« PreviousContinue »
leaves the box, there is an end of all questions to 1816. his competency. After he has gone through his examination, and the defendant's counsel has heard BEECHING
and Others all he has sworn, and has it in his power to use his evidence in his favour if it be beneficial to him, GOWER it would be gross injustice, when his testimony is closed, to take an objection to his competency. I admit that, in the progress of a witness's examination, an objection may be taken at any time; but wben he has left the box his competency cannot be attacked.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Blossett, serjeant, and Taddy, for the plaintiff.
Best, serjeant, and Gaselee, for the defendant.
The parties in the former reached Maidstone at 9 o'clock cause were plaintiffs. This was on the 7th ; but the Maidstone likewise an action for money Bank did not open that mornhad and received. The de. ing. If it had been sent by the fendant paid the plaintiffs a post of the 6th, it would have check of 201. drawn on the reached Maidstone at an hour Maidstone Bank on the 5th of earlier (viz.) at eight o'clock April. It was given to the in the morning of the 7th. plaintiffs at the time of Tun Best, serjeant, for the debridge market; and they gave fendant, contended that the their own notes in exchange. plaintiffs had been guilty of It was given some time before laches. the post set out on the 5th. Blossett, serjeant, for the The plaintiffs kept it all the 5th plaintiffs, contrà, relied on and 6th, but sent it to Maid- Rickford v. Ridge, 2 Campb. stone by the carrier on the 537. morning of the 7th. The carrier GIBBS, C. J.—The plaintiff's
1816. cannot recover; they have been 7th. It does not matter when
guilty of laches. I will not the carrier arrived; they must BEECHING say that it was not their duty suffer for their negligence. and Others to have sent the check off by
Plaintiffs nonsuited. the post of the 5th; but the Blossett, serjeant, and TadGOWER.
extreme time up to which they dy, for the plaintiffe.
GOUGER V. JOLLY.
HIS was an action against a common car Thongth a
rier, brought to recover the value of a par- by law, limit cel of silk, which had been lost in the convey- biity, a notice ance from Evesham, in Worcestershire, to Lon- of certain lidon.
his general liability, sus
pended at the The plaintiff had employed a person of the name termini
journey, will of Shenstone, at Evesham, as a throwster: it was not attach up
on the delivery his duty, by contract, when the silk was fit to be of goods at inused, to send it up to London ; and he was to pay places, where the carriage. The defendant was the proprietor no such no
tice is given. of a waggon travelling between Worcester and London, and passing through Evesham. At Woreester a notice was publicly suspended in the office, by which the defendant professed that he would not be responsible " for cash, jewels, lace, silk, &c. however small the value, unless the goods were specified, and entered as such ; a special agreement made for the carriage of the same, and a premium paid accordingly." In the London office a notice was suspended, in its general effect similar, but differing in many particulars from the one at Worcester. There was no notice put up at the receiving house at Evesham; and the silk was taken in, and the carriage paid, in the ordinary manner.
Onslow, serjeant, and Richardson, for the defendant, made an objection, that the defendant, ag carriers were by law permitted to do, had limited
his responsibility: he says he will not be answerable for “ silks,” unless specified, entered, and received upon a special agreement. He gives this notice publicly in his offices at Worcester and London. This was not an Evesham waggon, but a Worcester waggon. It is sufficient if the notice be made public at the termini of the journey. No case had determined that a notice was necessary at every public-house on the road where goods were received.
Shepherd, S. G. contrà.
GIBBS, C. J. The carrier is responsible, unless express notice be brought home to the plaintiff. But a notice of certain limitation upon his general responsibility, suspended at bis offices in London and Worcester, will not attach upon the delivery of goods at an intermediate place, where no notice is stuck up. Goods delivered at such places come under his general responsibility; and he is answerable for their loss. It has been holden by Lord Kenyon, that notices at the termini of a journey were not sufficient to protect carriers with: respect to goods taken in at intermediate receiving houses. His Lordship added, that carriers should be cautious that their notices corresponded in all places where they were affixed, or their liability would be affected by a variance.
Shepherd, S. G. and Comyn, for the plaintiff.
Onslow, serjeant, and Richardson, for the defendant.
A variety of case
has esta auswerable for certain specified blished, that notices of the kind articles, or any other goods of stated in the text are binding
what nature and kind soever, upon the public. The cases above the value of 5l. if lost, are indeed almost too familiar stolen or damaged, (unless a to be eited, Clay v. Willan, 1 H. special agreement was made, Black. 298. Izett v. Mountuin, and a premium paid at the 4 E. R. 370. Nicholson v. Wil time of delivery,) was held lan, 5 E. R. 507. Indeed, in not to extend to goods which, a very old case, Kenrick v. did not fall within any of the Eggleston, Aleyn 93, it was specified articles; and which, decided that the liability of a
from their bulk and quality, carrier might be restrained. communicated to the carriers
The exemption of carriers, at the time of their delivery, by reason of notices of this must have been known to exsort, has been carried to its ceed the value of 51. utmost extent; and the present Such notices, therefore, disposition of our courts of though in their terms made justice is to curtail it. It can to extend to any goods of what not indeed be supported upon nature and kind soever, (which any other ground than that a is now the general teror of carrier, who obtains a small such notices suspended in the reward only for the carriage of office of carriers,) cannot be goods, should not be held liable indefinite, but must be conto a large amount.
strued with reference to the Carriers, therefore, are ex subject matter, and to cases empted from liability where where the carrier has no means the goods are of a much larger of knowing what is the nature value, than, from a knowledge of the goods committed to his of their bulk and quality, they care, Down v. Fromont, 4 could possibly guess them to Campb. 40. be : but this exemption does 2. A carrier cannot stipunot apply to goods of a large late for exemption from the bulk and known quality,where consequences of his own misthe value must be obvious. conduct; and is, at all events, Therefore, io a recent case, liable for damage arising from Beck v. Evans, 16 East gross negligence. If goods, 214. it was determined, that therefore,
are entrusted to a public notice given by car him, and he is guilty of any riers, that they would not be misfeazauce, or gross neglect,