CARRYING HORSES. 261 



but also for that caused by the insufficiency of the carriages 

 provided by the defendants, though occasioned by their 

 own negligence or misconduct. The sufficiency or in- 

 sufficiency of the vehicles by which the company are to 

 carry on their business is a matter, generally speaking, 

 which they, and they alone, have, or ought to have, the 

 means of fully ascertaining. And it would, we think, not 

 only be unreasonable, but mischievous, if they were to be 

 allowed to absolve themselves from the consequences of 

 neglecting to perform properly that which seems naturally 

 to belong to them as a duty. It is unreasonable that the 

 company should stipulate for exemption from liability 

 from the consequence of their own negligence however 

 gross, or misconduct however flagrant; and that is what 

 the condition under consideration professes to do. That 

 condition is therefore void ; and the case stands simply 

 upon the ground that the plaintiff has employed the 

 defendants to carry his horses safely, and that they have 

 used an insufficient and improper vehicle for that purpose, 

 whereby the horses have been injured." 



But where A. knew that there was a certain rate for Owner's risk 

 carrying horses on a railway by passenger train, and in ^ "^^"^ ^^ ^' 

 horse-boxes, and that there was a lower rate for carrying 

 them by goods train, and in waggons ; it was held that it 

 was a reasonable condition of the contract for conveyance 

 that the horses should be carried entirely at the owner's 

 risk, and that such condition would protect the railway 

 company if the horses were injured on the journey, but 

 would not protect them from the consequences of delay 

 where the contract was to deliver in a reasonable time («). 



Conditions protecting the company against claims for Condition as 

 loss unless made within seven days from the time at which \^™^i^*'^ 

 the goods should have been delivered, and against liability should be 

 for the loss of goods untruly or incorrectly declared or declared to 

 described by the sender are reasonable, and binding (y). "^^^^^ '^^'^"^■ 



In the case of Allday v. Great Western Baihvay Com- As to loss of 

 pantj (s), the plaintiff delivered some beasts to the station- ™ig^\^"]i°'^" 

 master at Oxford, with directions to send them to Birming- " injury " to 



cai 



,ttle 



(x) Robinson v. Great Western 195; 47 L. J., Q. B. 131 ; 37 L. T., 



Mail. Co., 35 L. J., C. P. 123 ; H. N. S. 774. Per Brett, L.J., 3 Q. B. 



& E. 97. See also S'Arc v. London D. 209. 



and North Western Rail. Co., L. R., {tj) Lewis v. Great Western Rail. 



9 C. P. 326 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 763 ; Co., 5 H. & N. 867. 



Harris v. Midland Rail. Co., 25 (z) Allday y . Great Western Rail. 



W. R. 63— D. C. A.; Leivis v. Co., 34 L. J., Q. B. 5. 

 Great Western Rail. Co., 3 Q. B. D. 



