248 INJUIIY TO HORSES THROUGH DEFECTIVE TRUCK. 



external appcnrauce, and so far as they knew, was sufficient for the 

 purpose. The plaintiff signed a ticket, which contained the following 

 memorandum : 



" 71iis iiclcet is' issued suhjecf lo the oicnefs iindcrtahing all risirs of 

 conveyance, loading and unloading wMisoever, as the comjmng ivill not he 

 responsible for any injury or damage {hoivsoever caused) occurring to live 

 Steele of any description travelling upon the Lancashire and YorJcshire 

 Railway, or in their vehicles" 



M'Manus, the owner, or some one on his behalf, agreed to the above 

 terms ; and the truck provided proved (as the fact was) to be insuf- 

 ficient for the safe carriage of the horses, and a hole was made in the 

 bottom of it, on the journey, by which the horses were injured. Two- 

 pence a mile was charged, being the regular charge for conveyance in 

 open trucks, under tickets in the above form, from the cattle station ; 

 whereas 4d, per mile was the charge for horses forwarded from the 

 passenger station, in horse-boxes under similar tickets. 



The judgment of the Court was thus delivered by Martin B. : " We 

 arc of opinion that the cases cited in the argument decided, and must 

 govern, the present case. In Simons v. The Great Western Railway 

 Company, the Court of Common Pleas held that the 15th clause of 

 the notice of the Great Western Railway Company, viz., that ' goods 

 conveyed at special or mileage rate must be loaded and unloaded by 

 the owners or their agents ; and the company will not be responsible 

 for any risk of stowage, loss or damage, however caused, nor for dis- 

 crepancy in the delivery, as to either quantity, number, or weight, 

 nor for the condition of articles so carried, nor for detention or de- 

 lay in the conveying or delivery of them, however caused,' was reason- 

 able within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7. In Pardington v. The South 

 Wales Raihvay Company, the Court held that a memorandum relating 

 to live animals, that ' the company are to be held free from all risk 

 or responsibility, in respect of any loss or damage arising on the 

 loading or unloading, from suffocation or from being trampled upon, 

 bruised or otherwise injured in transit, from fire, or from any other 

 cause whatsoever,' was reasonable. It seems to us that those notices 

 are not more extensive than the one now in question, and that our 

 judgment must be, that the notice is reasonable. Then if that should 

 be so, tlie case of Chippendale v. The Lancashire Railway Company 

 further furnishes a direct authority that it extends to defects in the 

 trucks, and in that case the notice was the same as the present. The 

 jury had found that the truck was unfit and unsafe for the conveyance 

 of cattle, and that the damage was consequent upon it. Coleridge and 



