254 



CARRYING HORSES. 



Onus of proof 

 of non-lia- 

 biUfry. 



Must carry 

 for reasonatle 



Defects in 

 carriages. 



A special con- 

 tract to cairy. 



Binding at 

 common law. 



for carriage, and the fare paid. In the course of the 

 journey there was a change of trains, and the greyhound 

 was fastened by the strap and collar to an iron spout on the 

 open platform of the station. While so fastened it slipped 

 from the collar and ran upon the line, and was killed. It 

 was held that the fastening of the greyhound by the means 

 furnished by the owner himself, which at the time appeared 

 to be sufficient, was no evidence of negligence on the part 

 of the company. 



The onus of proving that damage, happening during 

 transit or while the goods were in the carrier's hands, was 

 occasioned by a cause for which he was not responsible, lies 

 upon the carrier («(). 



All common carriers must carry goods for reasonable 

 charges, and consequently not take more from one than 

 from another for the same service. Therefore one customer 

 or class of customers cannot be charged more than another 

 customer or class of customers, or the public generally (v). 



Railway companies, being common carriers, are prima 

 facie liable at common law for defects in their carriages or 

 trucks, by which damage accrues to the goods entrusted to 

 them to carry (jt) . 



But a special contract entered into with a common 

 carrier, by the party who delivers goods to be conveyed, 

 by which contract the carrier is exempted from all liability 

 for any loss occasioned by his negligence, is binding upon 

 both parties («) at common law. 



At one period indeed there was a disposition in our 

 Courts to hold that common carriers could not by their 

 notices shake off their common law responsibility ; but 

 Mr. Justice Story says {y) : — " The right of making such 

 qualified acceptances by common carriers seems to have 

 been asserted in early times. Lord Coke declared it in a 

 note to Southcote's cane (s), and it was admitted in Mor&e v. 

 She [a). It is now fully recognized and settled beyond any 

 reasonable doubt in England." For this assertion he cites 

 a number of authorities, and the Court of Common Pleas 

 held that he had arrived at a correct conclusion {b). 



(m) Hudson V. Baxcndale, 2 H. & 

 N. 575. 



(v) Johnson v. Midland Rail. Co., 

 4 Ex. 367 ; and Coggs v. Bernard, 1 

 Smith's L. C. 9tli ed. 201, and cases 

 there cited. 



{w) See Combe t. London and South 

 Western Rail. Co., 31 L. T., N. S. 



613. 



(x) Carr v. Lancashire and York- 

 shire Rail. Co., 7 Ex. 707. 



(y) Story on Bailments, 549. 



(z) Southeote's case, 4 Kep. 83. 



(a) Morse v. Slue, 1 Vent. 238. 



(b) See judgment of Court of C. 

 P., Austin V. Manchester, Sheffield 



