The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-22 00:00:00

which was the first that had occurred. since the Act
came into operation, the Court. must be guided by its
language and by the state of the law at the time it was
passed. In all the cases that had been decided in the
Courts previously can jars were held Halite for the loss
of goods beyond the Value pf 10/., where they had been
guilty of gross negligence. In the 'case of Wylde v.
Pickford, reported in the third volume of "Law Jour-
nal," 392, it was said that some uncertainty existed as
to the cases that were taken out of the notice required
to be given, and it was concluded in the case of Bodmin
17. Bennett, that the notice was intended to protect the;
carrier from extraordinary events,• and not from the
effect of the want of due and ordinary care ; while in
other cases it was urged that the carriers were not by.
the notice prOtected from the consequences" of misfea-
sance. In a case before Lord Ellenborough it had been
held that the notice exempted the carrier from the conse-
quence of his negliOnce, but not where there bad been
a want of ordinary cure, the want of such care being
described to be such care. as a prudent man would take
of his own property. The weight of authorities, then,
was in favour of the doctrine that in order to render the
carrier liable, it was not necessary to prove a total aban-
donment of the goods, but enough to prove ordinary neg-
ligence. The result of the decisions in all these cases
appeared to be that, supposing the protection of the car-
rier to have been the object of the Legislature, there was
a great deal of doubt and uncertainty to be removed,
and- the Court saw no reason why a more limited con-
struction should be put upon the Act than its title im-
plied. • The Act, which was for the removal of doubts
and the better protection of carriers, was absolute in its
protection, and without reservation of those cases where
there was an intimation of the contents of the packages
and of the value of the goods contained therein.
It was further contended that no carrier was
liable for the loss of any property beyond the
vial% of 101, unless, at the time of its being de-
liveiTd at his warehouse, the value and nature of such .
property was declared, and such increased rate of pay-
ment made and accepted- by the party receiving
such property. The . Learned Judge then referred
to the various sections of the Act which bore
upon the question before the Court. On the
whole, the Court was of opinion that the lan-
guage of the first section was clear and unam-
biguous, 'and without any exception, and none could
~V,,
fair be implied from any of the other provisions it con-
tain ; and it held. thstt the carrier was free from
Habib, -as to all the articles 'enumerated, unless
notice ,was given, 'and the increased payment made
and accepted. The - Act, then, had ' the effect of
removing great doubt , and difficulty, • which had
previously existed as to the liability of the carrier.
In the present case the Court was unfettered by any
'authority in putting their construction upon the Act,
and-they were of opinion that in this ease the defendants.
were not liable for the loss that had occurred, and their
judgment must therefore be for the defendants.