mail, parcels for which were booked at the Crown-inn. Farrar agreed to send his boy, but refused to be answerable for the safety of the parcel; Robinson answered, that that was not a matter of doubt; and the boy, named Sturdy, took it accordingly to Scott's the Crown-inn, at Borough-bridge, where he paid 2d. for booking, and 2s. 6d. for the carriage. The package arrived in London, but was there stolen by a clerk of the defendant, at whose lodgings the envelope was found.

These particulars were proved by Robinson, Farrar, and the boy Sturdy, called on the part of the plaintiffs.

Mr. Scarlett, who was for the defendant, cross examined them, as to their knowledge that a notice was posted in the coachoffice at Borough-bridge, that the proprietors would not be responsible for any parcels delivered to their care above the value of 5. unless insured accordingly. Robinson admitted that he had heard of the existence of such a notice in general, but not as applied to the Glasgow mail in particular. Farrar was not acquainted with it; and Sturdy, the boy, swore that he had seen none in the office, though it was admitted on all hands that it was pasted against the wall in large characters. He had never said that he had seen such a notice, but he had observed it since the loss of the parcel in question.

Mr. Scarlett, in his address to the jury, argued, that it was to be presumed that the agents of the plaintiffs were acquainted

with the existence of the notice. The object of sending parcels like this by coaches was, to avoid heavy postage, which was charged upon every single note; and if parties, for the sake of saving a little money, chose to run the risk, they must abide by the consequences.

Mr. Justice Abbott, in summing up, observed, that the object of these notices by carriers was, to do away with their common law liability; but they would still be responsible, unless it were shown that the notice had come home to the knowledge of the party transmitting. If the jury found that that knowledge existed in the present case, either in the plaintiffs, which was not contended, or in the agents they had employed to take the parcel to the coach-office, they would find a verdict for the defendant.

The Jury deliberated for some time, and at length returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, 2007.

MONDAY, JULY 6.

Sittings before Mr. Justice Abbott and a Special Jury.

Logan and others v. Willan and others. The following are the facts of this case as they appeared in evidence -- The plaintiffs (wholesale druggists in London) in Feb. 1816 received a letter purporting to come from a Mr. James Worthy, a dyer, of Exeter, with whom they had had some previous dealings; it inquired the lowest price of cochineal per lb.; an answer was sent by return of post, and the consequence was an order for

65 lb.,

65 lb., to be conveyed to Exeter as soon as convenient, by the Subscription coach, of which the defendants are proprietors. The cochineal was put into a small box, and addressed according to order, to "Mr. J. Worthy, Exeter." It arrived at the coachoffice of the Old London inn, Exeter, on Saturday night; and soon afterwards a person opened the office door, and without showing himself, inquired for the box according to the address, the sum due for carriage 16s. 1d. and whether he could take it away on the following day, Sunday? The answer was in the affirmative; and in the evening of the next day, a man of the name of Whitfield came to the coach-office, and producing the money for the expense of conveyance, asked for a box directed to Mr. J. Worthy. The book-keeper gave him the box containing the cochineal, and another parcel with a similar address, at the same time inquiring the man's name: he gave it without reluctance, adding, that a person waiting without had sent him for it. Whitfield went out of the office with both box and parcel, but afterwards returned the latter. The plaintiffs, when they sent the cochineal by the Subscription coach, wrote a letter to Mr. J. Worthy, by the post, advising of it, and enclosing an invoice; and they were very much surprised by receiving

an

answer from Mr. Worthy, that he had never given them any order for cochineal, or any other drug. One of the plaintiffs in consequence hastened to Exeter, and an inquiry was set on foot, when it appeared that a fraud had

was

been practised upon them, and that the order for the cochineal was a forgery. Whitfield was soon found, and he pointed out a person of the name of Bennet, as the man who had sent him into the coach-office for the box, and who had given him 16s. 1d. to pay for the carriage. Bennet immediately taken into custody, and before a magistrate Whitfield swore positively to his person: he, however, succeeded in establishing an alibi to the satisfaction of the magistrate, whọ admitted him to bail. None of the parties obtained any further intelligence respecting the cochineal, and Bennet was not prosecuted.

The present action was brought to recover the value of the box and its contents, 1147., on the ground that it had been lost in consequence of the negligence of the servant of the defendants in mis-delivering it.

After Mr. Marryat had stated the particulars above detailed, he called the clerk of the plaintiffs, who proved the value of the box. and the address put upon it, viz. "Mr. J. Worthy, Exeter." In this early stage, in answer to a question from one of the jury, his Lordship said, that he should hold, in point of law, that a common carrier discharged himself from liability, if he showed (in a case like the present, where the address of the box contained neither the abode nor business of the party) that he had delivered it at his own office, to a person whom he might reasonably suppose to be the individual, or to come from the individual, designated in such address.

