The Express.
London, England, 1864-12-16 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—Thic. 15.

Sittings at Nisi Prigs in Loades.—(Belot. Lord Chid
Jmscios File mad m Spsoial Jury.)

EOBLTBOIC V. TEI LONDON AND 8017TH METE= EAD.WLT
CONPANY.-81121DEP3 HOURS ET IA/LWAY.
This cue involved some question of mend import's*,
in reference to sending hones by railway.
The Hon. George Denman Q.C., and Mr. Hingdon
ap-
rvfor the plaintiff ; and Mr. Eierjeant Ballantine and
irood for the defendants.

The plaintiff;asagentleTian residing in Yorkshire, and,
as his counsel said, he was like most gentlemen in that
county, in this, that he knew something of horieflesh, and
was fond of horses. In December, last year be purchased
of Mr. Ayling, of Liss, near l'eterstield, Hampshire, through
the agency of Captain Mannering, • mare foe 1351. Some
telegrams passed.along the wires during the negotiation of
the sale, and in al
th eme, of comes, amounts were men-
tonied. The company in this way became aware of
the value of the animal ; and when Captain Mannering
tendered the mare to be carried by railway front Liss to
London, the station master said that so the mare was worth
1351. he could not send her unless she were insured. The
17 and 18 Vic., cap. 31, said that railway companies should
be liable for loss in respect of cattle or goods, which was
caused by the neglect or default of their servants, notwith-
standing any declaration or notice by the company to the
contrary ; provided, however, that no greater sums than
those mentioned in the statute should be recovered, mine
the person sending should at the time of the delivery declare
the thing sent to be of higher value ; and in such case it
should be lawful for the company to demand a reasonable
percentage on the value in excess of the sums mentioned in
the act. The sum to be recovered without insurance for
damage to a horse was 504 The railway company
contended, according to the plaintiff's counsel, that if
they knew the animal to be worth more than
501. they could refuse to take it unless an insurance
were paid ; whilst on the other hand it was said that the
statue was framed for the protection of the company from
any greater loss than 501. without insurance, and that it left
the option with persons who sent animals of greater value
to bear the additional risk themselves or to insure at their
pleasure. The charge for carrying the mare from Liss to
London was IT.. rid., whilst the sum asked for insuring her
for the extra value beyond 501. was 41.5,. This charge
was in accordance with the practice adopted not only on
this, but generally on the other hoes, of charging 3 per cent.
upon the value beyond 501. for insurance.
The Lord Chief Justice said that he should rule in favour
Of Mr. Denman, that it was optional with parties sending to
insure Or not.

Some evidence was given, and agood deal of discussion took
place, in the course of which it was stated that the plaintiff's
claim shaped itself in two ways, damages for refusal to
take the mare without insurance, sod for asking an unrea-
sonable sum for insurance. Two questions were raised, whe-
ther there had been a declaration of the value of the mare,
but this depended upon the construction to be put upon some
correspondence. Another question was whether the 5 per
sent, was a reasonable charge for insurance ; and it was con-
tended for the plaintiff that the charge was not reasonable,
because it was the same whether the animal was carried five
miles or a hundred ; whilst for the defendants it was said
that it had been found impossible to frame a scale of charges
to vary according to distance and other circumstances affect-
ing the risk incurred.
The jury found that the charge for insurance was reason.
able ; and a verdict was entered for the plaintiff upon the
first count, subject to the opinion of the fall court upon
some questions of law.