THE DOG AND THE LAW. 
A very important case dealing with this 
subject was Dickson v. Great Northern Rail- 
way Company (18 Q.B.D., 176). In this 
case a valuable Greyhound was sent from 
London to Newcastle, the ordinary fare 
being six shillings. The plaintiffs man 
signed the printed form exonerating the 
company from liability beyond £2, unless 
the higher value were declared and paid for 
extra at the rate of five per cent. No 
higher value was declared and nothing but 
the ordinary rate was paid. During the 
journey the Greyhound was injured by a 
porter (in the usual slipshod, careless, and 
stupid manner so closely identified with the 
actions of many porters) running a trolley 
over its tail. The County Court judge held 
that the alternative terms offered by the 
railway company were unreasonable, and 
gave judgment for the plaintiff for £25. 
The Divisional Court on appeal reversed this 
decision, but on the plaintiff appealing to 
the Court of Appeal the judgment of the 
Divisional Court was upset, and that of the 
County Court judge affirmed. The late 
Lord Esher in his judgment, shortly put, 
asked, What was the nature of the condition? 
In his opinion, it was one of a most violent 
description. It absolved the company from 
liability for any negligence, however gross, 
and for wilful misconduct and dishonesty of 
their servants. If a reasonable alternative 
is offered it was true even such a sweeping 
exemption from liability might become 
reasonable. In his opinion no rcasonable 
alternative had been offered in this case, 
for if the percentage asked for had been 
paid, the dog’s fare would have been £3 4s., 
which was more than that for a first-class 
passenger for the same distance, with all 
the liabilities attaching to the carriage of 
such a passenger. 
The above case is undoubtedly a most 
important one. It is strong authority for 
the principle that a railway company must 
offer to the public a reasonable agreement, 
and it finds as a fact that an extra charge of 
five per cent. is too much for a railway 
company to seek to impose under the 
powers given them by section 7 of the 
above-mentioned Act. As was natural, rail- 
567 
way companies adopted this finding of fact, 
and we know now that they ask for a much 
smaller percentage, as an extra rate, where 
a higher value is declared. 
One thing which is always in a railway 
company’s favour is that individuals natur- 
ally fear to tackle them; the railway company 
or other large corporation has, as a rule, an 
eminent permanent solicitor with a large 
staff of clerks at his disposal who must at 
times have very slack periods, and who 
therefore are only too anxious for someone 
to commence an action against them. They 
have unlimited resources, and the result 
from a financial point of view does not 
matter one jot to them. It is very different 
with the individual who stands to lose a 
considerable amount of his own money if he 
has the temerity single-handed to tackle such 
a dangerous machine—a machine, too, which 
he knows is spoiling for a fight at all times, 
and will fight it out to the bitter end as far 
as the law will allow it. This is doubtless 
responsible for the fact that, although, with 
the growth of the dog in recent years the 
numbers of accidents to dogs, and their 
deaths whilst in transit on railways, caused 
almost invariably by the negligence and 
stupidity of railway servants, have naturally 
increased enormously, yet very few actions 
in regard to these things have found their 
way into the courts, and though some 
have been commenced while the claimant 
was in the initial heat of the annoyance of 
having his dog done to death or badly 
injured, when the calmer mood has come 
upon him, he has thought better of it, and 
quietly dropped his action. 
A useful case has, however, recently been 
tried which cannot fail to be of some interest 
to dog owners by the time it is finally dis- 
posed of. It was an action against the Midland 
Railway Company, and in it the plaintiff, 
who had the good fortune to have his action 
tried by one of the most able judges on the 
Bench, got judgment for £300, which was 
the stun claimed by him as damages for the 
loss of a valuable Pointer bitch which was 
burnt to death in its hamper in the parcels 
office at Chesterfield station. The railway 
company admitted that the dog’s death was 
