ROBINSON v. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
SENDING HORSES BY RAILWAY.
This case involved some questions of general importance in reference sending horses by railway.
The Hon. George Denman, Q.C., and Mr. Kingdon, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant Ballantine and Mr. Wood for the defendants.
The plaintiff was a gentleman residing in Yorkshire, and, as his counsel said, he, like most gentlemen in that county, knew something of horseflesh, and was fond of horses. In December last year he purchased of Mr. Ayling, of Liss, near Petersfield, in Hampshire, through the agency of Captain Mannering, a mare for 135l. Some telegrams passed along the wires during the negotiation of the sale, and in those of course accounts were mentioned. The company in this way became aware the value of the animal, and when Captain Mannering tendered the mare to be carried from Liss to London, the station-master said that as the mare was worth 135l. he could not send her unless she were insured. The 17th and 18th 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, notwithstanding 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, unless the person sending should at the time of the delivery declare the thing sent to be of higher value; and in which case it should be lawful for the company to demand reasonable per centage on the value in excess of the cases mentioned in the act. The sum to be recovered, without insurance, for damage to a horse was 50l. The company contended, according to the plaintiff’s counsel, that if they knew the animal to be worth more than 50l. they could refuse to take it, unless an insurance were paid; whilst on the other hand it was said that the clause was framed for the protection of the company from any greater loss than 50l., 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 London was 17s. 6d., whilst the sum asked for insuring her for the extra value beyond 50l. was 4l. 5s. This charge was in accordance with the practice adopted, not only on this, but generally on the other lines, of charging 5 per cent, upon the value beyond 50l., 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 a good deal of discussion took place, in the course of which it was stated that the plaintiffs’ claim shaped itself in two ways, damages for refusal to take the mare without insurance, and for asking an unreasonable sum for insurance.
Two questions were raised—whether 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 cent. was a reasonable charge for insurance; and it was contended for the plaintiff that the charge was not reasonable because it was the same whether the animal was carried five miles or 100; 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 affecting the risk incurred.
The jury found that the charge for insurance was reasonable, 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.