HOUSE INJURED IN COLLISION. 241 



" This ticlcet is issued suljcct to the owncfs underlaldng to hear all the 

 rlslc of injury tjy conveyance and other continyencies, and the owner is 

 required to see to the efficiency of the carriaye lefore lie atlows his horses or 

 live stock to he placed therein; the charye leiny for the use of the railway 

 carriayes and locomotive jmwer only. The com^jany will not he resjwnsihle 

 for any alleged defects in their carriayes or trucJrs, unless convplaint he 

 made at the time of hooldny or hefore the same leave the station, nor for 

 any damayes, however caused to horses, cattle, or live stocJc of any descrip- 

 tion travelling upon their railway or in their vehicles." — " / Juive examined 

 the carriayes, and am satisfied with their efficiemy and safety. 

 " (Siyned) John Morville. 



[Ou:ner, or on the owner's account.] " 



The clerk then handed to the plaintiff what he, the plaintifF, understood 

 to be a duplicate of the ticket signed by him in the book, but which 

 did not contain that part relating to the efficiency of the carriages. 

 The duplicate was not signed by the plaintiflF ; it Avas identically the 

 same as the ticket signed in the book, if that ticket had terminated 

 with the word " vehicles." WheA the train arrived at Knottingley 

 the horse-box containing the plaintiffs horse was detached from the 

 London train and shunted upon the Wakefield line by the servants of 

 the defendants, in order to be attached to another train proceeding to 

 Wakefield, and in so doing a concussion tooJc place hetween the horse- 

 hox and a truck or carriaye on the Itztier line, -which caused the injury 

 that the horse, on the arrival of the train at Wakefield, was found to 

 have sustained. The judge of the Pontefract County Court ordered the 

 verdict to be entered for the plaintiff, and assessed the damages at £21. 

 He, however, expressly found that the injury done to the horse had 

 not been caused by any misfeasance, wilful misconduct, or gross negli- 

 gence *on the part of the defendants or their servants, but w-as the 

 result of the want of due care only in shunting the horse-box at Knot- 

 tingley, as above stated. The question for the Court of Queen's Bench 

 was, whether the defendants upon the construction of such ticket were 

 protected from their liability to pay for the damage so occasioned ; and 

 Coleridge and Erie JJ., the only judges present, held they were, and 

 allowed the appeal. Erie J. said: "It is perfectly clear that the 

 defendants undertook to carry the horse upon the terms that they were 

 not to be responsible for damages that might happen to it. The con- 

 sideration for the plaintiff assenting to the agreement was, the carriage 

 of the horse by the defendants on the payment of the fare. Whether 

 the plaintiff had signed the paper, or whether the clerk had mentioned 

 the terms, or whether the latter had delivered to the plaintiff a ticket 



