CARRYINO HORSES. 269 



At one period indeed there was a disposition in our Eluding at 

 Courts to hold that Common Carriers could not by their Cr'ominon 

 Notices shake off their Common Law responsibility ; but ^^' 

 Mr. Justice Story says {u) : — " The right of making such 

 qualified acceptances by Common Carriers seems to have 

 been asserted in early times. Lord Coke declared it in a 

 note to Southcote^s case (.r), and it was admitted in Morse v. 

 Slue {//) . It is now fully recognized and settled beyond 

 any reasonable doubt in England." For this assertion he 

 cites a number of authorities, and the Court of Common 

 Pleas held that he had arrived at a correct conclusion (;;). 



It being thus established, that the Common Law liability Hardship 

 of Railway Companies as Common Carriers might always *^^^ ^^^^' 

 be defeated by the express contracts to carry, which were 

 embodied in their Notices and Tickets (a), the monopoly 

 enjoyed by them led to their unduly restricting their 

 liability by sj)ecial contracts with customers, who could 

 not afford the time or expense of litigating the right to 

 refuse to carry except upon such contracts, and thus in 

 many cases they were enabled to protect themselves against 

 the legal consequences of the grossest negligence on their 

 part {b). 



With the view of remedying the hardships thus occa- Remedy 

 sioned the Eailway and Canal Traffic Act was passed in ^"^ ^ 1 8 Vict. 

 1854(c). 



That Act by the first six sections provides for enforcing Sections 1—6. 

 against these Companies the duty of making arrange- 

 ments for receiving and forwarding traffic of every de- 

 scription without delay and without partiality (d). 



By the 7th section it enacts that every such Company Section 7. 

 *' shall be liable for the loss of or for any injury done to 

 any Horses, Cattle, or other animals, or to any articles 

 or goods," "in the receiving, forwa]:ding or delivering 



(m) Story on Bailments, 549. {b) Carr v. Lancashire and York- 



[x) Southcote^s case, 4 Kep. 83. shire Railway Co., 7 Ex. 707, and 



{y) Morse v. Slue, 1 Vent. 2o8. cases there cited. 



{z) See Judgment of Court of C. {c) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31. 



P., Austin V. Manchester, Sheffield (d) As to the construction to be 



and Lincolnshire Hallway Co., 21 L. put upon these sections, see Brid- 



J., C. P. 183. don V. Great Northern Railway Co., 



(a) Carr v. Lancashire and York- 28 L. J., Ex. 51 ; Garten v. Bristol 



shire Railway Co., 7 Ex. 707; Austin and Exeter Railway Co., 28 L. J., 



V. Manchester, Sheffield and Lincoln- C. P. 30G ; also per Crowder, J., 



shire Railway Co., 21 L. J., C. P. Nicholson v. Great Western Railway 



183; Chippendale v. Lancashire and Co., 28 L. J., C. P. 89; and Ran- 



Yorkshire Railway Co., 21 L. J., Q. some y. Eastern Counties Railway Co., 



B. 22. 26 L. J., C. P. 91. 



