MODE OF TRANSPORTATION. 493 



killed, it was held that the fastening it by means furnished 

 by the owner which appeared sufihcient was no evidence of 

 the company's neg-ligence.^^^ And where cattle died in tran- 

 sit by reason of the shipper's negligence in failing to provide 

 sufficient bedding and ropes with which to tie them in the 

 stalls provided by the ship, a libel against the ship will be 

 dismissed.^®" 



Injuries caused by an excessive amount of jolting, shunt- 

 ing, abrupt starting, etc., which might have been avoided by 

 due care will also render the carrier liable. ^"^ 



An order in Council requiring cattle-carrying vessels to be 

 disinfected after landing and before taking on a new cargo 

 was held to require disinfecting even when those parts which 

 had not been used for carrying cattle were used for the new 

 cargo.^®^ Where a company furnishes cars without cleaning 

 them as required by statute, and the shipper throws out the 

 hay containing offal, the company is liable to the owner of 

 cattle which eat it while grazing and die of fever."^ 



A company is not relieved of the duty of exercising proper 

 care in attending to the animals on its trains by reason of the 

 rush of business ;^'** nor is this a proper excuse for not fur- 



''' Richardson v. N. E. R. Co., L. R. 7 C. P. 75, distinguishing Stuart 

 V. Crawley, supra, as there (though not here) the defendant was a com- 

 mon carrier, and his servant had the means of seeing the dog was insufK- 

 ciently secured. 



As to the liability of the company for damage done by an escaped dog, 

 see Gray v. North British R. Co., 18 Rettie (Sc. Ct. Sess.) 76. 



"°° The Oranmore, 92 Fed. Rep. 396. 



"'Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. V. Ellison, 70 Tex. 491; Schaefler v. P. & 

 R. R. Co., 168 Pa. St. 209; Pavitt v. Leh. Val. R. Co., 153 id. 302; New- 

 man V. Pa. R. Co., 33 N. Y. App. Div. 171; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 

 V. Ditmars, 3 Kan. App. 4591 Ainsby v. Great Northern R. Co., 8 T. L. 

 R. 148. See Smith v. Midland R. Co., 57 L. T. N. S. 813. 



'" Ismay v. Blake, 66 L. T. N. S. S30. 



And see, as to negligence in disinfecting, Tattersall v. Nat. Steamship 

 Co. Limd., 12 Q. B. D. 297. 



"" Bradford v. Mo., K. & T. R. Co., 64 Mo. App. 475- 



'"Internat. & G. N. R. Co. v. Lewis (Tex. Civ. App.), 23 S. W. Rep. 

 323- 



