The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-04-19 00:00:00

gout an istrirt getin.
RAILWAY CASES AT STOURBRIDGE,

At the County Court, on Wednesday, before
Sir Rupert Kettle, two cases were called on in
which Messrs. A. Carroll and Co. general dealers,
Cradley Heath and Brierley Hill, were plaintiffs,
and the Great Western Railway Company the de-
fendants, The two uetious were to recover stuns of
£lB Os 8d and ..t;2O 3s -id respectively, for damages
for breach of contract by defendants in failing to
deliver in time for market certain perishable goods
cent from Waterford, Ireland. The plaintiffs also
claimed the above amounts in tort. I\l r. Waldron
represented the plaintiffs, and Mr. Shepherd the
Railway Company. By consent of both sides, a
stateryent of facts was agreed upon in both actions
to the follewing effect ! As to the first claim of
£lB Os 8d for goods to be delivt=red on Novetaber
23rd thoy wet e.consgne Ito A.Farrd , amid labelled
"perishable ;" and the other geods were consigned
to Carroll, Brierley Hill, and labelled in the same
way. An owner's risk mete was signed, and the
owner's risk-rate offered and accepted, in lieu of an
available higher rate for carriage on the ordinary
terms It was taken for admitted that the goods
were expected by the consignor, and intended by
the company to be despatch,d by the 2.45 a.m. fast
express passenger train from New Milford, timed to
arrive at Brierley Hill about 2 p in. the same day—
Saturday, being market day there. The goods left
Milforst by the train intended, but owing to an acci-
dent at Kidwally the train was thrown off the roads
and the goods delayed. They reached Brierley Hill
too late for Saturday's market, and to make the
best of them as perishables plaintiffs disposed of
them afterwards for £2. They sued for the loss
less this .22. Defendant's contention was that the
owner's risk note indemnified them. Mr. Carroll
said he Dever a-ked the company to charge him the
low rate, His Honour said ne did not see how
plaintiff could alter the terms of the contract. He
was almost going to say he was sorry the courts
had not ruled differently as to these contracts. He
thought they were sometimes hard, alliough as a
lawyer he could not help following what was the
law regarding them. He was not going to decide
against plaintiff then, because he thought the
railway company had done this customer an injury,
Mr. Shepherd: We did the utmost we could tclfer-
ward the goods. His Honour said ho would not
give judgement till ha raw if there was a loop-
hole.

There was also another ease against the Great
Western Railway Company at the same Court, by
Stevens and Williams, gla,As manufacturers, Brier-
ley Hill. Mr. Waldron appeared for the plaintiffs,
and Mr. Shepherd for defendants. The action was
to recover damages for breach of contract, and it
had reference to a delay in the delivery of a special
order for a London firm. The go is were given to
the comp,ny on the 27th of Oetiiber, but it appeared
were delivered by them in London to the wrong
firm, and a considerable time elapsed before they
were tendered at the right address. Mr. Shepherd
submitted that the company were not responsible
for delay except in case of wilful misconduct,
which he urged there was no evidence of. His
Honour: I should hold there was, A ease was
entered for the plaintiffs for £5 17s, the amount
claimed, at.d costs.