THE DOG AND THE LAW. 



567 



A verv important case dealing with this 

 subject was Dickson v. Great Northern Rail- 

 way Company (18 O.B.D., 176). In this 

 case a ^^aluable Gre}'hound was sent from 

 London to Newcastle, the ordinarj' fare 

 being six shillings. The plaintiff's man 

 signed the printed form exonerating the 

 company from liabilit}^ bej^ond £2, unless 

 the higher value were declared and paid for 

 extra at the rate of five per cent. No 

 higher value was declared and nothing but 

 tlic ordinary rate was paid. During the 

 journey the Grej'hoimd was injured by a 

 porter (in the usual slipshod, careless, and 

 stupid manner so closely identified with the 

 actions of many porters) running a trolley 

 over its tail. The County Court judge held 

 that the alternative terms offered by the 

 railwaj' company were unreasonable, and 

 gave judgment for the plaintif? for £25. 

 The Divisional Court on appeal reversed this 

 decision, but on the plaintiff appealing to 

 tlie Court of Appeal the judgment of the 

 Divisional Court was upset, and that of the 

 County Court judge affirmed. The late 

 Lord Esher in his judgment, shortly put, 

 asked, What was the nature of the condition ? 

 In his opinion, it was one of a most violent 

 description. It absolved the company from 

 liability for any negligence, however gross, 

 and for wilful misconduct and dishonesty of 

 their servants. If a reasonable alternative 

 is offered it was true even such a sweeping 

 exemption from liability might become 

 reasonable. In his ojiinion no reasonable 

 alternative had been offered in this case, 

 for if the percentage asked for had been 

 paid, the dog's fare would have been £3 4s., 

 which was more than that for a first-class 

 passenger for the same distance, with all 

 the liabilities attaching to the carriage of 

 such a passenger. 



The above case is undoubtedly a most 

 important one. It is strong authority for 

 the principle that a railway company must 

 offer to the public a reasonable agreement, 

 and it finds as a fact that an extra charge of 

 five per cent, is too much for a railway 

 <:ompany to seek to impose under the 

 powers given them by section 7 of the 

 above-mentioned Act. As was natural, rail- 



way companies adopted tliis finding of fact, 

 and we know now that they ask for a much 

 smaller percentage, as an extra rate, where 

 a higher value is declared. 



One thing which is alwa3-s in a railway 

 company's favour is that individuals natur- 

 ally fear to tackle them; the railway company 

 or other large corporation has, as a rule, an 

 eminent permanent solicitor with a large 

 staff of clerks at his disposal who must at 

 times have very slack periods, and who 

 therefore are only too anxious for someone 

 to commence an action against them. They 

 have unlimited resources, and the result 

 from a financial point of view does not 

 matter one jot to them. It is very different 

 with the individual who stands to lose a 

 considerable amount of his owti money if he 

 has the temeritj' single-handed to tackle such 

 a dangerous machine — a machine, too, which 

 he knows is spoiling for a fight at all times, 

 and will fight it out to the bitter end as far 

 as the law will allow it. This is doubtless 

 responsible for the fact that, although, with 

 the growth of the dog in recent years the 

 numbers of accidents to dogs, and tiieir 

 deaths whilst in transit on railways, caused 

 almost invariably by the negligence and 

 stupidit}^ of railway servants, have naturally 

 increased enormously, yet very few actions 

 in regard to these things have found their 

 way into the courts, and though some 

 have been commenced while the claimant 

 was in the initial heat of the annoyance of 

 having his dog done to death or badly 

 injured, when the calmer mood has come 

 upon him, he has thought better of it, and 

 quietly dropped his action. 



A useful case has, however, recently been 

 tried which cannot fail to be of some interest 

 to dog owners by the time it is finall}' dis- 

 posed of. It was an action against the Midland 

 Railway Company, and in it the plaintiff, 

 who had the good fortune to have his action 

 tried by one of the most able judges on the 

 Bench, got judgment for ^^300, which was 

 the sum claimed bj^ him as damages for the 

 loss of a valuable Pointer bite h which was 

 burnt to death in its hamper in the parcels 

 oi^ce at Chesterfield station. The railway 

 company admitted that the dog's death was 



