CARRYING HORSES. 263 



concurred. It is important to observe in this case, that the 

 " injury " to the cattle is the only damage adverted to by 

 the learned Judges, so it may be inferred, in accordance 

 with former decisions (a), that the loss of market alone 

 would not have entitled the defendants to compensation. 



In Harrison v. London, Brighton and South Coast Condition as 

 Railway Company {h), the following condition was called *" ™/"j® jj. 

 in question : — " The company will not be liable in any unreasonable 

 case for loss or damage to any horse or other animal above rate. 

 the value of 40/., or any dog above the value of 5/., unless 

 a declaration of its value, signed by the owner, or his 

 agent, at the time of booking, shall have been given to 

 them ; and by such declaration the oMTier shall be bound, 

 the company not being in any event liable to any greater 

 amount than the value declared. The company will in 

 no case be liable for injury to any horse or other animal, 

 or dog, of whatever value, where such injury arises wholly 

 or partially from fear or restiveness. If the declared value 

 of any horse or other animal exceed 40/., or any dog 51., 

 the price of conveyance will, in addition to the regular fare, 

 be after the rate of two and a half per cent, upon the 

 declared value of above 40/., whatever may be the amount 

 of such value, and for whatever distance the animal is to 

 be carried." In this case the plaintiff delivered to the 

 defendants a dog to be carried, and signed a ticket with 

 this condition annexed. The value of the dog was 21/., 

 but the plaintiff made no declaration of its value, and paid 

 only the regular fare 3s. The dog escaped from the train 

 during the journey, and was lost, without any negligence on 

 the part of the defendants. The plaintiff having sued the 

 defendants for the loss, it was held by the majority of the 

 Court of Exchequer : first, that the meaning of this ticket, 

 the whole of which must be read together, was, that if the 

 value of a dog was above 5/., and its value was not de- 

 clared, and the extra price paid accordingly, the defendants 

 would not be liable at all, even for loss or injury caused by 

 their own negligence, and that the condition was therefore 

 within 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7 ; secondly, that this condi- 

 tion was not just and reasonable, inasmuch as the extra 

 charge of two and a half per cent, (without proof to the 

 contrary, which it lay on the defendants to give) appeared 



(a) Beal y. South Devon Rail. Co., (b) Harrison v. Zondon, Brighton 



5 H. & N. 875; White v. Great and South Coast Sail. Co., 29 L. J., 



Western Rail. Co., 26 L. J., C. P. Q. B. 209. 

 158. 



