The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-05-06 00:00:00

--
;ligence ix
exi&

plaintiff had not been guilty of any negi being
unaware of the contents of the ticket or the —dtenee
of the placard. A rule having been obtained to enter
judgment for the defendants, notwithstanding the find-
ings of the jury, or for a new trial on the ground of
misdirection.
Mr. Prentice, QC., and Mr. F. Pollock showed
cause; Mr. Willis and Mr. Bremner supported the
rule.
The Lord Chief Justice, after setting forth the facts,
and observing that the attention of the plaintiff was
never directly drawn to the terms on the ticket until
the article had been lost, said he was of opinion that,
under the circumstances, the company were liable, and
the rule must be discharged. It seemed impossible to
say, supposing the fact to be that these conditions were
not brought to the attention of one of the contracting
parties, that there was no contract. The acts of the
parties furnished evidence of an ordinary contract
to take care of the package ; but it Wa3 said
•that,
though there might be such a contract, at any rate it
was not the case here, because the company could not
be held liable for anything except that for which, they
had contracted. It was further said that no person with-
out negligence could have been unaware of the contents of
the document forming the contract, and that, as the
plaintiff chose to leave the package with them on
terms fairly brought before him, and which he was
bound to be acquainted with, the jury were boimd to
presume that he did make himself so acquainted.
It was impossible, his lordship said, to lay down any
definite or fixed line with regard to which it can be
said the company were bound, or were not bound, by
the document before the Court. In all cases it must
be a question of evidence or cenannon serve. There
were cases, no doubt, where a person having a docu-
ment handed to him must be taken to have acquainted
himself with its contents—for example, the terms in
which a sale might be effected; and if in such a: case
ignorance was set up, the answer must be that the op-
porfunity 'hid been given, and that the person must be
assumed to-have taken advantage of it. But was that the
case here? It was for the jury to decide. Much re-
ference had been made to the recent case of "Hen-
derson v. Stevenson," before the House of Lords. In
that case it was held by the Lord Chancellor that it
would be extremely dangerous to hbld that where a
document is complete on the face of it; but having
on the back of it something which had not been
brought to the knowledge of a contracting party,
he should be held to have assented to that which he
had not seen and of which he knew nothing. The
only distinction between that case and the present
was that in this there were the words "See back ; '
but he failed to think that if there had not been
this distinction, and the Lord Chancellor had had
before him a case in which the jury had found no
notice or knowledge on the part of the plaintiff, and
that through no negligence, his Lordship would have
arrived at a different conclusion. For my own part,
his Lordship continued, I think the jury were right,
and that it was most reasonable that the plaintiff
should suppose that the ticket was a mere voucher or
receipt for the package and the money. The case was
distinguished from others, where a different conclusion
had been reached, by the particular findings of the jury.
The question must always be—Under the circumstances
of the case, was the plaintiff made aware? Was he
unaware through negligenoe ? If he was unaware, and
without negligence, he could not be bound. The jury
had answered these questions in the plaintiff's favour.
The case was really, therefore, ruled by "Henderson
v. Stevenson," and the rule must be discharged.
Mr. Justice Brett also delivered an exhaustive judg-
ment discharging the rule. There was nothing on the
face of the ticket to modify an ordinary contract of
bailment, except the words "See back. Upon the
back were limitations of the bailment, and the com-
pany said, therefore, it was a special contract. This
was not a case where the terms were obliged to be in
writing, nor was it a case where the contract arose
on the mere passing of a document. If no docu-
ment had been given at all, the facts were sufficient
to raise an implied contract of bailment where ser-
vices were paid for. But a document had passed, and
when it was looked at, it did alter the nature of
the contract. It was said for the plaintiff that unless
his attention was called to the terms of the limita-
tion and he assented, the conti act remained an ordi-
nary contract. The defendants did not dispute this
as the fundamental proposition' but they said, "If a
document is passed it is the duty of the person to
read it. If there is nothing on the face to alter
liability and no reference to the back, he is safe; but
if there is a reference it is different, because, as matter
of law, in all cases he must read what is on the face,
and he is not at liberty to say that he did not
know what was there written." This argument
was raised upon the rule' and assumed that if the
plaintiff had not read and was not negligent, yet he
ought to have read, and because he did not he was
bound. There was no case which laid down this. If
the plaintiff did read, of course he was bound, unless
he expressed dissent. _lle jury might well con-
sider the document a mere voucher, and that the
plaintiff was not bound to contemplate that it contained
any limitation of the terms of the ordinary contract.
They were at liberty to find he was not negligent in
reading any part, though, perhaps, if it was proved he
had read the front, there might be negligence in not
reading the "See back." If there was to be any limita-
tion of liability by a document, care must be taken
to point it out to a person acting on facts and not on
the document, unless it had come to be understood
that there was such a means of limiting ordinary lia-
bility. The defendants were bound to satisfy the jury
either that the plaintiff had read the ticket or was
guilty of want of care in not reading it. The jury had
found against them, and the case, therefore, came
within the doctrine laid down in the. House of Lords,
which he was of opinion applied equally to the back
and the front of a document.
Mr. Justice Lindley also concurred. The jury had
found that the contract was not special, but ordinary.
Then the House of Lords' case became undistinguish-
able, except for the words "See back." And here
again the verdict of the jury made it immaterial where
the words were, if in point of fact they were not seen,
unless there was a presumed liability by law. The
House of Lords had decided against ehis presumption,
and the defendants were, therefore, liable.—Rule dis-
charged.

