DOGS WITHIN THE TllAFFIC ACT. 219 



Erie JJ. held that the notice protected the company. The case is ex- 

 pressly in point, and we concnr in it. We think one of the risks of 

 conveyance of live cattle is the risk of their breaking the trucks or 

 boxes in which they are conveyed. We are able to decide this case 

 without referring to the second point made by the defendants, viz., 

 the alleged distinction between the liability of carriers as to the con- 

 veyance of horses and live stock, and ordinary goods; but should the 

 question ever arise, we think the observation which fell from Parlcc 

 B., in Carr v. The Lancashire and Yorkshire Raihcaij Conqjamj, is 

 entitled to much consideration. Our judgment will therefore be for 

 the defendants." The judgment of fhe Court Mow was reversed {Erie J. 

 diss.) in the Exchequer Chamber. 



In giving judgment the Court said: "In order to bring the de- 

 fendants W'ithin the protection of the special contract, it is necessary 

 to construe it as including responsibility for loss occasioned, not only 

 by risks of whatever kind, directly incident to the transit, but also for 

 that occasioned by the insufficiency of the carriages provided by the de- 

 fendants, though occasioned by their own negligence or misconduct. 

 The sufficiency or insufficiency of the vehicles by which the company 

 arc to carry on their business, is a matter, generally speaking, which 

 they and they alone can and ought to have the means of fully ascertain- 

 ing ; and it would be, vre think, not only unreasonable but mischievous 

 if they were to be allowed to absolve themselves from the consequence 

 of neglecting to perform that which seems entirely to belong to them 

 as a duty. It is unrensonable that the company should stipulate for 

 exemption from liability from their ov.m negligence however gross, or 

 misconduct however flagrant, and this is what the condition under con- 

 sideration professes to do." 



" Just and reasonable " condition tvith resjiecl lo a dog under the Traffic 

 Act. — A dog (although not specifically mentioned in the proviso as to 

 the limit of compensation) is within the 7th section of the Kailway and 

 Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 31). The plaintiff delivered 

 to the defendants, a railway compau}^, a dog, to be carried, and signed 

 this ticket: "Received the annexed ticket, subject to the following con- 

 ditions : the company will not be liable in any case for loss or damage 

 to any horse or other animal above the value of £10, or any dog above 

 the value of £5, unless a declaration signed by the owner or his agent 

 at the time of booking shall have been given to them ; and by such 

 declaration the owner shall be bound, the company not being in any 

 event liable to any greater amount than the value declared. The 

 company will in no case be liable for injury to any horse or other 

 animal, or dog, of whatever value, where such injury arises wholly or 



