CATTLE-DEALEllS TEAVEL AT THEIR OWN PJSK. 258 



of negligence on their part, and it was to be inferred that the injuries 

 resulted from the action of the horse itself. 



In the case of Wright v. London and North Western Railway Company 

 (10 L.E,. Q.B. 298), the plaintiff sent a heifer by defendants' railway 

 to Penrith station. On tlie arrival of the train at the station, between 

 8 and 9 p.m., the horse-box in which the heifer had travelled had to be 

 shunted into a siding to be unloaded. There was only one porter 

 available to shunt the horse-box, and the plaintiff, who had travelled by 

 the same train, being desirous of getting his heifer away with as little 

 delay as possible, assisted in shunting the horse-box to the siding from 

 which alone the heifer could be unloaded, and while he was so doing 

 the horse-box was run into by a train which had been negligently 

 allowed to come out of the siding : and the horse-box was driven 

 against the plaintiff and injured him. There was evidence that it was 

 the practice at Penrith for persons to assist in unloading their cattle, 

 and that on this particular occasion the station-master had consented to 

 the plaintiff assisting in the shunting. It was held that the defendants 

 were hable for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff. 8ee also Holmes 

 V. North Eastern Railway (Law Rep. 4 Ex. 254, and L.R. G Ex. 123) ; 

 and in the case of Hall v. The North Eastern Railway (10 L.R. Q.B. 

 437), where the plaintiff booked some sheep from Angerton on the 

 North British Railway to Newcastle on the North Eastern, it was held 

 tliat the ticket under which plaintiff travelled meant that he should bo 

 at his own risk for the whole journey, and the defendants were not held 

 liable for injuries sustained by the plaintiff on their line and th-.ough 

 their negligence. 



A cattle dealer who travels free of charge at his own risk cannot 

 maintain an action against a railway company on whose line he so 

 travels, for injury incurred either during the actual transit or while 

 leaving the company's premises. Gallin v. London ami North Western 

 Railway Company (10 L.R. Q.B. 212). 



In the case of Tlie Great Northern Rail/cay v. Sariffield, the defen- 

 dant sent a horse from King's Cross to Sandy consigned to himself, the . 

 fare being prepaid. The horse arrived at Sandy at 10 p.m., and there 

 being no one there to receive him, the station-master sent the horse to 

 a livery stable near the station for safe custody. Defendant's servant 

 arrived soon after and demanded the horse ; he was referred to the 

 livery stable-keeper, who refused to give up the horse except upon 

 payment of charges admitted to be reasonable, the servant refused to 

 pay, and went away without the horse. On the following day the 

 defendant came and demanded the horse ; plaintiffs' station-master 

 offered to pay the charges and let the defendant have the horse j this 



