Court Of Exchequer, April 22. GORRIS V. sxrrn. ti UznyJn ISanco, Zcfurc Ihi LOl:D CIIIEF B. 1;OS and Bf)rons hG l) r2 d'OLLUCI, and Ahu'niamx.) Thlis was specialI.jape)r day. Their Lord3hipi dispo3ed off SnVe-I C.-PA This was a demurrcr to a deciar.ation. Thc action was brought ag iust the deiendant, a shipoweisr, wbo had agreed to carry some sheep beioaging to the plaintiff from Hamburg to Newcastle, for breacl, ot the rcgM6uLaons made by the Privy CounIcil under the Uoutagi.us Diseascs (Aiumals) Act, 1S89, for proveutuin, unneees,ry sufrerieg to cattle on sea transit by providing peus of certain dimcn- sions and proper foothoids for cattTl, by reason of which several tbeep of the plaintil Is were washed overboard. Tho dcclaration alleged a brcach of the statuto.r duty, and tbat the sheep wero washed overboard in consequence. The declniation v-as demurred to on the ground that the pur- poso of the Act was to prevent infectiDn from being intro- duced into England. tnd not ns a precaution to protect the oWvners fron, their sheep bei,; wahed overboard. .Mr. Her-ci.cll, q.C. Iwith whom was Mr. J. ii. 31cllor), argued for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hugh Shield for tho de. fendant. Mr. HERSCIIELL,Q.C., contended that, it being admiitcd there had becn a bre,ch of a atatutory duty, and ttat the plainitiff had suffered damagc in con3uqueuce, the act.on was maintaihable. Mlr. HEuGn :usinLD urged that the Act did not contem- piate a bencfit to persons in the po.itiou of tho plaintui, therefore be co,l14 not recover. Tho CoutcT held that the actiou was not maintainable, the purposo an,l object of the Act being the prevention of the spread of infectiod, and not the protectionL uf thb owners of cattle from such a disaster as that which COUOR OF EIXCIEQOUER APRIL T'.