Court Of King's Bench, Gu...
The Times, 1824-04-14T00:00:00

l his was an action by the busband of a lady keeping an establish- ment for the education of youngladies at Claphain, to recover a sum of 101. Is. 8d., due for extras supplied to Mrs. Carey. while residing as a paTlour-boarder in theplainv.*'s institution. The defence sug- gested wat, that the items sltould be charged to the defendant's father. To prove the plaintift's case several young ladies of elegant ap- pearance were caaUed, one of whom, Mliss Du MAlont,, exhibited vio- lent agitation while in the box, and went into strong hystericks at thle close oF' her evidence. Two notes of .Mrs. Carey were put in by which she recognized the items as properly charged to her, and promised payment, which had been declined by her father. The LORD CITIEr JUSTICE thought these letters conclusively established the liability of the defendant, and directed the jury to iind for the plaintiff. The jury accordingly foutind a verdict for the plaintiff_Damages LOL Is. Sd. SIIAWE AND OTHERS V. PICTON. This wasan actionby the assignees of M5essrs. Howardand Gibbs, to recover a large balince a'deced to be due from the defendant, a clerKryman, to the firm of the bankrupts. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated the circumstances under wihich the action was brought. The defendant had succeeded to his brotlher (General Picton) in the right to receive several annuities which werepaid to floward and Gibbs. wh, acted in some respects as the bankers of their customers, paying their checks, and giving them a pass.book by which they were enabled to ascertain at any time the state of their account. Tle learnedAttorney-General then proceeded to open four several items of demand-the three first of wlhich were for considerable sums advanced by Messrs. Plaward and Gibbs, on the f ith of annuities which had not been paid, and two of which were marked " Not received" in the pass-book, and the last of which was for a large sum of money raised for a friend of the defendant. In the course of his address, having occasion to speak of an annity of Lord Alvanley, he described him as a nobleman of distinguished talents, wbo had unfortunately been entangled in ass- nuity transactions to a great extent, but who had now entirely de- livered himself from their trammels. The LonD CIIIEF JUSTICE suggested that the facts could not be so satisfactorily ascertained in court as before a private tribunal. This suzgestion was acied on, and the cause was referred to Mr. GASELEE, with liberty to raise any point of law on the face of his awrard. H ORDERNS AND ANOTHER V. DALTON. This was an action by the plaintifts, AIessrs. Hordern and lUolli- neux, bankers, at Dudley, in Worcestershire, against l lr. Dalton, the master of the post-office in that place, for damages arising from the breach of a special engagement, that all letters addressed to tbe plaintiffs should be put into a box appropriated for thepurpose,ready for delivery to their servants. 3M1r. TAUSETON stated that the contract on which the plaintiffs sought to recover was whlolly collateral to the general duty which the defendant was bound to perform. Someyears ago, theplaintiffls, being desirous of obtaining their letters earlser than the usual time of delivery, engaged with MIiss Driver, to whom the management of the office was intrusted, for a box into which the letters were to be placed, and for which half a guinea a year was to be paid. On the 7tl of Fcbrtary, a letter arrived from the correspondentsoftleDud- ley Bankl, containing a bill for2003., and a promissory note for 3401., which had been dlishonoared. This letter was by mistake put into the box of ilMr. Havdon and lay there tiU the Saturday, in conse- quence of which delay tie plaintiffs were deprived of the opportuni- tv of giving notice to the other parties on the securities, antIl were fxed with the wlhole loss. Had the negligence occurred in the re- gular discharge of the post-master's dutv, he would be protected by act of Parliament; but as it was on a special engagement, he was un- questionably liable. It was proved that the plaintiffs in 1815 contracted with Miss Driver for a box, or pigeon-hole, in which the letters addressed to them were to be set apart and reserved for their servants. In No. veniber, 1821 a bill for 2001., drawn by Henry Downing on an iron- master near ludlev, named Homblower, was paid into their bank, and about the same time a promissory note drawn bv Hornblower and made payable to Mlessrs. Hughes and Hordler for a.OL was paid in by a person named Burr, an endorsce, who had since become bankrupt. When this bill and note became due, which was on the same day,5th of Februarv,1822,thev were dishonoured, and wereen- dosed in a letter to the jlaintiffis by their agents in London. This letter was, by mistake, placed in the box of Mlr. Haydon, and con- sequently was not delivered till the 9th, on the eventing of which day Hornblovrer stopped payment^ Mlessrs. lordern ana Co. then sent notice br the post to Itr. Downing, who lived only at Hales, five miles distance, and personal notice wvas given to Alr. Burr. It ap- peared that h ornblower, Hughes and Horder, and Barr, were at the tinme in embarrassetl circumstances, and shortly after all be- camebankrupts. ItwasaLsoproved, thet if a letter had been ad- dressed to Burr, by thc post, on the 8th, it would not have arrived till the 9th, when notice was actually given. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that Burr actually had notice, as soon as he was entitled bv law to receive it; and Downing might have been apprised of the dislhonour on the 9th, by a special messenger. His lordship asled the jury whether they did not think the plaintiffs might have given notice in time? Tbe JuRY.-OOh yes, my Lord. mr. TAUNTON submitted, that the plaintiffs were not bound to take extraordinary trouble; and that it was enough for them to do a3l that was cast on them by law. The LoaD CUIEr JUSTICE stid, he was readv to submit the questi)n ot due diligence to the jury, if the learned counsel for the plaintiff's wished it, after the expression of opinion they had already given; but surely, when a man sought to charge aan ther with the fuill consequences of an accident, it wasrhisduty to show that he had donu all in his power to avert tlem. Besides, there was another very important point behind-whether this contract meant any thing more than tde payment of a Christmas-box for permission to use a pigeon-hole; and if thepostmastersallovertthe country were, on receipt of half a guinea or a guinea to become insurers to the cus- torners to t'ae extent, perhaps, of tbousands of pounds, they must cease to allow of a practice which was very beneficial to all concern- ed extensivelv in commercial transactions. Mr. TAUK'Tox declined pressing the case further; and theplain- tfF -was nonsuited. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, GUILDIALL. APtTT. 13. INESS V. CAREY AND WlF.