23-1: r.AILWAY BOOKING TICKET. 



it was no misdirectiou, in not directing- tlicm to find wliother it was 

 read over and ex2)]ained to him. 



The principle of the restriction of JidhllH;/ in the ticM forming part of 

 the contract, was A'ery fully discussed in the case of Slimv v. llie York 

 and North Midland Kailwaij Comj)any. The plaintiS" was a horse- 

 dealer, who had brought nine horses to the York station, to be con- 

 veyed by railway to Watford. Three horse-boxes were shown him, to 

 one of which he objected, on the ground that a partition separating one 

 horse-standing from another was insecure. One of the company's 

 servants endeavoured to remedy the defect, and assured the plaintiff" 

 that the partition had been secnred ; and the horses were placed in the 

 boxes. The plaintiflF then paid the fare for their conveyance, and a 

 receipt was given him for money paid on acconnt of " three horse- 

 boxes : " and at the foot of the receipt was the following memorandum : 



^'jV.B. Til is ticket is issued, sid)ject to the ownefs undertaking all ris/cs 

 of conrcgance whatsoever, as the compang ivill not he responsible for any 

 injurg or damage {Itoivever caused) occurring to horses or carriages while 

 travelling, or in loading or unloading." 



On the train arriving at Normantou, it was found that one of the 

 horses had killed itself, and that the insecurity of the above-mentioned 

 partition had led to its death. It was objected, for the defendants, 

 that tlie memorandum constituted the contract, and that the effect of it 

 was to protect the defendants from responsibility, under the circum- 

 stances, and to entitle them to a verdict on the second and third issues, 

 viz., that the defendants did not receive the horses to be safely and 

 securely carried and delivered ; and that they were carried subject 

 to a certain contract as to plaintiff undertaking the risks of conveyance. 

 Atderson B., who tried the case, thought that the special notice did not 

 exempt the defendants from the obligation to use ordinary care ; and 

 also, on the authority of Lgon v. Metis, that a contract in the terms of 

 the memorandum was subject to an implied exception of injury arising 

 from the insufficiency of the carriage provided by the defendants, and 

 directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The Court held this to be a mis- 

 direction, and made a rule for a new trial absolute. Lord Denman C.J. 

 said, in delivering the judgment of the Court, " It appears to us clear 

 that the terms contained in the ticket given to the plaintiff, at the time 

 the horses were received, formed part of the contract for the carnage 

 of the horses, Ijetween the plaintiff and the defendants, and that the 

 allegation in the declaration that the defendants received the horses to 

 he safelg and secure^g carried hg them, which would throw the risks of 

 conveyance upon the defendants, is dis})rovcd by the memorandum at 

 the foot of the ticket ; and the alleged duty of the defendants, safely 



