By F. A. Car ring ton, Esq. 



15 



" All persons that have occasion to travel from London to Marlborough in the 

 County of Wilts, or any place on that road, as Newbury, Hungerford, &c, or 

 thereabouts or from thence to London, may conveniently go by Coach every 

 Munday at the Post-house in Marlborough, and every Thursday at the Red 

 Lion in Fleet Street. By Onesiphorus Tap, Post Master at Marlborough." 



Ill the 2nd. vol. of the reports of Sir Bartholomew Shower there 



is a case of Lovett against Hobbs, [p. 127,] it is as follows: — 



" Case. Plaintiff declares for that Richard Hobbs 1 Nov., 31 Car. 2, [1679,] 

 and long before and after was and yet is a common Hackney Coachman, and a 

 common Carrier, as well of mens persons as of their goods and chattels in his 

 coach from the Boroughe of Marlborough to the city of London, and thence to 

 Marlborough pro merccde et stipendio, [for hire and reward,] to be paid for 

 persons and their goods ; and whereas the Plaintiff the day and year aforesaid at 

 Marlborough aforesaid had delivered to the Defendant one box in which were 

 several goods and chattels of the Plaintiffs to be carried from Marlborough to 

 the city of London, and safely to be delivered to the Plaintiff there, that the 

 Defendant afterwards viz. Nov. 1, aforesaid took his journey towards London, and 

 the 2nd of November performed his journey and came to London, but lost the 

 goods to the value of £60, and lays it to her damage of £100. Upon not guilty 

 pleaded, it came to the Salisbury Assizes before the then Mr. Justice Jones* 

 where upon evidence the case appeared that the Plaintiff was a passenger in the 

 Defendants coach, which is a stage coach, between London and Marlborough, 

 and the goods carried with him; upon which I being of counsel with the Defendant, 

 urged that this action lay not, for that a common coachman is but a new inven- 

 tion, and not within the common law or custom concerning common carriers. — 

 That this is not for the conveyance of goods but ofperso?is, and whatsoever goods 

 of passengers are by them carried, are still in the passengers custody, and they 

 remove them to their own chambers at nights in their Inns, and if this should 

 'hold where would it end. It might as well be brought for the rings on their 

 fingers or money in their pockets, which Highwaymen rob the passengers of. 



But the Judge was of opinion that if a coachman commonly carry goods and 

 takes money for so doing, he will be in the same case with a common carrier, 

 and is a carrier for that purpose, whether the goods are a passenger's or a 

 stranger's. The like of a waterman or Gravesend Boat which carries both men and 

 goods. 



Then we were obliged to give evidence of our coach's being full, our refusal 

 to carry them, that without our knowledge at first the Porter put up the box behind 

 the coach, which when we perceived we denied to take the charge of it. 



Which the Judge agreed to be a good answer, for if an hostler refuse a guest 

 his house being full, and yet the party says he will shift, &c, if he be robbed the 

 hostler is discharged." 



In conclusion I will refer to the ancient punishments in Marl- 

 borough. 



* Sir Thomas Jones a Judge of the Court oi' Common Pleas. 



