~iO COLLlStON OX RAILWAY. 



The horsc-hox was propelled against certain trucks, and the horse 

 was so seriously damaged that he died. At the trial, the jury found 

 that the accident was caused by the gross negligence of the defendants, 

 and returned a verdict for the plaintilf with £87 damages. A rule Jiisi 

 to arrest the judgment was made absolute, Ftatt i>. diss. During the 

 argument, tlie Court was informed that the Common Pleas had held the 

 declaration in Austin's case insullicient. After verdict, Par/ce B. said ; 

 '• I am of opinion that by entering into this contract, with reference to 

 the subject-matter, the owner has taken upon himself all risk of con- 

 veyance, and that the railway company are bound merely to find car- 

 riages and propelling power. The contract appears to me to amount 

 to this : The company say tliey will not be responsible for any injury 

 or damage, Jtonr/'er caused, occurring to live stock of any description 

 travelling upon their railway. This, then, is a contract, by virtue of 

 wliich the plaintilf is the party to stand all risk of accident and injury 

 of conveyance ; and certainly when we look at the nature of the thing 

 conveyed, there is nothing unreasonable in this arrangement. In the 

 case just decided by the Common Pleas, the language of the contract 

 was slightly different from the present. There the ticket was issued, 

 'subject to the plaintiffs undertaking to bear all the risk of injury by 

 conveyance and other contingencies ; and the plaintiff was required to 

 see to the efficiency of the carriages, and the defendants were not to be 

 responsible for any damage caused to horses,' &c., travelling upon the 

 railway. In that case the accident was occasioned by the wheels not 

 being properly greased : in the present case, the carriage that contained 

 the plaintiflfs horse was driven against another carriage. For the pur- 

 poses of this decision, the two notices may be considered as in effect 

 the same. It is not for us to fritter away the true sense and meaning 

 of these contracts, merely with a view to make men careful. If any 

 inconvenience should arise from their being entered into, that is not a 

 matter for our interference, but it nuist be left to the legislature, who 

 may, if they ])leaBe, put a stop to this mode whicli tlie carriers have 

 adojjted of limiting their liability. We are bound to construe the words 

 used according to their proper meaning, and according to the true 

 meaning and intention of the parties, as here expressed. I am of 

 opinion that the defendants are not liable." 



The Great Northern Raihraij Company (appellants) v. Morvitle (re- 

 spondent) was decided -within a few days of the above two cases. The 

 plaintiff in it, who was a veterinary surgeon and horse-dealer at Wake- 

 field, had been to Homcastle fair, and on the 14th of August, 1851, 

 brought a horse he had purchased to the Kirkstead station of the above 

 railway, and signed a horse ticket with this indorsement : — 



