244 COURT TO DECIDE WHAT IS JUST AND TREASONABLE. 



CampheU C.J. and Crompton J. considered that "condition" (when 

 assented to) and " special contract " meant in fact the same thing, and 

 that nnder the statute the assent to the condition must be in writing, 

 else the " special contract " constituted by the condition, and the assent 

 thereto, is void. Erie J., on the other hand, thought that "conditions" 

 are diflPerent from "special contracts," and that the railway company 

 may still protect themselves by such "conditions" as the Court may 

 think reasonable; while "special contracts"— direct express bargains 

 between the parties — were alone required to be signed by the parties 

 thereto. According to the majority of the Court {Coleridge J. also gave 

 judgment) both "condition" and "special contract" are void, unless 

 they fulfil the two requisites, first of being such as find approval in the 

 sight of the Court or the judge, and secondly of being signed. Ac- 

 cording to Eric J., "a condition" is sufficient to protect the company if 

 it be reasonable in the opinion of the judge ; and " special contract," 

 whether reasonable or not, or whether thought so or not by the judge, 

 binds the parties if they have signed it. 



Among the cases tried since the act were Wise v. The Great Western 

 Railway Comimn]], and Pardington v. The South Wales Railicag Com- 

 2mny. The circumstances of both these cases were peculiai-, as in the 

 former there was not only carelessness on the part of the sender, lut the 

 railway officials hcul shunted a horse-hox to a siding out of the way all 

 night, ivithout even observing that there teas a horse inside; and in the 

 latter the drover, ivho went free with the cattle, did not look at them in the 

 course of the journeg. 



In Wise V. Tlie Great Western Railway Company, the horse had been 

 hired from the plaintiff, a job-master residing at Eton, by one Johnson, 

 who sent it fi-om the Newbury station on Saturday, the 31st of March, 

 directed to the plaintiff at Eton. The directions were written on labels, 

 and tied one to the bridle, the other to the saddle. It started by the 

 train from Newbury at 40 minutes past 2, and should have been de- 

 livered at the plaintiff's stables at Eton at 5 o'clock the same afternoon. 

 It did not arrive, and the plaintiff had no information whatever as to its 

 having been sent until the next morning, when Johnson wrote him by 

 post, thus — 



"Emborne, March 31. 

 "Mr. Wise, — I wrote a letter, intending to send it with the horse, 

 but forgot to take it down to the station. We send you back the horse 

 to-day, instead of Monday : so in case you require him he will be all 

 ready for hunting on Monday, &c. " W. S. Johnson." 



On reading this letter, the plaintiff made inquiries respecting the horse 



