2G1 CAnEIER LIABLE FOE LOSS OF DOG. 



lionnd to do what is rcaponnhle, under the particular circumstauces of 

 cacli case {Tfinhoii \. Baxruilale). "But per Bramiccll B. : "The judg- 

 ment of tile majority of l:he Court iu Crouch v. The Great Wesfern 

 Bailicay Cumpainj seems to sliow that it is the duty of the carrier to 

 communicate with the consio-nor" (/^.). And it is no answer to an 

 action against carriers by tlie owner of goods lost (who was the con- 

 signee) that the consignor, after the loss of the goods, claimed com- 

 pensation, and that the carriers, without notice, and believing him to 

 be the owner, paid compensation to him {Coomls v. Bristol and Exeter 

 liailiray Company, 27 L. J. Ex. 401). 



}Vliere the plaintiff sent Jive bwidles of hay-cloths by the defendants, 

 carriers, to he delivered in Bedford on a Thursday, in order to be ready 

 for the market on Saturday, but did not give notice that they were sent 

 for that purpose, and on that day his clerk proceeded there, but owing 

 to the non-delivery of the goods till the Monday following, removed 

 them to another place for sale, it was held by the Court of Exchequer, 

 on a motion for a new trial, in an action for non-delivery of the goods 

 within a reasonable time, that the simple expenses so incurred might 

 be given by the jury as damages (Blade v. Baxendale). 



Lord Ellenborouyh C.J. ruled, in 8tuart v. Craivley, that when a cloy 

 is delivered to a carrier, ivho yives a receipt for it, and is afterwards lost, 

 the carrier cannot set iip as a defence that the cloy teas not properly secured 

 ivhen delivered to him. Here a valuable greyhound had been delivered 

 to the defendant to carry from London to Harefield Lock. His book- 

 keeper gave a receipt ; and the dog was tied by a cord to a watch-box, 

 but slipped his head from the cord round his neck. The defendant 

 contended that, as the dog had no collar, he was the same as a parcel 

 imperfectly packed, and that the loss should fall on the sender ; but his 

 Lordship said that the cases were not identical : as iu that of the parcel 

 the defect was not visible, whereas here the defendant had the means of 

 seeing that the dog was insulliciently secured. 



