138 LIMITATION OF CARRIER'S RESPONSIBILITY. 



the passing of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act.(«) Under 

 § 7 of this statute, railway and canal companies (h) shall be 

 liable for the loss of or for any injury done to horses or 

 other animals in receiving,(c) forwarding, or delivering them, 

 occasioned by the neglect or fault of such company or its 

 servants, (c/) notwithstanding any notice, condition, or declar- 

 ation made and given by such company contrary thereto, or 

 in anywise limiting such liability, every such notice being 

 declared null and void. Power is reserved, however, to 

 companies under the Act to make by a special contract with 

 the consignor such conditions with regard to receiving, for- 

 warding, or delivering animals, &c., as the Court shall adjudge 

 to be just and reasonable, provided it is in writing, and signed 

 by the consignor, or the person delivering the animals for 

 carriage ; and a limit of £50 is fixed as the amount of 

 damage to be recovered for the loss of a horse, unless a 

 declaration of its value, if higher than £50, shall be made 

 at the time of delivery, and a reasonably (e) higher charge 

 paid for carriage. It is further provided that the notice of 

 increased rates shall be publicly notified as under the 

 Carriers Act,(/) and that the onus of proof of value of such 

 animals, and the amount of injury done thereto in all cases, 

 lies with the person claiming compensation for such loss or 

 injury. Where the sender fills up and signs a receiving note 

 on which conditions of carriage are printed, it is presumed 

 that he has assented to them, (g) The leading case (h) regard- 

 ing the interpretation of this section settled that the validity 



(a) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, § 7. 



(b) And this liability attaches when they carry in vessels not belonging to them 

 in the absence of special contract. See also § 10."). 



(c) Hodfjman v. W. Mid. Ry. Co., 1865, 6 B. and S. 560 ; see also § 95. 



{d) Harrison v. L. B. Ry. Co., 1860, 2 B. and S. 152 ; Van Toll v. S.-E. Ry. Co., 

 12 C.B., N.S. 75. 



(c) This is a jury question, Harrison, cit. 



(/) 11 Geo. IV. and 1 Will. IV. c. 68, § 2. 



(fj) Lexvis V. G. W. Ry. Co., 1860, 29 L.J., Ex. 425. Cockburn, J., in Zunz v. 

 S.-E. Ry. Co., 1869, L.R. 4 Q.B. 539, 544. 



(h) Peek V. A'. St. Ry. Co., 1863, 10 H. of L. Ca. 473. 



