witness owed to a Mr. Bannister, and he had been desired to pay it to his son. Mr. Oram was a relation of Mr. Bannister. Witness had seen a public notice stuck up in the office, relative to no parcels being answered for, if lost, unless entered and paid for accordingly.

Mr. Baron Graham observed, that this fact established a notice of public notoriety.

case.

Mr. Serjeant Pell. That is my The parcel never did come to hand, although I cannot prove it: but I take it that it remains for the defendants to prove that it did come to hand.

Mr. Baron Graham.-Italways forms part of the declaration that it never did come to hand.

The witness Laytham was then called back and examined by Mr. Serjeant Pell. Mr. Hathway, the bookkeeper, told witness the parcel was never sent. He said he was afraid it was mislaid, as he had written to the proprietors of the coaches to ascertain.

Mr. Gaselee objected to this testimony being received as evidence against the defendants, in which objection he was borne out by the Court.

Mr. Gaselee now submitted that the action must fall upon two grounds; first, that Mr. Oram had no property in it, as it was a debt due to Mr.Bannister; and secondly, that it had never got into the possession of Mr. Oram, as the consignee or consignor, neither had it got into the possession of the defendants.

Mr. Baron Graham observed, that it was presuined to be in the possession of the defendants immediately when it was delivered at the coach-office.

Mr. Gaselee, in reply, said it

was a principle of sound policy that the carriers should restrict themselves as far as possible to their liability; and the only thing for the jury to say would be, whether Mr. Laytham, the plaintiff's agent, had or had not a knowledge of the manner in which the defendants carried on their business at the time he delivered the parcel.

Mr. Baron Graham, in summing up the facts of the case, observed, that the action was brought for the non-delivery of goods; and the defence set up was, that there was such a public notice put up in the defendants' office, as not to render them liable for the loss of any parcel, unless it should be entered and paid for as being above the value of 5l.: and the question was, whether the plaintiff had a notice of that circumstance. The evidence was, that Mr. Laytham was aware of the existence of the notice within a fortnight before, and within a few days after the 17th of December; then what possibledoubt could the jury entertain that the defendants had changed their mode of doing business in so short a time? The jury almost instantly found a verdict for the defendants.

CUMBERLAND ASSSIZES.
August 19.

Hartley v. Harriman. This cause occupied the Court from its opening at 9 o'clock on Tuesday morning, to about 20 minutes after 3 in the afternoon, and excited considerable interest.

Mr. SCARLETT said the plaintiff is Milham Hartley, Esq. of Rosehill, near Whitehaven, in this county, and the defendant a gentleman who has travelled much in foreign parts, particularly on the continent continent of Europe, but having fixed his residence in Cumberland, he purchased a house and a small quantity of land in the immediate neighbourhood of Mr. Hartley. Coming from a foreign land (Florence in Italy) he had given this residence the classical name of Tivoli-a name much celebrated in ancient times, and of course carrying with it the most pleasing recollections, as well as an idea of refinement. It did not appear, however, that the defendant had imported the urbanity of the countries he had visited-those refinements which we expect from one who has cultivated and has a taste for the fine arts; this would most clearly appear in the course of what he had to advance. In the month of November last, Mr. Hartley wishing to ornament the ground near his house, and to improve the breed of his sheep, made a purchase of eleven fine Leicestershire sheep, commonly called mug sheep, which were sent to him all the way from Tadcaster, and for which he gave 50 guineas; when they arrived, he turned them into a field which lies between his own garden and that of the defendant. Mr. Harriman, it appears, keeps three dogs at Tivoli (two pointers and a little terrier) for the purpose of defending his possessions. One of these pointers was of so savage a nature, that he spared neither man nor beast. Mr. Hartley and his servants had all been attacked by these outrageous dogs; they were not safe to come home at night, for it was at that time these animals were permitted to prowl wherever they pleased. When the sheep arrived, Mr. Hartley sent a message to Mr. Harriman, stating that as he had got some valuable

