TYING UP THE HORSE IN THE VAN. 127 



horses during railway transit. A railway company having an 

 Act of their own empowering them to charge a maximum 

 rate for the conveyance of animals inclusive of every expense 

 incidental to such conveyance, " except for any extraordinary 

 services performed by the company, in respect of which they 

 might make a reasonable extra charge," were not entitled to 

 charge the owner of the animal Avith the cost of cleaning the 

 truck, there being " a cattle plague order," to the effect that 

 trucks should be cleaned once every twenty-four hours when 

 being used for animal transit, (a) 



100. Of Tying up the Horse in the Van. — It is the 



duty of the carrier or his servants properly to tie up the 

 horse in the van, unless the consigner has undertaken that 

 duty himself ; (6) and even then, if the carrier could with 

 orduiary diligence notice and remedy the faulty tying up by 

 the consigner, he "will not be discharged. Thus, a horse in 

 good health Avas trucked at Drem for Tillicoultry, but was 

 found dead at Edinburgh. It was tied up by one of the 

 Company's servants in presence of the owner, and before the 

 journey was ended the horse was found dead. It Avas 

 proved that the cause of death Avas strangulation through 

 the horse tugging at the rope by Avhich it Avas fastened : and 

 that the rope Avas too long, being betAveen four and five feet, 

 instead of only tAvo. The Compan}^ pleaded they Avere not 

 responsible for the method of tying up the horse, but this 

 plea Avas repelled on the ground that they have the responsi- 

 bility and the poAver of taking the necessary means for safe 

 transit. Lord Justice-Clerk Moncreiff obser\^ed : — " I do not 

 think that in the carriage of live animals a raihvay company 

 are insurers to the extent that if the animal die in the course 

 of transit, the value or loss must fall upon them. There may 



(a) Cox V. G. E. Ry. Co., 1869, 38 L..T., C.P. 1".]. 



(h) B. Pr. ]64, Stuart v. Craulcy, 1818, Stark, ii. 323 ; Richardson v. N.-E. Ry. 

 Co. 1872, L.K. 7 C.P. 7.'». 



