492 CARRIERS OF ANIMALS. 



of inherent vitality in the animals.'*^ g^t where live hogs 

 are shipped and by reason of their crowded and unnatural 

 condition they become heated and the conductor, though 

 notified,, fails to apply water to them, the company is liable.^®^ 

 And where a company that should have delivered hogs to a 

 connecting carrier neglected to give notice that they had ar- 

 rived and kept them for three hours at the point of arrival 

 whereby they were killed by heat, the company was held 

 guilty of gross negligence.^®* 



Where cattle-fittings in a ship were old and insufficiently 

 constructed and in a mild storm the cattle were injured by a 

 lurch of the vessel, this was held to be negligence in the car- 

 rier.^®^ But where the respondents show that the storm was 

 an extraordinary one and also the character of their damages 

 and that of other ships having cattle, the burden is on the 

 libellant to prove that the losses were occasioned by a want 

 of due care in the fittings.^ ®® Where a horse escapes from its 

 fastenings, this is prima facie negligence in the carrier.^®^ 

 And where a greyhound, with a cord about its neck but no 

 collar, was delivered to a carrier who gave a receipt and the 

 dog was afterwards lost, it was held that the carrier could not 

 set up as a defence that the animal was not properly secured 

 when delivered to him.^®* But where a dog, fastened in the 

 ordinary way by a strap and collar, slipped these while being 

 moved to another train and running upon the track was 



"' Chic, R. I. & P. R. Co. V. Harmon, 12 III. App. 54- 



"" 111. Cent. R. Co. v. Adams, 42 111. 474. And see Toledo, W. & W. 

 R. Co. V. Thompson, 71 id. 434. 



"* Rock Island & P. R. Co. v. Potter, 36 111. App. 590. 



"'' The Brantford City, 29 Fed. Rep. 373. 



"" The J. C. Stevenson, 17 Fed. Rep. 540. 



'" Porterfield v. Humphreys, 8 Humph. (Tenn.) 497. 



'" Stuart V. Crawley, 2 Stark. 323. And see, to the same effect, Sloan 

 V. Great Northern R. Co., 33 Ir. L. T. Rep. 79, where the company by 

 its conduct was held to have waived a by-law that it would not be respon- 

 sible for a dog delivered to it unless the animal was secured with a proper 

 chain, collar and muzzle. 



