CARRYING HORSES. 



265 



it might be conveyed at the lower rate will disentitle him 

 from, recovering in damages, if it is injured, upon any 

 other value than that which was falsely declared to be its 

 real value (g). 



In the case of Gregory v. West Midland Railway Com- 

 pany (h), a cow and a heifer had been placed by the defen- 

 dants' servants without halters in a sheep or calf truck 

 without rails, and during the journey the cow fell or jumped 

 out of the truck and was injured. An action was brought 

 for the damage thus occasioned, and the company relied 

 upon the special contract made by them with the plaintiff, 

 among the conditions of which were these: — That "the 

 company are to be free from all risk and responsibility with 

 respect to any loss or damage arising in the loading or 

 unloading, or injury in the transit from any cause whatever, 

 it being agreed that the animals are to be carried at the 

 owner's risk, and that the owner of the cattle is to see to the 

 efficiency of the waggon, before his stock is placed therein ; 

 complaints to be made in writing to the company's officer 

 before the waggon leaves the station." In accordance with 

 the decision of the Exchequer Chamber in M'Manus v. 

 Lancashire and Yorhshire Railway Coiwpany (i), these condi- 

 tions were held to be neither just nor reasonable. 



In Rooth V. North Eastern Railway Company {k), a 

 contract for the conveyance of cattle by railway, signed by 

 the party sending them, contained the two following, 

 amongst other, conditions : — " The owner undertakes all 

 risks of loading, unloading and carriage, whether arising 

 from the negligence or default of the company or their 

 servants, or from defect or imperfection in the station, 

 platform, or other places of loading or unloading, or of the 

 carriage in which the cattle may be loaded or conveyed, or 

 from any other cause whatsoever." — " The company will 

 grant free passes to persons having the care of live stock, 

 as an inducement to owners to send proper persons with and 

 to take care of them :" — It was held that the first of these 

 conditions was unreasonable, and that its unreasonable 

 character was not removed by the mere fact that the 

 company, under the second condition, granted, and the 



Condition as 

 to general 

 non-liability. 



(g) M'Cance v. London and North 

 Western Rail. Co., 34 L. J., Ex. 39. 



(h) Gregorys. West Midland Rail. 

 Co.,33L. J.,E.x. 156. 



(i) M'Manus v. Lancashire and 

 Yorkshire Rail. Co., 4 H. & N. 327 



—Ex. Ch. See also Peck v. North 

 Staffordshire Rail. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 

 473; 32 L. J"., Q. B. 241, ante, 

 p. 256. 



{k) L. E., 2 Ex. 173 ; 36 L. J., 

 Ex. 83. 



