned judge left it to the 

 jury to say whether it was delivered to him or not. It was held that 



