Star.
London, England, 1820-05-25 00:00:00

THE DUKE OF BEDFORD V. PAGE.

This was an action brought, in fact, by the lessees
of the Noble plaintiff, against the defendant, who is
a market-gardener, in oruer to try the right to certain
tolls claimed upon the sale of potatoes, in a particu-
lar part of Covent-garden, called the potatoe-market.
The present proceeding was the fourth of the same
nature.--The Jury, alter differing for some time,
found a verdict for the plaintiff, establishing the toll
at two-pence per sack, upon all potatoes sold within
that particular part of the market, upon which the
question was raised.

These two cases occupied the Court from nine in
he morning until six in the evening.

COURT Or EXCHEQUER, MAY 24.

ELD V. BORNE, SHAW, AND OTHERS.
Mr. JA Rya stated, that this was a most important
case; it was an action to recover the amount of a
quantity of silver plate that was sent by the Chester
Mail, of which the defendants are proprietors. It ap-
peared that, in the latter part of June, last year, the
plaintiff, who is a most respectable Gentleman, re-
siding near Eccleshall, in Staffordshire, sent an order
for a considerable quantity of forks, spoons, dcc. to
Mr. Thomas Wilkinson, a silversmith in Piccadilly,
which was accordingly packed, and sent to the Golden
Cross, Charing Cross, directed for " Wm. Eld, Esq.
Brocton House, near Eccleshall, Staffordshire: to be
forwarded by the Chester Mail." There was not any
notice given that it contained articles of value. It,
however, never was received, and Mr. Wilkinson
having recovered the amount of his demand against
the present plaintiff, he sought to recover of the coach
.
proprietors
_ _

A lad, of the name of Rigg, was examined by Mr.
Potr.en, and proved the delivery of the box. There
was also the receipt of the Coach-office Clerk.
In his cross-examination by Mr. CLARK, who, with
Mr. COMYN, conducted the defence, he distinctly
swore that he did not see the notice-board which was
placed in the Office, and which was produced in Court.
The next witness called was Mr—Wilkinson. lie
proved the packing of the box, and its being addres-
sed as before described. A very close cross-examina-
tion of this witness took place by Mr. COMYN ;
nothing, however, was elicited to serve the defen-
dants. He, as well as the preceding witness, had been
several times to the Coach-office in question, and he
most positively denied
sever having read the notice-
beard, or even haiing heard that any notice had been
given by the defendants. He never insured any goods
unless they were so ordered to be, he considering
that coach proprietors were, and ought to be, liable
for all goods intrusted to their care.
Here Mr. CLARK took an objection to the form of
the declaration, it being at variance with the addreA
on the box, that describing it as being to be left at.
Eccleshall," and on the box, " to be near Eccles-
hall," without ordering it to be left anywhere.
The CHIEF BArtoli said, he should make a note of
the objection. The main question, however, was,
whether persons taking grow to Coach-otlices were
bound to see the usual notices given by coach pro.
prictors, by placing boards, itc(:nainting posons
sending goods by their coaches, that they would
not be answerable beyond a certain amount ? 1k
was of opinion they were not compellable to see sod'
notices, and a verdict was • taken for the plaintiff fin-
£79. 15s. the ansount sought to Le recovered.