The National Register.
London, England, 1818-11-16 00:00:00

PIERSON V. WILLAN

CARRIERS.—This was an action against a carrier, for the
less of some cloth. The jury gave a verdict fur the plaintiff
to the amount of 30 per cent. out the value of the cluth, Giungti
it had not been entered at Wilhite. office.

Mr. Seiselett now moved to set aside the verdict, on that
ground atilt! construction to be put on defendant's notice,
which was, that he would not be answerable to eater

MINIM

NOV. If;

a nonnt than :if, finless goods were entered and paid for ac
c wdingly ; nor would lie pay more than 61. for any damage
d me to parcels of less than 2slb. weight; nor more than 20
p.r cent. for any damage done to any pared above that
%ace:M.olllms entered and paid foraccurdiogly. Thecase of
Yale v. Willett, (2 Eat,t), which turned on a notic-r like the
present, was decided in Mr. %V illan'e favoutr ; the Court hay.
Ing held that the notice funned a part of the contract, and
that it ought to have been stated in the declaration. In
Clarke v. Gray, (6 East), ind,wd, the Court came to a con•
teary decision on the same point, holding that the carrier's
contract us as only to liquidate any damage that might be
sustawed.
Dlr Willan, who thought it very hard that he should suffer
by the alteration of the law within so few years, especially
where his own case had established that law, insisted that
• Th. Searlett should move to set aside the verdict in the pre-
sent instance, relying on the former case.
The Court said they should introduce still greater uncer-
tainty, if they were not to abide by " Clarke and Gray,"
which had been decided after two arguments; and on great
deliberation.—itule refused.
FRIDAY.
Mr. Taunton moved for a mandamus to the Justices of Oxford-
shire, to allow the Coroner his expencta in returning hone, from an
inquest. The practice varied in different counties, and tlw language
of the statute allowing the Coroners' expenees. said, that od. steroid
be allowed fur every untie they travelled on public business.
The mandamus was moveil for at the instance of the Magistrates
themselves, who wished to have the point settled. The Court granted
a rule to skew cause.

COURT OF COMNION PLEAS, iv - EDNESDAY.
HARRIS V. COKE AND ANOTHER.

Mr. Serjeaut Leas moved for a rule to show cause why the
Don-snit in this case should not be set aside. It was a case of
excessive distraint, but he did not mean now to move on the
merits. The ground of the tionsuit was that the plaintiff had
described himself as living in St. George the Martyr's, Blooms-
bary, while the parish really was St. George's, Bloomsbury,
and St. George the Martyr's was adjoining to St. Andrew's,
Holborn ; butt he had now to submit to the Court, that every
kit. George's was St. George the Martyr's.
ChiefJustice.—Yon must describe places by their known
and proper names.
Mr. Justice Park.—Your client took particular pains to be
wrong. lie lived in Hart-street, which was well known to
the foreman of the jury to be in St. George's, Bloomsbury, and
at first it had been so expressed ; but your client interlined
St. George the Martyr's. 'lust church was unilt in the time
of George 1., who was then a Saint, and lance it was called
St. George's. I have read so in the history of London.
Mr. Serjeant Leus said, that it certainly was called St.
George's in common parlance, but as these was no St. George
hut St. George the Martyr, St. George the Martyr's was the
right legal deviiption. Rule refused.