3 12 
V E T E R I N A R Y J U R I S r R U D E N C E . 
wanted. We then went to the station master, and I said, (i Mudd 
refuses to pay more than a small truck rate.” Mr. Wilkinson said, 
“ You will do us a favour if you will, as we are more than full.” 
They had some further talk, and Mr. Wilkinson said, “ I can’t 
promise you anything, but we will do the best we can.” When Mudd 
asked me for a large truck, I did not say, “ All right. 
e Tames Turrell , a cattle loader, stated, in reply to Mr. Orford, that 
he was ordered to put Mr. Mudd’s eight beasts into a large truck, 
but that there was not a large truck then at the station. 
The station master at Beccles and William Davis gave confirmatory 
testimony. 
Mr. J. T. Nibloe , station master, Ipswich, said : I recollect plaintiff 
coming to me on the 4tli December. He said, “ How is it you will 
not let the beasts go ?” I said, “ There is a truck and a half charged, 
and that I must have before they go.” He said, “ They should have 
come at the one truck price, and I won’t pay more.” I said, “If 
you will pay that and take the beasts away, the question of over- 
charge will be settled afterwards.” He replied, “You had better 
keep the beasts.” I told him I would make inquiry and let Mr. 
Upson know as soon as I knew myself. I sent a clerk with a letter 
to Mr. Upson, saying that the beasts were at the station at his risk 
and expense. I afterwards sent up and offered to let the beasts go 
at the one truck price. 
His Honour — Was that in consequence of information you got 
from Beccles? Mr. Nibloe— -Yes. 
Mr. Corpe — What was the information ? Mr. Nibloe — “ You had 
better deliver the bullocks up at the one truck price,” or something 
to that effect. 
Had you a reason for not letting the beasts go ? — I have had 
several disputes with Mr. Mudd as to the freight of cattle. At one 
time he had credit for a day or so, but there were so many disputes 
that I determined to carry out my instructions to the letter, viz., to 
pay before delivery. 
By Mr. Orford — There have been frequent disputes with plaintiff, 
and money has been returned to him. 
His Honour, in giving judgment, said he considered that both 
sides had been in fault, and in the result both must suffer for it. 
After the evidence, he must find that there was an assent at Beccles 
that the plaintiff should have a large truck, and therefore the 
Company ought to have charged only one truck freight. The charge 
of a truck and half freight was wrong, and in consequence there had 
been a wrongful detention for a number of hours, and the sale to 
Mr. Gocher was lost. The animals no doubt continued to depreciate 
in value down to the time they were slaughtered, but it would be 
hard to visit the whole of that loss upon the Company, for the 
plaintiff might have taken the beasts on the following Thursday, 
whereas the defendants were bound to keep them until the following 
Monday. The only loss then was the difference between what Mr. 
Gocher might have given for them and what they might have fetched 
on the Ipswich Market on the Tuesday. Mr. Mudd had estimated 
