Page images
PDF
EPUB

province. An innkeeper is bound to keep the goods of his guest, hospitandi, so that no loss eveniat pro defectu hospitatoris. The Court did not mean to say that where goods are stolen, it was not prima facie evidence of defect of care on the part of the landlord; but under circumstances, the landlord might no doubt be exempt; as in this, where the plaintiff's conduct not only concurred, but induced the loss. Calye's case allows that where the guest introduces the thief, the landlord shall not be answerable. The questions in this case were, therefore, 1st, whether the plaintiff took the apartment animo hospitandi; and 2dly, whether his own conduct did not conduce to the loss. Upon the evidence it appeared that the plaintiff asked for a particular room to shew his goods; now a landlord is not bound to find his guest exhibit-rooms for the purpose of expanding his goods-he is not bound to provide shops, but convenient lodging for his guests. The Court agreed with the case in Moor, that the mere delivery of the key of a room would not dispense with the care and attention due from the landlord, and that he could not exonerate himself by merely handing over a key to his guest; but if the guest takes the key, it is a proper question for the jury, whether he has taken it animno custodiendi, and for the purpose of exempting the landlord from his liability. Lord Coke also laid it down, that if the guest's servant, companion, or fellow-lodger rob him, the landlord is not liable; and in this case the plaintiff called strangers together for the purposes of a show, and invited

the admission of persons into the room, upon whose approach and access the landlord had no check. This was evidence of an user of the inn for purposes aliene from those hospitandi; and it was hard to call upon the innkeeper to protect property in a room used for these purposes. It appeared that the defendant advised the plaintiff to bolt his door, for there were strangers about; and after this suspicion had been communicated to him, he was obliged to use diligence in protecting his own property; ordinarily, a guest certainly had a right to rest on the protection of his landlord; but after the latter's fears expressed, and admonition given, he was bound to use some degree of caution himself.-Rule discharged.

Halman v. Whitmore.-This was an action on a policy of insurance on goods on board the Venus. The vessel had been captured, and recaptured, and the salvage and charges which were incurred were sought to be recovered. The vessel belong. ed to a Dutch merchant of the name of Nolan, and the interest in the goods was averred to be in him. At the time the insurance was effected, the Dutch were alien enemies; but a license had been procured for the voyage by a person of the name of Bin to the following effect:-It was granted to C. Bin on behalf of different British merchants for the ship Venus to proceed with a cargo of certain specified articles to any port between the Texel and the Scheldt, bearing any colours except the French. Upon the construction of this license as to whether it covered the interest of Nolan, at the

time

time an alien enemy, the question arose; and at the trial there was a verdict for the plaintiff, with leave to the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit.

Mr. Parke, Mr. Scarlett, and Mr. Barnewall, for the plaintiff, stated, that the rule had been obtained on the ground that the case of Mennett v. Bonham, 15 East. 477, Flindt v. Crokett, 522, and Flindt v. Scott, 525, governed this case; but since the rule was obtained, these cases had been overruled in the Exchequer chamber by the unanimous opinion of all the Judges; the Chief Baron founding the opinion which he delivered principally on the case of Usparicha v. Noble, 13 East. 332, and read Lord Ellenborough's judgment in that case as the strongest exposition of the reasons on which the Court of Exchequer founded their judgment of reversal. He said he considered it quite impossible to distinguish the case of Usparicha v. Noble from the cases then before the Court. The learned Counsel then contended, that in those cases the license was to a British subject and others; but in this case it was to Bin, on account of different British merchants, which was much stronger in favour of the plaintiff in this case. In those cases, no ship was particularly designated; in this the ship was pointed out by name: in those cases the license was to the Baltic generally, where there were some neutral ports; in this the tract of country to which the license extended was all that of an alien enemy. It was undoubtedly law, that no alien enemy could trade

with this country, unless licensed by the Crown; but it was also true, that the Crown could exempt any alien enemy from the disabilities put upon him by a state of war. That in this case the government must have contemplated that the cargo must at some period belong to alien enemies; and it was not good policy to force the risk of conveyance to this country and from it, to lie a burthen on British subjects instead of alien enemies. They also relied on the fact, that Sir Wm. Scott had, in this very case, ordered the restoration of the ship and cargo when re-captured, on the ground that they were protected by the license. The cases of Fien v. Newham, 16 East. 197, and Robinson v. Touray, and Maule v. Selwyn, were also cited.