sheep, he hoped the defendant would take care of his dogs, as there was great reason to think they would worry the sheep. Mr. Harriman sent back word to Mr. Hartley, that he kept his dogs for the purpose of guarding his property, and if they were not enough he would keep 50 more. As was suspected, the dogs did fall upon the sheep several times, and at last they killed three, and bit four others so severely as to cause their deaths, thus spoiling the whole of the flock. As soon as Mr. Hartley was informed of this, he wrote a letter to Mr. Harriman couched in the mildest terms: it began"Accidents will happen. I am sorry that your dogs have injured my unfortunate little flock; I should have seen you this morning on the subject, but understood you were not up :" and it concluded in the same strain and spirit by a proposition to Mr. Harriman to take the flock off his hands, paying him the first cost of 50 guineas. What could be fairer, or more gentlemanly, or more neighbourly than this? Mr. Hartley wanted nothing for bringing the sheep into Cumberland-he required nothing for their keep-he only wished to cover the expense of the first purchase, and so let the matter drop. But does Mr. Harriman follow the example of his neighbour? No, he waits some time, and then he replies by letter in a strain the very reverse of conciliatory. He says, having had time to investigate the charge of his dogs killing the sheep, he believes the same to be unfounded. He cannot but regret, therefore, that Mr. Hartley should have made such a charge; and in a strain of indignation he refuses to pay the 50 guineas, and rejects

rejects any farther discussion of the subject. Now, contended the learned counsel, no man of proper feeling would have acted thus towards a neighbour who had always lived on the best terms with him, and who had been injured. Mr. Hartley was reluctantly driven into Court to seek that redress which he failed to get in a more amicable way: and Mr. Scarlett trusted the result of the appeal would convince the defendant that the law will not authorize him to keep dogs to assail either people or property.

After evidence was heard on both sides, the judge, Mr. Baron Wood, summed up. He said there were three questions for the consideration of the jury-First, whether the sheep had been attacked, or worried, as it was called, by the dogs Secondly, if they had been so worried, was it by Mr. Harriman's dogs ? And, thirdly, whether Mr. Harriman had received sufficient previous notice to take care of his dogs? These were the simple questions for decision. In his opinion it was not necessary for the dogs to have actually bitten the persons they attacked to prove their savage na

ture.

Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages 241. 10s. Both plaintiff and defendant were in court during the trial.

Before the Master of the Rolls.Fieldes v. Hooker. - This was a case extremely interesting to all persons standing in the situation of owners or tenants of leasehold property. The question, which came before the court on an exception to the Master's Report, was, whether the defendant, who

had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to accept a lease for 21 years of a house in Crescent Place, Tavistock Square, was justified in refusing to carry the agreement into execution under the following circumstances:-The defendant having contracted to accept the lease for 21 years, desired to see the title of the plaintiff to grant him the term, upon which the plaintiff delivered him an abstract of his title, deducing it from a Mr. Burton, to whom the Skinners' Company had, in 1809, demised it, with other premises, for a long term. The defendant, not satisfied with this, desired to look into the title of the Skinners' Company, but their solicitor refused to produce the deeds. It was argued at the bar, that they had no right to expose their title at the risk of having some flaw found in it. Perhaps there was not a corporate company in the City of London who could show a good title to the property of which they pretend to be the owners. It was a circumstance recent in the memory of the court, that the Corporation of Newcastle had lost 7000l. a year, by imprudently exposing their title, to satisfy the curiosity of a person to whom their tenant had agreed to grant an underlease. It would be sufficient for the defendant to have from the plaintiff a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The defendant insisted, that unless he was perfectly satisfied as to the title of the Skinners' Company, he could not be compelled to perform the contract, and the company refusing to have their title inquired into, there was an end of the agreement.

