UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF IIAILWAYS. 2o9 



the plaintiffs to a verdict was upon the record. The jury found that 

 the servants of the Company had not exercised due care ; and they 

 accordingly returned a verdict for the plaintiff, but the rule for arrest- 

 ing the judgment was made absolute. Cressivdl J. in delivering the 

 judgment said: "The declaration appears to have been drawn with the 

 greatest care, to avoid the objection upon which the decisions in Shaw v. 

 The York and North Midland Railway Companij and this case pro- 

 ceeded, and to lead to the supposition that there was some duty cast 

 upon the defendants beyond that which arose out of the special con- 

 tract made between them and the plaintiffs. But after all the allega- 

 tions as to the usual and known course of business practised and olj- 

 served by the defendants, the plaintiffs find themselves obliged to aver 

 that their horses were delivered to the defendants to be carried accord- 

 ing to the usual and well-known course of business so practised and 

 observed, cxccj)! so far as the same was altered or qualified by certain 

 terms expressed in a note or ticket then by the defendants prepared 

 and produced to the plaintiffs." "The question still turns on the 

 contract, which in express terms exempts the Company from responsi- 

 liility for damages, however caused, to horses, &c. In the largest sense, 

 those words might exonerate the Company from responsibility even for 

 damage done wilfully, a sense in which it was not contended that they 

 were used in this contract. But giving them the most limited meaning, 

 they must apply to all risks of whatever kind, and however arising, to 

 be encountered in the course of the journey ; one of which undoubtedly 

 is the risk of a wheel taking fire, owing to neglect to grease it. 

 Whether that is called negligence merely, or gross negligence, or culpable 

 negligence, or whatever other epithet may be applied to it, we think it 

 is within the exemption from responsibility provided by the contract ; 

 and that, such exemption appearing on the face of the declaration, no 

 cause of action is disclosed, and that judgment must be arrested." 



This decision in favour of ihe raihvaijs tvas referred to and confirmed 

 on the day of its delivery by the Exchequer in Carr v. The Lancashire 

 and Yorkshire Railway Company, and thus the three Courts were 

 unanimous. The facts of the latter case were as follows : The plaintiff 

 delivered to the defendants a horse to be carried from Wakefield to 

 Knottingley, subject to the following conditions at the foot of a certain 

 ticket — • 



" This ticket is issued suhject to the owner's undertaking all risks of 

 conveyance tvhatsoever, as the Company will not le responsible for any 

 injury or damage {hoivsoever caused) occurring to live stock of any de- 

 scription travelling upon the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, or in 

 their vehicles." 



