APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



189 



witness owed to a Mr. Bannister^ 

 and he had been desii'ed to pay it 

 to his son. Mr. Oram was a rela- 

 tion of Mr. Bannister. Witness 

 had seen a public notice stuck up 

 in the office, relative to no parcels 

 being answei'ed for^ if lost, unless 

 entered and paid for accordingly. 



Mr. Baron Graham observed, 

 that this fact established a notice 

 of public notoriety. 



Mr. Seijeant Pell. — Tliat is my 

 case. The jjaicel never did come 

 to hand, although I cannot piove 

 it : but I take it that it remains 

 for the defendants to prove that it 

 did come to hand. 



Mr. Baron Graham. — Italways 

 forms ])art of tlie declaration that 

 it never did come to hand. 



The witness Laytham was then 

 called back and examined by Mr. 

 Seijeant Pell. Mr. Hathway, the 

 bookkeeper, told witness the par- 

 cel was never sent. He said he 

 was afraid it was mislaid, as he 

 had written to the proprietors of 

 the coaches to ascertain. 



Mr. Gaselee objected to this tes- 

 timony being received as evidence 

 against the defendants, in which 

 objection he was borne out by the 

 Court. 



Mr. Gaselee now submitted that 

 the action must fall upon two 

 grounds ; first, that Mr. Oram had 

 no ))ropcrty in it, as it was a debt 

 dueto Mr. Bannister ; and secondly, 

 that it had never got into tl>e pos- 

 session of Mr. Oram, as the con- 

 signee or consignor, neithei- had it 

 got into the possession of the de- 

 fendants. 



Mr. Baron Graham observed, 

 tliat it was presumed to be in the 

 possession of the defendants im- 

 niediately when it was delivered at 

 tlie coach -office. 



Mr. (iasclce, in reply, said it 



was a principle of sound policy that 

 the carriers should restiiit them- 

 selves as far as possible to their 

 liability ; and the only thing for 

 the jury to say would be, whether 

 Mr. Laytham, the plaintiff's agent, 

 had or had not a knowledge of the 

 manner in which the defendants 

 carried on their business at the 

 time he delivered the parcel. 



Mr. Baron Graham, in sum- 

 ming up the facts of the case, ob- 

 served, that the action was brought 

 for the non-delivery of goods j and 

 the defence set up was, that there 

 was such a puljlic notice put up in 

 the defendants' office, as not to 

 render them liable for the loss of 

 any parcel, unless it should be en- 

 tered and paid for as being above 

 the value of 5/. : and the question 

 was, whether the plaintiff had a 

 notice of that circumstance. The 

 evidence was, that Mr. Laytham 

 was aware of the existence of the 

 notice within a fortnight before, 

 and within a few days after the 

 17th of December; then what pos- 

 sibledoubt could the jury entertain 

 that the defendants had changed 

 their mode of doing business in so 

 short a time? The jury almost in- 

 stantly fouaid a verdict for the de- 

 fendants. 



CUMBERLAND ASSSIZES. 



August 19. 

 Hartley V. Harriman. — This cause 

 occupied the Court from its o])en- 

 ing at 9 o'clock on Tuesday morn- 

 ing, to about 20 minutes after .'3 

 in the afternoon, and excited con- 

 siderable interest. 



Mr. Scarlett said the plaintift" 

 is Milham Hartley, Esq. of Rose- 

 hill, near Wliitehaven, in this 

 county, and the defendant a geu- 

 tleman who has travelled nmch in 

 foreign parts, particularly on tlie 



conl incut 



