Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: projection of roof in Lakhichand Ramchand vs G.I.P. Railway Company on 13 November, 1911Matching Fragments
Batchelor, J.
14. I entirely agree, but should like to explain shortly, in my own words, why I am unable to accede to one of the main arguments addressed to us on behalf of the appellants.
15. The facts have been narrated by the Chief Justice, and it is unnecessary to recapitulate them. It is enough to say that the appellants' goods were destroyed by fire while they were in the exclusive possession and control of the way company, and that the company have been unable to show from what cause the fire originated. Admittedly the company have given all the evidence which it lay within their power to give on the point, and that evidence is both voluminous and elaborate; but the result is that the actual cause of the fire remains unascertained, and we are left to choose between various-competing theories of greater or less probability. Different minds would prefer different theories. For my own part I am inclined to regard as the likeliest theory that which ascribes the fire to the introduction of a spark from the engine into the narrow ventilating crevice left below the projecting roof of the waggon. But any such selection appears to me to be no more than conjecture more or less plausible, and as a matter of evidence 1 think we are bound to hold that the cause of the fire is unascertained.