292 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1818. 



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 v?as sent by the plaintiffs, 

 stating that they would not be res- 

 ponsible for any parcel, &c. above 

 the value of 5l., unless entered 

 and paid for accordingljr. 



Perry, the porter of theplaintiffs 

 swore to the delivery of the box. 

 He received from the book- 

 keeper 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 im- 

 possible to believe that the 

 plaintiffs' porter was not unac- 

 quainted with the existence of 

 the notice ; and 2ndly, that the 

 defendants, or their servants, had 

 not negligently conducted them- 

 selves 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 Wliitfield, who swore 

 that a man of the name of Ben- 

 net 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 16.?. \d. for that pur- 

 pose, and promised to pay him 

 sixpence for carrying it to the 

 Half Moon public-house. The 

 witness went into the office ac- 

 cordingly, received and paid for 

 the parcel, stating, when asked, 

 that his name was Whitfield, and 

 that a person was waiting out- 

 side, 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 dis- 

 missed him, paying him only 3t?. 

 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 



