CARRIAGE BY SEA BY SPECIAL CONTRACT. 149 



damage amounting to more than £5 per head. It was held 

 that the provision limiting liability to £5 per head did not 

 apply to damage occasioned by the defendants not providing 

 a ship reasonably fit for the purpose of the cattle they had 

 contracted to carry, (a) Similarly a shipping company were 

 held liable for the loss by suffocation of some cattle carried 

 under a bill of lading, excluding them from liability " for any 

 loss arising from suffocation or other causes occurring to 

 horses, dogs, or other animals," they having sent the ship to 

 sea with insufficient ballast. (6) A ship to be seaworthy must 

 be really fit for the sea, and the shipowner will not be dis- 

 charged of the implied obligation of seaworthiness on showing 

 he has done his best to make the ship fit, if it is not so in 

 fact ;(c) and Avhere a shipper discovers unseaworthiness before 

 the commencement of the voyage, he may throw up the con- 

 tract if he should have to wait an unreasonable time for the 

 fault being remedied.(<:?) A shipowner is liable in damages 

 for loss caused by unseaworthiness at starting, unless this is 

 excepted in his contract ;(e) for unseaworthiness on the voyage 

 not covered by excej)tions, even though he has no opportunity 

 of repairing ; and when covered by exceptions if he has an 

 opportunity of repairing but proceeds without doing so.(/) 

 When a horse is delivered in a damaged condition under a 

 bill of lading with a clause, " shipped in good condition," the 

 shijDper must give 'prhna facie evidence either that it was 

 shipped in good order or that the damage resulted from some 

 cause within the control of the shipowner, {g) He must nega- 

 tive inherent vice \(Ji) for evidence which leaves it doubtful 

 whether the loss is due to an excepted peril or not does not 



(a) Tattersall v. Nat. S.S. Co., 1884, L.R. 12 Q.B.D. 297. 



(6) Leiao v. Dudgeon, 1867, L.R. 3 C.P. 17, n. 



(c) Daniels, cit. 



{d) Stanton v. Blchai-dson, 1875, 15 L.J. H.L. 78. 



(e) But the exceptions will not always avail him. The Glcnfruin, 1SS5, 10 P.D. 

 103 ; The Undaunted, 1886, 11 P.D. 46 ; Seville <L- Co. v. Colvih tO Co., 15 R. 616. 



(f) Worm V. Storey, 1855, 11 Ex. 427. 



(g) The Ida, 1875, 32 L.T., N.S. 541. 



(A) § 109. Williams v. Dohhie, 1884, 11 R. 982. 



