March for the Congo. We sailed up the Congo, about 60 miles, to Bengalan. During my absence at the Rio Nunez, Lieutenant Dodd brought the plaintiff to the camp at Bengalan: I kept him in custody until I went to Mungo Catti, from whence the plaintiff went by himself to his factory, to which I proceeded in the same evening. The troops were encamped two or three nights in the factory, which was fenced round. I left it the next morning, and did not stay till it was destroyed, but I left orders for that purpose. The next morning I found the troops carrying ivory down to the boats: we collected about 4 tons in the river, and perhaps 24 tons were taken from Bengara factory. I am certain that there were not eight tons. What was not brought away was burnt. I left orders that the plaintiff should be carried to Bangalan, and from thence he was conveyed to Sierra Leone under the charge of Lieut. Thompson: The ivory was sold at Sierra Leone, and the money was shared, according to the rules of prize money, in the army.

I was at the plaintiff's factory only one night. I did not witness the sale of the ivory at Sierra Leone, and know nothing of it from my own knowledge. I have heard the defendant say that he had received his share of the prizemoney. I never saw Cooke in irons. Whatever private property the plaintiff had at the factory was very small, and I directed Lieutenant Thompson to restore it to him, in consequence of the plaintiff pleading poverty, and saying that if he had not some money, he should starve in gaol;

I had very little conversation with him, but he never claimed the factory. I was present at his trial at Sierra Leone; the Chief Justice was absent in England, and a Mr. Purdie acted for him at the Quarter Sessions.

To questions from the Court, the witness said that, from the general appearance of the factory, he was convinced that it had been built for the purpose of carrying on the slave-trade.

Mr. Scarlett observed, that he could prove that it had been erected many years before the abolition by this or any other country; and, therefore, that the construction could afford no evidence of the fact.

Peter Parry went with the expedition against the factories on the Congo, in the Princess Charlotte sloop: he saw the factory of the plaintiff after it had been burnt: some of the ivory was brought to the witness's vessel: he saw about 8 tons. The boat made two trips, and would carry about 4 tons at each trip. Some casks of spirits were also brought, as well as a few trifling things. Cooke was conveyed on board the witness's vessel on the same evening: from thence he was removed to the Dorus transport, as a prisoner; he saw Cooke afterwards in gaol at Sierra Leone; the witness received prize-money to the amount of 151.

Dr. Robert Thorpe, formerly Chief Justice of Sierra Leone, was called to prove that he had pointed out to Colonel Maxwell the illegality of his proceeding before the expedition sailed, but Mr. Justice Bayley held that fact not to be material to the case.

Joseph

Joseph Archeband and Peter Fall proved that they had known the plaintiff on the Congo, and had always heard and understood that he was an American.

The plaintiff's case here closed. The attorney-general addressed the jury for the defendant, assuring them that he stood forward not in his public capacity of a servant of the Crown to defend Colonel Maxwell, if he had been guilty of any excess of his jurisdiction, but merely to see that his case was duly conducted and inquired into. It was unfortunate for this deserving officer that the Court of Justice of Sierra Leone had so mistaken the province to which it was limited, as to proceed to convict the plaintiff and the witness Brodie, when they had been taken out of the boundary of the colony; but being no lawyer, and incompetent to construe the clause in the act of Parliament, which might even puzzle the members of the profession; he had imagined that the Court had sufficient jurisdiction. With regard to the amount of the pecuniary damage the plaintiff had sustained, very uncertain and unsatisfactory evidence had been given; if the factory were in truth the plaintiff's, it was singular that he had never so represented it; and how he had become possessed of a sum large enough to buy it was a mystery which none of the witnesses had attempted to clear up.

Mr. Justice Bayley here interrupted the learned counsel, to suggest, that the pecuniary damage the plaintiff had sustained should be made the subject of arbitration; the personal part of

the injury was peculiarly for the consideration of a jury.

After some consultation between both sides, an arbitration upon this point was finally agreed to.

