CARRYING HORSES. 271 



The principal points of difficulty in the construction of Construction 

 this ill-drawn and ambiguous section are those restrictions ^f section 7. 

 on the common law, which it appears to have been its 

 especial object to create. They are these : First, whether 

 General Notices given by such Companies are valid for 

 the purpose of limiting their Common Law liability as 

 Carriers ? Secondly, what, if any, distinction is to be drawn 

 between the words "Special Contract" and "Condition"? 

 And, thirdly, whether this Common Law liability may be 

 limited by such Conditions as the Court or Judge shall 

 determine to be just and reasonable ? And, moreover, if 

 this Common Law liability may be limited by such 

 Conditions as the Court or Judge shall determine to be 

 just and reasonable, it is important to consider what 

 Conditions have come within that definition. 



Notwithstanding a great divergence of opinion among 

 the learned Judges, the construction to be put upon this 

 section, with especial regard to these points of difficulty, 

 has been defined with considerable exactitude by decisions, 

 which it will be necessary to give in some detail. 



In the case of Peck v. TJie North Staffordshire Railway Peek v. KortJi 

 Compant/ (h), the w^hole law on this subject was reviewed ^iaffordslm-e 

 by the House of Lords, and in a great measure settled, paly"^^ 

 It is therefore unnecessary, with regard to those points 

 which it determined, to advert to the judicial decisions 

 which preceded it, and which exhibit considerable variances 

 of opinion. 



The defendants in this case had issued a Notice, that 

 they would receive, forward and deliver goods solely sub- 

 ject to certain Conditions, one being, " That they would 

 not be responsible for the loss or injury to any marbles, 

 &c. unless declared or insured according to their value." 

 The plaintiff's forwarding agent had knowledge of this 

 Notice or Condition, and on the 1st of August, 1857, by 

 letter, directed the defendants to forward the goods in 

 question (three cases of marbles), '■^ not insured.''^ The 

 marbles sustained injury on the journey from wet im- 

 pregnated with the rust of the nails of the cases penetrating 

 through and discolouring the stone, and this action was 

 brought for the damage thus occasioned against the Com- 

 pany as Common Carriers. 



By their fourth plea the Company pleaded under 17 & 18 



[h) Peek V. North Slafforchlure Railway Co., 32 L. J., Q. B, 241 

 (Dom. Proc.) 



