« AnteriorContinuar »
than come before the Court, and rative of a forced Journey through coming for the reparation of his Spain," &c. in which his Lordship fame, will the Court deny him introduces the name of the plainthose means which are necessary tiff in this action, stating, that on to him for the purposes of bringe his arrival at a certain village, he ing the person who has assailed (Lord Blaney) was surprised to his character before the tribunal see, among other persons, the of justice? It was the duty of Duke of Sorentino, (mentioning Count Woronzoff towards himself him by one of his inferior titles), to apply to the Court for redress, whom he had formerly met at Lord and it is the duty of the Court to Nelson's: at which time he was grant him the effect of his appli- partner in a faro bank, and a col. cation. There are a great number lector of modern antiques; that he of anecdotes in this work, which disposed of them to young tramay be entitled to a greater or less vellers who wished to acquire the degree of respect; but the repre- characters of cognoscenti, and as sentation I have pointed at is not the Marquis always introduced of doubtful effect. It is a hardy them with a long harangue, he and calumnious inference which was represented as very successful; the party chooses to draw. It that he (Lord Blaney) had bought states that Count Worouzoff had some of them, which, though at the baseness while his sovereign the time he wrote they were more lived (and it was material to ancient than when he bought them, him to have her favour) to as- he would willingly sell for less sert her innocence, but that he than prime cost; that the same departed from the assertion as soon Duke had been obliged, in haste, as she was dead, and he could ex- to quit Palermo, having been pect no further advantage from openly detected in cheating in his her; that he admitted her to be Lordship’s presence at Sir W. Hacriminal, considering that one milton's, and that afterwards he crime more would not be much, (the Duke of Sorentino) had been where there were so many. It is turned out of the English fleet by an imputation of that sort of base. Lord Keith, strongly suspected of ness which, independent of the being a French spy. The book truth or improbability of the other went on to state that Lord Blaney, passages, warrants Count Woron- in the course of his forced journey, Zoff in his application to the Court, meeting with the Duke and warrants the Court in saying, tino again, knowing him to be an that his application ought not to entertaining fellow, from whom be made in vain, The Court can- he might derive information, his not discharge its duty to the pub- Lordship determined to overlook lic without making this rule abso- the slight blemish of the Duke's lute.-The rule was made absolute being a professed swindler, who, accordingly.
on this renewal of their acquain.
tance, had adverted to the affair at Le Duc de Sorentino v. Lord Palermo, and treated it as a mere Blaney.--The defendant is the au- bagatelle. His Lordship then pro, thor of a work, entituled, “Nar. cceded in his work to notice the
removal removal of the plaintiff from Italy, founded him with an Italian Count, his marriage with a Spanish lady,' who had been so guilty, and exhis attachment to the French au- pelled the city in consequence, and thorities, and his acquisition of that he could establish his innoproperty near the village in Spain, cence of all these offences laid to where his Lordship had then-ar- his charge, by many witnesses. rived. For this libel the Duke de The letter concluded in these words, Sorentino brought the present ac- " I know well the honour and the tion.
character of a Peer and an EnglishThe Attorney General, in open- man, and I am persuaded that I ing the case, reprobated the man- risk nothing by referring to your ner in which the writers of modern Lordship the manner of doing me travels frequently attacked the justice, and of effacing the imcharacters and conduct of persons pression occasioned by an attack with whom they became acquaint- as outrageous as it is unjust." ed. In this instance there was Such being the sentiments of his not a syllable of truth in the as- client, and being aware of the sertions of Lord Blaney; and as disposition of the noble defendant the statement was circulated on to make every reparation, the Atthe Continent soon after its pub- torney-General abstained from lication, it became important to the making those remarks upon the Duke de Sorentino to give it a di. libel that, under other circumrect, positive, and public contra- stances, he should think it well diction; such was his motive for merited. this proceeding. As early as pos- Before any witnesses were called, sible he addressed a temperate but Mr. Scarlett, on behalf of Lord firm letter to Lord Blaney, charg- Blaney, expressed his readiness to ing his Lordship with having en- admit all the facts necessary to tirely mistaken the individual, de- entitle the plaintiff to a verdict. claring that he had never disposed Lord Blaney was as sensible as the of any antiques excepting two Duke of Sorentino of the injury gems, which had been sold after- he had done, and was, if possible, wards in England for 7501. to more anxious that it should be reMr. Payne Knight, and for which paired. As soon as he was conhe took others in exchange; that vinced, by the letter of the plainhe had never been turned out of tiff, of the error into which he had the English feet as a French spy; fallen, he stopped the sale of his on the contrary, that he had been work, published a newandamended treated with the utmost attention edition, with an advertisement by Lord Nelson, at whose house stating his reasons, and doing jusat Merton he spent some time, tice to the plaintiff. As a nobleand referring to the wounds he man and a soldier, Lord Blaney bore, as ample proof of his enmity did not think it now unbecoming to France ; that the terrible impu- to make an apology by his Counsel, tation which made him shudder, and to express his sincere regret that he had been detected in cheats at the unintentional mistake; it ing at Palermo, was wholly false; was impossible to say a single and that Lord Blaney had con word in justification of the false assertions he had made in his when he went out he was not work.
