« AnteriorContinuar »
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 bthese 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 cer. this 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 averred 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 serspecified 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 copurposes 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 a 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 Baron ed 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 considerit 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 aļien enemy; and Sir Wm. Scott enemy. It was undoubtedly law, had held, that unless there were that no alien, enemy could tride express words in the license au
thorising the traffic to be on ac- spoiled; and by writing libellons count of alien enemies, he consi- sentences on each of the notes, dered himself bound to construe defamatory of the credit of the them as confined to private sub Bank. jects, and not extending to alien Mr. Serjeant Best, who led the enemies.
prosecution, stated, that this was The Court were unanimously of one of the most malicious transopinion that the rule must be dis- actions which ever came before charged. The license was not å jury for their cognisance. It granted to any particular person ; was nothing less than a conspithe government must have cor racy between two persons to ruin templated that the cargo at some the credit of a respectable bank, . period must belong to alien ene. composed of a partnership of their mies. All that was necessary was, neighbours, from motives of most that some British subjects should ill-founded private malice. The have a beneficial interest in the means taken to effect this purpose adventure; that was satisfied in was stated in the indictment, first this case by the plaintiff's having by getting and buying op all the the advantage of being agent for notes of the Brighton Old Bank, the purpose of the export and im- and demanding payment. As soon port. This case might be decided as this was done, running about without at all touching the decia every where and getting again all sions upon which a difference of they could, and sending them in opinion existed. They considered for payment; and so daily contithe case, in point of principle, to nuing this practice for a length of come within that of Robinson v. time until they threw back upon Touray. But if a British subject the Bank, notes to a very serious had not any interest in the adven- amount. But inconvenient as this ture, either directly or iridirectly, might have been to the prosecutLord Ellenborough was then of ors, it did not stop here. By an opinion that the plaintiff would Act of Parliament, Country Banknot have been protected by the ers had a right to re-issue the license.
same stamp for three years ; but
these gentlemen, in a variety of The King v. Ilowell and Izard.- ways, so mutilated the notes they This was an indictment against returned upon the bank, that the the two defendants, who
are stamp was spoiled. The notes tradesmen at Brighton, for a con- could not be re-issued, and consespiracy to injure the Brighton Old quently the benkers were obliged Bank. The means to effect their to issue new stamps.
Another purpose, as stated in the indict- mode was to write defamatory ment, was to buy up their notes sentences on the back of others of and to carry them in, demanding the same notes, so that they could immediate payment; by muti- not be reissued without defaming lating and defacing the notes, so themselves. The jury would namuch that they could not be re- turally be led to inquire what issued, by which the stamps were could be the cause ci all this ma
lignity. It was nothing more than by Howell, Izard, and persons what was a cause with some minds, employed by them, some of which namely, that the bankers had pre- · were cut, others torn, others dirsumed to ask for their own; they tied and defaced, so as not to be had discounted a bill of 50l. for re-issuible; others again had Mr. Howell, which lay over due writing upon them injurious to' fortwo years, and when at last pay the credit of the bank; and it also ment was enforced, Mr. Howell being proved that the defendants declared, unless half of it was re- had declared they would so act turned, he would carry on eternal in concert, the jury found them war, and, as a prelude to hostili- guilty. ties, he said, he demanded a Bank of England note for a Brighton M kellar.v. Bellamy.--This was note, which he produced. From a bill filed against the defenthat time forward the system was dant to recover from him 4,9001. pursued which he had stated, and which he had invested in the the jury would say, whether they Bank in his own name, though would suffer a respectable person the plaintiff claimed it as his proto be ruined by so foul a conspi. perty. racy.
