2:6 



CARRYING HORSES. 



Owner's risk 

 at lower rate. 



Condition as 

 to time "with- 

 in "which loss 

 should be de- 

 clared to 

 create claim. 



Condition as 

 to Special 

 Rate. 



As to pack- 

 age insuffici- 

 ently packed. 



As to non- 

 liability for 

 Loss of Mar- 

 ket as to Fish. 



As to Cheese. 



But where A. knew that there was a certain rate for 

 carrying Horses on a railway by passenger train, and in 

 horse-boxes, and that there was a lower rate for carrying 

 them by goods train, and in waggons ; it was held that it 

 was a reasonable condition of the contract for conveyance 

 that the Horses should be carried entirely at the owner's 

 risk, and that such condition would protect the railway 

 company if the Horses were injured on the journey, but 

 would not protect them from the consequences of delay 

 where the contract was to deliver in a reasonable time (?<). 



Conditions protecting the Company against claims for 

 loss unless made within seven days from the time at which 

 the goods should have been delivered, and against liability 

 for the loss of goods untruly or incorrectly declared or 

 described by the sender are reasonable, and binding (x). 



A Condition that a Railway Company should not be re- 

 sponsible for loss or damage for any cause whatsoever to 

 goods conveyed (it a special or mileage rate, is reasonable. 



A Condition that a Company should not be liable for 

 the loss, detention or damage of any package insufficiently 

 packed, is unreasonable (//) . 



In Bcal V. SoutJi Devon Railicaij Compani/ (z), the Company 

 gave notice that they would only convey fish on their line 

 by special agreement, and the Condition in question pro- 

 vided that the Company should not be responsible under 

 any circumstances for Loss of Market, or for other loss 

 or injury, from any cause whatsoever, other than gross 

 negligence or fraud ; and this condition was held to be 

 reasonable, dissentiente Martin. B. 



In the case of White v. Great Western Raihcaij Com- 

 'pa)nj [a), in which the plaintiff delivered a quantity of 

 cheese at a station of the defendants' Railway for a parti- 

 cular market, and the cheese was delayed in delivery, and 

 thus lost a market, it was held that a Condition that " the 



((/) Si»ions Y. Great Western Eail- 

 u-ay Co., 26 L. J., C. P. 25. 



{z) Beat V. South Devon Railway 

 Co., 5 H. & N. 875. See also 

 AUdaij V. Great Western Railway 

 Co., 3t L. J., Q. B. 5, post. 



{a) White v. Great Western Rail- 

 way Co., 26 L. J., C. P. 158 ; and 

 see cases there cited, and Alhlay v. 

 Gt-eat irestcrn Railway Co., 31 L. J., 

 Q. B. 5, post. See also Lord v. 

 jMidlaml Railway Co., L. E., 2 C. 

 P. 339. 



(«) Robinson v. Great Western 

 Railway Co., 35 L. J., C. P. 123 ; 

 H. & E.. 97 ; see also D'Arc v. 

 London and North Western Railway 

 Co., L. R., 9 C. P. 325; 30 L. T., 

 N. S. 763. See also Harris v. Mid- 

 land Railway Co., 25 W. E. 63— 

 D. C. A. ; &ndi Lewis v. Great West- 

 ern Railway Co., L. E., 3 Q. B. D. 

 195; 47L. J.,Q. B. 131; 37L. T., 

 N.S. 774. PerBrett, L. J., L.E., 

 3 Q. B. D. 209. 



(.(,■) Lewis V. Great Western Rail- 

 way Co., 5 H. & N. 867. 



