whether wrought up or not wrought up with other materials" (b), unless the value be declared, and an increased ledge." And also by sect. 4, "That, from and after the first day of September now next ensuing, no public notice or declaration heretofore made or hereafter to be made shall be deemed or construed to limit or in anywise affect the liability at common law of any such mail contractors, stage coach proprietors, or other public common carriers as aforesaid, for or in respect of any articles or goods to be carried and conveyed by them; but that all and every such mail contractors, stage coach proprietors, and other common carriers as aforesaid, shall, from and after the said first day of September, be liable, as at the common law, to answer for the loss or any injury to any articles and goods in respect whereof they may not be entitled to the benefit of this act, any public notice or declaration by them made and given contrary thereto, or in anywise limiting such liability, notwithstanding." And by sect. 5, "That for the purposes of this act every office, warehouse, or receiving house, which shall be used or appointed by any mail contractor or stage coach proprietor or other such common carrier as aforesaid, for the receiving of parcels to be conveyed as aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to be the receiving house, warehouse, or office of such mail contractor, stage coach proprietor, or other common carrier; and that any one or more of such mail contractors, stage coach proprietors, or common carriers, shall be VOL. I. liable to be sued by his, her, or their name or names only; and that no action or suit commenced to recover damages for loss or injury to any parcel, package, or person, shall abate for the want of joining any co-proprietor or co-partner in such mail, stage coach, or other public conveyance by land for hire as aforesaid." And also, by sect. 6, "That nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to annul or in anywise affect any special contract between such mail contractor, stage coach proprietor, or common carrier, or any other parties, for the conveyance of goods and merchandizes." And also, by sect. 8, "That nothing in this act shall be deemed to protect any mail contractor, stage coach proprietor, or other common carrier for hire from liability to answer for loss or injury to any goods or articles whatsoever, arising from the felonious acts of any coachman, guard, book-keeper, porter, or other servant in his or their employ, nor to protect any such coachman, guard, book-keeper, or other servant from liability for any loss or injury occasioned by his or their own personal neglect or misconduct." But, by sect. 9, carriers, although the value of the goods is declared, are not to be liable for more than the value proved at the trial; and by sect. 10, they may pay money into Court. (b) It may be worthy of consideration, whether the words wrought up with other materials," do not refer to poplins, chal 1841. DAVEY ย. MASON. 1841. DAVEY บ. MASON. rate of carriage paid. I submit that the eye-glass and chain are trinkets, and that the silk dresses are silks within the meaning of the enactment. Lord ABINGER, C. B., (in summing up).—Silk dresses made up for wear clearly do not come within the meaning of the enactment that has been relied on by the learned counsel for the defendant (c). Nor can a gold chain used for an eye-glass be considered as a trinket (d). The object of the Legislature, no doubt, was to protect carriers from liability, where goods of great value were intrusted to them, and they did not have due notice of the amount of such value. With respect to the other point, it appears that the defendant's servant and van called for these things at the Horse-Shoe, just as it is the custom for carriers to do. If you are satisfied that this luggage was delivered to the defendant's servant, as has been proved, I am of opinion that the defendant is just as much liable in this action as if he had taken up these goods at the Talbot instead of having taken them up at the Horse-Shoe (e). Verdict for the plaintiff-Damages £25. Humfrey and Corner, for the plaintiff. Petersdorff, for the defendant. [Attornies-G. & C. Corner, and Hall & Co.] lies, and other goods composed of a (c) With respect to the con- (d) Dr. Johnson, in his Dictionary, defines trinkets to be "Toys; ornaments of dress; superfluities of decoration." (e) In the case of Syms v. Chaplin, 5 A. & E. 634, and 1 N. & P. 129, the plaintiff sent a parcel, directed to a person in London, to the postmaster of Bradford, to be forwarded to Melksham. The postmaster received 2d. to book the parcel, and sent it by a mail cart to the King's Arms, at Melksham. He was accustomed so to take in parcels for the mail cart. The innkeeper, at Melksham, booked the parcel for London, charging 2d. as "booking" for his own trouble, and also charging on Second Sitting at Westminster in Michaelmas Term, 1841. BEFORE MR. BARON GURNEY. ATTWATERS v. COURTNEY. ASSUMPSIT for the board and lodging of the defend ant's son, and for teaching him the profession and calling of a chemist and druggist, with a count upon an account stated. Plea-Non assumpsit. Nov. 16. A. placed his chemist and druggist, who son with B., a intended to pass his examination at Apothecaries' Hall, but