CARRYING HORSES. 



255 



It being thus established, that the common law liability 

 of railway companies as common carriers might always be 

 defeated by the express contracts to carry, which were 

 erabodied in their notices and tickets (c), the monopoly 

 enjoyed by them led to their unduly restricting their 

 liability by special contracts with customers, who could not 

 afford the time or expense of litigating the right to refuse 

 to carry except upon such contracts, and thus in many cases 

 they were enabled to protect themselves against the legal 

 consequences of the grossest negligence on their part {d). 



With the view of remedying the hardships thus occa- 

 sioned the Railway and Canal Traffic Act was passed in 

 1854 (e). 



By the 7th section of that Act it is enacted that every 

 such company " shall be liable for the loss of or for any 

 injury done to any horses, cattle, or other animals, or to any 

 articles or goods," " in the receiving, forwarding or deliver- 

 ing thereof," " occasioned by the neglect or default of such 

 company or its servants, noticithstanding any notice, condi- 

 tion or declaration made and given hy such company contrary 

 thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability ; every such, 

 notice, condition or declaration made and given, being 

 thereby declared to be null and void ; provided always, that 

 nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the 

 said compauies from making such conditions with respect to 

 receiving, forwarding and delivering of any of the said 

 animals or goods that shall be adjudged by the Court or 

 Judge, before whom the question relating thereto shall be 

 tried, to be just and reasonable ; provided always, that no 

 greater damages shall be recovered for the loss or for any 

 injury done to any such animals," beyond 50/. for any 

 horse, 15/. per head for any neat cattle, and 21. per head fur 

 sheep or pigs : " unless the person sending or delivering tbe 

 same to such company shall, at the time of such delivery, 

 have declared them to be respectively of higher value than 

 as above mentioned, in which case it shall be lawful for 

 such company to demand and receive by way of compensa- 

 tion for the increased risk and care thereby occasioned, 

 a reasonable percentage upon the excess of the value so 



Hardship 

 thus occa- 

 sioned. 



Remedy 



17 & 18 Vict. 



c. 31. 



Company to 

 be liable not- 

 withstanding 

 notices. 



Conditions 

 must be rea- 

 sonable. 



Limitation of 

 liability. 



and Lincolnshire Bail. Co., 21 L. J., 

 C. P. 183. 



(c) Carr v. Lancashire and York- 

 shire Rail. Co., 7 Ex. 707 ; Austin v. 

 Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire 

 Mail. Co., 21 L. J., 0. P. 183; Chip- 



pendale V. Lancashire and Yorkshire 

 Rail. Co., 21 L. J., Q. B. 22. 



{d) Carr v. Lancashire and York- 

 shire Bail. Co., 7 Ex. 707, and cases 

 there cited. 



(e) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31. 