sure that he even shut the door ; The Attorney-General, for his the key was found in it, the declient, expressed himself satisfied fendant went into the room after with the apology, and as the ob- the plaintiff went out, and put ject was only the vindication of out the candle, which he had left character, a verdict was taken for burning: the defendant did not obthe plaintiff.-Damages 40s. serve then whether the boxes were
there. Under these circumstances
the learned judge left it to the COMMERCIAL CAUSES.
jury, that an innkeeper was prima Burgess v. Clements. This was facie responsible for the goods of an action tried before Mr. Baron his guest ; but the guest might Richards, at the last Oxford As- discharge him from that liability sizes, by a traveller, against the by his own conduct, and left it to landlady of the Three Cups Inn, them whether the present plaintiff in that city, to recover the value had not done so : the Jury being of three boxes of Birmingham of that opinion, found their verdict trinkets, which the plaintiff va for the defendant. lued at 600l, or 700l. and which Mr. Jervis obtained a rule nisi were stolen from a room in the last term to set aside this verdict, inn, while the plaintiff was there and grant a new trial upon the as a guest. The facts of the case authority of the 4th Resolution in were these :- The plaintiff had Calye’s case, 8 Rep. 65, which been in the habit of frequenting declares an innkeeper bound in the defendant's house: there was law to keep his guest's goods and a common traveller's room, but chattels safe, without any stealing the plaintiff, on this occasion, or purloining ; and it is no excuse wished to have a private room, for the innkeeper to say, that he for the purpose of receiving cus- delivered the guest the key of the tomers, who might come to pur chamber in which he is lodged, and chase his wares, and asked for a that he left the chamber door open; particular room up stairs for this but he ought to keep the goods purpose. The landlady shewed and chattels of his guest there in him into a private room, the door safety.” of which opened into the gateway, After some pleadings, Lord Eland the windows of which could lenborough said, we cannot se. he looked into from the street: any ground for impeaching the she gave him the key of the room finding of the jury in this case, to lock it when he went out, and although the facts of the case might advised him to bolt the door: the have been commented on more at loss happened at night; the plain- large by the learned Judge than tiff had a candle in his room, but appears from this report, and he the curtains of the windows were might have availed himself more down. When the defendant's son decidedly of the rights of his own left him he was packing up his province in laying down the law. goods; he had been out two hours But the question is, whether the before the loss was discovered ; Jury have rightly exercised their province. An innkeeper is bound the admission of persons into the to keep the goods of his guest, room, upon whose approach and hospitandi, so that no loss eveniat access the landlord had no check. pro defectu hospitatoris. The Court This was evidence of an user of the did not mean to say that where inn for purposes aliene from those goods are stolen, it was not prima hospitandi, and it was hard to call facie evidence of defect of care on upon the innkeeper to protect pro. the part of the landlord ; but un: perty in a room used for these der circumstances, the landlord purposes. It appeared that the might no doubt be exempt; as in defendant advised the plaintiff to this, where the plaintiff's conduct bolt his door, for there were not only concurred, but induced strangers about ;' and after this the loss. Calye's case allows suspicion had been communicated that where the guest introduces to him, he was obliged to use dithe thief, the landlord shall not be ligence in protecting his own proanswerable. The questions in perty; ordinarily, a guest certhis case were, therefore, Ist, tainly had a right to rest on the whether the plaintiff took the protection of his landlord; but apartment animo hospitandi; and after the latter's fears expressed, 2dly, whether his own conduct and admonition given, he was did not conduce to the loss. Upon bound to use some degree of cauthe evidence it appeared that the tion himself.