REASONABLE PROVISIONS FOR SAFETY OF CATTLE. 247 



a, verdict to be entered for the defendants, giving leave to the plaintiff 

 to move to enter a verdict for £135, if the Court thought the conditions 

 were unreasonable. 



The Court refused a rule, and considered that the driver had the 

 means of knowing whether the cattle could travel safely in the carriage 

 provided for them. He had no right to acquiesce in what was done, 

 and take no trouble to look after the cattle on the journey, and then 

 throw the responsibility on the company. And ^per Bramivell B. ; "I 

 think the question of reasonableness does not arise ; and that the 

 meaning of the Act 17 & 18 Vid. c, 31, s. 7, is that companies shall 

 be liable for injuries to any cattle occasioned by the neglect or default 

 of the company or its servants, notwithstanding any notice, condition, 

 or declaration limiting such liability, but that in each case particular 

 bargains may be made. It has been suggested that a railway company 

 might have made any conditions with respect to the carriage of cattle, 

 because they are not compelled to carry them. Assuming that the 

 question of reasonableness does arise, the stipulations in the present 

 case appear to me to be reasonable. The company say they do not 

 choose to be liable for accidents occasioned by the negligence of per- 

 sons who have the care of cattle ; and as in the nature of things such 

 accidents are likely to occur, they will not undertake the risk, but allow 

 the owners' servants to travel free in charge of the cattle. If the sender 

 is dissatisfied he should object, or pay something additional for the 

 extra risk." Ilartui B. : "I am of the same opinion. I am well 

 aware that the case put by the plaintiff's counsel seems hard — that 

 where there has been neghgence, a person injured by it should not 

 recover. But it is necessary to companies that they should have power 

 to make reasonable provisions for their own protection ; and it seems 

 to me especially reasonable that when animals are sent by railway such 

 provisions should be made. If any servant of the company had done 

 the act which caused this mischief, he would have been responsible. 

 Here, however, it was apparently a mere accident ; besides, there was 

 a written contract for the conveyance of these cattle, duly signed as pro- 

 vided by the act. People who make such contracts are bound by them." 



The last case of this kind was M'3Ianus v. The Lancashire and 

 Yorlcshire Railway Comj)anii, which was an action to recover damages for 

 injuries to three horses, which were delivered to the defendants to be 

 conveyed from Liverpool to York by their railway. The parties agreed 

 upon a written statement of facts, upon which the Court of Exchequer 

 was to give their judgment. It was in substance as follows : The horses 

 were delivered to be forwarded by a cattle truck from Liverpool to York 

 for reward ; and the defendants' servant provided a truck which, to all 



