290 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



mail, parcels for which were 

 booked at the Crown-inn. Farrar 

 agreed to send his boy, but re- 

 fused 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 accord- 

 ingly to Scott's the Crown-inn, 

 at Borough- biidge, where he 

 paid 'id. for booking, and 2^. 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 wei'e 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 coach- 

 office at Borough-bridge, that the 

 proprietors would not be respon- 

 sible for any parcels delivered to 

 their care above the value of 5/. 

 unless insured accordingly. Ro- 

 binson 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 charac- 

 ters. 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 notioe- 

 The object of sending parcels 

 like this by coaches was, to avoid 

 heavy postage, which was charg- 

 ed 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 sum- 

 ming up, observed, that' the 

 object of these notices by car- 

 riers 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 knoAvledge 

 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, 200/. 



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., 