Mr. Attorney-general and Mr. Carr, for the defendants, contended, that inasmuch as the Court of Exchequer-chamber had founded itself almost entirely on the case of Usparicha v. Noble, (which had been questioned in this Court, and if not denied, had at least been qualified), the reversal in that Court could only be considered in the light of a contrary opinion; and then they contended that the decision in Mennett v. Bonham was the decision more consonant to the rules of law. They did not deny that the Crown had the power to license a tradę with an alien enemy, or for his benefit; but they contended, that in this case the license did not convey any such privilege to the alien enemy; and Sir Wm. Scott had held, that unless there were express words in the license au

thorising

thorising the traffic to be on account of alien enemies, he considered himself bound to construe them as confined to private subjects, and not extending to alien enemies.

The Court were unanimously of opinion that the rule must be discharged. The license was not granted to any particular person; the government must have cor. templated that the cargo at some period must belong to alien enemies. All that was necessary was, that some British subjects should have a beneficial interest in the adventure; that was satisfied in this case by the plaintiff's having the advantage of being agent for the purpose of the export and import. This case might be decided without at all touching the decisions upon which a difference of opinion existed. They considered the case, in point of principle, to come within that of Robinson v. Touray. But if a British subject had not any interest in the adventure, either directly or indirectly, Lord Ellenborough was then of opinion that the plaintiff would not have been protected by the license.

The King v. Howell and Izard.This was an indictment against the two defendants, who are tradesmen at Brighton, for a conspiracy to injure the Brighton Old Bunk. The means to effect their purpose, as stated in the indictment, was to buy up their notes and to carry them in, demanding immediate payment; by mutilating and defacing the notes, so much that they could not be reissued, by which the stamps were

spoiled; and by writing libellous sentences on each of the notes, defamatory of the credit of the Bank.

Mr. Serjeant Best, who led the prosecution, stated, that this was one of the most malicious transactions which ever came before a jury for their cognisance. It was nothing less than a conspiracy between two persons to ruin the credit of a respectable bank, composed of a partnership of their neighbours, from motives of most ill-founded private malice. The means taken to effect this purpose was stated in the indictment, first by getting and buying up all the notes of the Brighton Old Bank, and demanding payment. As soon as this was done, running about every where and getting again all they could, and sending them in for payment; and so daily continuing this practice for a length of time until they threw back upon the Bank, notes to a very serious amount. But inconvenient as this might have been to the prosecutors, it did not stop here. By an Act of Parliament, Country Bankers had a right to re-issue the same stamp for three years; but these gentlemen, in a variety of ways, so mutilated the notes they returned upon the bank, that the stamp was spoiled. The notes could not be re-issued, and consequently the bankers were obliged to issue new stamps. Another mode was to write defamatory sentences on the back of others of the same notes, so that they could not be reissued without defaming themselves. The jury would naturally be led to inquire what could be the cause of all this malignity,

lignity. It was nothing more than what was a cause with some minds, namely, that the bankers had presumed to ask for their own; they had discounted a bill of 50l. for Mr. Howell, which lay over due for two years, and when at last payment was enforced, Mr. Howell declared, unless half of it was returned, he would carry on eternal war, and, as a prelude to hostilities, he said, he demanded a Bank of England note for a Brighton note, which he produced. From that time forward the system was pursued which he had stated, and the jury would say, whether they would suffer a respectable person to be ruined by so foul a conspi

racy.

