CARRYING HORSES. 281 



determined (/). But a Company (whieli is within tlio 

 Railway and Canal Traffic Act) may divest itself of this 

 responsibility for goods beyond its own limits, as the 

 following Conditions have been held to be just and reason- 

 able, viz., that "in respect of goods destined for places 

 beyond the limits of the Company's railway, the Company's 

 responsibility will cease when such goods shall have been 

 delivered over to another Carrier in the usual course for 

 another conveyance." And " that any money, which may 

 be received by the Company as payment for the convey- 

 ance of goods beyond their own limits, will be so received 

 for the convenience of the Consignors, and for the purpose 

 of being paid to the other Carrier " {iii). 



If a Railway Company puts two Conditions into their If part of 

 carrying clause, one of whicli is unreasonable, they may special con- 

 rely upon the other, which is reasonable. So, too, if part go'nable such 

 of a Condition, which is severable from the rest of it, is part may be 

 reasonable (yj). relied on. 



It has been said that the principle deducible from the Alternative 

 authorities is, that a contract, j^vimd facie unreasonable, Kates, 

 becomes reasonable if an alternative rate is offered to the 

 customer, i. e., if the company have two rates, at one of 

 which, the higher, it undertakes the ordinary risk of a 

 carrier, while at the other, the reduced rate, it carries upon 

 condition of being relieved from that risk(o). But the 

 f>rinciple w^ould not be applied in a case where the higher 

 rate is excessive, and the Court of Common Pleas refused 

 to apply it to a case where wax- work was carried "at 

 owner's risk" {p). 



But it seems that it would apply where the expression 

 " at owner's risk" is modified by an exception of the wilful 

 misconduct of the defendants' servants [q). 



Where alternative rates are charged for the conveyance 

 of cattle or goods, the lower rate being at owner's risk, 

 a 2)riori the higher rate, if within the parliamentary limit, 



(/) Muschamp v. Lancaster and see also Hodges on Railways, 6tli 



Preston Junction Eailway Co., 8 M. ed. 598. 



& W. 421 ; Watson v. Anibcrgatc, {]}) B'' Arc v. London and North 



Nottingham and Boston liallicaij Co., Western Railwaii Co., L. R., 9 C. P. 



15 Jur. 448. 325 ; 30 L. T.,'N. S. 763 ; and see 



(«i) Aldridge v. Great Western Itobii/son v. Great Western Railuay 



Railway Co., 33 L. J., C. P. 161. Co., 35 L. J., C. P. 123. 



(«) M'Cance v. London and North [q) Leivis v. Great Western Rail- 

 Western Raihva>/ Co., 7 H. &N. i'7. u-ay Co., L. R., 3 Q. B. D. 195, 



['j) Gallagher v. Great Western 200; 47 L. J., Q. B. 131 ; 37L. T., 



Railway Co., Ir. R., 8 C. L. 326 ; N. S. 774. 



