282 CARRYING HORSES. 



is not necessarily unreasonable or prohibitory (>•). It is a 

 question for the jury whether the higher rate is unreason- 

 able in the sense that it is so high as to be prohibitory ; 

 and the mere fact that the lower rate is so low that cattle 

 dealers invariably avail themselves of it is not, standing 

 alone, evidence that the higher rate is unreasonable or 

 prohibitory (.s). 

 What is wilful When a Railway Company agrees to carry, at a re- 

 misconduct. ducccl rate, upon condition of being relieved from the 

 ordinary liability for negligence, and to be responsible 

 only for the consequences of the wilful misconduct of 

 their servants, it will be for the plaintiff, in an action 

 for injury to the goods carried, to prove more than culpable 

 negligence. There must be evidence of actual wilful mis- 

 conduct causing the injury (/). Thus, where a Railway 

 Company contracted with the plaintiff to carry a van at 

 a reduced rate, on the terms that the Company should not 

 be liable for damage or delay, except sucli as was occasioned 

 by wilful misconduct on the part of its servants ; and the van 

 was to be delivered at a station outside the Company's 

 system, and on the line of another Company ; and a delay 

 was occasioned by the van having been loaded on a truck 

 which was too high to allow of its passing under the other 

 Company's gauge, although it passed under that of the 

 Company ; it was held that there was not sufficient evi- 

 dence of wilful misconduct on the part of the Company's 

 servants to go to a Jury, inasmuch as it was not proved 

 that they knew that the truck was too high to carry the 

 van under the other Company's bridge {m). But where a 

 Railway Company had carried goods from one of its 

 stations to another, and the station master at the place to 

 which they were carried, without making inquiries of the 

 Consignor, after a delay of a week, delivered the goods to 

 a person of a very similar name to that of the person 

 named as Consignee ; and the Contract of Carriage was at 

 a reduced tariif, conditioned to exclude all liability ex- 

 cept for wilful misconduct ; the delivery of the goods was 

 held to amount to wilful misconduct {x). 



{>•) Foreman v. Great Western way Co., 26 W. E,. 111. See also 



Itailicay Co., 38 L. T., N. S. 851. Lewis y. Great Western Rail a-ny Co., 



(«) Ibid. L. R., 3 Q. B. D. 195; 47 L. J., 



\t) Great Western Jlaiticai/ Co. v. Q. B. 131. 

 G/e/iister, 29 L. T., N. S. 422 ; 22 (r) Jloare v. Great Western Rall- 



W. R. 72 vay Co., 37 L. T., N. S. 18G ; 25 



{ii) Webb V. Great Western Rail- W. R. 63. 



