might be occasionally used as a bed fied, and without either summing in the field; that witness assisted up, or reply from Mr. Sergeant in making it, and that the cost price Vaughan, found a verdict for the of the materials alone and work- plaintiff, to the satisfaction of a manship amounted to 201. Os. 6d.; crowded Court, to the full amount that witness, on defendant's re- of his demand. turn to England, waited upon

him at Knightsbridge Barracks, when LIABILITY OF CARRIERS. he stated, that he had worn the

Bristol Assizes. cloak; that the materials were Rouquet v. Sherborne.—This was good, and price reasonable; and an action brought by the plaintiff, that he had no other fault to find, who is a clergyman residing at except that it was somewhat too West Harptree, against the deheavy, but promised to call on fendant, who is a common carrier, plaintiff in a day or two, and settle for the recovery of the sum of 291. about it.

the value of a variety of articles of The Judge (Dallas) here asked wearing apparel intrusted to his Mr. Serjeant Lens, defendant's care, and to be conveyed from Counsel, whether this evidence Bristol to West Harptree, about was not irresistible? But the learn- 11 miles from Bristol. ed Serjeant, on consulting his Mr. Serjeant Pell, in opening client, said the cause must pro- the case to the jury, observed, that ceed.

it was one which would not take The plaintiff, therefore, called up much of their time. The plainMr. Davidson, of Cork-street; tiff was à clergyman of great reMr. Westoil, of Bond-street; Mr. spectability, and the defendant was Wilson, of Bond-street, and others, a common carrier from Bristol to who all stated that they had made Wells. The articles in question similar cloaks for the Prince Re- were the wearing apparel of the gent, General Lord Hill, and plaintiff's daughter, who had been other distinguished characters, at school at Bristol. It would be some of which cloaks were consi- superfluous to enter into a detail derably heavier than the one in of every article, unless his friend question, which they had exa- on the opposite side (Mr. Casberd) mined most carefully, and all was desirous to go through the stated it to be a pattern of its whole of the lady's toilette. The kind, and the charge moderate in articles were packed up and carthe extreme.

ried to the waggon-office by a man The Judge, on this weight of named Clark, who could neither evidence, repeatedly recommended read nor write, and given to a man the defendant, who was in Court, named Wood. He [the learned to pay for it, lest he should ani- serjeant] knew not whether the madvert more strongly upon his usual notice was stück up or not; conduct; but he insisted on going and it had been said, that if a noto the Jury,—when, after an ad. tice was put up in the office, it dress from Mr. Serjeant Lens, was a sufficient notice to all perand calling one witness, they sons who came to it: but in that stated themselves perfectly satis- case, it would be for the defend

NON-LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

ant to show that notice had been must have had a knowledge of the given; then he should apprehend, notice. At the same time, if the that as the man who took the arti- jury should infer upon any fair cles could neither read nor write, ground that the parcel was delithe mere notice stuck up in the vered, and that it was lost, and office could not be considered a that Mr. Rouquet had not ar easonsufficient notice to him; and if able information of the notice, then such a defence was set up, he should they would find a verdict for the fortify himself against it, by prov- plaintiff.-Verdict for the plaintiff. ing the man who took it could Damages-291. neither read nor write.

The plaintiff's daughter, and John Clark, his servant, proved Oram v Fromont and Others. the facts of the case.

In this action the plaintiff sought Mr Baron Graham then pro- to recover the suin of 131. 16s. ceeded to sum up the evidence, in and the value of four shawls, indoing which he observed, that the trusted to the defendants, as comdefence set up was, that as a mat- mon carriers, to be conveyed to ter of public notoriety, there were Trowbridge. notices stuck up in the office; and Mr. Serjeant Pell, in stating the the question for their consideration case to the jury, observed, that would be, whether they could from under the decision of Lord Ellenthese notices draw such an infe- borough, who had ruled as follows, rence as would warrant them in “ the law is imperative, that a saying, that the plaintiff had a suf- proof of the notice of the contract ficient knowledge of the terms of to the plaintiff must be adduced the notices ; for if they should be before the carrier can be exoneof opinion that he had a sufficient rated from his liability to the loss," notice, then in that case the respon- the plaintiff would be entitled to sibility of the defendant would be the verdict of the jury. qualified; but upon that point they Mr. Richard Stanley Laytham were to exercise their best judg- being called, stated that on the ment. Before they said that the 17th of December last he took a defendant was liable, they must be parcel to the White Hart coachconvinced that he came into the office, in Broad-street, in this possession of the articles; and to city. It contained 131. 16s. in be sure there was but one witness cash, and was wrapped up in four who spoke to that fact. The cir- shawls, which were worth about cumstances of the notices were not 30s. It was directed to Mr. James of a very strong description, be- Oram, Trowbridge. Witness paid cause the man who took the goods 2d. for booking it. Of his own could neither read nor write. With knowledge he did not know wheregard then to Mr. Rouquet having ther the parcel reached its desreceived and known the terms of tination or not. It was between the notice, it must be supposed 7 and 8 in the evening when he from his condition in life; and his took it to the office. having sent by the waggon before, Cross-examined by Mr. Gaselee. it might be fairly inferred that he -The 131. 16s. was a debt which

