CARRYING HORSES. 267 



a railway company offer to undertake the ordinary carriers 

 liability at a price they are not entitled to charge, or to 

 carry _ at a lower price free from liability, the alternative 

 offer is not reasonable (q). But a condition that the com- 

 pany will not be liable for injuries caused by fear or restive- 

 ness of animals, and a limit of liability as regards amount, 

 the amounts being those specified in section 7, and a pro- 

 vision that the company do not admit liability in the case 

 of animals able to walk from the truck, have been held 

 not to invalidate an alternative offer (r). 



Where alternative rates are charged for the conveyance 

 of cattle or goods, the lower rate being at owner's risk, 

 a priori the higher rate, if within the parliamentary limit, 

 is not necessarily unreasonable or prohibitory (s). It is a 

 question for the jury whether the higher rate is unreason- 

 able in the sense that it is so high as to be prohibitory ; 

 and the mere fact that the lower rate is so low that cattle 

 dealers invariably avail themselves of it is not, standing 

 alone, evidence that the higher rate is unreasonable or 

 prohibitory (t). 



The higher rate need not be published in the manner 

 that toUs are directed to be published by the Railway 

 Clauses Act, 1845, s. 93 ; the posting up the effect of it, 

 e.g., that itis 10 per cent, the owner's risk rate, is sufficient {-u). 



When a railway company agrees to carry, at a reduced "What is wilful 

 rate, upon condition of being relieved from the ordinary misconduct, 

 liability for negligence, and to be responsible only for the 

 consequences of the wilful misconduct of their servants, — 

 a condition which has been held to be reasonable if a 

 higher rate is offered, which is not exorbitant, — ^it will be 

 for the plaintiff, in an action for injury to the goods carried, 

 to prove more than culpable negligence. There must be 

 evidence of actual wilful misconduct causing the injury {v). 



Sail. Co., 3 Q. B. D. 195 ; 47 Sail. Co., 38 L. T., N". S. 851. 



L. J., Q. B. 131 ; 37 L. T., JST. S. {t) Ibid. 



774_C. A. ; Manchester, $e.. Sail. («) Great Western Sail. Co. v. 



Co. T. Brown, 8 App. Cas. 703 ; 53 McCarthij, ubi supra. 



L. J Q,. B. 124 ; 50 L. T., N. S. (») Great Western Sail. Co. v. 



281 ; 32 W. E. 207. Glenister, 29 L. T., N. S. 422 ; 22 



(o) Seek T. North Staffordshire W. E. 72. See also Webb v. Great 



Rail. Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 473; 32 Western Sail. Co., 26 W. R. Ill; 



L J Q B 241 ; 8 L. T., N. S. Leieisv. Great Western Sail. Co., 3 



768 ■ uV. E. 1023. a B. D. 195 ; 47 L. J., Q. B. 131 ; 



(r) Great Western Sail. Co. v. 37 L. T., N. S. 744 ; 26 W. R. 255 



McCarthy, 12 App. Cas. 218 ; 56 — C. A. ; Hoare v. Great Western 



L. J.,P.C. 33; 56L.T.,]Sr.S.582; Sail. Co., 37 L. T., N. S. 186; 25 



35 W. E. 429. W. E. 63. 



(s) Foreman v. Great Western 