WORKMEN'S CHILDREN.
The Globe remarks :—" After the crusade in favour
of the working man has come that in support of the
working man's child. Every one remembers the to-
do made at the last Paris Exhibition over the typical
workman, who from that time forward tiff near the
outbreak :->f the grand war of strikes became a sort of
fetish in England and France. His time has gone by,
and there has succeeded to the public interest, at all
events in France, a more intelligent movement in
honour of his family. On Sunday last the Appren-
tices and Children's Protection Society held its fifth
biennial file at the Cirque d'Ete, and distributed
according to custom the medals and other badges of
honour awarded by it to deserving persons. It may
be thought by English readers that some difficulty
would arise in defining for the purposes of the asso-
ciation who is a deserving person. But the ingenuity
of French societies is as boundless as the desire of
Frenchmen for decorations, and a means has been
found for promoting the welfare of the juvenile
workmen by the expenditure of a comparatively small
sum from the exchequer of the association. The
method adopted is to select during each period
of two years the names of those who have exerted
'themselves .most actively in the cause of these chil-
dren, and then publicly, and amidst the ceremonial
observance of the grand fife, to bestow upon
the benefactors, whose names have thus been
down the insignia of merit. Thus, on Sul
medals and testimonials of honour were bestowe
ladies and gentlemen who had distinguished
selves by founding institutions for the relief and
tenanee of orphans and other destitute children;
houses of business which had made special arrange-
ments for the comfort and instruction of their younger
employes ; and upon the inventors of devices for lessen-
ing danger in the factories where children are em•
-
ployed. Altogether, some 100 medals of silver gilt,
silver, and bronze, together with a sum of 400
franes and some other prizes, were given away,
and the vitality of the society was indicated by a,
large attendance and a successful fete. It is im-
possible not to see the superior merits of the
new movement as compared with that which con-
nected itself with the ill starred name of the Inter-
nationale. It is proposed that in the Exhibition of
1878 the society shall make itself conspicuous as the
' ally of those Government institutions lately. set in
,1 working order for the protection of factory children;
and it is hoped that by that time also there will be
ample opportunities afforded by the law for the en-
couragement, by the association, of education among
the labourers' children."

nOted

wed

THE MEDICAL EDUCATION OF
WOMEN., .
In London, on Monday, the annual distribution of
prizes to the students of the London School of Medi-
cine for Women, Henrietta-street, Brunswick-square,
was held at the institution, the presentation being
made by Lord Shaftesbury. Among those present
were the Dowager-Countess of Buchan, Lady ettanley
of Alderley, the Right Hon. J. Stansfeld, M.P., Mr.
Cowper-Temple, M.P. Mr. C. Reade, Professor
Mivart, Dr. Broadbent, Ernest Hart, &c. After
the distribution of prizes, Mr. Stausfeld, M.P., moved
a resolution expressing much pleasure at the success
of the ins, itution, both as regards its staff of lecturers
and its number of students, and earnestly trust-
ing that its efficiency would soon be made complete
, and secure. He spoke of the admirable instruction
offered to the students in the past sear, and congratu-
Med them on the diligence and ability which they had
shown in availing themselves of it. He afterwards
referred with very great regret and disappointment to
the difficulties thrown in the way of women being ad-
mitted to hospitals, both by the medical staff and the
students. He then spoke of the general .question of the
right of women to have the medical ministration of
,
their own sex, and of the claims of certain ladies who
had studied and made great efforts to comillete their'
education, under various difficulties, and held that
these facts constituted a double , obligation to do jus-
tice to them. He concluded by Making an earnest
appeal on behalf of the School.„ ' •
Miss Jex-Blake seconded, the resolution, which was
. .
carried unanimously. , .: . , • , ,t ,
Mr. Cowper-Temple, M.P., moved the next resolu-
tion to the effect that in the opinion, ot.the meeting
legislative measures should be taken for ,reme'ving all
existing hindrances to the medical profession. Lit was
only recently, he said, that women had •come FOrward
to receive the benefit of such educational training as
would enable them to compete with those registered
publicly as physicians and surgeons. The law had
never itself put any hindrance in the way o female
medical persons, because, when. the .istatut s were
framed and the Medical Act paseed, there was'; 'nO
cognizance taken of the prospect of any woman being
entered. The law should act equally towards both
,sexase:--Nerth t equal impartiality—anid/fairness, and he
believed that when the subject came to receive more
attention than it had hitherto, they might get Parlia-
ment and the Government to take the matter into
consideration. It was right that legielative measures
should be taken to remove the existing hindrances;
but all they wanted was enabling, not compulsory
legislation.
Mrs. Garrett-Anderson, ia seconding the resolution,

A i

spoke of the necessity for a regular sequence of lec-
tures, which at present they could not have for want
of money. The resolution was carried unanimously,
and on the mod( n of Dr. Chambers, seconded by Lady
Stanley of Alderley, a hearty vote of thanks to the
chairman was passed.
Lord Shaftesbury, in reply, said he thought there
always had been and would be a great number of per-
sons who would prefer ladies to attend them, and more
particularly in the care and treatment of children. He
entreated them to perkist, believing that perseverance,
supported by well-instructed and honest men, and
more especially by their own success, would go very
far indeed to overcome opposition. He could not see
why ladies should be shut out from a noble career, and
he thought patience and a little endurance would
enable them to carry the day.
The proceedings then terminated.