CARRYING HORSES. 251' 



Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail Co. (;«), to make the obser- 

 vations which have elicited remarks from some learned 

 Judges apparently to the contrary, it may turn out after all 

 to be a mere controversy of words. The question as to 

 their liability may turn on the distinction between acci- 

 dents which happen by reason of some vice inherent in the 

 animals themselves, or disposition producing unruliness or 

 phrenzy, and accidents which are not the result of inherent 

 vice or unruliness of the animals themselves. It comes to 

 much the same thing whether we say that one who carries 

 live animals is not liable in the one event, but is liable in 

 the other, or that he is not a common carrier of them 

 at all, because there are some accidents, other than those 

 falling within the exception of the act of God and the 

 Queen's enemies, for which he is not responsible. By the 

 expression ' vice,' I do not, of course, mean moral vice in 

 the thing itself, or its owner, but only that sort of vice 

 which, by its internal development, tends to the destruction 

 or the injury of the animal or thing to be carried, and which 

 is likely to lead to such a result. If such a cause of destruc- 

 tion exists, and produces that result in the course of the 

 journey, the liability of the carrier is necessarily excluded 

 from the contract between the parties." 



Kendall v. London and South Western Rail. Go. (n) was Proof of. 

 an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by the 

 plaintiff's horse whilst it was being carried by the defen- 

 dants on their railway. The cause was tried before Martin, 

 B., at Gruildhall, at the sittings after Hilary Term, 1872. 

 It appeared that the horse was taken, saddled and bridled, 

 to the defendants' station at Waterloo, and was there 

 delivered to the defendants to be carried to Ewell. It was 

 attempted to be shown that the defendants' servants were 

 guilty of negligence in not fastening up the stirrups ; but as 

 the plaintiff was himself present when the horse was put 

 into the box, and had, after first objecting, acquiesced in the 

 stirrups being allowed to hang down ; and, as evidence was 

 also given that the course adopted was usual and proper, 

 that contention was abandoned. 



No accident happened to the train, nor anything likely 

 to alarm the horse, which was proved to be a quiet animal 

 and accustomed to travel by rail; bat, at the end of the 

 journey, the horse was found to have sustained considerable 



(m) 7 Ex. 712, 713 ; 21 L. J., (») L. R., 7 Ex. 373 ; 41 L. J., 



Ex. iei. Ex. 184 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 735. 



