The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1820-11-22 00:00:00

MOTIONS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR observed, that he
&wined whether he would he Ode to t•it en Thurs-
dry next (motion tidy), tts he thought he should be
obliged to attend elsewhere (: he I-louse of Lott's).
I-le considered it neces•rry to mention this for the
itiformatioss of the har, solicitors:, suitors, &e , for of
he was not able to ,it in Court on that illy, he
would tske motions on the day fullotsing, Friday.,
ills Lord►.ip was occupied the retnatit4er of the
day, until two o'clock, in lieu .iog the further ergo-
ments of Coutesel in a case of demurrer, which wits
part heard last Term, at which hour Ins Lordship
ruse.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, TUMMY, Novatsass 21.

THE KING V. IIF.NIY HLNT.

Mr. Cturri on the part of the Defendant.
whoie offiriavit he held is his hand, complOsPed tbot
he had been lucke,dup.in close custody in Itches-
ter Gaul, Irons nine o'clock in the morning till hoer
in the afternoon, notwithstairg Air. Justice
Bayley, when he pronounced the sentence of the
Court, informed him that he was not sentenced to
solitary confinement. He also complained of dp
order of the Magistrates, by which all female whir.
tors were excluded from basing access to him. and
under which his ward, ii minor, was prevestod
from seeing him. Mr. Hunt swear• that, he be.
hemd these resorictiorm do not proceed from the
Sheriff, or Uirder•Sheriff, but front Mr. Francis
Drake, one of the Magistrates of the county of
Somerset. He further swears that he has not been
guilty of any improper conduct, nor violated any
of the rules of the gaol.
The LORD CHIEF Justice said. the Conrt were
anatonii that the matter should be investigated, and
desired Mr. Chitty to state what was the nature of
the rule he wished for.
Mr. CHITTY said, the Defendant might he
brought up by Habeas Corpus, or the Court might
remove horn to another prison.
The COURT doubted if they had the power to;
remove him after a Term-hid eltiOsed.
Mr. CHITTY ultimately .rnoYed for IN role to 10,
ea
cause (to be served on the Sheriff and Gaoler) why
Henry Hunt should not be put on the same footing
as other prisoners in custody fur mistlemeatior.
Rule granted.
SATsoll e. DONOTAN.
Thiecause was tried before Mr. Justice Bayley.
at 14fewesistle. It was an action It/ recover 4,0701.
`being the value of • boa coutsiuiuig bankers' notes,
:Which was committed to the care of the arrvaitts of
the Defendant, who wits proprietor of a stage-coach
'runiiiug
.between Berwick and Newepatle, The
Defendant bad given public notice. that he would
not be answerable fur hank or bookers' notes. ur
fur iiiiy 'parcer above the value of AL unless booked
and paid for accordingly.l With the knowledoe
of that 'notice, the Plaintiff sent the bux iu ques
from Berwick, addressed, " Meer,. lotion and
Co. Netvcastle." It was only harked, attouos diode,
packsge, and no notice whatever was vie° to the
:Defendant of the value of it.' the parcel uevsr
lericheil its deithiatiOn, and was %Opposed, to have
rlbeetti 'stolen: 'The Jury p the trial asiod a verdit:t
*III* Defendant. Shale then u flak fled been

Obtained to she w ctit*e why the irercict.ahould reit
be set aside and a to. w trial granted, on g. ' the ,0„„e
I. „misdireetion on the pWrt of the Learned Jorlg•--
Argitmenis of Counsel had been finbi;eloently
heard.
"I lisle Lordships now delivered' their opiriioos
mike i or.
• Mr. Justice Have paid, that ai• opinion which
he should deliver would not have any irff•et rya the
present nuratinii, as lie had the misfrjrtune to differ
trout the feet of Ins Learned Briatliers. The Leant-
•erlJnifge et the trial left two questimis for the Jun :
111-4, if the Plaintiff had dealt fairly by the Defend-
ani, in net apprising him of the great value. of the
parcel.? Secondly, if the Deferidant had been
godly of grows negligence ? He had the higheirt
respect for the Leaded Judge who tried the caus"•
bid he nunt cutter his humble molest against IL,
doctrine, that a party was bound to decline' 0. •
amine of a parcel which he rieldrered to a en', met!:
rarnor. lie thought that if the eat, -r -
&ranter (111 this case the eseri,-r iii•nres the -.•:r
delivery of the goods) wanted inform tii3n, it was
his duty to require it. It lied nut been settled whit
'tumid he considered a-valuable parcel. or whether
the party be obliged to declare if it contain gold et
diamonds, and
if ilie dirt cum) of the Learned Judge had hero cur-
s-rel. would have been settled points, and their
would have been matter of law, !nil not to be left
to the Jury. If carriers were Ilso make proper its&
trines, that would he a better protection to them
than notices, which apply only its their cilaracter of
insurer, hut du not at all affect their rvspolisililite
for gross oegligeme as a carrier, in which draw
racier, it their sere/dos fail to pay pr,-per attention,
the master to answerable. On the seenad point,
wee of opinion, that the Jury ought to have bad,
some sod of explatiotioti of whet was media by
gross negligence. That these was here a great fie-
gree of negligence was clear front this, that the.
Defendant had placed a man to watch the coach
as it stood in the street, who had neglected his
duty, and suffered the parcel to be stoles. Fie did
not think the case of Gibbon a. Prytiter. as de-
cided by Lind Mansfield, was at all inconsrstent„
hot rather confirmed his opinion. If there hail
beta any thing to lull the carrier as to the value of
the patcel, that would be fraud, as Iu Gibbon o.
Pay aster ; but to the present case there had heeterro
attempt in give the parcel a mean appearance, or
to deceive the carrier as to its value. For three
reasons he thought there ought to he a new trial.
Mr. Justice H01.5101'1) was of opinion, that the
manner tat which the parcel was left, as if it was to
be taken by the carrier as of coarse, was as much
a concealment as if fir had told him tlo-ie aie gurgle
which you do not refuse to take, fir considered,
therefore, that the verdict ought to stand.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY thought in this case there
was a want of fair dealing on the part of the Pla.a-
tiff in not apprising the Defendant of the value of
the pared. The Isnot cf such imit,ce of the value
operated in two ways; first, it deprived the De.
fendain of that extra compeosation which he was
entitled to; and, secondly, it presented him usiog
that extraordinary caution which he would natu-
rally exercise with a parcel of extriordisorry sabre.
The question of gross negligence had 'Preterite to
the value; for that which was gross negligence With
respect to a parcel of great value, unto not be au
considered will' regard to a invert of small value.
The Plaintiff had prevented that extraordinary
care hy his omission, und lie lt,td, therefore, sin right
to complain of the consequence of Ilia own neglect.
There w.is iu this ease tin misfeasurce on the part
of the Delenditut; but the 1'119,4 on which the
Plaintiff had relied, seemed to him to be all of
them elses of misfeasance. Iu the present case
Plaintiff's neglect he considered us u bar to a new
trial.
Lord Chief Justice ABBOTT concurred with hot
Learned Brothers Holroyd and Bayley. and thought
the whole case bud ht.-2i very propel ly left to the
Jury at the trial, and therefore the rule must La
discharged.