Natal Law Reports; Supreme Court Volume 13 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1892 edition. Excerpt: ...be assumed that the Castle Company did what was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to convey to the minds of these Arab passengers, that the document handed to them contained cortain conditions which were to affect them as regarded their luggage. The evidence goes to show that the so-called ticket was printed in the English language, which language the plaintiffs could neither speak nor read, and which printed matter was not explained to them; surely then it cannot be contended that.. 1J2;, - they, the plaintiffs, were binding themselves by conditions sept. 8. of the existence of which they had not the slightest idea, ---., i, i i..i i i-ii ii_ Castle Mail and with which, without explanation given to them, they Packett Co. -. had no opportunity to make themselves acquainted. As Mitheram -nd to what since 1876 has been considered the principles on which to establish the liability of a passenger as regards his reception of a luggage ticket, see Parker's case v. S. E. Railway Co., L.R. 1 C.P. Div. p. 618, where Lord Justice Mellish referring to the case of Harris v. Great Western Railway Co. (L.R., 1 Q.B. Div. 515 and 522) said The question to consider is whether the Company were entitled to assume that a person depositing luggage and receiving a ticket in such a way that he could see that some writing was printed on it, would understand that the writing contained the conditions of the contract, and this seems to me to depend upon whether people in general would, in fact, and naturally, draw that inference. The Company, as it seems to me, must be entitled to make some assumptions respecting the person who deposits luggage with them. I think they are entitled to assume that he can read, and that he understands the...