THE DOG AND THE LAW. 



569 



pay under this special contract 6d. extra, 

 to cover that amount. That seemed to liim 

 unreasonable. What was the risk ? Though 

 perhaps it would have been troublesome, the 

 defendants might have brought evidence to 

 show what it was. They had not done so, and 

 he had no evidence to show whether a rate 

 of ij per cent, was reasonable or not, and 

 therefore could not decide the question, 

 although the inclination of his mind was to 

 say that it was a very high premium. The 

 defendants had not discharged the burden 

 put upon them, and he must therefore give 

 judgment for the plaintiff for the amount 

 claimed with costs.* 



A matter seriously affecting some dog 

 owners, especially shooting dog owners, 

 who mostly send their dogs on railway 

 journeys with simply a collar and chain, 

 is the very poor accommodation provided 

 for dogs sent in this way, in guards' vans, 

 and especially on railway stations. Guards' 

 vans with kennels in them seem to be on 

 the decrease, and there are very few stations 

 which have any suitable kennels at all, and 

 those which are occasionally to be seen 

 are invariably used for some other purpose, 

 and are always in a filthy state. Several 

 attempts have been made to remedy this 

 state of things, with little or no success. 

 The railway companies have been ap- 

 proached, deputations have attended on 

 the Ministers of Agriculture, but nothing 

 tangible has resulted. The writer has twice 

 attended as a member of a deputation to 

 different Ministers of Agriculture, with the 

 object of inducing the Board of Agriculture 

 to include dogs in the Orders which they 

 issue under the Diseases of Animals Act, 

 1894, which, if they care to exercise it, they 

 have the power to do. The Board have, 

 however, definitely refused to do this, con- 

 tending that it is impracticable to issue 

 Orders with regard to the cleansing and 

 disinfecting of dog pens and vehicles used 

 for their conveyance in the same way as 

 they do for cattle and other animals. There 

 would be, no doubt, some difiiculty in carrying 

 out in the present state of things anything 



• This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal 

 in December, 1907, 



like systematic disinfection, as the vehicle in 

 which the dog has travelled does not, as in the 

 case of the horse box or cattle truck, remain 

 at the place of destination of the dog, and it 

 is of course probable that the same guard's 

 van will carry several dogs for different 

 portions of the same journey; but there is 

 also no doubt that the conveyance and 

 management of dogs on our railway systems 

 ought to be and could be much better carried 

 out than they are at present. A suggestion 

 made by one of the deputations above- 

 mentioned was that railway companies 

 should be obliged to provide proper movable 

 dog boxes which could be carried in the 

 guard's van, and might be ordered by the 

 person desiring to do so in the same way as 

 one now orders a horse box or cattle truck 

 when it is needed. The Board seemed at 

 first to be struck with the idea, for of course 

 proper disinfection of these boxes would be 

 easy, and a dog would stand a much better 

 chance of being properly looked after, and 

 kept immune from disease ; they went 

 so far as to receive carefully drawn - up 

 sketches of desirable boxes, which it was 

 suggested should be constructed so that 

 they could fit easily one on top of the other, 

 and that a dog could, wlien necessary, be 

 easily fed and watered while still in the 

 box ; but the Board eventually would have 

 none of it, and intimated that all they 

 could do would be to communicate with 

 the railway companies and ask them to do 

 what they could in the matter, which has 

 of course resulted in nothing. 



With regard to the carriage of dogs by 

 sea, the situation may be fairly summed up 

 by saying that the shipowner has by far the 

 best of the bargain. There seems to be 

 some uncertainty as to whether or not a 

 shipowner is a common carrier, but whether 

 he is or not there seems to be very little 

 difference, if indeed there is any, between 

 shipowners and common carriers, in so far 

 at any rate as responsibility for failure to 

 deli\-er goods at their destination is con- 

 cerned. The question whether the owner 

 of a chartered ship carrying goods for one 

 person exclusively has the same liability 

 as the owner of a general ship, has given rise 



71! 



