CARRYING HORSES. 275 



sidered that the drover had the means of knowhig whether 

 the cattle could travel safely in the carriage provided for 

 them, and that the Condition was a reasonable one. 



In the case of M'JIaiiiis v. Lancashire and Yorkshire To be free 

 Railicaij Company (t), a Horse was placed by defendants' of°Conve^^-^^^ 

 servants in a truck which was insufficient and unsound, ance— Horse 

 and the Horse put its foot through a hole in the floor, and injured by 

 was injured ; and the question of liability on the contract J^^rudT^*^ 

 turned upon the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the 

 following Condition : — This ticket is issued, subject to the 

 owner's undertaking " all risks of conveyance, loading 

 and unloading whatsoever, as the Company will not be 

 responsible for any injury or damage (however caused) 

 occurring to live stock of any description travelling upon 

 the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway, or in their 

 vehicles." This Condition was held to be neither just 

 nor reasonable, and Williams, J., in delivering the judg- 

 ment of the Court, said : "In order to bring the de- 

 fendants within the protection of the Special Contract, it 

 is necessary to construe it as excluding responsibility for 

 loss occassioned not only by all risks, of whatever kind, 

 directly incident to the transit, but also for that caused by 

 the insufficiency of the carriages provided by the de- 

 fendants, thougli occasioned by their own negligence or 

 misconduct. The sufficiency or insufficiency of the vehicles 

 by which the Company are to carry on their business is a 

 matter, generally speaking, which they, and they alone, 

 have, or ought to have, the means of fully ascertaining. 

 And it would, we think, not only be unreasonable, but 

 mischievous, if they were to be allowed to absolve them- 

 selves from the consequences- of neglecting to perform 

 properly that which seems naturally to belong to them as 

 a duty. It is unreasonable that the Company should 

 stipulate for exemption from liabilitj'' from the conse- 

 quence of their own negligence however gross, or mis- 

 conduct however flagrant ; and that is what the Condition 

 •under consideration professes to do. That Condition is 

 therefore void ; and the case stands simply upon the 

 ground that the plaintiif has employed the defendants to 

 carry his Horses safely, and that they have used an in- 

 sufficient and improper vehicle for that purpose, whereby 

 the Horses have been injured." 



(t) HP Manns v. Lancasliirc and Yorksliire Eaihvay Co, (Ex. Ch.), 4 II. & 

 N 349. 



t2 



