The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-02-05 00:00:00

TTTF STA'ITSM ALM

COURT OF KING'S BENCH. Fris. 4.

IBUCHAN V. WILLAIL

COURT OF ARCHES, Ftz. 4.
lIALTOND AGAINST HALTON°.

L.JW INTICLLIGRNCE. ' ' •
-...-

The west's adios brought against the Defendant.
a carrier. for not safely carrying a boa of cochineal
from London to Ezeter, and delivering it to a per.
Inn named Worthy. It was tried before. the Chief.
Justice, and the Jury foood a verdict for the Ik.
fondant. _

On a former day, a rale was obtained by the
Plaietiff, requiring the Defendant to show cause oh)
• new trial should Not he granted.
Mr. SCARL•7Ir, Mr. Gonerst, and Mr. Games,
now showed cease, severally urging that the verdict
wee sweet. The Defendant had put up a notice in
Ms office, that be would not be responsible (or any
parcel above the Woe of 51. If It were lost or da•
triaged. The Plaintiff was folly aware of this n.i.
lice. The parcel in question was abort the value
of 31., but It was nut paid for and entered as such.
When it arrived at Exeter' It was delivered to a
wrong pencil', who had frsedently seat ■ patter to
the office for It, bet this would not make the De-
feeders( liable against his savior. In Levy v. Vial.
ter, tiled before Chief Justice Gibbs, •t Brion!, it
was held, that where a party does niit enter and pas
for goods as of greater vale. time 51., the earlier is
net liable. (I Sslw. N. P. 338, edit. 4 ) This rase
aketwards Cagee before the Court of Eschew', no
a motion for a mew trial. and tits Coat agreed is
opinion with the Chief• Justice. (Price, WO)
In support of the rule, Mr. MAIIIIYAT, Mr. CO-
WIWI, and Mr. CUSIMIN, contended, that there wile
✓em siegligence in this case on the pert of the De.
fendriet, end that the Learned Judge who tried the
cause bad misdirected the Jury. His Lordship bed
said, if you find that the Plaiatill or his servants
hail knowledge of the notice, then the Dlendslit is
entitled to )our verdict, and se if you find that the
Defendant was guilty of any negligence in deliver.
leg the parcel. The Learned Counsel submitted,
that his Lerdship ought to have directed the Jot,
as follows : " Yoe will find whether the Plaintit
or his lemma had knowledge of the notice ; but
thee, if you find filet lie had, it will not excuse him,
if he has been guilty of gross negligegice.'? By lint
hoeing directed them in this way, they were left in
this siteelion r his Lordship tells es, that if the
Plaintiff had keeseledge of the ar.tice, we are sot to
consider the ether point. it should hair been let
to the Jury to my, whether, under the circam.
stance, of thecae*, there had or had not been gross
negligence, so as to 61 the Drfeedaut, lint withstood-
ing his Colic*. In Beck e. Foams (16 Eii‘t) it was
held, that if that Carrier had bees guilty of soy entre.
oidioary or gross ngliiimice, be was So, be
• recent rase, in the Common Pleas, Slitila V. Hots,
it was derided that a earlier, thriugh he restrict his
liability, if guilty of gross negligence, Is answerable,
sad that the facts ought to be left to the Jury. (1
ifolett N. P. 613) Ander/sin, In case a before th•
Chief Bares of the Exchequer, Bodeahani v. Bennet,
It was left to the Jury to say whether the carrier had
been piny of gross milieu's.. The Jury found for
the Plaintiff, and, on • enotisni for • new trial, that
verdict was ronfirmed. (4 Price, 431.) In the pre.
seat ease. Mr. Worthy Amid resided at Eosin' 6i, IQ
years ; be sea is the baba of lieviog pseuds mg he
him through the medium of the Defeatism', and the
Defendant was in the hahit rf delivering them tie
him or his agent. On this 0cc4.4 a porter west
to the office, and asked for the parcel. The Nit
of the Defendant enquired " whether No knew the
person who bail mint him 1" He answered, " No,
the man is at toe door." l'he /Weeds iit's versant
did net go out to the man, bet delivered the parcel
to the porter, who went out with it and gave It. to
the men. This was gross negligence on the part of
the Defendant ; and though the parcel was of grelier
,aloe than 31, snd had not been entered and phi
for areordingly, the notice of lb* Orreodeet *mad
out escrow him.

The C,,tine bating heard the orpiment' en both
sides, end hating Cso essntitted the cites cited, de-
clared that the decision of the Esehrtree io Borden-
has v. Bennet mos one authority in (sense of ■ stew
Iris!. stud sccordinEly use ride obtained by t►e Plain-
tiff oat made absoltee.
HAMILTON ItEtlC.iatO, TM' MOM, V. WHAMS!.

The following is a copy of the role which the
Court granted yestordsy, spun the notion of Mr.
Andrews f— _ _ _

.....
" U;•on reading the affideelt of the Plaintiff, it is
ordered, That Mr. Williams. the late attorney for the
said Plaintiff, upon notice of this role to be gimin to
him,diall, upon Saturday neat, after the octavo of the
purtilcadloa of the blessval Virg% Mary. show caster
why he should not forthwith dancer to the Plaintiff's
now attorney, Sir. Whitelock, as account in writing
of all actions brought by him in the name of the
Plaintiff, and why he should not set forth therein
what stage each of sub actions new Is in, sad wLich,
if any, of them have been compromised; also what
sum or 91111111 of money he has received on the Plain.
tiff's accosat, in satisfactieo of any such adios or
'aloes."

Sir Jour NICIIOI.L sald, that this was a nit of
separation, brought by s husband against his wife,
by moon adultery. The only question for the
Court'. decision waa, whether the witnesses were dis-
credited or not; for if their evidence was to be be-
lieved, it mild not be douhtril,nor had it been argued
indeed, that the adultery wee made out. The Learned
ledge then went into a recapitulation of the priori-
pal facts connected with this case; and observed,
that Mr. firlford and sir Thomas Staines were first
cousins; that therefore, as had been well observed,
more than ordinary attentions on the part of Sir
Thomas, addressed to the Lady, might very well
wipe abservatinn ; Ise‘ides, !fir Thomas basing
Inst en arm In tie titmice of his country, might
very well be sup:.,•sed to rf ?CC • intr., tnan usual
degree of interest among his friend!, whom that mis-
fortune might indo, e to behave more tenderly than
customary; still tillo• alltbutioite were such as In 'a-
che notice. and emus.. • rood deal of talk in Can-
'enmity ; and from what trantpiteri in Christmas,
101115-10, it a family meeting, where the parties
were present. they peenedto have themselves coma
i frisia that they had acted imprudeuity. The