ESTOPPEL BY FALSE STATEMENT OF OWKEK. 251 



Erie C.J., it is for a jury not for the judge to say, -whether the per- 

 centage charged on the extra vahie declared in respect of any animal 

 is reasonable {Harrison y. London and Brighton and iSoufh Coast liail- 

 ivay Company). 



Contract of carriage with first railway, and second not lialjle for 

 accident. — The plaintiff delivered cattle at a station of the Shrewsbury 

 and Hereford Eailway Company, to be conveyed to Birmingham, and 

 signed a contract note with that company one of the terms of which 

 was that the company would not be subject to liability for any damage 

 arising on other railways. The cattle were placed on a truck of defend- 

 ants, lying at the station, and were conveyed in it along the Shrewsbury 

 and Hereford line to Shrewsbury, and then on defendant's line to 

 Birmingham. Between Shrewsbury and Birmingham the cattle were 

 injured by the floor of the truck giving way, and it was held that as the 

 contract of carriage was with the Shrewsbury and Hereford Company 

 for the entire journey, the defendants were not liable {Coxon v. Great 

 Western Railway Company). 



Crowdiny cattle witJiout leave into trucJc with another owner's. — Marlin 

 B. ruled that an action was maintainable by a person who hired a 

 railway truck to put his nine cattle in, against another who crammed 

 his two cattle in and seriously injured the rest. The whole eleven 

 seem to have been bought together, but there was a false representation 

 by the defendant to the railway as to his right to have the truck {Raynor 

 Y. Childs). 



Railway company must he sued within county court district of jjrincipal 

 pilace of business. — If a railway company injure a chattel (here a horse) 

 of the plaintiff in County Court district A, the company cannot be sued 

 for it in County Court district B, merely because it has a local station 

 in district B, at which passengers are booked and goods received for 

 carriage ; for a railway company does not carry on its business within 

 the meaning of the statute 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 60, at every place 

 where it has a station, but only at the principal office, where the 

 directors meet, and the general business of the company is transacted. 

 The case was decided on the authority of Taylor v. Crowland Gas 

 Company (11 Ex. 1, and 2i L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 233), and Adams v. The 

 Great Western Railway Company (30 L.J. (N.S.), Ex. 124), Skids v. 

 Great Northern Railway Company. 



Estoppel iy wilfully false statement of value of horses at time of contract 

 for their carriage. — It was held by the Court of Exchequer, that the 

 plaintiff having made a wilfully false statement to a railway company, 

 as to the value of the three horses (stated to be less than £10 each) for 

 the purpose of inducing, and having thereby induced the defendants to 



