25 S CARRIAGE OF PIGS. 



cattle as common carriers for hire, or under the sjoecial contract set 

 forth in the ticket ? and thirdly, Did the station-master further con- 

 tract that the trucks should be furnished soon ? If they found the 

 first question and the first part of the second question in the affirma- 

 tive, they were to say what damages the plaintiff had sustained. The 

 following were the terms of the verdict for the plaintiff: "The jury 

 find the damages to be £30; and that the company are common 

 carriers, and received the goods without any limitation of their 

 liability by any special contract ; and that the only special contract 

 was the subsequent promise of the station-master that the trucks 

 would be ready soon." The Court ordered a non-suit to be entered ; 

 Jem's C.J. intimating that Austin v. The Manclicsicr, Bltcffield, Jc 

 Lincolnshire Raihcay could not be overruled, and that it was a mere 

 waste of time to argue against it. His lordship added : " There is 

 clearly a misdirection here. There was no evidence whatever that 

 the defendants were common carriers of cattle or live stock, or that 

 they had received the pigs in question as common carriers. The 

 judge should have told the jury distinctly that there was nothing 

 to justify them in finding that the pigs were received by the company's 

 servants to be carried upon any other terms than those contained in the 

 special contract." 



This case was followed by Hughes v. The Great Western Railway 

 Company. On the evening of Tuesday the 9th of Xovember, 1853, the 

 plaintiff delivered at the company's station at Southall 20 fat pigs, 

 which were intended for the Birmingham market the next Thursday, 

 and was informed that they would go by a train which started at 3 

 o'clock the next morning. He signed a paper of conditions, part of 

 which were that " The Company is not to he held responsible for the 

 carriage or delivery within any certain or definite time, nor in time fur 

 any particular markets The pigs were sent by the 3 o'clock a.m. train 

 on the 10th of November, but did nut arrive at Birmingham in time 

 for Thursday's market, and so wasted, by want of food, in consequence 

 of having been so long in the trucks, that the plaintiff' sustained great 

 loss. The defendants proved that the goods train which left Southall 

 at 3 a.m. went no further than Didcot, where it ought to have arrived 

 at 7.30 a.m., and that the next goods train for Birmingham, by which 

 the pigs were forwarded, left Didcot at 5.30 p.m., the only other train 

 which passed through Didcot for Birmingham between those hours 

 being the express passenger train. It was further insisted that the 

 special contract excluded all question as to reasonable time, and that 

 the pigs were sent within reasonable time, inasmuch as they were sent 

 by the next practicable train. Jervis C.J. referred to Walker v. The York 



