TERMINATION OF THE COMPANY'S RESPONSIBILITY. 133 



the words "master, &c., of the company's vessels" appHed 

 to all vessels the company should employ, (a) 



106. Termination of the Company's Responsibility.(7>) — 

 Should the consignee reject the horse, or deliver}^ to him be 

 impossible, the liability of the company extends to re-delivery 

 of it to the consignor's order, (c) Even after the transit has 

 ceased this responsibility of a railway company does not ter- 

 minate till the owner or consignee had, or might have had, an 

 opportunity of removing the horse carried. (cZ) The company, 

 however, are bound to keep the horse for a reasonable time 

 for the consignee to come and fetch it, during which period 

 of time their liability continues. After a reasonable time 

 this liability ceases, and they are merely custodiers, and not 

 liable as carriers ; (e) and the amount of time is a question of 

 circumstances. (/) But in one case a company was held not 

 liable even when slightly in fault, there being also fault 

 on the part of the sender. A horse was sent from New- 

 bury to Windsor. No one appeared to claim it ; it was for- 

 gotten, left tied up in a horse box for twenty-four hours, and 

 was found seriously injured. It was held that the company 

 was not liable, the true cause of injury having been the 

 neglect of the sender to inform the consignee that the horse 

 was coming. ((/) 



(«) Doolan v. Midland Ry. Co., 1877, L.R. 2 App. Ca. 792. Where it was also 

 decided that the effect of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 119, § 16, taken with 31 & 35 Vict. c. 

 78, § 12, was to extend all the provisions of the R. and C. Traffic Act, 1854, to 

 railway companies carrying goods in vessels not belonging to them. See also 

 Moore, cit, § 114, p. 143. 



(h) See § 104 as to the company's duty if there be no one to receive the horse. 



(c) Mdzenhurrj v. IliijJdand Ry. Co., 1869, 7 M. 919. As to carrier's duty in 

 such a case, see G. W. Ry. Co. v. Crouch, 1858, 3 H. and N. 183. 



(d) Shepherd v. B. cO K Ry. Co., 1868, L.R. 3 E.x. 189 ; Cordon v. G. W. Ry. 

 Co., 1881, 8 Q.B.D. 44. See also Macnainara, Art. 96, 105, 293. 



(e) Chapman v. G. W. Ry. Co., 18S0, 5 Q.B.D. 278 ; Taff Vale Ry. Co. v. Giles, 

 1853, 2 E. and B. 822 ; Cairns v. Robins, 1841, 8 M. and W. 258. 



(/) Coxon V. N.-E. Ry. Co., 1883, 4 K. and C. Tr. Ca. 284. 



(y) Wise v. G. W. Ry. Co., 1856, 1 H. and N. 63. In this case there was 

 a notice protecting the carrier from injury ; but still it seems difficult to reconcile 

 the decision with those in Chapman and Taff Yale, cit. supra. 