The attorney-general then addressed himself to the other part of the case, admitting that his client had acted indiscreetly, and had so far exceeded his authority as to render himself liable to answer in damages. He insisted that little or no credit ought to be given to the plaintiff's first witness, who had himself an action pending on the same subject, and who was interested in the verdict this day given. The learned counsel then adverted to the measures adopted by this and other governments ineffectually to put an end to the slave trade, which could never be effectually abolished until the whole swarm of factors on the African coast, not merely Spanish, Portuguese, or American, but English, were destroyed. Under this conviction the defendant had directed an expedition against the Congo, by which he had rendered himself amenable in the present action. He insisted that, as the Court of Sierra Leone had sent the plaintiff in custody to England, the defendant could only be answerable for the confinement which had taken place before sentence. As the defendant could not make out a legal justification, a verdict must pass against him; but the learned counsel was persuaded that the case called for no vindictive damages

Mr. Justice Bayley, in charging the jury, expressed a clear opinion that the defendant was responsible in damages for the whole imprisonment

prisonment the plaintiff had endured from March, 1813, to February, 1814, since the illegal conduct of the defendant had been the occasion of it. There was no ground for charging him with personal animosity; but it was to be lamented that he had shared in the prize money obtained by the execution of his unjustifiable orders. With the motives of the party the jury had nothing to do: it was their business to assign to the plaintiff such sober and reasonable damages as the injury he had suffered appeared to require. The question regarding the pecunary injury was removed from their consideration.

The jury consulted for a few minutes, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff damages 1000l.

A verdict was also taken for 19,000l. the damages stated on the other counts of the declaration, subject to the award of Mr. Taun

ton.

COMMON PLEAS.

been engaged with his regiment in the ever-memorable battle of Waterloo, instead of continuing at Brussels, he would, in the tempestuous weather preceding that eventful day, have found the great comfort and advantage derived from the very superior article furnished by his client. After, however, keeping the cloak nearly three months, it was returned on the plaintiff's hands, with the allegation that it was too heavy and cumbersome to wear; but the truth was, the defendant then had no further occasion for it, being quietly in quarters at Knightsbridge barracks. He should call his witnesses, and prove his case, when, he was persuaded, the jury would find a verdict for the plaintiff to the full extent of his demand.

Mr. James of Coventry-street, camp equipage-maker, was the first witness called, who stated, that on the evening of the 25th of April, 1815, the defendant, Capt. Jebb, called upon him, and requested a recommendation to a

Justice Dallas.

Westminster, Jan. 24.

Fisher v. Jebb, Esq.-Mr. Serjeant Vaughan stated, that the plaintiff was an army-clothier and tailor of great respectability, residing in Duke-street, St. James's, and sought to recover from the defendant, Captain John Jebb, of the Royal Horse Guards (Blue), the sum of 241. for a remarkably large and handsome cavalry cloak, lined throughout with silk oil-skin, water proof, and made to order. The learned Sergeant observed, that had the defendant fortunately

wanted a very large cloak to take with him on service; that it must be made under his own order, by a person thoroughly conversant in the business; that knowing plaintiff worked for General Sir Lowry Cole, and many other officers of high rank, he accordingly recommended him to Captain Jebb.

Wm. Gathard, the plaintiff's foreman, was next called, who proved the order; that the defendant is upwards of six feet high; that the cloak was to have a hood to cover the helmet; capes of an extraordinary size; that it was to be made very long, so that it

might be occasionally used as a bed in the field; that witness assisted in making it, and that the cost price of the materials alone and workmanship amounted to 20l. Os. 6d.; that witness, on defendant's return to England, waited upon him at Knightsbridge Barracks, when he stated, that he had worn the cloak; that the materials were good, and price reasonable; and that he had no other fault to find, except that it was somewhat too heavy, but promised to call on plaintiff in a day or two, and settle about it.

The Judge (Dallas) here asked Mr. Serjeant Lens, defendant's Counsel, whether this evidence was not irresistible? But the learned Serjeant, on consulting his client, said the cause must proceed.

The plaintiff, therefore, called Mr. Davidson, of Cork-street; Mr. Westoil, of Bond-street; Mr. Wilson, of Bond-street, and others, who all stated that they had made similar cloaks for the Prince Regent, General Lord Hill, and other distinguished characters, some of which cloaks were considerably heavier than the one in question, which they had examined most carefully, and all stated it to be a pattern of its kind, and the charge moderate in the extreme.

