The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

v. 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 negligence, but not where there had been
a want of ordinary care, 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-
rierto 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
value of lot., unless, at the time of its being de-
livered 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-

g,nagla of the first section was clear and unani

biguous, and without any exception, and none could
fairly be implied from any of the other provisions it con-
tained ; and it held that the carrier was free from
liability 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.

MILLWARD V. HIBBERT.

This was an action upon a policy of insurance to re-
cover the value of a quantity of pigs which had been
thrown •overboard in a voyage from Waterford •to Lon-

don. The defendant pleaile'd that the pigs having been
placed upon the deck, had thereby impeded the naviga-
tion of the vessel, and that the shipowner was not entitled
to recover their value. To that theTlaintiff had demurred.

The Court in pronouncing its judgment, observed, that
there might be valid' rettsons for stowing goods of a
certain description on decic, such for instance as timber
and live cattle, and they might be so stowed as not to
interfere with the navigation oftho vessel. The danger
of the crew being tempted to throw them overboard
when the vessel was in distress was quite insufficient to
bar the plaintiff's right to recover. Much would depend
upon usage, which in the present case was in favour
of the plaintiff, and it seemed to the Court that the

mete faet of stowing the goods on deck, without assigning
that they had.been improperly. so stowed, was not suffi-
cient to exempt the defendant from his liability. Having
referred to several authorities on the subject, the Court
observe& that, in their opinion, the plea had been pro-
perly demurred to, and their judgment must be for the

BAIL COURT—(THIS DAY.)
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
MANDAMUS—THE QUEEN V. TOWN COUNCIL OF HARWICH.
Mr. GURNEY applied for a rule.for a mandamus direct-
ing the Town Council of Harwich to swear in Mr. An-
thony Cox as Mayor of that borough. At the last elec-
tion for Mayor, Mr. Hart and Mr. Cox were the candi-
dates,*nd Mr. Hart had the majority- of votes; but pre-
vious to the election notice had been given to the voters
that Mr. Hart was not qualified; he not being-an Alder-
man, which 'he claimed to be, and that consequently
all the votes for him would' be thrown away: Since
.then application had been• made for a quo warranto,
calling .on Mr. Hart to show by what authority he
claimed to exercise the office of Alderman, and judgment
of ouster had been obtain g 4 against him. Under-those
circumstanced Mr. Cox was the ,only legal candidate
for the office of Mayor, and therefore he now-applied for
a rule nisi for a mandamus calling on the Corporation to
swear him in.—Applieation granted.
THE QUEEN V. "THE BRIGHTON GAZETTE."-CRIMINAL
INFORMATION..,
Mr. PLATT moved for a rule calling on the proprietors
of tha Brightim• Gazette to show cause why a criminal in-
formation should not be filed against them for the pub-
lication of an article of a libellous character, reflecting-
on the character of two of the. Brighton Magistrates.
_ Mr, Justice lirii.L.Lois referred the Learned Counsel
to the full Court, and:observed that, as it was one of the
highest functions the Court could exercise, he thought
the full Court by far the most proper place in which to
make all such applications,

THE KING •OF PRUSSIA.
_ FROM A CORRESPONDENT.)

Shortly. beforetwo o'clock this afternoon, a special
gime-ifs messenger arrived at the Foreign Office
from Ostend, with dispatches for the Earl of Aberdef
announcing that his Majesty the King of PrUssia
would not arrive in this country until to-morrow,
when he might be expected at Greenwich about
one o'clock. At the time the messenger left • Ok-
tend, only one of the three British steamers which
had been sent to convey his Majesty and suite
had arrived at Ostend, but the others were every hour
expected. The Earl of Aberdeen not being at the office,
the messenger immediately proceeded to the Noble Earl's
private -residence, and orders were sent to the Admiralty
fer the intelligence to be immediately forwarded to her
Majesty and Prince Albert, at Windsor Castle.

We regret to record the death of the vene-
rable Master of the Charter House, the Rev. Dr. Fisher,
who died at Kingston on Wednesday last. The Rev.
Gentleman was in his 92d year. By his death there is
also a vacancy in the Canon-Residentiaryships of Nor-
wich. By a somewhat remarkable coincidence, the Rev.
Robert Watts, the Librarian of Sion College, who was
exactly of the same age, died the same day at the Col-
lege. The Rev. Mr. Watts was also Rector of St.
Alphage, London-wall, and a Prebendary of St. Paul's
Cathedral.

-
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a long in-
terview with
Sir James Graham this morning, at the
iforni)-office. •