VETERINARY JURISPRUDENCE. 241 
being positively no evidence at all to support the charge of malice 
against the defenders. 
Lord Ardmillan .—On the other part of the case, I shall not 
detain your lordships by saying more than that it must be viewed with 
reference to the question of malice. Unless malice is made out, 
the privilege which was instructed is conclusive against the pur¬ 
suer’s case, and we have to ask ourselves upon the evidence whether 
there is sufficient proof of malice to support the verdict. I have 
read the evidence from beginning to end again and again, and I 
have come to be clearly of opinion that there is not only no suffi¬ 
cient evidence, but literally no evidence of malice that is worthy of 
consideration in this case. It is one of the clearest cases I have 
seen, in which an attempt to prove malice has totally failed. I do 
not go into the particulars of the evidence, because I am of opinion 
that a new trial should be granted, because I think that on the 
question of malice this verdict cannot stand, for there is no malice 
to support the verdict. 
Lord Deas —I am of the same opinion, both on the exception and 
upon the question, whether there should be a new trial in respect 
that this verdict is contrary to evidence. 
The other judges concurred. 
Counsel for Pursuer—Solicitor-General and Mr. Thoms. Agents 
—Lindsay and Paterson, W.S.* 
Counsel for Defenders—Lord Advocate and Mr. Rettie. ' Agent 
M. Macgregor, S.S.C .—North British Agriculturist. 
CATTLE TRANSIT BY RAILWAY. 
GLASGOW AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. RAIN. 
On the 11th March, William Rain, cattle dealer, went to the 
railway station at Castle-Douglas, and made arrangements f w 
having a fifteen-foot-waggon ready for trucking thirteen of his 
cattle at Bridge of Dee Station on the following day, for conveyance 
to Norwich. On the following day Rain and M‘Michan, from whom 
Rain had bought the cattle, trucked the cattle. When the truck 
arrived at Stafford it was found that three of the cattle had fallen 
down in the truck, one of them being dead, and another so much 
injured that it had to be killed. Rain brought this action against 
the defenders for the value of these two cattle, alleging that their 
death was owing to the gross fault or negligence of the defenders. 
The defenders denied that the death of the cattle had occurred 
through any fault on the part of them or their servants, and con¬ 
tended that the pursuer, having signed certain conditions of car¬ 
riage, whereby he undertook the “whole risk of loss, injury, 
damage, delays, and other contingencies, in loading, unloading, 
conveyance, or otherwise, except such as shall arise from the gross 
