652 
VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 
of transit; but, in this instance, the plaintiffs desired to have their 
horses conveyed in open trucks, such as are used to convey cattle, 
the expense being about one-half less. The station master at 
New Holland refused to place the horses in trucks unless the 
plaintiffs signed a special agreement, by which they took the risk 
on themselves. This agreement was on a printed form, part of 
which was cut from a book and given to the parties, and the 
counterfoil left with the company. The terms of this agreement 
were as follow: — “This ticket is issued subject to the owners 
undertaking to bear all risk of injury by conveyance and other con- 
tingencies, and the owner is required to see the efficiency of the 
carriage before he allows his horses or live stock to be placed 
therein.. The charge being for the use of the railway carriage and 
locomotive power only, the company will not be responsible for 
any alleged defect in the carriages or trucks, unless complaint is 
made at the time of booking, or before the same leave the station, 
nor for any damages, however caused, to horses, cattle, or live 
stock of any description, travelling on their railway or in their 
vehicles.” The following declaration was also to be signed by the 
owner : “I have examined the carriages, and am satisfied as to 
their sufficiency and safety.” This agreement, of course, bound 
persons signing it ; and in this instance it was signed by Davis 
for Austin, who could not write. Horses were generally sent by 
the goods’ train ; but here, at the plaintiffs request, they were sent 
by the passengers’ train. There was no negligence on the part of 
the company ; for, on the showing of the plaintiff’s own witnesses, 
the carriages had been examined, greased, and watered at several 
stations before the accident. Evidence was called to support this 
case ; and, in cross-examination, it was elicted that the agreement 
and declaration above-mentioned were signed by every one who 
had cattle or live stock transmitted by this railway ; and also that 
the plaintiff, Davis, was made to sign the declaration the night 
before the carriages were even selected. 
Mr. Justice Erie left the following questions to the jury : — 
Whether the axletree was radically bad. Whether the defendants 
were guilty of negligence in having an insufficient axletree, the 
defect of which was not apparent. Whether the accident was 
occasioned by the wheel being set on fire, and, if so, whether it 
was the duty of the defendants to have stopped the train. 
The Jury returned a verdict as to the first for the defendants, 
and upon all the others for the plaintiffs. — Damages £70. 
