{ 



188 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1817. 



ant to show that notice had been 

 given ; then he should appiehend, 

 that as the man who took the arti- 

 cles could neither read nor write, 

 the mere notice stuck up in the 

 office could not be considered a 

 sufficient notice to him; and if 

 such a defence was set up, he should 

 fortify himself against it, by prov- 

 ing the man who took it could 

 neither read nor write. 



The plaintiff's daughter, and 

 John Clark, his servant, proved 

 the facts of the case. 



Mr Baron Graham then pro- 

 ceeded to sum up the evidence, in 

 doing which he observed, that the 

 defence set up was, that as a mat- 

 ter of public notoriety, there were 

 notices stuck up in the office ; and 

 the question for their consideration 

 would be, whether they could from 

 these notices draw such an infe- 

 rence as would warrant them in 

 saying, that the plaintiff had a suf- 

 ficient knowledge of the terms of 

 the notices ; for if they should be 

 of opinion that he had a sufficient 

 notice, then in that case the respon- 

 sibility of the defendant would be 

 qualified ; but upon that point they 

 were to exercise tlieir best judg- 

 ment. Befoi'e they said that the 

 defendant was liable, they must be 

 convinced tliat he came into the 

 possession of the articles ; and to 

 he sui'c there was but one witness 

 who spoke to that fact. The cir- 

 cumstances of the notices were not 

 of a very strong descrijition, be- 

 cause the man who took the goods 

 could neither read nor write. With 

 regard then to Mr. Rouquet having 

 received and known the terms of 

 the notice, it must be supposed 

 from his condition in life; and his 

 having sent by the waggon before, 

 it might be fairly inferred tliut he 



must have had a knowledge of the 

 notice. At the same time, if the 

 jury should infer upon any fair 

 ground that the parcel was deli- 

 vered, and that it was lost, and 

 that Mr. Rouquet had not ar eason- 

 able information of the notice, then 

 they would find a verdict for the 

 plaintiff. — Verdict for the plaintiff. 

 Damases — 29/. 



NON-I-IABILITY OF CARRIERS. 



Oram v Fromont and Others. — 

 In this action the plaintiff sought 

 to recover the sum of 13/. i.6s. 

 and the value of four shawls, in- 

 trusted to the defendants, as com- 

 mon carriers, to be conveyed to 

 Trowbridge. 



Mr. Serjeant i'ell, in stating the 

 case to the jury, observed, that 

 under the decision of Lord Ellen- 

 borough, who iiad ruled as follows, 

 " the law is imperative, that a 

 proof of the notice of the contract 

 to tlic plaintiff nuist be adducc-d 

 before the carrier can lie exone- 

 rated from his liability to the loss," 

 the plaintiff would be entitled to 

 the verdict of the jury. 



Mr. Richaid Stanley Laytham 

 being called, stated that on the 

 17th of December last he took a 

 parcel to the White Hart coach - 

 office, in Broad-street, in this 

 city. It contained 13/. IGs. in 

 cash, and was wi'apped up in four 

 shawls, which were worth abotit 

 30*. It was directed to INIr. James 

 Oram, Trowbridge. Witness paid 

 2d. for booking it. Of his own 

 knowledge he did not know whe- 

 ther the parcel reached its des- 

 tination or not. It was between 

 7 and 8 in tlie evening when he 

 took it to the office. 



Cross-examined by Mr. Gaselee. 

 — The 13/. IGs. was a debt which 



witness 



