Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-01-30T00:00:00

w-s was an action by amercer-at Bath, against the aefendants, e 1rietors of one of the coschex r4ining between that cty and lan- On,to recover the valtie of a parcel containing silk of a consider. able value, trasinitted to J3ath by that conveyance, asd lost on the road. At tie trial before the Lord Chief Justice at Galldhall, it 'ppeared ttua the plaintiff, having been a istoomed to use the coach ,of the defendants for the carriage of his parceli to and from Londor, left thlem, to employ competitors on the road, who offered to take thzem at the rute of d. insktead 6f l,.t. per poqund ; -but was induced isin to empioy the defendlants oii their enFaging to carrv his par- ceoJ at thee reduced price he arcel in qtuteston was aelivered, like others, from s iafed,adPt -into' the boot of the coach ; but at Newvbury it wasdiscoeered that the staple had heen foreed,and that the parcel -asw e Itwasaltoproved, that in the coach-of- -ce a board was exhiited conedning a notice, int the usual terms, -that the propietors would be answerable for no package above the value Of l, unless entcred and pid -for accordingly a pnd that a Finlfflat notice was weekly inserteA in the Ra J'a,7url , to which the plrntitffwas a subscriber Iorderto fixthe defendant with alin. blltyf, notwithstanding their natice, it was contendetl-first, ibat they ) made a special rontract tocarry the parcels of AMr.Marsh safely,at *a1 events, and that thih was evidencetI by the conduct of Air. Ptck- with, one of their firm, on an occasion when a parcel wa,damaged, and.vhen, instcad of di,puting thediability, he requested the plain.. 1tti0 seU thegoods, antI send in ani account oftbedanmagc; secondly, ihat the defendants knew that this parcel was of greater valnethan . and having received -it without objection, waved their notice; and, lastly, that the defendants had been guiity of grosrk negligence in not securing the parcel. The l,ord Chief Justice left these three questions distincdy to the jury, and also'whether the plaintiff was aware of the notice ; on whicb they found that thtre was a spe- cir.i contract, and assivned as a reastin the condssct of 111w. Pick- with in reterence to tthe damage, that the defendants were acquaint- ed with the value of the parcel.;- that the plainciff wvas aware of the MOtice,, and that there was no gross neglect in the -defendants' ser- vants. The answer to the first ustion, rervieringtbe others for the linze imnlateria i, a verdict was irected for the plahirtifTI J1r. SCASRLETT now moved 1ora rule to-show -cause why there' lodd nQt be a new trial, on-the fround-tbat the findrtnon the frst point was not warrpnted- Sy the evidence; and on an affidavit explain- ing the conluct of Mit PJ.kwtth on the former occasion to be no ad. .mission of th labitity.al hia partnlers. S The CoUIT granted a snvile to shw cause, intimating to Alr. ;carlet that he must come prepared to discuss the effect of the knosrleage of the defendants .of the value of the parcel on the argu- meat of the rule. .PLICATIO, AOA1SST THE StARSSAAL O? THE Kt1 IG's BfENCHt PRTSONr. 3lr. CA.iAPELT. showed catise on behalf of iMlr. Jones, the Mlaishal of the iing's Bench Prison, against a rule caUing on himn to answer the matters contained in the petition of Mr. Dtffileld, a .Prisoner in his custody. The learned counsel said he felt it due to tlle chuaractar of the Alarshal to.read first the petition of the com- p Plainant, and then the affidvits which gave a full answer to his charges. The petition -tated, that on the 8th of October in the last Year, a person, named.John Jpcobs, was committed by the Alar"W, for notous and disorderly conduct, to Horsemonger-lane-gaol. 1ietbre- he went, he requested Mr.. Duflield to take charge of his-property, ioosisting of weaning-apparel ard furninure,. for whicb. nujno.e the -petitioner went to the room occupied by his fQien'. While there, ae was joined by two other persons, and aftervards t'O officers -came to the door, and clamoroiusly demanded admission. Think. ng tley hat no tight to intrude, he declined to open it, on' wthich they svent way, but soon return3,' burst open the dOor, and desired him to quit: the plaice. iHe requested per. Mistion to take an inventory of the goodx, but was refused, and the officers took possession. A messa4e was afterwards delivered to hium, requiring him to attend the Marsiat; but he declined, believing the message was a meretrick,espeallya the Alarsbal was scarcely ,ever in the prison at that hour. He was afterwardsbrought by fo-r-e before tdl. Jo,es. sent to the strongr unmfor,thenight, and the next day committed,fer a month to lorsemaonger-lanegaolt There he was placed in a solita2r' cell, damp, datk, asd without fire, and -contracted palas inm h6iS WVs from cold, till he was sent to the in- fimary by. she direction of the surgeori. Such wa& the charge: to which the Matshal answered, first by referring-to the orders made for the regulation of the prsoan in 1-759, under- the sanction of' the | Judges of the Coatrt, whicliemWpowered, the Marshal to comniit for *tiotouns and disorderly conduct, or-for possesig spirituous liquors thin thepnson. :His iffidtavi, th vit of thetwo persons ho were in tlte roon, that of a person who was near it, and that of -the two officers, qat forth that AIr. Jones directed the officers to go and take an imentozy of Jacobs' goods ; that they found th e door sshut, nd demnanded adatittance; that they returned tothe larshal, whlo ordered them to force .the door; that Mtr Duffield and the. Otlers were -plying at catds, and tJat a quantity'of gin was in the- rOO m; that he refised to go to the Alarsbal, and was taken by force: -aad that he condlucted hiself - in Eo violent- a manner, and wvith *uclr insolence, that- the peace rifthe prison :requiredt that lie shbould- be removed from its walLs. With respe;t to his treatment in the kdaol., the AMarshal staited that hekntew nothing res,pecting it, having 51t',Y cmmittcd hint, and left the mode of hiscoqnfifiernent to the hier pnd the visiting ragistrates. -Mi-. Duffiela addretscd thce Court in a long speech2 in- which he- hccUaedthe Marshial of .artialityanod oppressin, arnd'-.charged the wso-is whohbadrmadeafidavits agaihxstltim with'o bbegitools. rep Td interrupted, on the, ground that hisstatements -pre not founde on hhe ttin- and tbhist theftreforethe Mtllarshal -had no'meana rof'rpligtm ut he perseverid in representing -the coaducf of Ar oe snelsl cruel and unjust. The COs-JT dcaethi o.iio-that Mir. Jones wouldt have. beeni guilty of a becofdthahe abstained from commaittirng hIs'.Dthiffield. Ifh a utitday injury fr~im, the mode of him .cniemn n lthy regzretted it ; buteould *not visit it on the zlaa Te,tetfore, dismissed the chares I URT ING'S BENCH. T TT eon - s !ATSH V. MGRNE Afn n