CAKRYING HOESES. 253 



In Nugent v. Smith (p), a common carrier by sea from Rule applies 

 London to Aberdeen received a mare to be carried to *" common 

 Aberdeen for hire. In the course of the voyage the ship H^^^ 

 encountered rough weather, and the mare received such 

 injuries that she died. The jury found that the injuries 

 ■were caused partly by more than ordinary bad weather, 

 and partly by the conduct of the mare herself by reason of 

 fright and consequent struggling, without any negligence 

 of the carrier's servants. It was held that the carrier was 

 not liable for the death of the mare, on the ground that a 

 carrier does not insure against the irresistible act of nature, 

 nor against defects in the thing carried itself; and if he 

 can show that either the act of nature, or the defect of the 

 thing itself, or both taken together, formed the sole, direct, 

 and irresistible cause of the loss, he is discharged. 



In an action to recover damages for inj uries sustained by Proof in 

 the plaintiff's cattle whilst being carried by the defendants ''■"^^P- ^°^ 

 on their railway, it was held that the plaintiff, who was a ° 

 drover, was not an expert competent to give evidence as to 

 how the injuries were occasioned, and that the onus of 

 proof being on the plaintiff, and no affirmative evidence 

 having been given by him of negligence on the part of the 

 defendants, they were entitled to judgment (q). But it is 

 difficult to reconcile this case with Prior v. London and 

 South Western Mail. Co. (r), except on the assumption that 

 the company were carrying the animals under a special 

 contract, which exempted them from their liability as 

 common carriers. 



In Richardson v. North Eastern Rail. Co. (s), it was "When carriers 

 assumed, and in Dickson v. Great Northern Rail. Co. (t), ^L'^animala. 

 it was expressly decided, that railway companies are not 

 bound to carry animals, but may limit their business of 

 carriers in this respect, and may refuse to carry animals 

 except under special contract. In the former case, the 

 company had given public notice that they were not 

 " common carriers of horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, and other 

 animals," but would only undertake the carriage of animals 

 under special contract. A greyhound, having on a leathern 

 coUar with a strap attached, was delivered to the defendants 



(p) 1 C. P. D. 423; 45 L. J., (s) L. E., 7 C. P. 75; 41 L. J., 



C. P. 697 ; 34 L. T., N. S. 827— C. P. 60 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 131 ; and 



(^ j^_ see Zake Shorn Railroad Go. v. 



' la') Smith y. Midland Sail. Co., 57 Ferkins, 25 Mich. 329. 



L T., N. S. 313 ; 52 J. P. 262. W 18 Q. B. D. 176; 36 L. J., 



\r) Ante, p. 252. Q.B.lll; 55L. T.,N. S. 868-C.A. 