The Judge, on this weight of evidence, repeatedly recommended the defendant, who was in Court, to pay for it, lest he should animadvert more strongly upon his conduct; but he insisted on going to the Jury, when, after an address from Mr. Serjeant Lens, and calling one witness, they stated themselves perfectly satis

fied, and without either summing up, or reply from Mr. Sergeant Vaughan, found a verdict for the plaintiff, to the satisfaction of a crowded Court, to the full amount of his demand.

LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

Bristol Assizes.

Rouquet v. Sherborne.-This was an action brought by the plaintiff, who is a clergyman residing at West Harptree, against the defendant, who is a common carrier, for the recovery of the sum of 291. the value of a variety of articles of wearing apparel intrusted to his care, and to be conveyed from Bristol to West Harptree, about 11 miles from Bristol.

Mr. Serjeant Pell, in opening the case to the jury, observed, that it was one which would not take up much of their time. The plaintiff was a clergyman of great respectability, and the defendant was a common carrier from Bristol to Wells. The articles in question were the wearing apparel of the plaintiff's daughter, who had been at school at Bristol. It would be superfluous to enter into a detail of every article, unless his friend on the opposite side (Mr. Casberd) was desirous to go through the whole of the lady's toilette. The articles were packed up and carried to the waggon-office by a man named Clark, who could neither read nor write, and given to a man named Wood. He [the learned serjeant] knew not whether the usual notice was stuck up or not; and it had been said, that if a notice was put up in the office, it was a sufficient notice to all persons who came to it: but in that case, it would be for the defend

ant

ant to show that notice had been given; then he should apprehend, that as the man who took the articles could neither read nor write, the mere notice stuck up in the office could not be considered a sufficient notice to him; and if such a defence was set up, he should fortify himself against it, by proving the man who took it could neither read nor write.

The plaintiff's daughter, and Jonn Clark, his servant, proved the facts of the case.

Mr Baron Graham then proceeded to sum up the evidence, in doing which he observed, that the defence set up was, that as a matter of public notoriety, there were notices stuck up in the office; and the question for their consideration would be, whether they could from these notices draw such an inference as would warrant them in saying, that the plaintiff had a sufficient knowledge of the terms of the notices; for if they should be of opinion that he had a sufficient notice, then in that case the responsibility of the defendant would be qualified; but upon that point they were to exercise their best judgment. Before they said that the defendant was liable, they must be convinced that he came into the possession of the articles; and to be sure there was but one witness who spoke to that fact. The circumstances of the notices were not of a very strong description, because the man who took the goods could neither read nor write. With regard then to Mr. Rouquet having received and known the terms of the notice, it must be supposed from his condition in life; and his having sent by the waggon before, it might be fairly inferred that he

must have had a knowledge of the notice. At the same time, if the jury should infer upon any fair ground that the parcel was delivered, and that it was lost, and that Mr. Rouquet had not ar easonable information of the notice, then they would find a verdict for the plaintiff.-Verdict for the plaintiff. Damages-291.

NON-LIABILITY OF CARRIERS.

Oram v. Fromont and Others.In this action the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of 131. 16s. and the value of four shawls, intrusted to the defendants, as common carriers, to be conveyed to Trowbridge.

Mr. Serjeant Pell, in stating the case to the jury, observed, that under the decision of Lord Ellenborough, who had ruled as follows, "the law is imperative, that a proof of the notice of the contract to the plaintiff must be adduced before the carrier can be exonerated from his liability to the loss," the plaintiff would be entitled to the verdict of the jury.

Mr. Richard Stanley Laytham being called, stated that on the 17th of December last he took a parcel to the White Hart coachoffice, in Broad-street, in this city. It contained 137. 16s. in cash, and was wrapped up in four shawls, which were worth about 30s. It was directed to Mr. James

Oram, Trowbridge. Witness paid 2d. for booking it. Of his own knowledge he did not know whether the parcel reached its destination or not. It was between 7 and 8 in the evening when he took it to the office.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gaselee.
The 137. 16s. was a debt which

witness