THES DOG SAND THE LAW: 
pay under this special contract 6d. extra, 
to cover that amount. That seemed to him 
unreasonable. Whatwastherisk ? 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 14 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 
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 difficulty in carrying 
out in the present state of things anything 
owners, 
* This decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal 
in December, 1907, 
72 
569 
like systematic disinfection, as the vehicle in 
which the dog has travelled does not, as inthe 
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, when 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 
deliver 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 hability 
as the owner of a general ship, has given rise 
