S5S PIGS TOO LATE FOR MARKET. 



done so without their authority, and in direct violation of his duty 

 and the course of business at the station. WiUiams J. declined to 

 nonsuit, but left it to the jury to say whether or not Morgan had received 

 the pigs. They found that he had ; and his lordship thereupon directed 

 a verdict for the plaintiff for £14, the value of the six pigs : reserving 

 leave to the defendants to move to enter a nonsuit, if the Court should 

 think there was no evidence to go to a jury; and also reserving leave 

 to the plaintiff to amend the declaration, if necessaiy, it being agreed 

 that the only questi<m was whether or not the company had received 

 the pigs to be carried. 



The Court of Common Pleas made the rule absolute ; and held that 

 the count in trover clearly could not be sustained, and that the first 

 count, whether in its original state or as proposed to be amended, was 

 not supported by the evidence. Jervis C.J. said : " According to the 

 course of business, of which the plaintiff was proved to be perfectly 

 cognizant, it was the sender's duty to get a consignment-note when he 

 delivered the pigs at the station, and that consignment-note gave him 

 distinct notice that the company would not hold themselves responsible 

 for the pigs, unless the same were signed for as received by their clerk. 

 Knowing this, the plaintiff sent the pigs in question by Lewis ; Lewis 

 handed them over to Morgan without more ado, and thus made Morgan 

 his servant for the purpose of doing what was necessary to put the pigs 

 in motion towards their destination. Morgan had no authority to con- 

 travene the regulations of the company, and I think they are not bound 

 by his act." In the course of the argument Maide J. observed that " If 

 Morgan had been the master or superintendent of the station, possibly 

 he might have had authority to do as he did. And it may be that the 

 company are liable if they place a man in a position to hold himself out 

 as having authority, though he may in some degree have exceeded his 

 duty. Morgan had, it appears, authority to go through some of the 

 preliminary matters to the making of the contract. It is not necessary 

 to show that he had full and perfect authority. It [is enough if there 

 was evidence to go to a jury." The same Court also held in Simons v. 

 2'he Great Wesfern Railway Comimny, that, wlmrc the ^laintif ivas 

 asked ly the clerh of the railway compan,y, when the goods were delivered, 

 to sign a j)aiwr containing a sjyecial contract, and he demurred, in con- 

 sequence of there not being light enough to read it by, but was told 

 that it was of no importance, and that his signature was a mere matter 

 of form, on the strength of which assurance he signed, the jury were 

 warranted in finding that the goods were not dehvered to the company 

 to be carried under the special contract. 



It was held by Byles J. in Blakemore v. Lancashire and Yorkshire 



