The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-02-22 00:00:00

THE MINERS' STRIKE IN SOUTH
WALES.

THE CHARACTER AND TEMPER OF
A COW!

la the Court of Queen's Bench, the cause of "0111 o The
mchester, Shelliald, and Lincolnshire Railway Company"
hai been heard, and which case raised & curious question,
which really turned on the character or temper of a cow.
•

The p`aintiff, a cowkeeper, had a cow to convey to
Sheffield, and for that purpose "booked" her to that
place, going himself by the same train. On arriving
there he cautioned the porter not to let her out just
then, or "mho would go," lie said, "clap at you." The
porter laughed and let her out, and she did "go slap
at them." They tied in all dire‘itions, and the cow,
running wildly here and there, up and down the sta-
tion, got entancled in the " ;-pene." jumped over them
upon the line, and was killed by a peeving train. The
company disteuted their liability on the ground that
the ticket had upon it these terms—that they were not
ti be reaponsible for loss or injury to cattle "canned
by the revtitfuess of the animals ;" and they insisted
that this had been the owe in the present instance. The
learned Judge at the trial (Baron (!leaaby) WM of that
opinii n. and directed a nousuit. The plaintiff applied
to set the nonsuit aside ; and the Court, composed of
Mr. Justice Blackburn, Mr. Justice Mellor, and Mr.
Justice Lush, were divided, but, by a majority of one,
decided in his favour. _ _

Mr. Justice Mellos. the dissentient Judge, was in
favour of the company, on the ground that there was,
in his opinion, no evidei cc of negligence on the part of
their servante. The place at which the cow was taken
out was, he said, the usual and proper Voce for the
purpose ; it did not appear that the porter was Incom-
petent, awl it was probelile that ha had come ex-
perience It was not hitiduty to delay the delivery of
the cow merely because, at the moment of unfastening
the animal, the owner raid, " Don't let her out." If
the porter in char ire of animals WIWI bound to delay
their delivery on account of such intimations, the
businees of the company would be greatly impeded. The
cow in question was not the only ru,imaf to be delivered,
yet, according to the case for the plaintiff, there woe to
be a delay of delivery orr account of her excited state.
But the porters were not bound on that account eii her
to deliver other cattle out of their turn or to delay the
delivery of all of them. The porter was not bound to
alter the usuid course of delivery, but it was hie duty
to exercise hie own judgment in the usual and ordinary
course and manner of delivery, lie hail done noon this
occasion, and the injury to the vow had arisen entirely
from her own result nest, and net from any negligence
on the part of the arrant, of the company. His judg-
ment, therefore, was in their favour.
Mr. Justice Blackburn and Mr. Justice Lush con-
curred in judgment fie the plaiutiff, OD the ground
that there was negligence on the part of the porter.
The caution given to him by the plaintiff ought, they
thought, to have conveyed to his mind the idea of
danger in letting the cow out at once. The terms of
the ticket did not, they considered, relieve the com-
pany trim the consequences of their -ervants' negli-
g, nee any more than the ordinary exception in a bid of
lading, of perils of the seas, relieved the ohipowner from
the consequences of negligence of the master or the
crew. The rhipowner would still be liable for damage
canoed by negligence of the crew, and the carrier in like
manner was still liable for Legiigence of his servants
No doubt, if the lose or damage arose from the excepted
causes, the plaintiff could Lot recover, but here that
was not the case. The precise degree of care t be
taken by the carrier in delivery of cattle or goods must
depend upon the circumstances at the time, and in the
case of cattle some animal 4 might require more care
than others. The care required was such as a prudent
ant careful owner would take, and here the owner him-
self gave a sufficient caution. If it had appeared that
the exigencies if business required the porter to deliver
the cow at cram, the case might have been otherwise; but
there was no such evidence, It rather appeared that
the plaintiff wanted a short time to soothe the now, or
secure her err as to prevent her from doing mi-chief,
and there WO nothing to show that there would have
been any becouveniense in this course. Ail it was,
howeeer, that course, which seemed rearonable enough,
was not taken, and the cow was let out at once. They
thought the mi-chief had arisen from this canoe, and
not from the resti !neon of the cow, and they therefore
gave judgment for the plaintiff. 'roe judgment f the
Court, therefore, was for the plaintiff for £l5, the
value of the cow, but under the County Courts Acts
there was still the question whether he shoulil get his
costs, and that, the Judges said, they would not then
detainable.