252 CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY RAILWAYS MUST BE REASONABLE. 



enter into the contract for their carriage, was not at liberty to show 

 their real value, in order to obtain compensation above the amount paid 

 into Court (£25). And scmhle that the declaration of the value of the 

 horses formed no part of the contract, and that even if it were part, 

 it did not render the contract a conditional contract ; and also that 

 the stipulation that the horses should be carried entirely at the owner's 

 risk was not unreasonable and void within the meaning of the 17 & 

 18 Vict. c. 31 {McCance v. London and Xorih Western Railivmj 

 Compamj). This case was confirmed by the Exchequer Chamber, 34 

 L.J. (N.S.) Ex 39. 



The conditions imposed by a railway company on persons sending 

 cattle on their line must be reasonable, and if the conditions are un- 

 reasonable, the liability of the company is not removed by the fact that 

 . the company under a second condition grants, and the owner of cattle 

 accepts, a free pass for a person who travels with the cattle. Booth v. 

 Xorth Eastern Railway Comiiany (2 L.E. Ex. 173). 



In Gill V. Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Company, 

 (8 L.R. Q.B., 18G), the plaintiff delivered a cow at Doncastcr station on 

 the Great Northern Railway to be sent to Sheifield on the defendants' 

 line. The cow arrived safely at Sheffield, but when released from the 

 truck it ran wild, got on to the railway and was killed. The defen- 

 dants' servant released the cow from the truck against the advice of the 

 plaintiflF's servant who was in charge of the cow. The Court having 

 })Ower to draw inferences of fact, held that the action was rightly brought, 

 inasmuch as the Great Northern became agents of the defendants in 

 making the contract to carry the cow. Secondly, that the condition in 

 the contract did not relieve the defendants from liability for negligence 

 on the part of their servants in delivering the cow. Thirdly, (by 

 Blacldnirn and Lvsh J. J., Ilellor J. diss.), " That the inference to 

 ha drawn from the facts was that there was negligence on the part of 

 defendants' porter, and that they Avcre therefore liable to the plaintiff 

 for the loss of the cow. See also Bhiwcr v. Great Western Railway 

 Company (7 L.E,. C.P. G55), Kendall v. South Western Railway Com- 

 pawj (7 L.R. Ex. 373), and Rooth v. North Eastern Railway Company 

 (2 L.R. Ex., 173). 



In the case of Kendall v. London and Sontli Weatern Railicay Company, 

 the plaintiff delivered a horse saddled and bridled at Waterloo to be 

 sent to Ewell. The horse Avas boxed at AVaterloo under the supervision 

 of the plaintiff. No accident of any kind occurred to the train and the 

 horse was proved to be a quiet one, but on its arrival at Ewell it was 

 found to be much injured : held by 3fartrn and Bramwell BB., Piyott 

 B. diss., that the defendants were not liable, as there was no evidence 



