CARRYING HORSES. 291 



What is, or is not, reasonable time, must be judged with 

 reference to the means at the Carrier's disposal for for- 

 warding the goods (;;) ; but if his course of business is 

 inconsistent with reasonable expedition, it is no answer to 

 an action against him for damages arising from delay, that . 

 he carried at the ordinary rate at which he conducted 

 business {q). Provided that he carry by a reasonable and 

 usual route he is not bound to carry by the shortest route, 

 even though empowered by statute to charge a mileage 

 rate for carriage (r). 



A Ferryman is bound not only to provide a safe mode A Feirjman. 

 of conveyance, but also proper means for the embarkation 

 and landing of the animals carried by him. The defend- 

 ants, lessees of a Ferry over the river Mersey, ran Steam 

 Boats across for the conveyance of passengers and goods 

 for hire. They also carried animals, but it was not their 

 practice to take charge of the animals when on board. 

 The plaintiff, having paid his usual fare, led his Mare on 

 board at one side of the river, and remained with her 

 until the Steam Boat reached the other side. For landing 

 the passengers and animals the defendants had provided 

 a moveable slip leading from the boat to a landing-barge. 

 The slip had a handrail, which had been twice recently, 

 to the defendants' knowledge, broken by the pressure of 

 a Horse on landing ; and in the handrail was an iron 

 spike, which appeared whenever the rail gave way. The 

 defendants had also been cautioned that the slip was un- 

 safe. They notwithstanding continued to use the slip, 

 leaving the broken rail slightly tied up, so that it ap- 

 peared sound. Over this slip the plaintiff proceeded to 

 lead his Mare towards the shore ; but she pushed against 

 the rail, which immediately gave way, and the iron 

 spike concealed in it injured her severely. It was held 

 that they were bound not only to find a good boat, but 

 also a good slip, and therefrom so to bridge over the 

 space between the boat and the land as to provide means 

 for getting from one to the other. And that although 

 the Mare was under the control and management of the 

 plaintiff, they were liable for the injury to her in con- 



[p] Hales V. London and Xorth Western Eailwai/ Co., 32 L. J., Q. 



Western Railway Co., 32 L. J., Q. B. 292. 



B. 292. (/•) Myers v. London and South 



(q) Blalcemore v. Lancashire and Western Railway Co., L. E., 5 C. 



Yorkshire Railway Co., 1 F. & F. P. 1. 

 76 ; Halei v. London and Kortli 



v2 



