The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-12-19 00:00:00

INJURY TO A HUNTER.

In the Court of Queen's Bench, Westminster, before the
Lord Chief Justice and Special Jury, the cause of "Jacomb
a. the Great Western Railway Company," has been tried,
and was an action for an injury to an banter in the course
of corn. eyance on the COmpany's tine from West Brayton to
London, and it may afford some valuable suggestions to
those who send horses in trait way.
Mr. Murphy, QC. and Mr. Martha!! Griffith were for the
plaintiff ; Mr. Powell, QC., and Mr. J. lligby were for the
company.

The Plaintiff is a woolbroker who is accustomed to
hunt, and the horse in question, named Kemerton, is
a hunter for which he had given, it was said, 1:300,
and which was said to be quiet and accustomed to go
by the railway. On the 11th of March he had the
horse sent down to Drayton for hunting, and his
groom had taken return tickets for this and three
othife horses, paying for the four horses £1 10s.
Under the Company's Traffic Act it was provided that
if they carried horses and other animals at lower
than their authorized rates, they should be at liberty
to limit their liability, and accordingly they gave
notice on their horse tickets that they would not be
liable for any loss of or injury to any horse or other
animal in receiving, forwarding, or delivering, occa-
sioned by kicking, or plunging, or unruliness, or any other
cause whatever, except the culpable neglect or default
of the company or their servants, nor for any greater
amount than £5O, unless the value was declared and
a percentage of 5 per cent, paid on the excess of value.
The evidence for the company went to show that the
authorized rate of charge at 3d. per mile would come
to 13s. for each horse, that is, to the sum of of £2 12s.
for the four horses in the present case. The company's
rules allowed return tickets for hunters at "a fare and
a half ; " but "at the owner's risk." But this was a
rule only known to the company's servants, and it did
not appear that there was any specific intimation to
to the owners that the rates at which the tickets were
issued were subject to any particular limitation of
liability. Evidence, however, was given that large
placards are exhibited at all stations stating that the
rate authorized for any horse is 3d. a mile, a rate
reduced for hunters in return tickets, as already stated,
though not for single journeys, and that the rate for
return journeys was reduced for hunters appeared
to be known. because the groom asked for "hunters'
return tickets." The single tickets, however were
charged at the full rate of 3d. per mile, and the only
reduction was by way of return tickets, but return
tickets were only granted for hunters, and the time
tables gave DO notice that the liability of the com-
pany was to be limited. Such being the terms on
which the tickets were issued, the horses were taken
to Drayton and hunted, and it appeared that after
the hunt the horses were put into a horse-box at
Drayton in the presence of the groom, and so far as
he saw they were properly secured and the door
properly fastened. At least nothing appeared to
attract his attention at the time. When the horse
arrived it was found to be very much bruised and cut
about, and the doom of the horse-box were open. The
boxes were fastened by wooden bars inside moving up
and down on pivots, and a cross bar working in a
groove. There is a coupe in which a groom may go
close to the horses' heads, with a sliding window
through which he can look at the animals, but on this
occasion the groom did not go in the coupe, and the
homes were by themselves. When the train arrived
at Paddington the door of the horse-box was gone
and the cross bar was broken, which would, it was
proved, have required great violence on the part of the
horse, and it was clear that he must have kicked and
plunged very violently. It further appeared that
there are bolts outside the doors, and also chains to
keep the doors safe if the wooden fastenings
inside should give way, but on this occasion on the
door in question there was no bolt or chain
fastened. This was admitted by the very porter who
was called as a witness to prove that he "saw the
fastenings all right," and who at first said that
"the chain was hardly ever used" and then "that
it was always used." The porters who helped to put
in the horses at Drayton on the return journey
swore indeed, that there both chains and boltswere
securely fastened outside as well as the wooden bars
inside, and that the horse was also tied up by the head.
One of them said that if the horse was plunging and
hit the upright bar it might knock the door open. The
guard stated that the horse-boxes were all right
when the train left Drayton, and all was right at
Hayes. But just before arriving at Southall, hearing
some one call out, he looked out and saw the doors
of this box open. When the train stopped he went to
the box and saw the horse's fore leg out, and they
put it in again and nailed up the door as securely as
they coulcL The horse's leg was hanging out and he was
in "a great perspiration ;" but he was properly
fastened up, the guard said—that is, tied at the head.
At Hanvvell, however, he found the doors had been
burst open again, but the horse was then quiet, sitting
down, and properly tied up. The horse was put into
another box, which delayed the train eight minutes,
with an express train coming up behind it. This witness
swore that at Southall there was nothing broken,
neifher door nor box ; but at Hanwell the door was
broken all to pieces. The chain was not broken, it
was said, but had got unfastened, and was hanging
down, and the lock was open but not broken.
Mr. Mason, the general inspector of the company,
who had been four years inthe 10th Hussars, and had
acquired a great knowledge of horses, stated that he
had been at great pains to satisfy himself as to the
best mode of securing horses for conveyance, and he
believed the mode adopted by this company was as
good as could be devised, but that no method could be
devised which would prevent the horse from injuring
himself. In his opinion the groom ought to travel with
his horse, as by his voice he could soothe the animal if
alarmed. For that reason, he said, the company provided
a coupe in the box for the groom, and a careful groom
would go with his horse. The box and its fastenings,
he said, were quite fit and proper' and a horse might
he so restive that it could not be safely carried.
Even a horse unusually quiet might, from pain or some
other reason, be restive in the box. Such was the evi-
dence in this case. And on the part of the company it
was urged that there was no evidence of "culpable"
neglect on the part of their servants ; while on the
part of the plaintiff it was contended that there must
have been negligence or the injury could not have hap-
pened. On one side it was said that it was shown that
the home, probably restive with pain caused by a
Eprain in being hunted with a swelled leg, must have
kicked the doors of the box open, and that his injuries
were owing to his own violence. On the other side it
was urged that if the animal had been properly secured,
the accident could not have occurred, and that the
horse could not possibly have kicked the door open if
the bars inside and the lock, bolt, and chain outside
had been securely fastened ; and, at all events, it was
urged, the horse ought to have been removed into
another box at SouthalL

The Lord Chief Justice left to the jury the question
whether the injury arose from the fault of the horse or
of thesporters. Had it arisen from their fault in not
properly tying him up, or from some fright or vice on
his part? The evidence of Mr. Mason went to show
that the method adopted was as good as could be de-
vised ; and that no method could be devised which
would insure the safety of animals so carried. Was
there anything improper or insecure in the mode of
fastening the carriage? A door getting loose might by
flapping have alarmed the animal, but this was mere
matter of speculation; and there was nothing to show
that the doors came open through insufficient fasten-
ing, though this was for the jury to judge. Had the
horse become restive, and kicked the doors open, or had
they been insecurely fastened? And ought he to
have been removed into another box at Southall? As
to which, however, the Lord Chief Justice observed
that he did not think there was anything in it; but he
left the point to the jury, at the instance of the
plaintiff's counsel, for what it was worth. In conclu-
sion, the Lord Chief Justice told the jury that, if they
found found for the plaintiff, they could not give
more than £5O, by reason of the conditions of the
contract.
. . .

The jury consulted together for sometime, and then
retired to consider their verdict.
Ultimately they returned a verdict for the plaintiff
for £5O.