case.

witness owed to a Mr. Bannister, was a principle of sound policy that and he had been desired to pay it the carriers should restrict themto his son.

Mr. Oram was a rela- selves as far as possible to their tion of Mr. Bannister, Witness liability; and the only thing for had seen a public notice stuck up the jury to say would be, whether in the office, relative to no parcels Mr. Laytham, the plaintiff's agent, being answered for, if lost, unless had or had not a knowledge of the entered and paid for accordingly. manner in which the defendants

Mr. Baron Graham observed, carried on their business at the that this fact established a notice time he delivered the parcel. of public notoriety.

Mr. Baron Graham, in sumMr. Serjeant Pell.—That is my ming up the facts of the case, ob

The parcel never did come served, that the action was brought to hand, although I cannot prove for the non-delivery of goods; and it: but I take it that it remains the defence set up was, that there for the defendants to prove that it was such a public notice put up in did come to hand.

the defendants' office, as not to Mr. Baron Graham.-It always render them liable for the loss of forms part of the declaration that any parcel, unless it should be enit never did come to hand.

tered and paid for as being above The witness Laytham was then the value of 5l. : and the question called back and examined by Mr. was, whether the plaintiff had a Serjeant Pell. Mr. Hathway, the notice of that circumstance. The bookkeeper, told witness the par- evidence was, that Mr. Laytham cel was never sent. He said he was aware of the existence of the was afraid it was mislaid, as he notice within a fortnight before, had written to the proprietors of and within a few days after the the coaches to ascertain.

17th of December; then what

posMr. Gaselee objected to this tes- sibledoubt could the jury entertain timony being received as evidence that the defendants had changed against the defendants, in which their mode of doing business in so objection he was borne out by the short a time? The jury almost inCourt.

stantly found a verdict for the deMr. Gaselee now submitted that fendants. the action must fall upon two grounds ; first, that Mr. Oram had no property in it, as it was a debt

August 19. due to Mr.Bannister; and secondly, Hartley v. Harriman.-This cause that it had never got into the pos- occupied the Court from its opensession of Mr. Oram, as the con ing at 9 o'clock on Tuesday mornsignee or consignor, neither had it ing, to about 20 minutes after 3 got into the possession of the de- in the afternoon, and excited confendants.

siderable interest. Mr. Baron Graham observed, Mr. SCARLETT said the plaintiff that it was presuined to be in the is Milham Hartley, Esq. of Rosepossession of the defendants im- hill, near Whitehaven, in this mediately when it was delivered at county, and the defendant a genthe coach-office.

tleman who has travelled much in Mr. Gaselee, in reply, said it foreign parts, particularly on the

a

CUMBERLAND ASSSIZES.

v.