Mr. Clarke stated the particulars Mr. Wigney, the senior master of the case to their Lordships, and of the Brighton Old Bank, stated, said, that the plaintiff was a gentlethat they had discounted a bill for man who had considerable pro50l. for Howell, which lay at their perty in India, and when he came house for two years. He had ac. to England from his estate, he was commodated Howell from time to recommended to the friendship of time; and at last, in February, the defendant, Mr. Bellamy, who 1814, he told him his partners rendered him many services, such complained, that at every settle- as looking after his business ocment of accounts they found that casionally, and once or twice asbill unpaid, and that payment sisted him in furnishing a house, must be enforced ; in fact, the whereby he saved a considerable bill was paid by Izard two days sum of money; for all these serafterwards ; from that time their vices, Mr.M.Kellarexpressed many notes came pouring in daily. thanks, and one day as they were Howell, and three persons em- going together through Cheapployed by him, brought in to the side, the plaintiff went into a amount of 1000l. in the first ten Lottery-office, and there purdays, and shortly to the amount chased a 4th of a ticket, declaring of 10,0001. He once saw Howell at the same time that if it turned in the bank, after the 14th of Feb. out a prize worth dividing, the and had some conversation with defendant should have half, as him on the subject; Howell some recompence for the many said, if he gave him back half obligations under which he lay to the 501. it should be peace, if not, him. This share, however, turnwar; but he left the bank before ed out a blank, and Mr. M.Kellar the witness gave him any answer. declared it his intention to go on The clerks then produced the se- purchasing shares, until he should veral packets of notes brought in get some prize worth their divid
ing. He accordingly tried his this gentleman could claim this luck a second time, and again money. There was no contract failed. Shortly afterwards Miss nor consideration; and upon the Bellamy, the daughter of the de- same principle this gentleman fendant, dreamed that No. 5 was might have been made to go on drawn a prize of 20,000). This purchasing shares for 20 years, dream communicated to until he had the good luck to get M'Kellar, who was at that time a prize. Upon these grounds he in Scotland, upon business, and submitted that Mr. Bellamy had he wrote up to his wife to request not the smallest right to a single she would purchase a whole tic- farthing. ket, and at the same time to tell Mr. Dauncey, for the defendant, Bellamy to purchase a fourth of argued, that part of this money No, 5 with the money of the for- with which the ticket was bought mer prize, and to add as much as was the defendant's, and that it would accomplish that purpose was to his ingenuity the plaintiff from his own pocket.
owed his having got the prize ; Mr. Bellamy accordingly, the and he insisted that his repeated next day, repaired to Messrs. Ha- promises were quite sufficient to zard and Cô. but found that all compel him to divide this money. No. 5 was sold, and purchased a Their Lordships, however, de 4th of No. 27, which most cer- creed for the plaintiff. tainly was drawn a prize of 20,0001. Mr. Bellamy immediately wrote down to the plaintiff,
MISCELLANEOUS. telling him that all No.5 was sold, and that he had purchased a share Gas Light Company.-A special of No. 27, fully intending that if adjournment of the London Sesthe plaintiff had not liked that, sions was held before the Re and if it had been a blank, to have corder, Aldermen, &c. at Guildtaken it for himself ; but some- hall, for the purpose of trying a thing predicted to him that he question of considerable importought to multiply his daughter's ance to the scientific world, as number in itself, and add 2 to it, as well as the public at large. It standing for 20,0001., and thus he was
Indictment preferred got 27, which was a prize of against Frederick Sparrow and 20,0001. and the letter finished, William Knight, laid in May last, by saying, “ you are master of and charging them with a public 4,900l." observing that at that nuisance, but postponed to the time he did not consider that he present period. On this occasion, had any right whatever to it. The however, Mr. Sparrow only ap. next day, he went and lodged this peared in court as the defendant, money in the bank in his own Mş. Arabin stated the indictname, and he now refused to draw ment, which charged the defend, it out, and the money was accord- ant with a public nuisance, by ingly assigned over to the Ac. means of a certain manufactory countant-General in the name of of gas in Dorset-street, Salisbury, the action. He (the learned Coun- square. sel) would be glad to know how Mr. Gurney stated the case ta