The Sun.
London, England, 1841-11-13 00:00:00

OTHERS,

This was an action brought by the plaintiff against
the defendants, who were common carriers between
London and Collie, to recover the value of two bales of
silk, which had been lost, as was alleged, by the mis•
conduct of the:defendants. The plaintiff, in his declara-
tion, set out that the defendants not regarding their
duty had by their misfeasance, gross negligence, and
wrongful conduct, lost the bales of silk. To that the
defendants pleaded that they had affixed a notice in
their office at Gerard's Hall, Basing-lane, City, that in
order to render them liable for the loss of goods above a
certain value, including silk, an increased rate of charge
was required to be paid, and that the plaintiff had notice
thereof. The plaintiff replied to that, that the defendants
were guilty of culpable negligence, wrongful conduct,
and want of care in their capacity of carriers, whereby
the goods were lost. To that there was a rejoinder that
the parcel was delivered in the usual course of business
to their servants who had the conduct of their business,
and that the goods were lost out of the conveyance, not
by any personal want of care on their part, but by the
negligence of their servants. To that rejoinder there
was a demurrer, and _ _

Mr. ERLE now appeared:in support of that demurrer,
and submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The point which was to be raised before their Lordships
in the present case was, whether the carrier still re-
mained responsible for protected articles if lost through
the misfeasance of his servants. Now it appeared to
him that the present did not come within the Act for
the protection of carriers, and it would be for the Court
to put a construction upon that Act, and say whether it
extended to demands like the present. As the law stood
before the Act passed the carriers stood in the situation
of insurers, and if goods were damaged or lost that
fastened the responsibility upon them, and he had no de-
fence unless it arose from the act of God or the King's
enemies. To relieve themselves of that responsibility
the carriers gave a notice to all their customers and the
public generally that they would not be liable for goods
above a certain value unless due notice was given and
an increased rate of charge paid. Notwithstanding the
publicity given to these notices, juries in every case
found verdicts against them ; and then the Act Ist
Wil. IV. chap. 48, for the more effectual protection of I
common carriers was passed. The Act was intended to
give a sort of statutable notice to all the King's subjects,
and it provided that carriers should not be liable for cer-
tain articles enumerated above the value of 101. unless
notice was previously given. Now he would admit that
in the present case the party had given no notice, but it
was clear that the Act did not protect the carrier either
from the felonious act of his own servant or his own
personal neglect, and that the plaintiff had a cause of
action arising from the gross negligence and miscondnct
of the defendants. He believed the main ground that
would be relied upon on the other side was, that by the
Bth section of the Act the carrier being liable for the
felonious conduct of his servant, the Court must infer
that for any misfeasance short of a felonious act the car-
rier was not liable. lie apprehended, however, that
the Court would be of opinion that the act of the ser-
vant in the present case must be taken to be the act of
the defendant, and that as the Act made no prorision for
the misconduct or neglect of the carrier, he must be held
to be liable, and the plaintiff entitled to the judgment of
the Court.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said there was no question
of wilful damage in the present case. The question was,
whether, when articles included in the excepted list
were delivered without notice, awl lost or damaged by
the negligence of his servant, the carrier was liable.
The provisions of the Act were, in his opinion, perfectly
clear and plain. Certain articles were excepted, unless
the carriers had notice, which had not been done in
the present case. Then the only exception to that
liability was the felonious act of the servant, and
in that clause there was no exception of gross
or wilful negligence, or anything of that sort,
which the Legislature could scarcely have overlooked
or omitted if they had intended to include them.
If the Court was of opinion that negligence was included,
they would, by putting such a construction on the Act,
be legislating instead of interpreting it as it had been
framed. If, notwithstanding the absence of notice, the
liability was still to attach to the carrier, then the Act
was nothing more nor less than a dead letter.
The COURT thought the question was of so much
importance that they would take time to consider their
decision.

Their Lordships rose at two o'clock, in order to meet
the other Judges in the Exchequer Chamber.

1,: 1. rdol kounglelh,
POLICE INTELLIGENCE.
. MANSION-HOUSE.
itld-I?oking Irishman, named James Farrell, was
named Abraham before the Lord Mayor, charged with having
The complainant rasivainnalnusitatrrit:ion.uusuJteawf- ofirvaen,,:heilalnindgns.ut merchant,
sellers dealt
There were twino
with
him
that a good many Irish fruit-
for what were called dry cocoa-
nuts.and the worst, or dry sorts, the best being ten shillings,
nuts,. being five shillings the quar-
ter of a hundred. The prisoner, upon entering the shop,
inthsteemared4tunf his
cocoa-
nuts, andfor aupqounarrteocreoivfinapg of the very best cocoa-
basket, put down
the sum of five shillings
s !! then step herteh, eDparnopDe or nporvi an ne , and
and
ranproitstot
noefrt—heosillioype.
sPtariiisdon up,
do you be sure to tell the thruth,
The LORD MAYOR—Who is Dan Donovan?
—Oh! he's the fellow that'll set it all right.
complainant's daughter—My Lord, Dan Donovan
is the man '
Dan !
who told me, when I asked himlvhether the
the
a
The
blackguard at the bar was going to bringfive shit •
line-,.5 he robbed me of, that he should like to serve me
in the same manner himself.
Dan Donovan—Oh, the Lord save us! Do you hear
that, Jim?
The complainant's daughter stated that she was in the
shop at the time of the sale of the cocoa-nuts. It was
the practice to stamp the nuts with the shop stamp,
otherwise customers resembling the prisoner would col-
lect rotten nuts and swear that they were the complain-
ant's, and require an exchange ; but the prisoner, with-
out waiting for the stamp, disappeared while her father
was busily engaged.
The LORD MAYOR—Now, Mr. Daniel Donovan, mind
what you say.
Dan Donovan—That I will, your Lordship, and it's
aisy for any one to speak the thruth.
The Prisoner—Now, Dan, you heard every word that
passed between him and I ; didn't you ? Dan Donovan
—e
Or, Ji —Oh,
, fm, sureaith,theeadoiuvgehl . a word was said that I didn't
ha
The Prisoner—Well, what did he ax me to pay for
these nuts ? Dan Do va D my sowl he said you
should have 'em for fivenn y
shillings.—