The Statesman.
London, England, 1819-07-24 00:00:00

1.4 W I.VTELLIGENCK.

--ow--
COURT OF CHANCERY, JOLT 13.

CORTI, AIM MIMS V. CLAIIIaZ AND °TIMM

Mr. Met stored, that the Injuncticn granted by
the Court, for (he purpose of restraining the Defend-
ants from palling down a certain sluice •t itje har-
bour, called Scott'. Float Sluice, should be dissolved.
Ile contended that the Court had no jurisdiction
here, as if the sluice in question was • public nui-
sance, then the parties had their remedy at law; hnt
this Court was not the proper quarter whence relief
might be esperted.
Mr. St. GDEM followed nn the UT* side, and quoted
a number of anthnrities from the 7th Gen. I. doss n.
words, to show that application ought to be made to
a Court of Law, end soot here.
The ATTORNEY•G . . in support of the In-
junction, contended. that If it were dissolved. there
would be 7 or 800,0001. worth of lend ruined, by
being everdowed. The Court had always ezercised
the poser of protecting parties against the commis.
Sian of trespass; and were that not done bore, con-
sequences would be reinnes to the pireira. The
party applying for the Injunction being dissolved.
might hare recourse, in the first instance, to a Court
of Law, but they had not done it. The Court had
uniformly held, that where a nuisance wsa shoat to
be committed and which would t•k• place before an
ectlain could be tried, then it would interfere end
prevent that nuisance. lie was confident that the
Court had jurisdiction, and that it would be propel!,
applied here. _ _

•
LORD CDANCFLLOR ordered the Mt to Ire
sent to a Joey to try, first, whether this slake gr I
a ;mirk nakeney, and if they foetid it was so, thee
to try whether it was a noleancei in 1812.
The Court rose at one o'clock.

COURT OF RING'S KLNCO. Jci.r f.

lIREETT AND CO. V lIILLAN AND CO.

This was sn action sirinst the I)•bndsnts as corn•
non carriers to recover the s•lue of Gslbs of carbi-
nes', estimated at I 141. Inst by (heir negligence. It
aill be recnllerted that lasi )ear (his rags• was tried
before the Chief Justice, chess a verdict was fooled
for the Defendant, contrary to the directions of the
Learned Jade in point of low, soil a new Mal hay.
ins been granted by the Court above, the cause •aW
cam. swan.

Mr. Marital, Mr. Carney, and Mr. Comyn, con.
ducted the Plain.ills• case; sad Mr. Scarlett and Mr.
Tindal, the Defendants'.
Theca* was this—ln the month of March, 1816,
the Plaintiff', who are dry•tatters in Lundun, re-
Myer' a letter, signed " J. Worth)," from Ewer
(having been in the habit of dealing for many years
with a person of that name, a dyer of that city ), de-
siring to know the priena cf cochineal. This letter
was answered accordingly, sod ba the neat post they
received an order to send to Mr J. Worthy, by the
Elect, Mail. of which the Defendants were pro.
prletors, 65Ibs. of cochineal, together with an invoice
of the toots. ‘Vithnot comparing the hod., riling
of this leiter which with the letters they hadpieen in the
habit of receiving from their customer, Mr. Worthy.
they made op a parcel containing she quantity of
goods ordered, and directing it " J. Worthy,
Elmer," it was booked at the Defen,lsitts' Ace to
Igo by the Mail. The coach arrived at Carter on as.
toldsy .-veiling, when a person called at the coach.
loffice in that city, and asked as hether it hid not,
brought a parcel directed for Mr. Wurthy,. and be.
tog answered in the sifirmative, he desired to know ,
the 'mount of the carriage, and was told it was
16s. Id. Ile they said he should send for it the neat
morning. On the following morning. being Sunday,
the same person met a !shooting man in the street, ;
aimed Whitfield, and desired him to go to the coach.
nice, and bring sway the parcel directed for " J.;
Worthy, hatter," which had come by the mail from
London, giving him the money to pay the carriage, ;
and promising him a trifle fur himself, whilst he
waited outside in the street. The man sent to the
coach-office accordingly, but having made some mis-
take in the description of the parcel, It was not then
delivered. Ile then went back to the person in the
street, and Immedastely returned with a more atm.
rate description of the parcel, which was forthwith
delivered to him, upon paying the carriage, and he
took it to his employer, who gave him sixpence (or 149
trouble. It turned out shot the Mr. Worthen, with
wham the Plaintiffs hail been in the habit of dealing,
had mot given the order in question, and that the
whole transaction was a fraudulent connivance of a
person named Bennett, a man who was not forth-
' coming, and in no condition to pay for the cochineal.
Under these circumstances the p•eaent action was
brought, and the question was, whether the Defend.
ants wets liable for the asis-delicery of the goods in
question.
On the part of the Plaintiff, it was contended that
the Defendants' common law liability was sufficient
for the maintenance of the action, they having neg.
lected to take precautionary steps, in order to see
that it was delivered to the person for whom it was
intended, as was manifest from the manner in which
they gave it nut of their po ion, there beingenoegh
to mite their sespicion, that the person who applied
for it at the office had no right to receive in
Fur the Defendants it was contended, that there
was a oofficient delivery of the parcel according to
order ; and iliAt in all events the Plaintiff.' own neg-
ligence in not taking care to direct the parcel rro.
perly, and being satisfied that the order for the co.
chineal was genuine, exempted the Defendants from
liability.
The Cuter JUITIrt charged the Jury, that by the
Law of England in this particular case (founded upon
mach mote ancient law, namely, the Civil Law), a
carrier is liable to answer for any loss occasioned by
his negligence. The reason for that law was this—athat
collesion might take place between the carrier or his
see viola, sad other persons, so as to defraud the ow tier
of thegoods entrusting them to his care; sad sinless the
law imposed such a check on the carrier, no man
would trust big goods in his hands. This role of law
was clear and of long standing. Undoubtedly of late
years a practice had obtained on the part of carriers
of restricting their responsibility, by notice that they
'said not be answerable for losses beyond a certain
amount, and Courts of Law bad sanctioned such re-
strictions by their decisions. In the present ease no
question arose of this kind; the single rim being,