68 



CARRIER CARRIER PIGEON. 



ought to be imposed upon the carrier, upon the prin- 

 ciple alleged in favour of his ans\\ -ering tor a robbery, 

 namely, tor the purpose of preventing' collusion with 

 the robbers, for there appears to lie no reason for col- 

 lusion with incendiaries. 



The above cases show tliut the law of England 

 considers persons employed in transporting goons on 

 a canal to be common carriers. The rule extends 

 also to persons employed in inland navigation "cue- 

 rally ; and some of the old cases appear to extend it 

 to the coasting trade ; but there is no question tlmt 

 it is not, under a bill of lading in the usual form, ap- 

 plicable to foreign navigation, the risk from pirates 

 being universally acknowledged to be a " danger of 

 the seas," for which the ship-owner is not responsi- 

 ble. A waggoner or coachman, whose business is 

 carrying for lure, is answerable as a common carrier ; 

 and the owners of the vehicle, who employ him, are 

 also answerable in the same manner ; but they are 

 not answerable for any articles which it is known 

 not to be their business to carry ; as when the driver 

 of a coach, intended by the proprietors, and ordi- 

 narily used, only for the transportation of passengers, 

 took a box to carry, without the consent or authority 

 of the owners, intending to keep the fare himself, 

 they were held not to be answerable for the loss of 

 the box. (Bac. Abr., art. Carrier, vol. i. p. 553. 

 A postmaster was held not to be under so strict a 

 responsibility, nor answerable for money enclosed in 

 a letter stolen from his office, for he is a public offi- 

 cer ; but chief-justice Hale thought he ought to be 

 answerable upon the same principle and to the same 

 extent as a common carrier. {Lord Raymond, vol. 

 i. p. 646 ; Modern Reports, vol. xii. p. 477.) A 

 person who undertakes to carry goods in a special 

 instance, though it be for hire, is not answerable, 

 under the English law, as a common carrier ; that 

 is, he is not an insurer, but is only bound to use due 

 ililigence. So one who carries goods without re- 

 ceiving any compensation is answerable only for the 

 loss and damage occasioned by his negligence or 

 misconduct, and the reason of his being thus far an- 

 swerable is his undertaking to carry the goods, which 

 are accordingly put into his hands upon the pre- 

 sumption tliat he will not be guilty of any gross neg- 

 ligence in so doing. Mr Dane, in the first volume 

 ot Ins Digest, says that the law in respect to liability 

 of carriers is the same in America (excepting Louisi- 

 ana and Florida) as in England. That the carrier is 

 liable for any loss by his own negligence or fault, or 

 that of the persons employed by mm, there is no 

 doubt ; but it admits of at least some doubt whether 

 he is considered so far an insurer against losses not oc- 

 casion ed by his own fault, as in England. The original 

 strictn ess of the English law, as far as it was grounded 

 on the danger of collusion between carriers and rob- 

 bers, seems hardly necessary to be kept up at pre- 

 sent, either here or in America ; for, in general, in 

 both countries, there is little danger of such collu- 

 sion between the owners of boats, stage-coaches, 

 baggage-waggons or coasters, and gangs of robbers. 

 Where there is no special stipulation as to the deli- 

 very of goods by the carrier, and where the contract 

 is not modified by some very distinct and well-known 

 usage, he must deliver the goods to the consignee, 

 or to some person authorized by him to receive them, 

 and the responsibility of the carrier continues till the 

 goods are so delivered. 



The particular circumstances under which goods 

 are taken to be transported, may modify and control 

 the responsibility of the carrier ; as, where in time 

 of scarcity, some wheat was taken by a boatman on 

 a canal, to be carried from Wolverhampton to Man- 

 chester, on a day of the week on which it was not 

 usual for his boat to go, and for tM purpose of re- 



moving the wheat from a mob who showed a riotous 

 disposition, he was held not to be answerable tor 

 damage done by some of the mob, who sei/.ed a part 

 of the wheat, al>out four or live miles from Wolvcr- 

 liampton. (Edwards vs. Shinatt, East's Reports, vol. 

 i. p. 604.) It was held, in this case, tlmt the boat- 

 man did not take the wheat as a common carrier 

 And if the owner of the goods contract with one of 

 the partners in the business of transportation, with a 

 knowledge that he alone is to be benefited, and re- 

 ceive the fare, his partners are held not to lie liable. 

 (Maule and Selwyn'a Reports, vol. i. p. 255.) Hut 

 carriers may limit then* responsibility by giving no- 

 tice of the conditions upon which, and the extent to 

 which, they will be answerable. Thus, where car- 

 riers gave notice that they would not be answerable 

 for any package over the value of five pounds, un- 

 less entered and paid for as such, persons sending 

 goods were bound by such notice. And so if they 

 give notice that they will not be answerable for the 

 faults of the master and mariners, provided the no- 

 tice is so given as to afford groimd of presumption 

 of its reaching the party for whom the goods are 

 carried, or in such way that it shall be his fault if he 

 does not receive the notice. 



CARRIER, JOHN BAPTIST, born in 1756, at Volai, 

 in Upper Auvergne, an obscure attorney at the be- 

 ginning of the first French revolution, was chosen, 

 in 1792, member of the national convention, aided in 

 the establishment of the revolutionary tribunal, 

 March 10, 1793, and exhibited the wildest rage for 

 persecution. He voted for the death of Louis XVI., 

 demanded the arrest of the duke of Orleans, April 

 6, 1793, and contributed greatly to the revolution of 

 May 31. Oct. 8, 1793, he was sent to Nantes with 

 a commission to suppress the civil war by the exer- 

 cise of greater severity than had yet been used. The 

 prisons were already full, while the defeat of the 

 Vendeans near Savenay increased the number of pri- 

 soners. Multitudes, informally and precipitately 

 condemned, were executed daily ; but Carrier found 

 this process too slow. He resolved, therefore, to 

 destroy the prisoners in a mass, and without a trial. 

 He caused ninety-four priests to be conveyed to a 

 boat with a perforated lx>ttom, under pretence of 

 transporting them, but, in reality with a view of hav- 

 ing them drowned by night. Every day this artifice 

 was repeated. In the evening, the destined victims, 

 of every age and of both sexes, were brought to the 

 boats. Two were tied together, and plunged into 

 the water, at the point of the bayonet and the edge 

 of the sabre. The executioners sometimes amused 

 themselves by tying together a young man and wo- 

 man ; and they called these noyades (republican 

 marriages). Besides this, more than 500 prisoners 

 were daily shot in the quarries at Gigan. For more 

 than a month, these deeds of madness were perpe- 

 trated. It has been estimated that 15,000 individuals 

 perished in this way. The banks of the Loire were 

 strewed with the dead, and the water was so pol- 

 luted, that it was prohibited to drink it. Some 

 months before the fall of Robespierre, Carrier was 

 recalled. The 9th Thermidor (July 27), 1794, he 

 was apprehended, and brought before the revolu- 

 tionary tribunal, which condemned him to death, 

 Dec. 16, 1794. 



CARRIER PIGEON (pavedette, colnmla tabella- 

 ria). This bird is a native of the East; and the 

 practice of sending letters by pigeons belongs, there- 

 fore, principally to Eastern countries. The pigeons 

 chosen for this service are called, in Arabic, hamahn. 

 They have a ring of particoloured feathers round the 

 neck, red feet, covered with down, and build their 

 nests in the neighbourhood of human habitations. In 

 the province of Irak (that is, Chalda?a, Babylonia, and 



