122 
Veterinary Jurisprudence. 
COURT OF EXCHEQUER. 
(Sitting in Banco, before the Lord Chief Baron, and Barons Bram- 
well, Channel, and Wilde.) 
M'CAUCE V. THE LONDON AND NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.— 
CONVEYANCE OF HORSES BY RAIL. 
This was an action tried before Mr. Overend, Q.C., sitting as com¬ 
missioner in the Court of Common Pleas. The declaration alleged that 
the defendants had contracted to carry the plaintiff’s horses from Edge- 
hill, near Liverpool, to Wolverhampton, and that, in consequence of 
negligence in providing proper trucks, the horses were injured. The 
defendants paid £25 into court, and as to the rest pleaded never in¬ 
debted. It was admitted that the plaintiff had delivered three horses, 
with four others belonging to a person named Keating, who declared 
that the value of each horse did not exceed £10, and that, in considera¬ 
tion of the charges at which they were to be carried, it would be at the 
owner’s risk. The horses were placed in a truck the bottom of which 
proved defective, and the plaintiff’s horses were injured. If the com¬ 
pany were to be held liable in law for their full value the damages would 
be £65, but if the plaintiff was to be bound by the declared value, then 
the £25 paid into court was sufficient. At the trial the jury found for 
the plaintiff for the amount claimed. 
A rule was subsequently obtained to set aside the verdict and to 
enter it for the defendant or for a nonsuit, and it now came on for 
argument. 
Mr. Brett, in showing cause, now submitted that the defendants had 
annulled the bailment by the payment of £25 into court, and according 
to the terms of the bailment there was no contract that the value of the 
horses should be declared, and also that if the note signed was no part 
of the contract then the defendants could only prove it as an admission 
of the value of the horses. 
Mr. Baron Channel.— If the condition be held to be binding then the 
company would not be liable for even gross negligence, for the horses 
are to be carried at the owner’s risk. 
Mr. Brett. —Yes, my lord; and I have to contend that the condition 
is unreasonable. 
The Lord Chief Baron. — No person is obliged to send his horses by 
railway. 
Mr. Brett. —But the legislature, in framing the act, thought there 
would be a practical necessity that persons should do so. Since the 
carriers were taken off the road the railway had a monopoly. 
Mr. Baron Bramwell. —In the case of “ M*Manus v. the Lancashire 
and Yorkshire Railway,” the Court of Exchequer decided that a railway 
company may refuse to carry, but if they do so the carrying must be on 
reasonable conditions ; but in this case here are two classes of charges, 
and the sender has his option to pay which he likes. 
Mr. Brett said the oppression was this :—The company said to a man 
he must either pay such a price for carrying his horses as would pre¬ 
vent him from carrying on his trade, or if he did not they would not 
hold themselves liable for damage. 
Mr. Baron Wilde. —The company have paid into court sufficient if 
