CARRYING HORSES. ' 285 



by the section ; and thirdly, therefore, on both grounds, 

 the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full value of the 

 Horse. 



Mr. Justice Mellor was of opinion that the provision of Mellor, J. 

 in the section applied not only to the risks of carriage and 

 conveyance, but also to those which attend the receiving 

 and delivery ; that the injury was done in receiving the 

 Horse ; and therefore, that as there was no declaration of 

 value, the plaintiff could not recover more than the 50/. 



It was held by Mr. Justice Blackburn, that the Statute of Black- 

 is not confined to neglects and defaults after the relation t)iirn, J. 

 of Carrier and Customer has been completely established, 

 and that the real value above 50/. cannot be recovered 

 unless the declaration is made before the injury happens, 

 though it happen before the receipt by the liailway Com- 

 pany is complete. 



The mere casual knowledge of a Railway Company of Declaration 

 the excess in value of a Horse sent to be carried, derived °^ ^'^^^^ under 

 from a letter of the sender to their Traffic Manager, does ^ 3^ g -j^^ 

 not entitle them to refuse to carry it, except at the 

 increased percentage of charge (/.•). 



A Railway Company is not responsible for the non- Non-com- 

 delivery of live stock, where the owner has, in defiance of pliance with 

 the known com-se of business of the Company, permitted ^_ ^'^^^ ^^ *° 

 them to be delivered at one of the Company's Stations ^^°^^P * 

 without an acknowledgment from the proper Officer of 

 their receipt for the purpose of their being carried, although 

 they are proved to have been delivered to an Officer in the 

 Company's employ (/). 



Where one railway company undertakes to carry goods Througli car- 

 from a station on their railway to a place on another distinct ^iage on rail- 

 railway, with which it communicates, this is evidence of a ^'^^^' "^^^* 

 contract with them for the whole distance, and the other liable, 

 company will be regarded simply as their agents (ni). 

 But the first company might by a special contract restrain 

 their liability to the limits of their own rail, where they 

 expressly act as agents for the other company (>;). And 

 the question as to which company is liable will depend on 

 the terms of the special contract in each individual case. 



ik) Robinson v. South Western Railway Co., SM.. kW. '^21 ; ZH. 



i?«;7iTOyCo.,C.P.Banc. May, 1865; & C. 771 ; 4 H. & C. 582, Exch. 



19 C. B., N. S. 51 ; 34L.J., C. P. Ch. 



234. («) Fowles \. Great Western Rail- 



{I) Slim V. Great Northern Rail- way Co., 22 L. J., Ex. 76; 7 Exch. 



u-ay Co., 14 C. B. 647. 699; and see Roscoe, N. P., 14th 



(«() Muschamp v. Lancaster, ^c. ed. 572. 



