250 CARRYING HORSES. 



happens while the goods are in his custodj^ except such 

 loss or damage as arises from the act of God, as storms, 

 tempests, and the like ; or from the Queen's enemies {h). 

 Act of God moans not merely an accidental circumstance, 

 but something overwhelming {i), and which "could not 

 have been prevented by any amount of foresight and pains 

 and care reasonably to be expected from" the carrier (A). 

 Interent The liability of railway companies as common carriers of 



'^'^'^^- animals is subject to a further exception in cases where the 



injury is the consequence of an inherent vice of the animal 

 carried, which results in its destruction, without any negli- 

 gence on their part. The leading case on this subject is 

 Blower V. Great Western Bait. Co. (/), which was an action 

 brought in the county court, for the non-delivery of a 

 bullock which was delivered to them at Dingestow station 

 to be carried by them to Northampton. In the course of 

 the journey the animal escaped from the truck in which it 

 was placed, and ^vas killed. In a case stated by the county 

 court Judge, it was found that the escape was wholly attri- 

 butable to the efforts and exertions of the animal itself, and 

 not to any negligence on the part of the company, and 

 that the truck was' in every respect proper and reasonably 

 sufficient for the convej-ance of cattle ; the Court held that, 

 upon this state of facts, the Judge ought to have directed a 

 verdict for the defendants, and Willes, J., in the course of 

 his judgment, said, "The bullock was received by the 

 company under the terms of a notice which is assailed by 

 the plaintiff. It is unnecessary to consider vfhether or not 

 the notice was a reasonable one. The question for our 

 decision is, whether the defendants, upon the facts and 

 findings of the county court Judge, are liable as common 

 carriers for the loss of this animal. Whether a railway 

 company are common carriers of animals is a question upon 

 which there has been much conflict of opinion, and, 

 although there may be difiiculties in determining that 

 question, such as induced Lord Wensleydale, in Carr v. 



(A) Crouch Y. Great TTi'sUrn Hail. Ex. 174— C. A.; and Nitro-Phos. 



Co., 11 Ex. 742. phate, ,'i-c. Manure Co. \. London 4- 



(i) Oaldeyy. rortsmouth,i-e. Stcrim St. Eatharhie Doc!:s Co., 3 Ch. D. 



racket Co., 11 Exch. 623; 21 L. J., 503; 39 L. T., N. S. 433. 



Ex. 101— per Martin, B. (l) L. R., 7 C. T. 655; 41 L. J., 



(k) Nugent \. Smith, 1 C. P. D. C. P. 268; 27 L. T., N. S. 883. 



441, 444 ; 46 L. J., C. P. 697 ; 34 And see C/nrkv. Rochester and Syra- 



L. T., N. S. 827— per James, L.J. ruse Railroad Co., 14 New York, 



See also Nichols Y. Marsland,L. R., 570; Bissell v. Neiv York Central 



10 Ex. 255 ; 2 Ex. D. 1 ; 46 L. J., Railroad Co., 25 New York, 442. 



