262 



CARRYING HORSKS. 



ham, for the market there, and signed a ticket, containing 

 certain conditions, and amongst others that the defendants 

 were " not to be answerable for any consequences arising 

 from overcarriage, detention or delay in, or in relation to 

 the conveying or delivery of the said animals, however 

 caused." The company have two stations at Birmingham, 

 one at Bordesley, for the cattle from Oxford and places 

 south of Birmingham, and the other at Hockley, north of 

 Birmingham, which would not be the proper station for 

 the plaintiff's cattle to be sent to. The plaintiff made in- 

 quiries for them the next morning at the Bordesley Station, 

 but inasmuch as they had been carried to the Hockley 

 Station, he did not get them till the middle of the day. 

 The proper time for him to have received them would have 

 been early in the morning, and at the Bordesley Station. 

 By reason of the delay which took place he lost the market; 

 and in addition it was proved that the cattle had become 

 injured by having been kept in the trucks without food or 

 water. The defendants refused to make any compensation, 

 and contended that they were protected by the conditions 

 of the ticket above specified, and that they were therefore 

 not liable in respect of overcarriage. It was held however 

 by the Court of Queen's Bench that the cattle were 

 " injured " within the meaning of the statute, and also that 

 the condition in the ticket was unreasonable. And Cock- 

 burn, C. J., said, " It is admitted that there had been loss 

 of condition to the cattle, and it is clear that that amounts 

 to ' injury ' within the meaning of the 7th section. I am 

 also of opinion that the condition expressed in the ticket is 

 unreasonable. The defendants claim complete immunity 

 from liability in respect of all delay, overcarriage, &c. 

 They talk of reduced rates, but there is no proof that they 

 charged the plaintiff' anything less than the ordinary rates 

 of charge. It might perhaps be reasonable, if they had 

 given the plaintiff the choice of two classes of rates, and 

 had made a special contract limiting their liability in con- 

 sideration of the lesser rate being charged. But no such 

 thing has been done here." And Mr. Justice Crompton 

 said, " I am of the same opinion. It is clear that the 

 cattle sustained injury by reason of the conduct of the 

 defendants. It is also clear that the condition is an un- 

 reasonable one ; it was compulsory upon the plaintiff, no 

 option being given to him, and the defendants cannot in 

 such a manner protect themselves from liability." In 

 these judgments Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice Shee 