The

sheep, he hoped the defendant would take care of his dogs, as there was great reason to think they would worry the sheep. Mr. Harriman sent back word to Mr. Hartley, that he kept his dogs for the purpose of guarding his pro

voli-a name much celebrated in ancient times, and of course carrying with it the most pleasing recollections, as well as an idea of refinement. It did not appear, however, that the defendant had imported the urbanity of the countries he had visited those refinements which we expect from one who has cultivated and has a taste for the fine arts; this would most clearly appear in the course of what he had to advance. In the month of November last, Mr. Hartley wishing to ornament the ground near his house, and to improve the breed of his sheep, made a purchase of eleven fine Leicestershire sheep, commonly called mug sheep, which were sent to him all the way from Tadcaster, and for which he gave 50 guineas; when they arrived, he turned them into a field which lies between his own garden and that of the defendant. Mr. Harriman, it appears, keeps three dogs at Tivoli (two pointers and a little terrier) for the purpose of defending his possessions. One of these pointers was of so savage a nature, that he spared neither man nor beast. Mr. Hartley and his servants had all been attacked by these outrageous dogs, they were not safe to come home at night, for it was at that time those animals were permitted to prowl wherever they pleased. When the sheep arrived, Mr. Hartley sent a message to Mr. Harriman, stating that as he had got some valuable

As was

I am

he would keep 50 more. suspected, the dogs did fall upon the sheep several times, and at last they killed three, and bit four others so severely as to cause their deaths, thus spoiling the whole of the flock. As soon as Mr. Hartley was informed of this, he wrote a letter to Mr. Harriman couched in the mildest terms: it began"Accidents will happen. sorry that your dogs have injured my unfortunate little flock; should have seen you this morning on the subject, but understood you were not up:" and it concluded in the same strain and spirit by a proposition to Mr. Harriman to take the flock off his hands, paying him the first cost of 50 guineas. What could be fairer, or more gentlemanly, or more neighbourly than this? Mr. Hartley wanted nothing for bringing the sheep into Cumberland-he required nothing for their keep-he only wished to cover the expense of the first purchase, and so let the matter drop. But does Mr. Harriman follow the example of his neighbour? No, he waits some time, and then he replies by letter in a strain the very reverse of conciliatory. He says, having had time to investigate the charge of his dogs killing the sheep, he believes the same to be unfounded. He cannot but regret, therefore, that Mr. Hartley should have made such a charge, and in a strain of indignation he refuses to pay the 50 guineas, and rejects

reiects any farther discussion of the subject. Now, contended the learned counsel, no man of proper feel. z would have a ted thus towards a neighbour who I ad always Lived on the best terms with him, and who had been injured. Mr. Hartley was reluctantly driven into Court to seek that redress which Le filed to get in a more amicable

and Mr. Scarlett trusted the resu'to the appeal would convince the Sn'ant that the law will not بط 1 ze him to keep dogs to as

er people or property.

Ar evidence was heard on Poth sides, the judge, Mr. Baron Woad, «ummed up. He said there weret ree questions for the consid ration of the jury-First, whetherte sheep had been attacked, or worried, as it was called, by the Secondly, if they had been so worried, was it by Mr. Hardogs? And, thirdly, ۱۰ Der Mr Harriman had recervei suthient previous notice to the care of his dogs

These were the simple questions for de2000. In lus opinion it was not tessary for the dogs to have

Ly bitten the persons they astarked to prove their savage na

had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to accept a lease for 21 years of a house in Crescent Place, Tavistock Square, was justified in refusing to carry the agreement into execution under the following circumstances: The defendant having contracted to accept the lease for 21 years, desired to see the title of the plaintiff to grant him the term, upon which the plaintiff delivered him an abstract of his title, deducing it from a Mr. Burton, to whom the Skinners' Company had, in 1809, demised it, with other premises, for a long term. The defendant, not satisfied with this, desired to look into the title of the Skinners' Company, but their solicitor refused to produce the deeds. It was argued at the bar, that they had no right to expose their title at the risk of having some flaw found in it. Perhaps there was not a corporate company in the City of London who could show a good title to the property of which they pretend to be the owners. It was a circumstance recent in the memory of the court, that the Corporation of Newcastle had lost 7000l, a year, by imprudently exposing their title, to satisfy the curiosity of a person to whom their tenant had agreed to grant an underlease. It would be sufficient for the defendant to have from the plaintiff a covenant for quiet enjoyment. The defendant insisted, that unless he was perfectly satisfied as to the title of the Skinners' Company, he could not be compelled to perform the contract, and the company refusing to have their title inquired into, there was an end of the agreement.

The