278 



CAHRYING HORSES. 



Condition as 

 to value 

 conplcd with 

 unreasonable 

 rate. 



classes of rates, and had made a Special Contract limiting 

 their liability in consideration of the lesser rate being 

 charged. But no such thing has been done here." And 

 Mr. Justice Cronipton said, " I am of the same opinion. 

 It is clear that the cattle sustained injury by reason of the 

 conduct of the defendants. It is also clear that the Condi- 

 tion is an unreasonable one ; it was compulsory upon the 

 plaintiff, no option being given to him, and the defendants 

 cannot in such a manner protect themselves from liability." 

 In these judgments Mr. Justice Mellor and Mr. Justice 

 Shee concm^red. It is important to observe in this case, 

 that the " injmy " to the cattle is the only damage adverted 

 to by the learned Judges, so it may be inferred, in accord- 

 ance with former decisions (c), that the Loss of Market 

 alone would not have entitled the defendants to compen- 

 sation. 



In Harrison v. London, Brighton and South Coast 

 liaihcay Comjxmy (d), the following Condition was called 

 in question : — " The Company will not be liable in any 

 case for loss or damage to any Horse or other animal 

 above the value of 40/., or any dog above the value of 51., 

 unless a declaration of its value, signed by the owner, or 

 his agent, at the time of booking, shall have been given to 

 them ; and by such declaration the owner shall be bound, 

 the Company not being in any event liable to any greater 

 amount than the value declared. The Company will in 

 no case be liable for injmy to any Horse or other animal, 

 or dog, of whatever value, where such injury arises wholly 

 or partially from fear or restiveness. If the declared value 

 of any Horse or other animal exceed 40/., or any dog 5/., 

 the price of conveyance will, in addition to the regular 

 fare, be after the rate of Two and a half per cent, upon 

 the declared value of above 40/., whatever may be the 

 amount of such value, and for wliatever distance the 

 animal is to be carried." In this case the plaintiff de- 

 livered to the defendants a dog to be carried, and signed a 

 ticket with this Condition annexed. The value of the 

 dog was 21/., but the plaintiff made no declaration of its 

 value, and paid only the regular fare, Ss. The dog 

 escaped from the train during the journey, and was lost, 

 without any negligence on the part of the defendants. 



{<■) Beal V. South JDcron MaUway 

 Co., 5 H. & N. 875, ante; llliitcv. 

 Great Western Railway Co., 26 L. J., 

 C. r. 158, ante. 



{(l) Harruon v. London, BrUjliton 

 and South Coast Ilailwai/ Co., 29 L. 

 J., Q. B. 209. 



