LON 
moved to Conduit-ftreet, was either burnt or damaged. 
The fire, on the other fide of Mifs Starke's houf'e, commu¬ 
nicated to the houle and fiiop of Mr. Hurley, a grocer, 
which, with the contents, were confumed. Mifs Slarke 
lo(t every particle of her furniture and flock. She was 
juft on the point of fetting out for Brighton for the 
fumrner, with fuitable articles, all of which were in the 
lioufe. This fire is memorable as having been the remote 
caufe of the death of the celebrated Mr. Windham. With 
all the zeal of the friend and the fcholar, Mr. Windham 
exerted his utmoft to fave the valuable library and manu- 
fcripts of his abfent friend Mr. North : in the courfe of 
his exertions he received a blow upon his thigh, for which 
an operation was fubfeqnently deemed neceflary, and 
which was foon followed by his death. 
On the 10th of April, in the Court of King’s Bench, 
came on a trial at bar, before lord Ellenborough, fir Nafh 
Grofe, fir Simon Le Blanc, and fir John Bailey, to afcer- 
tain the right of gauging wines, oils, and other gaugeable 
matters, in the London Docks. The city of London 
claimed that right exclufively to themfelves, by virtue of 
a charter granted to them in the 10th year of the reign of 
Edward IV. which charter the London Dock Company 
infifted was confined to the city of London, and not co- 
extenfive with the fcite on which the London Docks are 
built. The emoluments derived from the exercife of the 
right contended for now amount to 70,0001. annually : 
at the time of the grant, they did not exceed 7000I. 
The Attorney-general, who conducted the fuit for the 
city of London (affifted by Mr. Garrow, the Recorder, 
Common Serjeant, and MefTrs. Dampier and Watfon), 
addrefled the jury at confiderable length. He admitted 
the words of the charter were intra civitatus, and thereby 
granted the right of gauging all gaugeable matters 
within the city but he would contend, that by thofe 
words the city and its liberties were comprehended, and 
that the right was not confined within the walis of the 
city. As a proof of that faff, the lord-mayor, who was 
the city gauger, was obliged to render an account upon 
oath into the exchequer of the moiety of all forfeitures 
accruing in the gauging of wine, oil, and all gaugeable 
matters, “ within the city of London and the liberties 
thereof.” The next queftion would be, whether the Lon¬ 
don Docks were fituated within the liberties of the city 
of London; and that they were, he faid, he fhould prove 
by innumerable witnefles. Indeed, the confervancy of 
the river Thames, the right of metage, and the bounda¬ 
ries of the port of London, were all liberties of the city, 
and extended over and much beyond the place in queftion. 
But he fhould alfo fhow that the right contended for had 
been uniformly exercifed for upwards of 300 years on 
both fides the river, from Blackwall upwards, and that 
the law and the practice were in his favour. The docu¬ 
mentary evidence was then read ; and a hoft of witnefles 
called to prove that the city gauger had uniformly exer¬ 
cifed his office on both fides the river Thames, as low as 
Blackwall, and near and about the fpot in queftion, from 
time immemorial. 
The defence was conducted by Mr. Serjeant Beft, aliifted 
by MefTrs. Park, Holrovd, and Bofanquet. The learned 
ferjeant, in his fpeech to the jury, faid, the attorney-ge¬ 
neral had left him very little to contend againft, as it was 
a mere queftion as to the conftrudion of the charter. 
The words of that charter were, to exercife the right of 
gauging all wine, oil, &c. “ within the city now if that 
was confidered, even as applying and extending to the li¬ 
berties oi the city, it muft mean to. trhofe defined liberties 
without the bars, and not be confidered as wandering 
from one extremity of the river Thames to the other. The 
fad was, that that right was originally exercifed only on 
the quays and wharfs within the city; but, the trade and 
commerce of the country increafing, and the population 
growing more numerous, other quays and wharfs were 
ereded, and for convenience-fake the city gauger was 
employed by the merchant; and hence he wandered on 
DON. 27 5 
both fides the river Thames in all diredions ; but he did 
not do that of his own right, or by virtue of the charter 
in queftion. The learned ferjeant concluded byobferving, 
that the London Docks were not within the defined li¬ 
berties of the city of London, and-confequently that the 
company had a right to employ their own gauger. 