--Rule discharged. plaintiff asked for a particular room to shew his goods ; now a Halman v. Whitmore - This was landlord is not bound to find his anaction on a policy of insurance on guest exhibit-rooms for the pur- goods on board the Venus. The ves. pose of expanding his goods-he sel had been captured, and recapis not bound to provide shops, but tured, and the salvage and charges convenient lodging for his guests, which were incurred were sought The Court agreed with the case in to be recovered. The vessel belong. Moor, that the mere delivery of ed to a Dutch merchant of the name the key of a room would not dis- of Nolan, and the interest in the pense with the care and attention goods was averted to be in him. due from the landlord, and that At the time the insurance was efhe could not exonerate himself by fected, the Dutch were alien enemerely handing over a key to his mies; but a license had been proguest; but if the guest takes the cured for the voyage by a person key, it is a proper question for the of the name of Bin to the follow. jury, whether he has taken it ani- ing effect :-It was granted to C. ino custodiendi, and for the purpose Bin on behalf of different British of exempting the landlord from merchants for the ship Venus to his liability. Lord Coke also laid proceed with a cargo of certain it down, that if the guest's ser- specified articles to any port bevant, companion, or fellow-lodger tween the Texel and the Scheldt, rob him, the landlord is not lia- bearing any colours except the ble; and in this case the plaintiff French. Upon the construction called strangers together for the of this license as to whether it coa purposes of a show, and invited vered the interest of Nolan, at the
time an alien enemy, the question with this country, unless licenarose; and at the trial there was sed by the Crown ; but it was a verdict for the plaintiff, with also true, that the Crown could leave to the defendant to move to exempt any alien enemy from the enter & nopsuit.
disabilities put upon him by a Mr. Parke, Mr. Scarlett, and state of war. That in this case Mr. Barnewall, for the plaintiff, the government must have constated, that the rule had been ob templated that the cargo must at tained on the ground that the case some period belong to alien eneof Mennett v. Bonham, 15 East. mies; and it was not good policy 477, Flindt v. Crokett, 522, and to force the risk of conveyance to Flindt v. Scott, 525, governed this country and from it, to lie a this case; but since the rule was burthen on British subjects inobtained, these cases had been stead of alien enemies. They also overruled in the Exchequer cham- relied on the fact, that Sir Wm. ber by the unanimous opinion of Scott had, in this very case, orderall the Judges; the Chief Baroned the restoration of the ship and founding the opinion which he cargo when re-captured, on the delivered principally on the case ground that they were protected of Usparicha v, Noble, 19 East. by the license. The cases of Fien 332, and read Lord Ellenbo- v. Newham, 16 East. 197, and rough's judgment in that case Robinson v. Touray, and Maule as the strongest exposition of the v. Selwyn, were also cited. reasons on which the Court of Mr. Attorney-general and Mr. Exchequer founded their judg. Carr, for the defendants, contendment of reversal. He said he con- ed, that inasmuch as the Court of sidered it quite impossible to dis- Exchequer-chamber had founded tinguish the case of Usparicha v. itself almost entirely on the case Noble from the cases then before of Usparicha v. Noble, (which the Court. The learned Counsel had been questioned in this Court, then contended, that in those cases and if not denied, had at least the license was to a British sub, been qualified), the reversal in ject and others ; but in this case that Court could only be consider. it was to Bin, on account of dif- ed in the light of a contrary opiferent British merchants, which nion; and then they contended was much stronger in favour of that the decision in Mennett vi the plaintiff in this case. In those Bonham was the decision more cases, no ship was particularly consonant to the rules of law. designated; in this the ship was They did not deny that the Crown pointed out by name : in those had the power to license a trade cases the license was to the Baltic with an alien enemy, or for his generally, where there were some benefit; but they contended, that neutral ports; in this the tract of in this case the license did not country to which the license ex- convey any such privilege to the tended' was all that of an alien alien enemy; and Sir Wm. Scott enemy. It was undoubtedly law, had held, that unless there were that no alien, enemy could trade express words in the license au