Cases. Miscellaneous. this description is not to be considered as a servant, but as a person carrying on an independent business, such as the commissioners were fully justified in employing to perform works which they could not execute for themselves, and who was known to all the world as performing them. We find here none of the reasons which have prevailed in cases where one person has been held liable for the acts of another as his servant. The learned judges who thought the defendant liable in Laugher v. Pointer (5 B. & C. 547) might, without inconsistency, have held that these commissioners are not liable. The doubt is raised by the contract, which expressly requires that all such parts of the said works to be done by Button as are not in a particular manner specified and described in the contract, or the plans and specifications, shall be executed in such manner as the surveyor of the said works for the time being shall direct, and in a good and workmanlike manner; and such execution of the work is secured by penalties. This passage of the agreement would appear to take power from the contractor, and keep it in the hands of the commissioners, or their surveyor; but, whatever may be its proper construction or effect, it has no application to the present case, for the bank which failed is a part of the works so specified and described, and for which, therefore, if ill done, the contractor is liable, and the commissioners are not. We are · therefore of opinion, that the rule for a nonsuit must be absolute." Rule absolute. Majesty's mails. I. THE obligations imposed on railway companies to con- To convey her vey the mails, are contained in the stats. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 98 (a), and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 85, s. 11 (b); and a clause is now always inserted in each special railway act, making the company liable to the provisions of these general acts. The above-mentioned general acts are applicable to railways, whether the carriages used are impelled by steam, locomotive or stationary engines, or animal or other power (c); and no company can make bye-laws repugnant to these acts (d). (a) Post, App., 4. (e) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 98, s. 1, post, App., 4. (d) Id., s. 11, post, App., 8. In a document published at the close of the last session of Parliament, (1846), and intituled "The Second Report of the Select Committee on Railway Acts D D Enactments," but which appears to Cases. Miscellaneous. this description is not to be considered as a servant, but as a person carrying on an independent business, such as the commissioners were fully justified in employing to perform works which they could not execute for themselves, and who was known to all the world as performing them. We find here none of the reasons which have prevailed in cases where one person has been held liable for the acts of another as his servant. The learned judges who thought the defendant liable in Laugher v. Pointer (5 B. & C. 547) might, without inconsistency, have held that these commissioners are not liable. The doubt is raised by the contract, which expressly requires that all such parts of the said works to be done by Button as are not in a particular manner specified and described in the contract, or the plans and specifications, shall be executed in such manner as the surveyor of the said works for the time being shall direct, and in a good and workmanlike manner; and such execution of the work is secured by penalties. This passage of the agreement would appear to take power from the contractor, and keep it in the hands of the commissioners, or their surveyor; but, whatever may be its proper construction or effect, it has no application to the present case, for the bank which failed is a part of the works so specified and described, and for which, therefore, if ill done, the contractor is liable, and the commissioners are not. We are therefore of opinion, that the rule for a nonsuit must be absolute." Rule absolute. 401 § 7.—OBLIGATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE STATUTE LAW ON RAILWAY COMPANIES. Majesty's mail. L. THE obligations imposed on railway companies to con- To convey her vey the mails, are contained in the stats. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 98 (a, and 7 & 8 Vict. c. 85, s. 11 (b); and a clause is now always inserted in each special railway act, making the company liable to the provisions of these general acts. The above-mentioned general acts are applicable to railways, whether the carriages used are impelled by steam, locomotive or stationary engines, or animal or other power e; and no company can make bye-laws repugnant to these wote ¿. To convey her Majesty's Mails. The Postmaster-General is authorised, by notice delivered to any railway company (e), to require that the mails, from the day to be named in the notice, (being not less than twenty-eight days from the delivery thereof), shall be forwarded on the railway, either by the ordinary or special trains, at such hours or times in the day or night blishment of railways has been attended, to a branch of the public revenue intimately connected with the convenience and welfare of the great body of the people. Before the establishment of railways, the PostOffice, according to Mr. Stow, paid for the carriage of the mails, including the coaches, something under 2d. a mile; but the charges demanded by the railways are much higher; and in the case of one railway, the North Union, they amount to no less than 2s. 91 d. per mile. The aggregate charge for carrying the mails in Great Britain was, in 1836-7, before railways were adopted, 53,2931. 18s. 4d. or 13% per mile per day, for 18,090 miles; but, partly in consequence of the increase of letters and parcels through the introduction of the penny post, and partly in consequence of the high sums charged by some railways, the aggregate charge is now much higher. In 1846, as appears by a return from the Post Office, the number of miles travelled daily by mail-coaches had been reduced to 11,473, while the amount paid per annum was 45,7291. 10s. 6d., or 2d. per mile per day. But, besides this sum, there is paid yearly to railways no less than 102,1857. 6s. 10d.; the two amounting together to 147,9147. 17s. 4d. Mr. Robert Stephenson, who has been extensively employed in arbi trating between the Post-Office and railway companies, states that the principal difference between Captain Harness, on the part of the PostOffice, and himself was this, that Captain Harness contended, that, if a line run six trains a day, and a seventh were wished by the Post-Office, it should only pay the bare cost of that seventh train; but that he said, 'No; we ought to negotiate with the PostOffice as with other parties: there is no law that exempts them from the ordinary mode of transacting business; therefore, he had invariably maintained, that the total establishment of the railway ought to be taken, and a portion of the charges placed to the account of that one train; observing, significantly, that if the legislature had made a law that they should be treated differently, well and good; but that he took the law as it stands. Mr. Reed states, that in France they are obliged by every train to reserve a compartment of a carriage, convenient for a persou to ride in, for the Post-Office guard, with his bag of letters, without any remuneration; and a similar system seems to prevail on all continental railways." (e) Notices may be delivered to any director, secretary, or clerk, or be left at any station on the railway. 1 & 2 Vict. c. 98, s. 15, post, App., 9. |