a

As was

continent of Europe, but having sheep, he hoped the defendant fixed his residence in Cumberland, would take care of his dogs, as he purchased a house and a small there was great reason to think quantity of land in the immediate they would worry the sheep. Mr. neighbourhood of Mr. Hartley. Harriman sent back word to Mr. Coming from a foreign land (Flo- Hartley, that he kept his dogs for rence in Italy) he had given this the purpose of guarding his proresidence the classical name of Ti- perty, and if they were not enough voli-a name much celebrated in he would keep 50 more. ancient times, and of course carry- suspected, the dogs did fall upon ing with it the most pleasing re- the sheep several times, and at collections, as well as an idea of last they killed three, and bit four refinement. It did not appear, others so severely as to cause their however, that the defendant had deaths, thus spoiling the whole of imported the urbanity of the coun- the flock. As soon as Mr. Hartley tries he had visited—those refine- was informed of this, he wrote a ments which we expect from one letter to Mr. Harriman couched who has cultivated and has a taste in the mildest terms: it beganfor the fine arts; this would most “ Accidents will happen. I am clearly appear in the course of sorry that your dogs have injured what he had to advance. In the my unfortunate little flock; I month of November last, Mr. should have seen you this morning Hartley wishing to ornament the on the subject, but understood you ground near his house, and to im- were not up:” and it concluded prove the breed of his sheep, made a in the same strain and spirit by a purchase of eleven fine Leicester- proposition to Mr. Harriman to shire sheep, commonly called mug take the flock off his hands, paying sheep, which were sent to him all him the first cost of 50 guineas. the way from Tadcaster, and for What could be fairer, or more genwhich he gave 50 guineas; when tlemanly, or more neighbourly they arrived, he turned them into than this? Mr. Hartley wanted noa field which lies between his own thing for bringing the sheep into garden and that of the defendant. Cumberland-he required nothing Mr. Harriman, it appears, keeps for their keep-he only wished to three dogs at Tivoli (two pointers cover the expense of the first purand a little terrier) for the purpose chase, and so let the matter drop. of defending his possessions. One But does Mr. Harriman follow the of these pointers was of so savage example of his neighbour ? No, a nature, that he spared neither he waits some time, and then he man nor beast. Mr. Hartley and replies by letter in a strain the his servants had all been attacked very reverse of conciliatory. He by these outrageous dogs; they says, having had time to investiwere not safe to come home at gate the charge of his dogs killing night, for it was at that time these the sheep, he believes the same to animals were permitted to prowl be unfounded. He cannot but rewherever they pleased. When the gret, therefore, that Mr. Hartley sheep arrived, Mr. Hartley sent a should have made such a charge; message to Mr. Harriman, stating and in a strain of indignation he that as he had got some valuable refuses to pay the 50 guineas, and

a

It was

rejects any farther discussion of had entered into an agreement the subject. Now, contended the with the plaintiff to accept a lease learned counsel, no man of proper for 21 years of a house in Crescent feeling would have acted thus to- Place, Tavistock Square, was juswards a neighbour who had always tified in refusing to carry the lived on the best terms with him, agreement into execution under and who had been injured. Mr. the following circumstances: The Hartley was reluctantly driven into defendant having contracted to acCourt to seek that redress which cept the lease for 21 years,

desired he failed to get in a more amicable to see the title of the plaintiff to way: and Mr. Scarlett trusted the grant him the term, upon which result of the appeal would convince the plaintiff delivered him an abthe defendant that the law will not stract of his title, deducing it from authorize him to keep dogs to as- a Mr. Burton, tu whom the Skinsail either people or property.

ners' Company had, in 1809, deAfter evidence was heard on mised it, with other premises, for both sides, the judge, Mr. Baron a long term. The defendant, not Wood, cummed up. He said there satisfied with this, desired to look were three questions for the con- into the title of the Skinners' Comsideration of the jury–First, whe- pany, but their solicitor refused ther the sheep had been attacked, to produce the deeds. or worried, as it was called, by the argued at the bar, that they had dogs ? Secondly, if they had been no right to expose their title at so worried, was it by Mr. Har- the risk of having some flaw found riman's dogs ? And, thirdly, in it. Perhaps there was not a whether Harriman had re- corporate company in the City of ceived sufficient previous notice to London who could show a good take care of his dogs ? These title to the property of which they were the simple questions for de- pretend to be the owners. It was cision. In his opinion it was not à circumstance recent in the menecessary for the dogs to have mory of the court, that the Coractually bitten the persons they poration of Newcastle had lost attacked to prove their savage na. 70001. a year, by imprudently exture.

posing their title, to satisfy the Verdict for the plaintiff--Da- curiosity of a person to whom mages 24l. 10s. Both plaintiff and their tenant had agreed to grant defendant were in court during the an underlease. It would be suffitrial.

cient for the defendant to have

from the plaintiff a covenant for Before the Master of the Rolls.- quiet enjoyment. The defendant Fieldes v. Hooker. - This was a insisted, that unless he was percase extremely interesting to all fectly satisfied as to the title of the persons standing in the situation Skinners’ Company, he could not of owners or tenants of leasehold be compelled to perform the conproperty. The question, which tract, and the company refusing came before the court on an ex- to have their title inquired into, ception to the Master's Report, there was an end of the agreewas, whether the defendant, who ment.

The