VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
423 
Pontefract, now spoke to the secure manner in which the 
pony was tied, and both he and Mr. Kaye , the veterinary 
surgeon who was called in to examine the pony, stated that, 
in their opinion, the accident had arisen from the falling, or 
the throwing of itself down of the pony, and not through any 
neglect in the proper tying of it up. 
Mr. Barratt and Mr. Westmorland both delivered able 
addresses in support of their respective theories, after 
which — 
His Honour said there appeared to be no grounds what- 
ever in this case to fix the Company with the damages. 
There had been no special agreement signed to release them 
from all risk in the carriage of this animal, nor had their 
plea in defence been to that effect ; but the Company were 
not bound in law to insure against injuries of a purely acci- 
dental nature. The question was, did the injuries complained 
of arise from any want of care on the part of the Company’s 
servants, or from some of those unaccountable accidents 
which must necessarily sometimes happen when animals are 
conveyed by rail ? It appeared quite clear to him that the 
Company had not been guilty of any neglect, for he had 
never heard stronger evidence as to the fact of the animal’s 
having been carefully put into the box, and properly tied, 
and though there was a discrepancy in the evidence of the 
plaintiff’s son and the Company’s servants, yet the evidence 
of the latter, as to the proper tying of the pony, was strongly 
corroborated by that of those whose attention was called to 
it at Pontefract. It was not clearly made out how the 
accident really did happen, but he should rather infer that it 
was from some unexplained cause, than from any fault or 
want of care on the part of the Company; and he was of 
opinion, therefore, that the Company were not liable for 
damages. The question of the £2 5s. 6cl., that had been 
paid for the fare, must be left in the hands of the Company 
to do as they thought right about : they were not bound to 
return it, for the violation of the contract did not rest 
upon them. The verdict, therefore, must be for the de- 
fendants. 
Mr. Westmorland applied for costs, and his Honour 
said that the Company must use their own discretion in the 
course they should pursue, but he did not see any reason 
for departing from his ordinary rule of giving costs with the 
verdict. 