The clerk of the plaintiffs, on cross-examination, denied that he was aware of the existence of a notice in the coach office of the defendants in London, where the box was sent by the plaintiffs, stating that they would not be responsible for any parcel, &c. above the value of 51., unless entered and paid for accordingly.

Perry, the porter of the plaintiffs swore to the delivery of the box. He received from the bookkeeper at the Bull-and-Mouth a receipt, which the witness had written and the book-keeper signed. He admitted, on his cross-examination, that he had many times carried parcels, &c. to the inn; but he had never seen or been told of any board stating the limited responsibility of the proprietors of coaches until six months ago.

Mr. Knipe, one of the defend ants' principal managers, was called to prove that they were proprietors of the Subscription Exeter Coach.

Cross-examined.-He deposed that a very large board, on which was painted the notice of limited responsibility, was placed against the wall in the most conspicuous part of the coach-office; it had been there for the last 14 years, and a person delivering a parcel could scarcely avoid seeing it.

On the part of the defendants, Mr. Scarlett submitted two points to the jury: 1st, that it was impossible to believe that the plaintiffs' porter was not unacquainted with the existence of the notice; and 2ndly, that the defendants, or their servants, had not negligently conducted themselves in delivering the parcel at

Exeter to the individual who correctly described it, and stated that he came from the person to whom it was addressed. The first position he left upon the evidence already adduced on the other side; and to support the last he called

Thomas Whitfield, who swore that a man of the name of Bennet had accosted him near the Old London inn, at Exeter, and had asked him to go into the coach-office to receive a box addressed to Mr. James Worthy, and to pay for the carriage: he gave him 16s. 1d. for that purpose, and promised to pay him sixpence for carrying it to the Half Moon public-house. The witness went into the office accordingly, received and paid for the parcel, stating, when asked, that his name was Whitfield, and that a person was waiting outside, to whom he was about to carry it. When he left the office, Bennet walked a little way with him, but soon took the box into his own charge, and dismissed him, paying him only 3d. The witness was positive as to the person of the man, and swore to it before a magistrate.

The book-keeper at Exeter confirmed this story, as far as came within his knowledge. He admitted that he knew that there was a Mr. J. Worthy in the town: his parcels were usually delivered at his dye-house.

Mr. James Worthy deposed, that he had never ordered the cochineal of the plaintiffs, but that, for the purposes of fraud, some person had employed his

name.

Mr. Justice Abbott left the two

points of fact stated by Mr. Scarlett to the jury, and went over the whole of the evidence given on both sides.

The jury retired to deliberate; and in an hour and a half brought in a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF CHANCERY, wednesDAY, JULY 15.

Marriage Settlement.

Kennedy and others v. The Earl of Cassilis and others.-This was an application to dissolve an injunction. The facts connected with it were as follow:-Lord Kennedy, the eldest son of the Earl of Cassilis, paid his addresses, towards the latter end of the year 1813, to Miss Ellen Allardice, a young lady, at that time 17 years of age, residing in Aberdeen, and heiress to a very considerable property-30,000l. in Bank stock, and landed estates in Scotland to the amount of between 3 and 4,000l. a-year. Lord Kennedy was then 19 years of age; and his addresses having been encouraged by the young lady, as well as her mother, with whom she lived, he communicated his wishes on the subject to his father, who resided in London. The mother lost no time in informing Mr. Innies, one of her daughter's guardians, and he in consequence came to London, for the purpose of making with the Earl of Cassilis the proper arrangements previous to the marriage. The Earl of Cassilis constanly professed that money was no object either with himself or his son. It happened, however, that there were many diffi.

culties in the way of a final settlement. Various sets of propositions were made by Lord Cassilis, none of which were agreed to by Mr. Innies. The last set of propositions made by the Earl of Cassilis, declared that Miss Allardice should have 1,000l. a year, during the marriage, to her sole and separate use-that if she should survive Lord Kennedy, this annual sum should be increased -that her mother's (Mrs. Allardice's) jointure should be increased from 600l. a year, which it then was, to 1,000l. a year; and that the house in Aberdeen should also be settled upon her. It was proposed that 1,500l. of the Bank stock should be applied to purchase lands, in order to produce the 1,000l. a year for the sole and separate use of Mrs. Allardice; and that the remainder of the real and personal property should be settled on the issue of the marriage. While these propositions were under the consideration of Mr. Innies, Lord Kennedy was in Aberdeen. It was now about the end of April, 1814. He was anxious to hasten his marriage with Miss Allardice: he told her of the propositions which had been made; he himself believed that all the necessary deeds were in preparation, and, as the lady was perfectly satisfied with the propositions, she was prevailed upon to marry Lord Kennedy, and accordingly the marriage was solemnized on the 1st of May. Some time after this, a marriage settlement was made, which varied very considerably from the propositions, particularly with regard to the 1,000l. a-year to Lady Kennedy's

sole