CARRYING HORSES. 273 



general Common Law obligation of the Carrier, whether 

 by Notice acquiesced in, or document signed by the cus- 

 tomer, was one of Special Contract. Therefore, the con- 

 struction to be put upon the words "Special Contract" in 

 the Act must date back to a state of the law, when a 

 Condition signed by the owner or his agent for delivering 

 the goods was held to be " a Special Contract," except 

 where expressly varied by the words of the Statute. 



But a Railway Company cannot repudiate a Special Special con- 

 Contract on the around that it has not been signed by the ^'^^^^ bimiing 



ji • • J ^ ^ !• i Oil company 



consignor ; the proviso m sect. 7 only applies to cases without si^-- 



where the company seek to relieve themselves from liability nature. 



by reason of there being a Special Contract [in) . 



Where an agent who is employed to deliver cattle to be Effect of 

 sent by a Railway Company signs the consignment note, A^ent*^^^ ^ 

 he must be taken to have known the contents, and thereby 

 binds his principal {)i). If a man who can read sends a 

 man who cannot read to sign a document or to enter into 

 a contract in which a document must to his knowledge be 

 signed, he cannot dispute his liability on the contract so 

 signed, on the ground that his agent could not read the 

 contents ; for in such a case the principal must be taken to 

 be in the same position as though he had signed it himself 

 without reading it (o) . 



It was also decided, in the case of irManus v. Lancashire As to reason- 

 and Yorkshire Raihcay Compani/{p), that the 17 & 18 Vict. ^ou^tT 

 c. 31, s. 7, gave power to the Court or Judge trying the decide, 

 cause to decide upon the justice and reasonableness of Con- 

 ditions in a Special Contract for the carriage of animals or 

 goods on a Railway ; and the Court expressed their con- 

 currence with the opinion pronounced by Jervis, C. J., in 

 Simojis V. Great Western Railaru/ Company {q), that "the 

 Company may make Special Contracts with their cus- 

 tomers, provided they are just and reasonable, and signed ; 

 and that, whereas the monopoly created by Railways com- 

 pels the public to employ them in the conveyance of their 

 goods, the Legislature have thought fit to impose the 

 further security, that the Court shall see that the Condition 

 or Special Contract is just and reasonable." 



(w) Baxendale v. Great Eastern {o) Foreman v. Great Western 



Hailwai/ Co., L. R., 4 Q. B. 244; Raihcay Co., 38 L. T., N. S. 351. 

 38 L. J., Q. B. 137. {p) See note (/■:), ante. 



(«) Klrhij V. Great Western Rail- [q) Simons v. Great Western. Rail- 



u-aii Co., 18 L. T., N. S. 658, per xauj Co., 26 L. J., C. P. 25. 

 Martin, B. 



O. T 



