« AnteriorContinuar »
ant to show that notice had been given; then he should apprehend, that as the man who took the articles could neither read nor write, the mere notice stuck up in the office could not be considered a sufficient notice to him; and if such a defence was set up, he should fortify himself against it, by proving the man who took it could neither read nor write.
The plaintiff's daughter, and John Clark, his servant, proved the facts of the case.
Mr Baron Graham then proceeded to sum up the evidence, in doing which he observed, that the defence set up was, that as a matter of public notoriety, there were notices stuck up in the office; and the question for their consideration would be, whether they could from these notices draw such an inference as would warrant them in saying, that the plaintiff had a sufficient knowledge of the terms of the notices; for if they should be of opinion that he had a sufficient notice, then in that case the responsibility of the defendant would be qualified; but upon that point they were to exercise their best judgment. Before they said that the defendant was liable, they must be convinced that he came into the possession of the articles; and to be sure there was but one witness who spoke to that fact. The circumstances of the notices were not of a very strong description, because the man who took the goods could neither read nor write. With regard then to Mr. Rouquet having received and known the terms of the notice, it must be supposed from his condition in life; and his having sent by the waggon before, it might be fairly inferred that he
must have had a knowledge of the notice. At the same time, if the jury should infer upon any fair ground that the parcel was delivered, and that it was lost, and that Mr. Rouquet had not ar easonable information of the notice, then they would find a verdict for the plaintiff.-Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages-291.
NON-LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.
Oram v Fromont and Others.In this action the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of 13l. 16s. and the value of four shawls, intrusted to the defendants, as common carriers, to be conveyed to Trowbridge.
Mr. Serjeant Pell, in stating the case to the jury, observed, that under the decision of Lord Ellenborough, who had ruled as follows, "the law is imperative, that a proof of the notice of the contract to the plaintiff must be adduced before the carrier can be exonerated from his liability to the loss,' the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict of the jury.
Mr. Richard Stanley Laytham being called, stated that on the 17th of December last he took a parcel to the White Hart coachoffice, in Broad-street, in this city. It contained 13l. 16s. in cash, and was wrapped up in four shawls, which were worth about 30s. It was directed to Mr. James Oram, Trowbridge. Witness paid 2d. for booking it. Of his own knowledge he did not know whether the parcel reached its destination or not. It was between 7 and 8 in the evening when he took it to the office.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gaselee. The 131. 16s. was a debt which witness
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.
Mr. Serjeant Pell. That is my case. 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.-It always 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. Öram 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 presumed to be in the possession of the defendants immediately when it was delivered at the coach-office.
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 51.: 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 possible doubt 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.
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
Mr. Gaselee, in reply, said it foreign parts, particularly on the
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 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
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 agree ment.
The Master of the Rolls said, he should hesitate a long while before he determined that an owner of real property, by merely agreeing to grant a lease, became bound to shew a title to the estate out of which it was to be granted: but it was quite a different question, whether he who was unable, or thought it inexpedient, to show his titles to the property to be leased, should have a right to compel a defendant to take a lease of such property, without any other security for enjoyment than the covenants into which the lessor commonly entered. What the defendant had contracted for was not a piece of parchment, or a precarious enjoyment from one year to another, but an absolute enjoyment for 21 years, the value of which depended upon the certainty of its duration. Of this certainty of duration he could not be satisfied without examining the title of the Skinners' Company; and as the plaintiff was unwilling to trust the inspection of it to those who might probably discover some defect in it, the defendant was well justified in refusing to accept the lease. His Honour accordingly decreed, that the Master's judgment was erroneous, in having reported that a good title to the lease could be made, and that consequently the exception must be allowed.
NON-ATTENDANCE AT DIVINE
Bedfordshire Lent Assizes. The Rev. Edward Drake Free, Clerk, v. Sir Montague Roger Burgoine. This was an action of a very novel as well as of a very ex
traordinary description, and excited a considerable degree of interest throughout the county. Dr. Free, who is Rector of Sutton, appeared in Court, dressed in his canonicals, and was prepared to take part in the conduct of his own cause. The Court through
out was crowded almost to suffocation. The jury, which common, having been sworn,
Dr. Free addressed the learned Judge on the Bench. He observed, that he had been driven into Court on the present occasion, in consequence of a motion made by the learned Counsel on the other side for judgment, in consequence of his not having proceeded to trial at the last assizes: aided by the remarkable fondness of the attorney on the same side for money. It was not his intention to have taken any farther steps in this business, because he had observed with satisfaction that Sir Montague had begun to return to reason, by coming to church on the 7th of April last. The steps taken by the defendant's legal advisers, however, had compelled him to come forward: and in doing so, he felt he was vindicating the cause, not alone of his brother clergymen, who had been but too frequently maligned, but of the Church of England itself. He trusted the example which would be made of the defendant would operate as a warning to others, and prevent that inexcusable inattention to divine worship which, when occurring with a person of influence in the county, had the worst effects upon the habits and manners of the lower orders of society. Having made this short preface, he should leave