132 THROUGH BOOKING. 



bility is to cease when the goods are beyond their own 

 lines ; (a) but to claim exemption under a condition relieving 

 them of responsibility for damage occurring beyond their own 

 lines, a company must show that some other company, who 

 would be responsible, had obtained custody before the injury 

 or loss occurred. (6) The liability of the company to whom 

 horses are given for transit in such cases depends upon 

 whether there is in the stipulation they have made with the 

 consignor anything to exclude their liability beyond their 

 own lines, (c) 



By § 14 of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1SG8,((/) it 

 is provided that where a company by through booking con- 

 tracts to carry animals, &c., partly by railway, or partly by 

 canal and partly by sea, they shall have power to exempt 

 themselves from the usual sea risks if they give due notice 

 at their office or by freight note. 



By the Regulation of Railways Act, 1871,(e) § 12, it is 

 enacted that when a railway company under a contract for 

 carrying animals, &g., by sea, sends them in a vessel not 

 belonging to them, their liability is the same as if the 

 vessel had been their own, provided the injury happens 

 in such vessel, the onus of proof to the contrary lying 

 upon the company. A company having no powers to Avork 

 steam vessels, contracted in Dublin to convey cattle by sea 

 to Liverpool, and thence by rail to St. Ives, upon condi- 

 tions repudiating liability for danger of the sea, or for " any 

 default or negligence of the master or any of the officers or 

 crews of the company's vessels ; " the cattle were lost on the 

 passage to Liverpool by the negligence of the crew of a vessel 

 with whose owners the company had a booking arrangement. 

 It was held that the condition was unreasonable, and that 



(a) Muschamp, cit. ; Aldridge v. 6. W. Ilij. Co., 1864, 33 L.J., C.P. 161. 

 (6) Kent V. Midland Ry. Co., 1874, L.R. 10 Q.B. 1. 



(c) See Coxon v. (r'. 17. Ity. Co., 1860, 5 H. and N. 274 ; GUI v. M. S. L. Ry. Co., 

 1873, L.R. 8 Q.B. 186 ; Comhe v. L. ci ^.-11'. Ry. Co., 1874, 31 L.T., N.S. 613. 



(d) 31 k 32 Vict. c. 119. 

 (c) 34 & 35 Vict. c. 78. 



