488 CAKRIERS OP ANIMALS. 



Nor can the statute be so construed as to make the unlaw- 

 ful confinement of each animal a separate offense and thus 

 multiply the penalty by the whole number of animals.^^^ The 

 words "cattle, sheep, swine or other animals" include horses, 

 mules, etc., as well as animals intended for food.^^^ 



Where the contract relieves the defendant of all liability be- 

 yond the line of its own road, this does not permit it to escape 

 the consequences of its failure to comply with the shipper's 

 request to unload the cattle after they had been kept in the 

 cars for more than twenty-eight hours, though after the con- 

 necting carrier had refused to take the cars ; and the fact that 

 the shipper has a remedy against the connecting carrier for 

 refusing to accept and unload the cattle is immaterial.^^* 



113. Mode of Transportation — It is the duty of the carrier to 

 furnish safe and suitable cars for the transportation of live- 

 stock; ^^^ and if their method of transportation is unsafe, the 

 fact that it was usual with them is no defence.'^* Nor is the 

 fact that the animal escaped beyond the terminus of the road, 

 though there is a special contract limiting the company's lia- 

 bility to that point.^^'^ And the mere presence of the owner, 

 who has no power over the train, does not lessen their liability 

 for furnishing defective cars.^'* Where the shipper assented 

 to the cars chosen, after notice of their condition and proper 

 observation, the carrier was held in a Michigan case not to be 



'°' U. S. V. Boston & A. R. Co., 15 Fed. Rep. 209. 



'"^ Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Amer. Exch. Bank, supra. 



'"Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Birchfield (Tex. Civ. App.), 46 S. W. Rep. 900. 



"' Ohio & M. R. Co. V. Tabor, 98 Ky. 503; McDaniel v. Chic. & N. R. 

 Co., 24 la. 412; St. Louis & S. R. Co. v. Dorman, 72 111. 504; Union Pac. 

 R. Co. V. Rainey, 19 Colo. 225. 



"° Leonard v. Fitchburg R. Co., 143 Mass. 307. 



Where cattle-pens on a steamship arriving from a foreign port were 

 larger than the size prescribed by the Board of Agriculture, a fine was 

 inflicted by a police court, though the regulations of the foreign govern- 

 ment provided for a larger space: 103 L. T. 582. 



'" Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. v. Strain, 81 111. 504. 



"" Peters v. New Orleans, J. & G. N. R. Co., 16 La. Ann. 222. 



