Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
The Times, 1824-01-06T00:00:00

.tA;7 lizwopt. !51dhrs'seat, and proceeded to the trial of causes by slecial jurics O'55r1iEw V. WIUTTZ. "Tiis'was .-S an SCtitOs Against the defendant for. so negligently con. octSnglsinmselfasj brokei in respec: of Canada whiskey, which he Unblertooktoleu refthdeplaititff that the plair.tiff'was unable to en. force theplerfomrance of a contract purporting to be made for its sale, lostthe cerenceothetresaleofthe ommodity, and was forced-to y of an aCtiOn In which a'verdict passed against him.. ~apfpearedsti evidence, that the defendant tas-authorized by the plalDnffeosElIon his a:ccoUnt 12,206 -piunchcons of Canada -whiskey preiou t it arivl i Eglad.Aftr be 'had undertaktn the comisson,he-andd t th pIintd~a paper, purporting to-be a. contrac mwade- by Mr. T1omas Co orPurchasingthesame at, bs per galon, the overproof to be pgittor, and the whole price to bep by brlls at e sonths on Fox and C&., at Plymnouth. Mr. Moates returned this contract, refusing to ratify or perform it, and Mr.O.BrYien brouglht an action against him for his refusal to accept the whiskey. At the trial, Mir. White, beinlg examinaed as a wit. Ilessticknowledgedthat he could not swear that he was authorized Jr r. Coates to make the agreement on those terms, nor even that Ar. Coates did not expect that he was to take the spirits as they lay, without any payment for over. proof The Adetfnce was, the absence of authority, and on the cross-examination of Air. tWhite, the defendant obtained, a ver.. ict wwithout calhn any svitnesses. In consequence of this event. Mr. O'Brien wias orced to ray 391. for the costs of Mr. Coates 911. l5s. for his own, and 63 7s. Pd. for the expenses of warehouls. ig the spiit, beside losing the diference on the resale, a compen- sation for which he now sought to recover. Mir. Catea now swore that- lnever authorized Alr. White to make the contact in his namne, thoiigh it appeared some negotiations-hsd taken place on the sbjet whcjioablk led Mr. Wite astray. The LORD UEF IJsTsTIcg said this cause involved aquestion E important to the commerce of the city, of London-whether a that wLn cone ting his business in so negligent and hasty a manner, party to a contract made by him sought to enforce its aperfbrmance agaiar the other, he could not swear that he acted in pursuance of authority, ought-not to bear the costs occasioned by his error tb is Lrdshcip then recapitnlated the evidence, and left the pl~~~j after a few minutes' deliberatlon, found a verdict for the , L Axr v. RUTLEY. This action was brought by the members of the Dover bank ga instRtley and Co., carriers by waggon between Dover and Lon- don, to recover 1,3401., the value of a parcel contaiming Bank.notes, booked to go. by- the defendant's wa gon to Dover and stolen or lost out of their possession. The cese has been triA before, when the- receipts given weekly for.-the- parcels were produced by the defend- .an& .nound to cont3mn au exception in case of are and robbery, w mh was not statd in the declaration. This variance, on the re- servation qf the point, was held fatal; bet oa payment of costs, the plaintiffs were suflbrer&to amend, and proceed to a second trial. T he SorL.crTosr.GzEqRAL stated the case on behalf of the plainti. They were, he saul, bankers at Dover, who weekly re. ceived their notes trom Hoare and Co., their correspondents in LoD- d6n, and transmitted other notes in return. The convevanceof this valuable property was intrusted to the defendants, wiho received a guinea a wee for their troubland care; and by accepting this high premium became insurers in all cases but those of fife and robbe,ry which were specially excepted. On. the 17th of Vay, 1820, a pacel, containing notes to the amoant of 1 3401.,- directed to the plaintift, was left iwitbh r. Stanbury, one of the defendant's inrmn who unfor- tunately left it in his cbunting-house Witlr the key in the door for a few stinutes; and, on his return, discovered that it had been stolen. It would be cearly proved that this was no robbery, for that term importeda forcibletaking, whereasthstaking was without force, and clearly not