5606 THE 
straying in the road, that it was not in fact 
kept under proper contro], and awarded the 
plaintiff £23 damages. 
The Divisional Court, however, reversed 
the decision of the Court below, and allowed 
the appeal of the dog owner, against whorn 
it was strenuously argued that the fact that 
the dog was blind was known to its owner, 
that it was negligently not kept under 
proper control, and further that a person 
was entitled to assume that a dog on a 
highway could see and would behave as a 
seeing dog, and therefore not blindly run 
into danger. The Court were unanimous in 
allowing the appeal, the Lord Chief Justice 
saying that there was clearly no evidence of 
negligence on the part of the dog owner. 
Carriage of At common law railway com- 
Dogs by Land panies are not common car- 
peer: riers of dogs, which means 
that unless it were their wish to do so they 
could not be compelled to carry them, and 
if they did so, they would not be liable for 
loss or injury unless such injury arose from 
the negligence or misconduct of the com- 
pany’s servants. By statute, however, a 
railway company is bound to carry dogs if 
it has facilities for doing so, but the law 
does not impose on the company the obliga- 
tion of an insurer with regard to animals, 
and as a result the company is only liable 
to the owner when a dog is injured or killed 
through the negligence or default of the 
servants of the company. Unfortunately, 
however, a railway company is permitted to 
make conditions limiting the lability it is 
prepared to assume, but in order to make 
any such conditions binding on the public 
two things must necessarily be shown, viz. 
that the conditions are reasonable, and that 
there exists a memorandum of the contract 
between the parties which has been duly 
signed by the consignor or agent acting for 
him in the matter. 
Before the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 
(1854) was passed railway companies acted in 
a most dictatorial manner to all owners of 
live stock; they simply said we will not 
carry your animals except on the terms that 
we are not liable in any event ; but the above- 
NEW BOOK 
Ob> TE OG: 
mentioned Act changed all this, and under 
it every railway company is bound to 
provide proper facilities for receiving and 
forwarding traffic, and it especially defined 
the word “traffic”? to include animals. 
The important section, viz. 7, of this Act, 
enacted that every company shall be liable 
for the loss of or for any injury done to 
any horses, cattle, or other animals in the 
receiving, forwarding, or delivering thereof, 
occasioned by the neglect or default of such 
company, or its servants, notwithstanding 
any notice, condition or declaration made 
and given by such company contrary thereto, 
or in anywise limiting such lability—every 
such notice, etc., being declared null and 
void—but always providing that nothing in 
the Act should be construed to prevent the 
said companies from making such conditions 
as shall be adjudged by the Court or judge 
to be just and reasonable. The section then 
goes on to say what lmit of lability in 
respect of certain animals might be put upon 
them by the railway companies unless the 
persons delivering the same to the railways 
should declare at the time of such delivery 
a higher value, in which case it shall be 
lawful for the company to demand and 
receive, by way of compensation for the 
increased risk and care thereby occasioned, 
a reasonable percentage upon the excess of 
the value so declared above the respective 
sums so limited as aforesaid, and which shall 
be paid in addition to the ordinary rate of 
charge. The Act, of course, puts the onus 
of proof of value of the animal, and also the 
amount of the injury done thereto, on the 
person claiming the compensation. 
In limiting the liability of railway com- 
panies in respect of certain animals, the 
section does not specifically mention dogs, 
but inasmuch as the section clearly refers 
to all animals, dogs are held to be included 
for this purpose, and the case of Harrison v. 
London Brighton and South Coast Railway 
(31 L.J. Q.B., 113) is an authority on the 
point. It has become the general custom 
of all railway companies to limit their 
hability with respect to dogs to the sum of 
#2, unless as aforesaid the 
declares a higher value. 
owner, etc., 
