Court Of Common Pleas, Mo...
The Times, 1824-03-02T00:00:00

OI r. oergearit %o5ss stateu tuO ptaintt 's case. l ne action was brought br- the plaintiff'to recover damnages for as parcel of goo os lost tlhrough the carelessness of the defendants' uerants. The plaintilY was a Prussian Jew, t-esidlng at Nottinglham, and the defendants sere well-known coach proptietors, and owners of thle Swan-with. Two-Necks, in Lad-lane. Jacob Elias deposed, that in tbe month of July, 182S, and for sme time previous, he ha-l-lodged in the hoase of the plaintiff, ia ottingham. Thc plaintift' was a dealer in jewellery. On the 21st of July, thc witnless assisted the plaintiff to pack up several articles of. jewellery in a trunk, which the plain- ti ffstated he intended to send to London. The witness enumerated, varnas articles which he remembered to have been packed up in the trunk, and which alrogethir amon3nted in value, In Iiis opinion, to between 8001. and 9001. On the folldwing morning-namely, on the 22d of July.-the witness and the plaintiff proceeded in the Tirmes conchs fromt Noffingham- to Corentry, carrying the trunk with the-n. At Coventry, the 'pliirtiffbooked the trunk to proceed to Londdn by the IlIlon coach, and paid two.pence for the booking. The trunk vas directed to Mlr. Isnsell. No quwstim was asked respecting the value of the trunk by the person who booked it. Several rhanufact&rers of watches and jewellety were examined, who proved that the plaintiff was in the habit of dealing with them to a large amount, and that about the month of July last he had made considerable pttrchases of stock. HSyan Hansell, stateds that on the evening of the 22d of July, a porter in thc service of the defendants caUed at his house and stated, that he had, loat a trunk, which was directed to the wit. ness. In answer to some -questions from the witne-s the porter stated that he had left the cart-in which the trunk was placed stand. ing near the Mint whilsthewent t inquire the nameof a street, and that *hea he retutned he found the trunk gone He had expected a trunk, containing valuable property, from the plaintiff. He there- fore wro;e to the plaintiff, and ascertained that the trunk which had heenlost was that which he had, ecpected. Ithad never been found. 11r. Sergeant VAuoGXTAi, for the defendants, stated that his clients rested their defence on two grounds-first, that the plaintiff's claim was founded in fraud; he having been privy to the Abstraction of the trunk fromi the defendant's cart ; secondly, that he was not enrtitled to recover his loss, because he had received notice from the defendants that they would not be answerable for any parcels or packages above the value of 51., unless they were insured in propor. tion to their value. Evidence was called in support of the alleged fraud, but it was so extrcsinelvinconclusive, that we tbink it unnOcessary to report, more par.tiiclarly as the jury, at ft subsequent stage of the Proceed- ings, "xpressed an opinion that the plaintrff's case was untainted by fraud. To prove that theplaintiff was aware of the regulation of the defendants niot to carry parcels in value above 51., unless t'.ey were paid for accordinz to their amiount, -.- (Green, a porter at the defendants' coach-office in Bir. mingham, proved tbat a board was affixed to the side of the door, on whi4h it was stited thisi the defendants would not be answerable fot any parcels, unless under the circumstarlcrs above mentioned. The plaintift had frtquently booked parcels at -Birmlnghb&. Joseph Waterhouse, a brother to one of the defendants, and a clerk in the coach.office in, Lad-lane, prdved that when the plaintiff came there to inquire after the trunk, he admitted that he knew he ought to-have insured it a higher rate, but said that the profits of his bu=iness were so srnall, that he could not afford to do so. The LonD CsIEsp JusTircz, in Ihis address to the Jury, said, that the first questton. for thr consideration was, whether there had been gro.ssuegligence on ebepart or the deTendants' servants: for even if they should be of opinion that he plaindiff was aware of the ne. cessity of pavingrmore than two-pence on the booking orthe trunk, he woruld b;e stiU entitled - to recover, if it shoefd appear that there had been a sat of auEficiepe care on the part of the persons in- the empinyrneYt -of the defendants. If the jury shoulld be of opInion that tberc had been a wantof sufficient eare on the part of thie- defendants' servants, the plaintiff w ould be ent tled lo their verdict;- and the only point then to be dis. posed-of would be, the amount of damages, which it would be for them to determine.. The jury, after being absent fnrns Court for half an hour, re- turned; and delivered avig-Y for the plaintiffi_Damages 2501. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. )o,,nAv. IfAnc. l EARTZ V. IVATUtltOUSE_ AND CO.