was doing by ill health. It was intended that It was opened by Humfrey for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was a chemist and druggist, carrying on business in King's Road, Chelsea; and that, in the year 1835, the son of the defendant had gone to the plaintiff's house and resided there, in the expectation that he was to be apprenticed to the plaintiff; but although he had stayed in the plaintiff's house, and had boarded and lodged there, and had been taught the business of a chemist and druggist, no indenture had been ever executed, and no pay-ness of a che A.'s son should be apprenticed to B, but he stayed for five years with B., having his board and lodg ing, and being taught the busi mist and druggist, and he then left B., and was never apprenticed to him :— Held, that, to entitle B. to recover for the board, lodging, and teaching of A.'s son, the jury must be satisfied that A.'s son was placed with B. upon an agreement or understanding that B. was to be paid for his board and lodging and for teaching him ; but that if the jury were not so satisfied, or if they thought that A.'s son was not to be paid for till B. had passed his examination at Apothecaries' Hall, and that A.'s son was then to be apprenticed to B. as an apothecary:-Held, that B. was not entitled to recover any thing for the board and jodging and teaching during the five years. 1841. ATTWATERS บ. COURTNEY. ment of any kind made in respect of him by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was proved, that the son of the defendant had lived at the plaintiff's house and boarded with the family from the month of June, 1835, to the month of February, 1840, when he left; and that, during the time that he was at the plaintiff's house, he was learning the business of a chemist and druggist. It was proved by Mr. Gregory, a surgeon, that during the first three years the services of a lad in the shop of a chemist and druggist would not be worth his board and lodging in the family; but that after that time his services would be of value, but that much would depend on the young man himself. This witness and Mr. Stephens, also a surgeon, stated, that £150 would be a moderate premium for an apprentice in a business like the plaintiff's, where he was to live with the family. It was also proved by Mr. Alfred King, that, within six months after the defendant's son had gone to the plaintiff's house, the defendant spoke to him on the subject of his son being apprenticed to the plaintiff, and consulted him as to what premium he ought to give. It was further proved by Mr. Alfred King, that the plaintiff had told him that he was not a licentiate of the Apothecaries' Company, and that he had intended passing his examination at Apothecaries' Hall, but had deferred doing so on account of the state of his health; of all which the defendant was aware. Thesiger, for the defendant.-Does your Lordship think there is any evidence of a contract between these parties? GURNEY, B.-There is no direct evidence of any contract; but, from the inquiries made by the defendant of Mr. Alfred King, I cannot say that the jury may not infer a contract. Thesiger addressed the jury for the defendant.-Before you can find a verdict for the plaintiff, it is necessary that you should be satisfied that this lad was placed with the plaintiff on the terms that the plaintiff should be paid. There is no doubt that it was intended that the son of the defendant should be apprenticed to the plaintiff, and then, beyond all question, a premium would have been paid. If it had been intended that any payment should have been made before the apprenticeship commenced, the plaintiff would not have lain by for five years without some payment having been made, or at least without some claim of payment on his part; however, so far from that, it would appear, by a letter of the plaintiff dated the 27th of February, 1840, that even then the plaintiff considered that he had no legal claim on the defendant. The truth, no doubt, was, that both parties were waiting till the plaintiff had passed his examination at Apothecaries' Hall; and that the intention was, that, as soon as that examination was passed, the lad should be bound apprentice to the plaintiff, not as a chemist and druggist, but as an apothecary, which would give the lad the privilege of passing his own examination when he was otherwise qualified to do so, and that then, and not till then, a proper premium was to be paid. The plaintiff must satisfy you that the lad was in his house on the terms of being paid for. Now, his own letter will shew that the lad was placed there on the terms of not being paid for. The letter of the plaintiff, dated February, 27th, 1840, addressed to the defendant, was put in. The following is an extract: "Your son was with me nearly five years, during which time he became in some measure acquainted with the business, and might have been much more so but for his inattention and neglect. You must be convinced, from the complaints to which I have been obliged to call your attention, that, for some time, he has been quite the reverse of a good and profitable assistant; on the contrary, his frequent neglect, impertinence, and mal-preparation of medicine, has caused me great anxiety of 1841. ATTWATERS V. COURTNEY. |