The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-25 00:00:00

THE KING v. FISHER.

Mr. ScAntATT moved for a rule to show cause why an in-
formation in the nature of qua warranto should not be exhibit-
ed against the defendant for illegally exercising the functions
of town-clerk of Doncaster. (Th the 16th of September last.
the Corporation assembled to elect a town-clerk in the room of
Mr. Bright, deceased, when Mr. Mason and Mr. Fisher were
candidates for the office. After votes had been polled on both
sides, a gentleman present proposed that,the candidates should
be asked whether they had taken the sacrament within the pre-
ceding year. Mr. Mason immediately answered that he had
received it in the parish church of Doncaster, and had the cer-
tificate in his possession. When the question was put to Mr.
Fisner, his friends called to him not to answer ,and he declined
to answer. Upon this, the Mayor gave notice, that as he must
take Mr. Fisher as unqualified, all votes given an his behalf
would he thrown away. Some votes, however, were taken,
notwithstanding this notice; much clamour ensued • and just
as the Mayor was retiring, Mr. Fisher returned and expressed
his willingness to answer the question if put by any of his
friends. The question was accordingly put, and Mr. Fisher said
he had;. but in such a manner as to raise a doubt of the cor-
rectness of the assertion ; and on being asked where ? he re-
fused to answer. The Mayor, considering that Mr. Fisher had
not satisfactorily shown his qualification, declared Mr. Mason
duly elected; and certified such election to his Majesty, ac-
cording to the charter. Mr. Fisher, however, insisted on tak-
ing the oath, and as the Mayor refused to administer it. took
it himself, and had since usurped the functious of the office.—
There was reason to believe that, in tact, Mr. Fisher was not
qualified, inasmuch as he was never seen .to take the sacra-
ment at Doncaster, where he resided ; and in, the parish where
he was horn, there was no certificate of his baptism.
The Couwr granted a rule to show cause.
THE KING V. WILLIAM INNEL CLEMENT.

This rule for a criminal information against the Morning
Chronicle for several libels on Mr. Kenrick, a Magistrate of
Surrey, was, on the suggestion of the AT T ORN EY-G E.NE HAL,
taken out of the peremptory paper, where it stood for to-day,
to be brought on as a motion.

MAYHEW v. EAMES.

This was an action by silk merchants of London, against
Mr. Eames, who keeps the White Horse, Fetter-lane, and is
the proprietor of numerous coaches, to recover the value of a
parcel containing 871. in country bank notes, which was de-
livered to his coachman at Downham, in Norfolk, addressed to
the plaintiffs, and lost before its arrival. The parcel was de-
spatched by a traveller in the service of the plaintiff's, who had
collected the notes from the customers, and who booked it
without any intimation of its contents or value. It was proved
that the plaintiffs were in the habit of receiving parcels from
the White Horse, and that with these parcels tickets were al-
ways left, containing the charges for carriage and porterage,
.na also a notice that the proprietors of all coaches setting out
from the White Horse, would not be liable for any parcels con-
taining plate, jewels, cash, or bank-notes, unless entered and
paid for accordingly. On this evidence, the Lord Chief Jus-
tice, before whom the cause was tried in London, was of opi-
nion that the plaintiffs could not recover, and directed a non-
suit, giving leave to their Counsel to move to' enter a ver-
dict for 871.
The COMMON SERGEANT now accordingly moved for a
rule to shew cause why the nonsuit should not be set aside and
a verdict returned for the" plaintiffs, on two grounds—first, that
there was no sufficient notice to the plaintiff:4 restricting the li-
ability of the defendant; and secondly, that it was not com-
petent to 31r. Eames, by a notice in such general terms, to
protect the proprietors of all coaches which might come to
his office.

The Court were clearly of opinion that the verdict was
right. They thought there was sufficient notice to the princi-
pals, and that notice to the principals was notice to all the
agents whom they might employ. After this notice, if the
plaintiffs wished to avoid its effects, it was their duty to direct
their agents to take care that none of the parcels were sent by
Mr. Eames's coaches. They therefore refused the rule.