VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 123 
the Court thinks the plaintiff is bound by the declaration that the horses 
did not exceed in value £10 each. 
Mr. Brett , in conclusion, submitted that judgment must be for the 
plaintiff, and the rule discharged. 
Mr. Charles Russell followed on the same side. 
Mr. Manisty and Mr. Quain appeared in support of the rule, but were 
not called on. 
The Lord Chief Baron, in delivering judgment, said that without 
saying whether the agreement that the horses should be carried at the 
owner’s risk was a reasonable agreement, he was clearly of opinion that 
the declaration of the value of the horses was not so mixed up with it 
as to be void without it. The declaration of the value was false, and 
had been made expressly with the view of inducing the company to carry 
the horses at a lower charge. By the reservation of the learned com¬ 
missioner this Court were called upon to act as a jury; and when a 
person made a declaration which was false he could not as a juryman 
find, or as a judge recommend a jury to find, that other value should be 
set than that which he had himself set, with the view of inducing others 
to act for his benefit. For these reasons the rule would be made abso¬ 
lute. 
The other learned judges concurred. 
Judgment accordingly. 
BAIL COURT. 
( Sitting’s at Nisi Frius, before Mr. Justice Blackburn and a Common 
Jury.) 
GAMMEL V. FORD.—IMPORTATION OF HORSES FROM IRELAND. 
Mr. Pearce and Mr. Willoughby were counsel for the plaintiff ; and 
Mr. M. Smith, Q.C., and Mr. Apsland for the defendant. 
The plaintiff was an Irishman, who occasionally dealt in horses, buying 
them in Ireland and sending them to England for sale. On the 20th of 
May the plaintiff sent from Waterford twenty horses by the defendants' 
vessel, the Malakoff, they being the owners of a line of steampackets, 
to be conveyed by them to Paddington. The defendants’ packets were 
called the Waterford and Milford Haven packets. On the arrival of 
the horses at Milford they were about to be put into a truck. The 
plaintiff called the attention of the guard to a hole at the bottom of the 
truck; the guard said there was an iron plate under the hole, and that 
there was no danger. The horses were then put into the truck. When the 
train reached Newport the plaintiff saw that the hole into the floor was 
enlarged, and he again called the attention of the guard to it. The guard 
again said that there was no fear. The same thing occurred at Glocester. 
Between Glocester and Swindon a guard came to the plaintiff and told 
him that the horses were through the bottom of the truck. The plain¬ 
tiff went, and saw the legs of the horses dangling through the floor; 
the guard then got some planks and patched up the floor, and they pro¬ 
ceeded. On the arrival of the train at Paddington the horses were 
examined, and the superintendent told the plaintiff he had better have 
the horses sold, and they would pay the loss. Six of the horses were 
injured. The horses were sold at Aldridge's. The fare from Waterford 
to London was £1 9s. for each horse. They were taken in open trucks. 
