Star.
London, England, 1817-09-08 00:00:00

CC)I4N-I"iCH ARK-I.ANE, SEP f1:211BER %

I.l3ving a good of new Wheat from Essex
this mornin, and large arrivals from abrozd since
this day 'week, to3ether with the fineness of the Wea-
ther, has caused a decline of 10s. per quarter n;on
samples of our own growth, and full ss. per quarter
upon old, and only prime qualities could be disposed
of. It is expected the price of Flour will be lowered,
but no alteration bad taken place at twelve o'clock.
13 irley, Peas, Brans, and Oats, are full g.s. per guar.
ter clwaper, aad heavy sale at that decline.
rxo:.►!u. °zits, rosary., sos. aes.
WIon:. ::r EOM new Ditto, Poland, 214. sft

754. 653. old Sts. Ditto Ferd, 11s. SO*.
Suffolk, 751. b.sf. 9 I oa. Rapeseed, .44.2 .€4s rer
Norfolk, old, ..Os. Eft, I Flour, 75*. 80a. per taik.
lire, ius. 413. TO?. SION.
Barley, :U4s 46s When, Dentate, 70$. 951.
Malt, 70c. RN. Ditto, Baltic Red, 701. ech.
White Pexa, 265. 40e. bolers, liantbneur Bremen, 7ns. eui
4t..s 441. Brabant Red, 7us. 8..)1.
Grey Pear, 4111. 445. I Ryr, Cots. Oila.
Sc a:,11 B'-al A iCe )Llso Aritrlean Flour, Ili. Cs.

AVER QT. PRICE of CORN II ENGLAND and WALE!.
frrtm the reterus tm4lttit the St‘th of .1-.rgust HI 7.
Wheat. Rye ilarley. Oars. /ans. Perie.
s. & I a. 11. I
a. d. s. J. s. d. s.
Y 4 9 49 11 144 5 3, 49 0f47 I
The averar,e Prfee of Stt:;.tr, co:trued from the return: ors&
in the week et dinr, the 3d of eept:r.t.Ser, fa s.ts. ()id. per cwt.

51'SliftIFIRLD MARKET, SEP EMBER a.
Bret Ss Cd m 4. 4e. Vtal 44 ed 10 5, 113
Mutton i, 01 to 4. 4d I l•-rit 4. Oa ** Ss fit
I.3mb 4s. od to

Bcastst2oo--'been an., Y) 3.1 - —C7Plvel :110—Ptgo 20%
'HAY AND STUAW P 1 1.0:11)
Hay arc 0. to Xs. iSs•—tAxrcr La. Os os ;1 ;44

r

ASSI37ES.

NON-LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.
011M.1 FROMCNT AND °TUSK&

IsRISI•OL.
LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.
ItOver= et. sit cUSOUNIt.
This was an action brntrzta by the plaintiff, who
is a clergyman residing at West Harptre••, against
the &verdant, who is a common carrier, for the re-
cove•rs, of the sum of JED. the value of a variety of
as ticks •,f wearing apparel intrusted to his care, and
tube conveyed (rem Bristol to West Harptree, about
eltven miles from Bristol.
Mr. Serjeant l'at.e, in opening the ease to the Jury,
observed, that it was brie which would not take up
intrli of tt.c•ir time. The plaintiff was a clergyman
of great respectability, and the defendant WAS a cern.
ra.•n cal:kr, from Bristol t;; Wells. The articles in
g itst inn were the westing apparel of ON plaintiff's
(laugher; who h..t been at schuol at Bristol. It
would be superfluous to e:%,er into a detail of every
erticlo, unless his friznd t,n ;;)e ot;posite site (Mt.
Casber,i) was desir us to go throoeh the whole of
the lady's toilette. 'nit. articles wire packed up arid
carried to the wag;;lni office by a man named Clerk,
who entilil reitncr lead norr v site, and given to a man
slam( Were!. lie (the Learned Serjeant) knew
not nheti.tir The usu..l notice was stuck up or not;
and it had been s..id that if a notice was put up in
the office, it was a sufficient notice to all persons s‘hu
came to it; but in that cast• it would be for the de.
fondant to strew, that notice had been given; then he
should apprehend that as the man who took the ar.
Celts could neither read nor write, the mere notice
stock up in the t.ffice could not be considered a se&
citut notice to him, and if such a defence was set up,
1:c should :tetity himself against it, by proving the
Jowl who took it could neither tead nor write.
The plaiMiff's daughter, arid John Choir, his sa-
vant, proved the facts of the case.
Mr. Baron GnAlta st then proceeded to sum up the
evidence, in doing which he übterved, that the de-
fence set up was, that as a matter of public notoriety
there were notices stuck up iu the office ; and the
question for their consideration would be, whether
they could front these iimiees draw such an inference
as would warrant them in 'eying, that the plaintiff
had. 4 sufficient knowledge of the terra of the notices,
for it they should be of opinion t: •t he had a suffi-
cient nonce, then in that case the responsibility of the
defendant would be qualified; bat upon that point
they were to exercise their best judgment. Before
they said that die defendant was liable, they must be
convinced that he came into the possession of the ar-
ticks; and to be sure there was but one witness who
spoke to that fact. The circumstances of the notice*
were not of a very strong descriptiod, because the man
who took the goods could neither read nor write.—
With regard then to Mr. Bouquet having received
and known the terms of the notice, it must be suppo-
sed from his condition in life ; and his having sent by
the waggon before, it might be fairly inferred that
he must hive had a knowledge of the notice. At
the some time, it the Jury should infer upon any fair
pound that the parcel wits d livered, and that it was
lust, and that Mr. Bouquet had not a reasonable in-
formation of the notice, then they would find a ver-
dict for the plaintiff.—Vetdict for the Plaintiff—
Damages *29.

