Star.
London, England, 1827-08-15 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

SHREWSBURY, Atm 11.
CIVIL 31DS.-.-WOODWARD V. BOOTH.
This was an action brought by an innkeeper in Shrews-
bury to recover from the defendant, who is a widow,
and the proprietress of the Bing-up-Coach, travelling
from Manchester through Chester to Shewsbury, the
snm of 71. being the alleged value of a trunk containing
wearing apparel and divers other articles, the property
of the plaintiff.
The cause was tried at the last Assizes, when the ac-
tion was brought on the custom of England, as to the
responsibility of innkeepers for the property of their cus-
tomers left in their charge, as Mrs. Booth kept an inn
at Chester. On the former occa-ian, a nonsuit was en-
tered,and the present action was brought against the
defendant, on the ground of her responsibility as a cool-
mon carrier.
Mr. SLANET (who is one of the Members for Shrews-
busy) in opening the pleadings stated the rature of the
action, and also that his client was a most respectable
innkeeper in this town.
Mr. TAUNTON stated the plaintiff's case, and then
proved that the plaintiff having been on his route from
Manchester to Shrewsbury, gave the trunk in question
to a porter in the defendants yard at Chester for the
purpose of being forwarded with him. He paid his fare
regularly in Chester at the defendant's booking office;
but on his arrival in this town, his trunk was missing.
,The Learned Counsel cited several authorities to simile
the responsibility of persons who acted as common car.
tiers in any way, and among others, a case tried in this
town SO years ago, when an action was brought against
the proprietor of a waggon, to recover the value oft
pipe of brandy which had leaked out of the vessel by the
negligence of the defendant's servant, and in which case
the judgment of the Court of King's Bench had affirm-
ed the verdict in favour of the plaintiff.
In cross-examination, the witnesses for the plaintiff
stated that a painted board was stuck up in the defend-
ant's bot,king office, about breast high, and over that a
printed notice was also stuck up, each of which stated
that any goods or passenger.' luggage lost by any con-
veyance belonging to the defendant would not be paid
for, unless specially entered and the carriage paid for.—
These notices differed from those usually exhibited
in such cases, inasmuch as no insurance was mentioned.
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed the Jury for the defendant,
and contended, that unless gross negligence could be
brought home to his client, she was not to be considered
responsible. That negligence existed in this case, there
could be no doubt, but then it was gross negligence on
the part of the plaintiff himself. He had gone into the
defendant's office to pay his tare for the purpose of
coming from Chester to Shrewsbury ; but notwithstand-
ing two explicit notices staring him in the face, stating
the terms on which passengers' luggage or other articles
would be conveyed, he had not taken the precaution of
looking after his own luggage. It had been observed
by a learned law Lord, now no more (Lord Erskine),
who was not less lemai kable for his knowledge of
human affairs than his learning, that every man in the
habit of travelling ought to follow the prudent practice
of that admirably sagacious animal the elephant, and
cars y his trunk before him (laughter); but in this cafe
the plaintiff had left his trunk behind him by his own
negligence, and therefore the defendant was not respon-
sible. The Learned Counsel then produced the painted
board and printed notice which had been stuck up in
the defendant's office, as well as a model of the office
itself, and shewed that the plaintiffhad stood within two
feet of these notices whets he booked his place fur
Shrewsbury.
Mr. TAUNTON in reply, observed to the Jury, that
though this was only the first cause, they could form
some notion of the intricacies of the law from the pre-
sent case, when it appeared that the plaintiff could not
recover the value of a trunk full of wearing Apparel,
which was lost from a common stage coach, without
bringing two actions fur it. He submitted, however,
that the trunk in question had been received into the
custody of an acknowledged agent of the defendant. and
whether the loss had accrued from accident or negli-
gence on her part, she was responsible. •
Mr. Baron VAUGIIAN, in charging the Jury, left two
distinct qiiestiens for their con,idetation—lit, whether

the plaintiff. Gist hare seen the nosier, that lust hers
pro.loced and, secondly, if not, wbedlatr.r/tetimak had
beets received by an acknowledged agei of the defen-
dtnt's? It they ft,und the fit .t propebitioo, the second
would be insina:etial, provided the tet Kis of the notice

wet, not compiled with.—Verdict for the defendant.

MAitill.
Mr. riAmita stated the case to the 3ury. This was
an action to recover the •Alase of a sow, which, it was
Alleged, had been worried and killed by the defend
ant's di*. The parties were both larmers, residing a
short distance from each other, and on the 6th of

April the defendant called upon the plaintiff', and told

him that his sow was gone in a certain dir. etion. fol-
lowed by his (the defendants) dog; but he did not ,
pect that he would get her back, as she was so
roithered by the dog. Shortly after she was found
dead in a ditch. A letter was produced from the

plaintiff's attorney, demanding compensation for tie
loss of his sow. The attorney's clerk, who delivered it.
proved that the d fendant s'id he should have nothing
to do with it, and if the plaintiffs pigs trespassed, be
4 should pull their ears off"
This was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Baton VALIWIAL—Don't you call any surgeon
to prove that the death of the sow was caused by the

wounds she reczired horn the defendant's dog.—
(Laughter.)
Mr. C ABINIZLL (with whom was Mr. Junior) for
the defendarr, said, he certainly thought the case was
very deficient io that respect, as well as many others,
and that, in fact, it "pas a case rather for a Coroner's
Inquest, as a case of soicede, than for the consideration

Of the present tribunal. They had been told that the
defendant had incited his dog to worry the plaintiff's
sow, and had thereby caused her death ; but not one
atom of ;stool had been offered of that accusation.
Instead of the defendant having worried the plaintiff's
sow, the plaintiff had worried the defendant by setting
his attorney at him ; and the Jury well knew, that be-
ing worried by an attorney, was much •worse than
being worried by a dog. His learned friend, in open-
ing the case, bad spoken of it so seriously,--had so pa-
thetically recounted the death of thi, darling sow of
the plaintiff's—that be (Mr. Campbell) was neatly pre-
paring his pocket handkerchief to weep at the narration.
Laugh ter.)
N_r. Baron VAUGHAN—FuneraI oration, you mean.

Mr. CAMPBILL—Any one would have thought, by
the affection which the plaintiff was represented to have
entertained for this valuable animal, that it had been
his pet lamb for years, had partaken of his bed, and
was dearer than wife or children to him. But there.
was no evidence that the defendant had teen the cause
of the death of this beloved pig. It would not be
evidence sufficient to convict the defendant, because he
was the last person seen in the pig's company—because
he was the last person near when she breathed her last.
They would not proceed in this case raper visas tor-
poris ; and whether this pig was the learned pig, or the
unlearned pig, as there was no evidence to affect the
defendant, he was sine the Jury would, by their verdict.
tell the plaintiff that he had brought his pigs to the
wrong market (I.tighter); and that having had his
bacon once, for he (Mr. Campbell) bad no doubt they
had made use of ir, he could not, by bringing this
action, save his bacon at the expense of the defendant.
Mr. Baron Vat/Gnaw having summed up the evi-
dence, the Jury found a verdict fur the defendant.