1866. MALPAS บ. LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAIL. Co. relation to the conveying or delivery of the said animals however caused, and also that the Defendants were not to be bound to send them by any particular train or to carry or deliver them within any certain or definite time, or in time for any particular market; and that the damages complained of were a consequence arising from detention or delay, within the true intent and meaning of the said condition. On these pleas issues were joined. At the trial before Smith, J., at the Middlesex Sittings in last Michaelmas Term, it appeared that the Plaintiff was a cattle salesman, residing at York Road, King's Cross, and that on the 16th May, 1865, he went to the Defend-. ants' station at Guildford and arranged with one of the Defendants' clerks for the transmission of a heifer and five calves to King's Cross cattle station on the North London Railway. The Plaintiff was accompanied by one Gregory, and according to their evidence, the clerk informed them that the cattle could be sent that night, and that they would reach the cattle market at King's Cross at four o'clock the following morning; that the charge would be one shilling a head for the calves and three shillings for the heifer to Nine Elms, and six shillings for a truck from Nine Elms to the cattle station, York Road, and that on offering to pay fourteen shillings for the carriage they were told to do so at King's Cross. The clerk then filled up a consignment note, which he gave to the Plaintiff to sign, who signed it accordingly, although, as he alleged, without reading it at the time, or having it read over to him. The consignment note was a printed form, with blanks filled in; the words "Nine Elms" were among the words so filled in. The note was as follows: "(Reduced Rates.) Cattle, sheep and pigs. To the South-Western Railway Company, Guildford Receive from Malpas, of New Cattle Market, the under mentioned animals on conditions stated below,* and at a special reduced charge below the rates authorized by law. To be sent to Nine Elms Station. * Special Conditions. The loading and unloading is to be performed by the sender, and any assistance voluntarily given by the company's servants to be at risk of the owner. The company are not to be subject to any risk in the receiving, loading, forwarding, in transit and unloading, nor to be answerable for any damage, actual or consequent, or arising from suffocation, from being trampled on, bruised or otherwise injured, from fire or any other cause whatsoever, nor from any consequences arising from over-carriage or detention or delay in or in relation to the conveying or delivery of the said animals however caused. The company is not bound to send the animals by any particular train, or to carry or deliver them within any certain or definite time, or in time for any particular market. If on the arrival of cattle and other animals at their destination no one shall be ready to receive the same on behalf of the consignee, the company will, at the discretion of the superintendent of any station, send such animals into yards or other convenient places at the expense and risk of the sender or consignee, and if not claimed within seven days the same will be sold to defray expenses and pay charges. In order to guard against disappointment the public are recommended to give two clear days' notice of their intention to send cattle from any station, so that they may if possible provide trucks. 1866. MALPAS V. LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAIL. Co. 1866. MALPAS บ. LONDON AND Free passes for drovers to take charge will be allowed according to the company's regulations. N.B. The conditions cannot be altered or dispensed SOUTH-WEST- with by any person whomsoever, and are applicable for the whole distance carried over the South-Western Railway." ERN RAIL. Co. The Defendants' evidence differed as to the effect of the conversation at Guildford, for they alleged that the Plaintiff was expressly informed there was no train to the market on the following day; that the company would not undertake the consignment further than Nine Elms, and that he, the Plaintiff, must take his chance beyond that point. They added that it was after this conversation that the note was made out and signed. The cattle were dispatched from Guildford on Tuesday the 16th, but did not reach the market station till the following Thursday, the 18th, when, from their distressed condition, it became necessary to kill them. The Plaintiff, in accordance with his view of the bargain, had attended at King's Cross on the previous morning, and had sent no one to Nine Elms, where, it was alleged, the cattle were shunted on to a siding, until the company obtained a convenient opportunity of sending them on with others. The Plaintiff paid the carriage for the whole distance, fourteen shillings, and obtained a receipt for the amount from the North London Railway Company. It appeared to be admitted that the cattle would, in the ordinary course, travel via Nine Elms, the Defendants' station, in order to reach the cattle station at King's Cross, which is a station of the North London Railway Company. The learned Judge expressed an opinion that the "conditions" were unreasonable, and requested the jury to say whether the contract was to carry to Nine Elms or to King's Cross. They gave their verdict for the Plaintiff, and the Defendants then obtained a rule calling upon the Plaintiff to show cause why that verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had on the ground that the con signment note signed by the Plaintiff was conclusive evi dence of the contract. 1866. MALPAS บ. LONDON AND Baylis showed cause.-If the consignment note con- SOUTH-WESTtained the entire contract the Plaintiff would not have ERN RAIL. Co. been entitled to give parol evidence of what took place; but the contest at the trial was whether that document did constitute the contract entered into by the parties, or whether there was not a complete bargain before the paper was signed. Parol evidence of what the contract really was is therefore admissible: Rogers v. Hadley (a); Lindley v. Lacey (b). The Court called upon Giffard and Wood in support of the rule.-The question is whether this document was so conclusive, that the Judge was wrong in allowing evidence to go to the jury as to what the contract was? In this case the contract was contained entirely in the consignment note; parol evidence, therefore, that the terms were otherwise than as there stated was inadmissible. Although supplementary matter might have been given in evidence, it was not competent for the Plaintiff to adduce evidence in direct contradiction to the terms expressed in writing: Jeffery v. Walton (c); Hoadly v. M'Laine (d). If a man who knowingly signs a document can afterwards set up a parol agreement inconsistent with it there is an end to the finality of such documents; nor can a party be heard to say that the document which he has signed was not read by him. ERLE, C. J. I am of opinion that this rule should be discharged. The action was for the non-performance of a contract to safely and securely carry goods from Guildford to King's Cross, and the question is whether there was evidence of a contract to carry to King's Cross. On 1866. MALPAS v. LONDON AND ERN RAIL. Co. the part of the Plaintiff the oral evidence was very distinct that there was such a contract, and that the charge was to be fourteen shillings. On the part of the Defendants, howSOUTH-WEST- ever, there was produced a paper, signed by the Plaintiff at the time the cattle were delivered to the company, apparently containing the terms on which the cattle were to be carried, and on that paper were the words "to be sent to Nine Elms station." On both sides it was agreed that the goods were to pass by Nine Elms station in order to reach the cattle market station on the line of another railway company. It is contended by the Defendants that the paper is conclusive that there was no contract to carry to King's Cross; but I am of opinion that that contention fails, for, although there appears to be a contract to carry from Guildford to Nine Elms, it is not inconsistent. therewith that there should also be a contract to carry from Nine Elms to King's Cross. The oral evidence adduced on the part of the Plaintiff amounted to a contract to carry to King's Cross; and it is a material fact, not mentioned in the written contract, that the charge for the whole journey was to be fourteen shillings, the rate to Nine Elms being only eight shillings, thus leaving six shillings for the carriage to King's Cross. It is said that to admit this parol evidence is to allow a contradiction of the written agreement; but that contention cannot be maintained, because the evidence offered does not vary or contradict the agreement in writing, and shows only that an additional agreement was entered into. This is the precise ground of my judgment, for I am aware how important it is that the responsibility of railway companies on receiving goods should be limited by writing, and that the agreement in writing should be conclusive. In Robinson v. The Great Western Railway Company (a), the Plaintiff declined to produce the written contract, which contained the ordinary stipulations by railway companies, and he failed, because we con (a) 1 H. & R. 97. |