is liable to pay for the damage done. If it kills poultry 

 he is not liable, unless it had to his knowledge previously 

 shewn a mischievous propensity. 



The shooting of a Grange dog or cat seen in a wood 

 chasing game or rabbits cannot be justified, unless there 

 was absolutely no other way of saving the life of the 

 objed chased. It is not clear that even such an excuse 

 is sufficient to exonerate from liability to pay damages to 

 the owner of the dog or cat. 



If a dog sent by train is killed, injured or loit, the 

 owner can recover from the railway company the full 

 value of the dog or amount of damage sustained, provided 

 the death, injury or loss was due to the negligence or 

 default of one of the company's servants, and no contract 

 limiting the company's liability has been signed. 



Mo^ railway companies have a condition that they 

 will not be responsible for any dog (even though caused 

 by negligence) beyond the amount of £2 unless the 

 higher value of the animal is declared at the time of 

 consignment, and \-i% additional freight or carriage is 

 paid on such excess of value. That condition is perfedly 

 valid and binding on the owner of the dog, providing that 

 he or someone on his behalf {^-g-, the person who takes 

 the dog to the station for him) signs a consignment note 

 with the clause printed on it. If it is signed and no extra 

 percentage is paid, £2 is all that can be recovered for loss 

 of the dog even though it was v/orth £ 100. If the extra 

 money is paid the amount on which the percentage is paid 

 is the limit which can be recovered. 



If the consignment note or some other paper is not 

 signed the condition hmiting the liability of the company 

 to £2 is inoperative. ^o 



