COMPLICATED PIG CASE. 257 



Jt North Midland RaiUvay Company (a well-known case of fisli-sending), 

 and being of opinion that the pigs had been forwarded within a reason- 

 able time, and the plaintiflf's counsel expressing no dissent, nonsuited 

 the plaintiff. The rule for a new trial was discharged. 



On the authority of this case Mr. Sergeant Channel nonsuited the 

 plaintiff in White v. The Great Western Railway Conijjany, which was an 

 action against that railway company for neyliyence in forwardiny a 

 quantity of cheese, whereby the plaintiff, a Somersetshire farmer, lost a 

 market at Bishopstoke. 



Slim V. The Great Northern Railway Company was a somewhat com- 

 plicated pig case. The plaintiff had sent two lots, containing together 

 203 pigs, to the defendant's station at Hitchin, and they were duly 

 delivered in London. Six other pigs of the plaintiflf's were conveyed to 

 the station by one Lewis, who had 32 pigs of his own going to London. 

 For these latter Lewis procured the proper cattle ticket and consign- 

 ment note, but neglected to do so for the plaintiff's six, which he 

 delivered (as he stated) to one Morgan, a servant of the defendants, at 

 the station, who said he would take care of them. Plaintiff was cog- 

 nisant of the course of business at the station, which was, thac on the 

 arrival of live stock there, they were counted by one of the company's 

 servants, who made out and signed what is called a "consignment-note," 

 stating the number of the trucks and cattle, and the name of the con- 

 signor and consignee. This " consignment-note " was then signed by 

 the person bringing the stock, and taken to the booking-clerk, who 

 made out from it a " cattle ticket," which was signed by the consignor's 

 agent, who on receipt of a duplicate, paid the carriage, the duplicate 

 ticket being the authority to receive the cattle on their arrival at their 

 destination. The declaration set out the special contract indorsed on 

 the cattle-ticket, which threw the risk of injury, examination of car- 

 riages, &c., upon the plaintiff, and alleged as a breach that the defen- 

 dants did not carry and deliver the pigs within reasonable time. 



There was also a count in trover. The defendants pleaded— first, 

 Not guilty ; and secondly, that the plaintiff did not deliver the pigs, 

 nor did the defendants receive the same to be carried upon the terms 

 and conditions alleged in the first count. It appeared that the pay- 

 ment for the carriage of the cattle was made sometimes at the station 

 at which they were received, and sometimes on their arrival at their 

 destination. At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendant's counsel 

 called upon the learned judge to nonsuit him, insisting that there was no 

 evidence to go to the jury that the defendants had contracted with the 

 plaintiff on the terms mentioned in the declaration ; and that assuming 

 their servant Morgan to have received the pigs in question, he had 



