270 



CARRYING HORSES. 



Opinion of 

 Cockburn, 

 C.J. 



Of Mellor, J. 



Of Blackburn, 



Declaration of 

 value under 

 17 & 18 Vict, 

 u. 31, s. 7. 



Non-com - 



being to put the horse into the box, in which it was to 

 be conveyed in the first instance. The jury found that the 

 defendants were guilty of negligence in putting the 

 girders where they were, and that there was no negligence 

 on the part of the groom, and found a verdict for the 

 plaintifP for 1,000^. A rule was subsequently obtained, 

 pursuant to leave reserved, calling upon the plaintiff to 

 show cause why the damages should not be reduced to 

 50/., on the ground that the plaintiff's right to recover 

 was limited to that sum by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31, s. 7. The 

 Court differed in opinion, but it was held by the majority 

 that the rule should be made absolute to reduce the 

 damages to 50/. 



It was held by Cockburn, C.J., who dissented from this 

 judgment, that as the negligence complained of was not 

 the negligence of the defendants in their character of 

 carriers, they were not entitled to the protection of this 

 section ; secondly, if they would have otherwise been en- 

 titled to the protection, there was no evidence of their 

 having notified the increased rate of charge as required 

 by the section ; and thirdly, therefore, on both grounds, 

 the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full value of the 

 horse. 



Mr. Justice Mellor was of opinion that the provision in 

 the section applied not only to the risks of carriage and 

 conveyance, but also to those which attend the receiving 

 and delivery ; that the injury was done in receiving the 

 horse ; and therefore, that as there was no declaration of 

 value, the plaintiff' could not recover more than the 50/. 



It was held by Mr. Justice Blackburn, that the statute 

 is not confined to neglects and defaults after the relation 

 of carrier and customer has been completely established, 

 and that the real value above 50/. cannot be recovered 

 unless the declaration is made before the injury happens, 

 though it happen before the receipt by the railway company 

 is complete. 



The mere casual knowledge of a railway company of the 

 excess in value of a horse sent to be carried, derived from 

 a letter of the sender to their traffic manager, does not 

 entitle them to refuse to carry it, except at the increased 

 per centage of charge (k). 



A railway company is not responsible for the non- 



(k) Robinson V. South Western Hail Co., 19 C. B., N. S. 51; 34 L. J., 

 C. P. 234. 