Mr. Wigney, the senior master of the Brighton Old Bank, stated, that they had discounted a bill for 50l. for Howell, which lay at their house for two years. He had accommodated Howell from time to time; and at last, in February, 1814, he told him his partners complained, that at every settlement of accounts they found that bill unpaid, and that payment must be enforced; in fact, the bill was paid by Izard two days afterwards; from that time their notes came pouring in daily. Howell, and three persons employed by him, brought in to the amount of 1000l. in the first ten days, and shortly to the amount of 10,000l. He once saw Howell in the bank, after the 14th of Feb. and had some conversation with him on the subject; Howell said, if he gave him back half the 50%. it should be peace, if not, war; but he left the bank before the witness gave him any answer. The clerks then produced the several packets of notes brought in

by Howell, Izard, and persons employed by them, some of which were cut, others torn, others dirtied and defaced, so as not to be re-issuible; others again had writing upon them injurious to the credit of the bank; and it also being proved that the defendants had declared they would so act in concert, the jury found them guilty.

McKellar v. Bellamy.-This was a bill filed against the defendant to recover from him 4,9001. which he had invested in the Bank in his own name, though the plaintiff claimed it as his property.

Mr. Clarke stated the particulars of the case to their Lordships, and said, that the plaintiff was a gentleman who had considerable property in India, and when he came to England from his estate, he was recommended to the friendship of the defendant, Mr. Bellamy, who rendered him many services, such as looking after his business occasionally, and once or twice assisted him in furnishing a house, whereby he saved a considerable sum of money; for all these services, Mr.M'Kellarexpressed many thanks, and one day as they were going together through Cheapside, the plaintiff went into a Lottery-office,

and there pur

chased a 4th of a ticket, declaring at the same time that if it turned out a prize worth dividing, the defendant should have half, as some recompence for the many obligations under which he lay to him. This share, however, turned out a blank, and Mr. M'Kellar declared it his intention to go on purchasing shares, until he should get some prize worth their divid

ing.

He accordingly tried his luck a second time, and again failed. Shortly afterwards Miss Bellamy, the daughter of the defendant, dreamed that No. 5 was drawn a prize of 20,000l. This dream was communicated to M'Kellar, who was at that time in Scotland, upon business, and he wrote up to his wife to request she would purchase a whole ticket, and at the same time to tell Bellamy to purchase a fourth of No. 5 with the money of the former prize, and to add as much as would accomplish that purpose from his own pocket.

Mr. Bellamy accordingly, the next day, repaired to Messrs. Hazard and Co. but found that all No. 5 was sold, and purchased a 4th of No. 27, which most certainly was drawn a prize of 20,000l. Mr. Bellamy immediately wrote down to the plaintiff, telling him that all No. 5 was sold, and that he had purchased a share of No. 27, fully intending that if the plaintiff had not liked that, and if it had been a blank, to have taken it for himself; but something predicted to him that he ought to multiply his daughter's number in itself, and add 2 to it, standing for 20,000l., and thus he got 27, which was a prize of 20,000l. and the letter finished, by saying, "you are master of 4,900l." observing that at that time he did not consider that he had any right whatever to it. The next day, he went and lodged this money in the bank in his own name, and he now refused to draw it out, and the money was accordingly assigned over to the Accountant-General in the name of the action. He (the learned Counsel) would be glad to know how

this gentleman could claim this money. There was no contract nor consideration; and upon the same principle this gentleman might have been made to go on purchasing shares for 20 years, until he had the good luck to get a prize. Upon these grounds he submitted that Mr. Bellamy had not the smallest right to a single farthing.

Mr. Dauncey, for the defendant, argued, that part of this money with which the ticket was bought was the defendant's, and that it. was to his ingenuity the plaintiff owed his having got the prize; and he insisted that his repeated promises were quite sufficient to compel him to divide this money.

Their Lordships, however, decreed for the plaintiff.

MISCELLANEOUS.

Gas Light Company.-A special adjournment of the London Sessions was held before the Re. corder, Aldermen, &c. at Guildhall, for the purpose of trying a question of considerable importance to the scientific world, as as well as the public at large. It was an indictment preferred against Frederick Sparrow and William Knight, laid in May last, and charging them with a public nuisance, but postponed to the present period. On this occasion, however, Mr. Sparrow only appeared in court as the defendant,

Mr. Arabin stated the indictment, which charged the defendant with a public nuisance, by means of a certain manufactory of gas in Dorset-street, Salisburysquare.

Mr. Gurney stated the case ta

the

« PreviousContinue »