within the exception. i I7th c aPlt o . poP0x, iter ? to Mesr5 uS. rHoare, and Co., stated, that on the 7thof ay,1820 Mr 4irdier,then a clerk in that house, but since dead, asked him to feteh a candle, that he might seal a parcel, containng notes, and afterwards gave him a parcel to take to te ovexrraggon. He went accordingly to the ?Vhite Harts in the Borough, and thtee delivered it to Mlr. Stanbury, one of. the fim, who received it in his counting-house, which adjoined a ware- house opening into the yard. Mr. Stnnbury looked at the parcel, made some remark, put it into his desk, and gave a receiptfor it. The tness had often before taken similar parcels, and 'deivered them to the same person. Rohert Hall, police-officer, said, that on the 17th ofMlay he was requestedtogo to Mr. Stanbury's, where he vwas informed the place had been broken open, and a banker's narcel stolen. On lookingover theplace, he was not-satisfied therehad been any breaking, and com municated that opinion to Mlr. Stanbury. Ar. Stanbury then said, he had left the key for a few rminutes in the door, and, onhis -eturn, found that the parcel was gone. The officer looked over the pre- mises, and saw noroarksofviolence. Hewasdirected by TIr. Stan- buryabrother tomake inquiries after the parcel, but did not succeed. AMr. Thomas, a pruiter in the Borough, produced a hand-biD, I printed by direction of the defendants, offering a reward for the dis. covery of the stolen parcelI, and stating the numbers of several notes. M lr. Watson, partner with Messrs. Hoare and Co., said, in May, 1820, he mnade up a parcel of Messrs. Lathamn's notes to be sent mntothe country, according to custom. It was usual to make up the country notes paid each day in separate parcels, and place fillets round them, denoting the amount. This had apparently been done in slips referring to the notes ofthe Dover bank, which correspond.: edwvith the enrry3,i the country nore-book, and the total amount was 0,3.41iL He nitnself looked over the slips, put a diUet round the whole, marked on it the gross amount, and gave it to a clerk ir the country note offimce. The clerk who usually performed the duty of tnaking up the prcdel was Air. Gxartiner, who is dead. On cross-examination, Mr.Watson said, the bank at Dover gene. ly sent Rutley'n receipts to be delivered to him on his delivering Vhe parcel. - They were written on the letters of advice respecting theparceLsw.hencethey wese cut ofjjtobeiven-to-thecarriera. In. tIh eltters to Dvierh tberei v/s no specification of any value, nor was a'iy money paid in london except for beoking. Severl of the receipts given at Dovet were then put in, and one of t'nem was read in the following terms : Receied apaver parcel, directed to Messrs. Hoare, Barnett, and Co. value N0L., which'we engage to deliver to them to-morrow, fire and robbery ex;cepted. " R. RUTLEY, " For RUTLEY and Co." Alr. kA5t5tY&T, for the defendants, submitted that the plailntiTh mnst be nonsuited. If.the parcels were not conveyed from London to Dotver on the same termns as from Dover to London, the contract laid was not proved; if they were, the engagement required astamp, whi4c it wanted. The SOLICITORtGEXNRAL and the COMBrMO SERGEANT, on the other side, contended that even if the receipts were taken as con. tracts, they required no stamp; because the subject matter of the engagement was the price of the carriage, not the value of the parcel, and tmis was below 201.; and they ctted the case of " Cbadwick v. Sills" in support of this construction. The LORtD CItIxFa JUSTICE inclined to think th%t the receipts ought to bave been stamped, but on the authority of the case cited re used to nonsuit, and stronglyrecommended some arrangement whiuch might put an end to litigation between theparties. The plaintifl1s' counsel proceeded to adduce evidence of the contents of the parcel, and of te payment of some of the notes; which, from the dificulties attendant on the ease, must have led to a great pro- lixity of proof applicable to eachnote; but at length it was an. nounced, that the parties had areed to compromise for 70GL, and the jury, by consent, found a verdict for that sum. COURT OF-KINGS-R7ni.t . . ,