' In this action the plaintiff sought to recover the
sum of £lB 16s. and the value of four shawls, in-
trusted to the defendants, as coSmon carriers, to be
conveyed to Trowbridge.
Mr. &leant Pau., in stating. the case to the Jury,
observed, that under the decision of Lord Ellenbo.
rough, who had ruled as follows, is the lsw is impe-
rative, that a oroof of the notice of the contract to
the plaintiff must be adduced before the carrier can
be exonerated from his liability to the loss," the plain-
tiff would be entitled to the verdict of the Jury.
Mr. Richard Stanley Laytharn being called, stated
that on the 17th Doceroberlast he took a parcel to the
White Hart coachoAfice, in Broad-street, in this city.
It contained aelfl IG3. in cash, and was wrapped up
in four shawls, which v.ere worth about SOs. It was
directed to Mr. James Oram, Trowbridge. Witness
pail 2d. fur booking it. Of his own knowledge he
did not know whether- the parcel reached its destina-
tion or not. It was between seven and eight in the
evening when he took it to the office.
Cross.examined by Mr. GM:ELM—The £lB 16s.
was a debt which witness owed to a Mr. Bannister,
and he had been desired to pay it to his sun. Mr.
t.ham was a relation of Mr. Bannister. 'Witness had
fen a public notice stock up in tlO office, relative to'
no parccls being aoswered fur, it lost, unlessentered
and paid for accordingly.
Mr. BarOfIGRAHAAI ta:P;erndb that this fact estato
fished a notice of public notoriety.
Mr. Serjeant PELL—That is my case. The parcel
never did come to hand, although I cannot prove
it : but I take it that irremains for the defendants
to prove that it did come to hand.
Mr. Baron GRAHAM—It always forms part of the
declaration that it never did come to hand.
The witness Laytham was then called back and
examined by Mr Serjeant PALL. Mr. Hallway, the
book.keeeer, told witness the parcel was never sent.
He said he was afraid it was mislaid, as he bad writ-
ten to the proprietors of the coaches to ascertain it.
Mr. Goat.= objected to this testimony being re-
ceived as evideoce against the defendants, in which
objection he was borne out by the Court.
Mr. Gasmen now submitted that the action must
fall upon two grounds : first; that Mr. Oram had no
property in it, as it was a debt due to Mr. Bannister;
and secondly, that it had never got into the posses-
sion of Mr. Oram, as the consignee or consienor,
neither had it got into the possession Of the defendants.
Mr. Baron GRALIAM ObtiaVed, that it was presum-
ed to be in the posse,.sion of the defendants imatedi-
W,ely it was delivered at the co:tch-orlice.
Mr. GASE.I.2E, in reply, said it was a principle of
sound policy
that the emit:rt should restrict them-
selves as far as possible to their liability; and the
only thing for the Jury to say would be, whether
Mr. Laytham, the plaintill's agent, had or bad not
a knowledge of the manner in which the deteudania
:allied on their business st the time be delivered the
parcel.
Mr. Baron GitAnAsi, in summing np the facts of,
the case, observed, that the acrou was brought for,
of V"; 1414 the 4461141/ 11411

w.ls, that there was such a pnbile notice put up in
the defendant's otlicv, as not to render them liable
(or the loss of any price', unless it should be entered
and paid for as being above the value of A 5: and
the question was, whether the plaintiff had a notice
of that cirettrastAnce ? The evidence was, that her.
Laytham was aware of tf,e existence of the notice
within a fortnight before, and within a ftw
alter the 17th of Dec.-niber ; that what possible.
doubt could the Jury entettain that the defendants
had changed their mode of doing business in so short
a time?—The Jury almost instantly found a verdict
for the Defenrlauts.