Star.
London, England, 1818-07-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENC.Z.

COURT OF CHANCERY, JULY I.
CLANDESTINE MARRIAGE.
•
WADE V. SCRUTON.
On the LORD CHANCELLOR coming into Court, he
was informed by Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, that there
was some question in this cause respecting the expenses
of Mr. Broughton.
LORD CHANCELLOR.—in the order on the petition
that Sir X. Piggott presented the other day about the
settlement of Mr. Bazely's affairs, I have provided for
all the costs of the suit.
Sir SAMUEL Rostictx.—But your Lordship will
redollect that a petition was presented for the extra-
ordinary expenses incurred by Mr. Broughton, der-
int the time Mr. and Mrs. Bazely were at Weymouth.
LARD CHANCELLOR.—I Will take care of it :
whether he will get all his expenses as well as costs,
I do not know, but it ought to be in the order. . ,
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JULY 6.
LOGAN AND OTHERS V. WILLAN AND OTHERS.
The following are the facts of this case as they
appeared in evidence :—The Plaintiffs (wholesale
druggists in London) in February, 1816, received a
letter purporting to come from a Mr. James Worthy,
a dyer, of Exeter, with whom they had had some
previous dealings ; it inquired the lowest price of
cochineal per lb.; an answer was sent by return of
post, and the consequence was an order for 651 b. to
be conveyed to Exeter as soon as convenient, by the
Subscription coach, of which the Defendants are
proprietors. The cochineal was put into a small box,
and addressed according to order, to " Mr. J. Wor-
thy, Exeter." It arrived at the coach-office of the
Old London Inn, Exeter, on Saturday night ; and
soon afterwards a person opened the office door, and
without shewirig himself, inquired for the box ac-
cording to the address, the sum due for carriage,
16s. 1.1. and whether he could take it away on the
following day, Sunday ? The answer was in the
affirmative ; and in the evening of the next day, a
man of the name of Whitfield came to the coach-
office, and producing the money for the expense of
conveyance. asked for a box directed to Mr. James
Worthy. The bookkeeper gave him the box con-
taining the cochineal, and another parcel with a
similar address, at the same time inquiring the man's,
name: he gave it without reluctance, adding, that al
person waiting without had sent him for it. Whit-,
field went out of the office with both box and parcel,
but afterwards returned the latter. The plaintiffs,
when they sent the cochineal by the Subscription
coach, wrote a letter to Mr. James Worthy, by the
post, advising of it, and enclosing an invoice; and
they were very much surprised by receiving an an-
swer from Mr. Worthy, that he had never given
them any order for cochineal, or any other drug.—
One of the plaintiffs in consequence hastened to
_Suter, and an inquiry was set on foot, when it ap-
peared that a fraud had been practised upon them,
and that the order for the cochineal was a forgery.
Whitfield was soon found, and he pointed out a per-
sea of the name of Bennet, as the man who had sent
, him into the coach-office for the box, and who had
given him 16s. Id. to pay for the carriage. Bennet
was immediately taken into custody, and before a
Magistrate Whitfield swore positively to his person;
he, however, succeeded in establishing an alibi to the
satisfaction of the Magistrate, who admitted him to
bail. None of the parties obtained any further in-
telligence respecting the cochineal, and Bennet was
sot prosecuted.
The present action was brought to recover the
value of the box and its contents, £ll4, on the
ground that it had been lost in consequence of the
negligence of the servant of the defendants in mis-
delivering it.
After Mr. MARRYAT had stated the particulars
above detailed, he called the clerk of the plaintiffs,
who proved the value of the box, and the address
put upon it, viz. ec Mr. J. Worthy, Exeter." In this
early stage, in answer to a question from one of the
Jury, his Lordship said, that he should hold, in point
of law, that a common carrier discharged himself
from liability, if he shewed (in a case like the pre-
sent, where the address of the box contained neither
the abode nor business of' the'party) that be had de-
livered it at his own office, to a person whom lie
might reasonably suppose to be the individual, or to
come from the individual, designated in such address.
The Clerk of the Plaintiffs, on cross-examination,
denied that he was aware of the existence of a notice
in the coach office of the defendants in London,
where the box was sent by the plaintiffs, stating that
they would not be responsible for any parcel; &c.
above the value of £5, unless entered and paid for
accordingly.
Perry, the porter of the plaintiffs, swore to the
delivery of the hoz. He received from the book-
keeper at the Bull-and-Mouth a receipt, which the
witness had written and the book-keeper signed.—
He admitted on his cross-examination, that he had
many times carried parcels, &c. to the Inn ; but he
Lad never seen or been told of any hoard stating the
limited responsibility of the proprietors of coaches•
until six months ago.
Mr. Knipe, one of the defendants' principal ma-
nagers, was called to prove that they were proprie-
tors of the Subscription Exeter Coach.
Croseexamine.l.—He deposed that a very large
board, on which was painted the notice of limited
responsibility, was placed against the wall in the
most conspicuous part of the coach-office: it had
been there for the last 14 years, and a person deli-
vering a parcel could scarcely avoid seeing it.
On the part of the defendants, Mr. ScasmeTT sub-
mitted two points to the Jury : Ist, that it was im-
possible to believe that the plaintiffs porter was not
acquainted with the existence of the notice ; and
t2d . that the defendants, or their servants, had not
neo • ently conducted themselves in delivering the
ket
pan at Exeter to the individual who correctly de-
sallied it, and stated that be came from the person
to whom it was addressed. The first position he left
upon the evidence already adduced on the other side;
and to support the last he called
Thomas Whitfield, who swore that a man of the
more of 'Bennet had accosted him near the Old Lon-
.'on inn, at Exeter, and had asked him to go into
toe coach-office to receive a box addressed to Mr.
;lames Worthy, and to pay for the carriage : he gave
~,-r. IGc. 1,1. for that purpose, and_promisOd to pay
L
stricnce for carrying it to the nay No .pub-

lie-house. The witness went into the oEce accord-
ingly, received and paid for the parcel, stating.
when asked, that his name was Whitfield, and that
a person was waiting outside, to whom he was about
to carry it. When he left the office, Bennet walked
a little way with him, but soon took the box into his
' own charge, and dismissed him, paying him only
sd. The witness was positive as to the person of
the man, and swore to it before a Magistrate.
The book-keeper at Exeter confirmed this story, as
far as came within his knowledge. He admitted that
he knew there was a Mr. J. Worthy in the town : his
parcels were usually delivered at his dye-house.
Mr. James Worthy deposed, that he had never
ordered the cochineal of the plaintiffs, but that, for
the purposes of fraud, some person had employed
his name.

Mr. Justice ABBOTT left the two poiiits of fact
stated by Mr. Scarlett to the Jury, and went over the
whole of the evidence given on both sides.
The Jury retired to deliberate, and in an hour and
a half brought in a verdict for the defendaaLs.