CARRYING HORSES. 283 



The onus of proving that a Condition is reasonable, lies Onus of proof. 

 upon the Company {y) . 



It will have been seen by a consideration of the eases General effect 

 that the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a Condition ^f *^^ ^^^^' 

 depends upon the nature of the articles to be conveyed, the Conditions, 

 degree of risk attendant upon their conveyance, the rate of 

 charge made, and all the circumstances of each particular 

 case {z). 



Very slight evidence of non-delivery is sufficient to call Delivery by 

 upon the defendant to prove delivery {a). If the carrier ^^^■^^<^'-'- 

 deliver the goods at the place directed in accordance with 

 the ordinary usage, he has fulfilled his obligation, although 

 he has delivered them to a person the sender did not 

 intend (b). Where cattle sent by railway were kept at the 

 arrival station with the sanction of the plaintiff's servant, 

 until they could be removed according to the police 

 regulations, it was held that the liability of the Railway 

 Company as carriers had ceased when the alleged loss and 

 damages occurred (c). 



There is no general rule of law requiring Carriers to Notice of 

 give notice to the Consignor of the refusal of the Con- Consignee's 

 signee to receive goods, but Carriers are merely bound to Consignor, 

 do what is reasonable, under the particular circumstances 

 of each case (r/). However, Bramwell, B., said in the case 

 of Hudson V. Baxendalc {d), that "the judgment of the 

 majority of the Court" (from which however he dissented) 

 " in Crouch v. Great Western RaUu-ay Cojnpany (e) seemed 

 to show that it was the duty of the Carrier to communicate 

 with the Consignor." 



If the Consignee makes default in receiving the goods Effect of 

 the Carrier is entitled to recover from him the expenses consignee's 

 reasonably incurred in taking care of the goods. A person ^^ ^^'^ " 

 sent a Horse by railway, consigned to himself at a station 

 on the line, and paid the fare. When the Horse arrived 

 at the station there was no one on his behalf to receive it, 

 and the Railway Company therefore placed it with a 

 livery stable-keeper ; and it was held that the Company 



(y) Harrison v. London, Brighton 6 Ex. 36; 40 L. J., Ex. 30 ; 24 L. 



a7id South Coast Railwaij Co., 29 L. T., N. S. 559. 

 J., Q. B. 209. [c) Shepherd y. Bristol and Exettr 



(=) See Addison on Torts, 2nd Railivar/ Co., L. R., 3 Ex. 189 ; 37 



ed. p. 403. L. J., Ex. 113. 



{a) Griffiths V. Lee, 1 C. & P. 1 10 ; {d) Hudson v. Baxcndalc, 27 L. J. , 



llaukes v. Smith, Car. & M. 72 ; Ex. 93. 

 Eoscoe, N. P., 14th ed. 585. («) Crouch v. Great Western Rail- 



{')) M'Kcan v. M'lvcr, L. E., ivay Co., 26 L. J., Ex. 418, 