Lord Ellenborough agreed with the learned ferjeant, 
that it was a queftion of conftrudion as to the words in 
the charter ; and he was of opinion they did not bear the 
meaning put upon them by the attorney-general, or that 
the right was co-extenfive with the London Docks. The 
jury found a verdid for the defendant; and the city of 
London loft the right contended for. 
The following trial is alfo of much importance fora 
large and refpedable dais of gentlemen generally inha¬ 
biting the metropolis; we mean the riders or travellers 
belonging to, and ading for, the different mercantile 
houfes in London and other places. It was a cafe which 
eftablifhed the fad, of landlords and innkeepers being an- 
fwerable for the property of their cuftomers, while under 
their roof; being an adion tried at the Hereford aflifes, 
before Mr. Baron Wood, the fads of which were as follow : 
—The plaintiff' had a rider in his employ, named Evan 
Jones, who left London in December, and in five days 
after arrived at an inn at Wrexham, in Denbighfhire, 
kept by the defendant. The inn being full, the rider was 
obliged to lleep in a three-bedded room, two of which 
were occupied by the defendant’s own family. The rider 
fwore at the trial, that on the morning of his arrival at 
Wrexham he had a pocket-book containing 400I. in bank¬ 
notes ; that, meeting with feveral of his Welfli friends, 
he drank freely, but was not intoxicated. On going to 
bed at night, he recolleded placing his waiftcoat in a chair 
by his bedfide, and the pocket-book was fafe. When he 
awoke the next morning, his clothes were there, but his 
pocket-book was gone; upon which he roufed the whole 
family, declared his lofs, and all joined in fearching the 
bed-chamber; but the pocket-book could no-where be 
found.—The defendant and his wife appeared extremely 
anxious that the pocket-book fhould be found, and ac¬ 
tually fent for a conltable to aflift in the fearch. 
In anfwer to this, the defendant brought all his Ter- 
vants and children to prove, that they never faw the poc¬ 
ket-book; and the judge fummed up in favour of the 
defendant, obferving, that it was a very hard law againft 
innkeepers, who were made liable for the fecurity of the 
goods of their guefts; and, unlefs the jury were fatisfied 
of the evidence of file rider, they would find for the de¬ 
fendant.—The jury, however, confulted together for forne 
time, and found a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, 400I. 
Mr. Jervis obtained a rule to fliow caufe why the verdid: 
fiiould not be fet afide, and a new trial had. Since the 
court granted the rule, the following extraordinary fad 
had come to light. The defendant had fallen into diftrefs, 
his goods were feized in execution, and a public fale ad- 
vertil'ed on the 29th of March ; on which day the auc¬ 
tioneer, in prefence of the perfons aflembled, put up for 
lale a bed and mattrefles, remarking, that it was the fame 
in which the young man had flept who loft the 400I. 
The lot was purchafed byaperfon, who joined in making 
an affidavit of the fact; and, to his altoniflunent and Tur- 
prife, between the two old mattrefles which were under 
the feather-bed, the loft pocket-book was difcovered, and 
the 400I. in notes within it.—Upon the knowledge of that 
faid, Mr. Jervis Tuggelted, if a new trial was not granted, 
that a Jlet procejfus fhould be awarded, and the defendant 
fpared from payment of the cofts. Mr. Jervis added, 
that the defendant was 1110ft interefted for his character, 
which had l'uffered by the verdict; and lie. contended-, 
that the rider, having gone to bed intoxicated, might, by 
the cunning Tome men poflefled in their intoxication, have 
hid the book between the niattrefies, and the next morn¬ 
ing loft all recollection of the faCK 
The chief baron admitted that it was a fort of aftion 
which required as much ftricinefs in proof as a trial for 
felony 5, 
