The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1875-06-05 00:00:00

RAILWAY LIABILITY FOR DELAY.

In the House of Lords, on June 1, the cause of "Henderson
and others v. Stephenson" was heard, and which was
an appeal from the Second Division of the Court of Session
In Scotland.—The case is thus reported in The Times :

The question raised by the appeal was one of con-
siderable importance to railway companies, shipowners,
and other carriers of passengers and goods, it being
whether a passenger was bound by conditions printed
on the back of his ticket, which he had not read and to
which his attention had not been called. The action
was brought by the respondent, Lieutenant Stevenson,
of the 18th Royal Irish Regiment, against the appel-
lants, who were shipowners at Belfast and Ardrossan, to
recover damages for loss sustained by him through the
loss of the appellant's steamer the Countess of Eglington,
which ran between Dublin and Silloth. The respon-
dent was a passenger in that steamer at the time of
the wreck, and he alleged that he sustained loss by
that occurrence consisting in the first place of certain
necessary disbursements, and in the next place of the
value of his personal luggage, which was lost in the
wreck. The defence to the action was twofold. In the
first place it was pleaded thatthe occurrence was not due
to any fault on the part of the appellants or their servants,
and in the second place the defence was founded upon the
' terms of certain conditions alleged to have been printed
on the back of the ticket tinder which the respondent
travelled, one of which was to the following effect
"This ticket is issued on the conditions that the com-
pany incur no liability whatever in respect of loss,
injury, or delay to the passenger or to his or her lug-
gage, whether arising from the act, neglect, or default
of the company or their servants or otherwise. It is
also issued subject to all the conditions aid arrangements
published by the company." The Court below unani-
mously determined the first point as to the negligence
of the company in favour of the respondent, and by a
majority they 'determined the second point with re-
gard to the condition on the back of the ticket also in
his favour. From this decision the present appeal was
brought
Mr. Milward, Q.C., and Mr. E. Clarkson appeared
for the appellants; Mr. Cotton, Q.C., and Mr.
Thesiger, Q.C., for the respondent.
Mr. Milward, Q.C., on behalf of the appellants,
after stating the facts of the case, said the point for
their Lordships' decision did not involve the construc-
tion of any statute, but merely that of .the contract
between the parties. The first question was whether
the loss had been occasioned by any negligence on the
part of the company.
The Lord Chancellor intimated that they should be
unwilling to disturb the decision of the Court below
upon the point of negligence, which had, in their
opinion, been properly found against the shipowners.
Mr. Milward then proceeded to deal with the second
point—namely, whether the passenger was bound by
the conditions which were printed on the back of his
ticket, but which he had not read and to which his
attention had not been drawn. It made no difference
whether the conditions were printed on the back or on
the front, of the ticket.
. Lor a
mit
chelmsford. remarked that a man was mucht!
Imare lyl44.4jeekettt.ithe.., honk :, thaw , alai the back,ofi,
his ticket. Probably, having satisfied himself by
looking at the front that the ticket was for the right
station, he Would not look at the back until he had
entered the tritha.