CARRIERS, p. 385.-Carriers, who take up goods at intermediate places, where notices are not affixed, remain subject to the common law liability".

COVENANT, p. 459.-After note s. add, affirmed on error, 4 M. & S. 188.

Covenant, p. 460.-Add to 4 M. & S. p. 53.

Covenant, p. 499.-In covenant on a lease of "the veins of coal under certain farms and lands therein described, situate in the parishes of B. & M. then in the several occupations of A., B., and C.; with liberty to dig any pits, shafts, levels, soughs, &c.," the declaration varied from the deed, 1st. by stating that the land was set out by admeasurement, instead of by reputation; 2dly, in changing the word soughs to sloughs; 3dly, in stating the lands to be situate in the parish of B. and M., instead of the parishes of B. and M.; and 4thly, in stating them to be in the occupation of A. B. and C., instead of in the several occupations of A. B. and C. Held that the first and third variances were fatal; but that the second and fourth were immaterial.

Covenant, p. 499.-Plaintiff declared, that by indenture defendant demised to plaintiff "all that wharf or deal pound known by the name of Mud Mead, the wharf, stage, and storehouse on the wharf or stage, the store-houses and dwellinghouse adjoining the Anchor Inn, together with all the wharfage and store-room of all goods landed or shipped therefrom; together with all wharfage arising from all coals, &c.": and that defendant covenanted with plaintiff, that he (defendant) would not suffer any wharf to be erected on any of his estates within the parish of Milbrook, to the injury of the wharf thereby demised; and then assigns as a breach, that the defendant did suffer a wharf to be erected on his estate, and continued there, whereby the plaintiff had been deprived of divers gains and profits which would otherwise have accrued to him for wharfage dues, store-room, and reward in respect of goods which might and would otherwise have been landed, stored, and shipped from the wharf demised to him, &c. Plea, non est factum. At the trial, before Chambre, J. at the assizes for the county of Southampton, upon the production of the inden ture, it appeared to be a demise (inter alia) of the store-house (not store-houses,) and dwelling-house adjoining the Anchor Inn; whereupon it was objected on the part of the defendant,

d Gourger v. Jolly, C. B. Loudon Sittings after Trin. T. 56 Geo. 3. Gibbs, C. J. who said the same point had

e

been ruled by Ld. Kenyou and Ld. Ellenborough.

Morgan v. Edwards and others, 2 Marsh. Rep 96.

that this was a fatal variance, and the learned judge, being of that opinion, directed a non-suit. A rule nisi having been obtained for setting aside the nonsuit, the Court of B. R. after cause shewn concurred in opinion with the learned judge.

IMPRISONMENT, p. 856. n. (9).-So it is sufficient, in indorsing the attorney's name, to put the initial only of his christian names.

Imprisonment, p. 866.-A magistrate cannot commit for a contempt, without a warrant in writing".

INNKEEPER.-An innkeeper shall be charged, if there be a default in him or his servants, in the well and safe keeping of his guest's goods and chattles within his common inn; for the innkeeper is bound in law to keep them safe without. any stealing; and it is not any excuse for him to say, that he delivered to the guest the key of the chamber in which he is lodged, and that he left the chamber door open. And although the guest doth not deliver his goods to the inn-keeper to keep, nor acquaints him with them, yet if they be carried away or stolen, the inn-keeper shall be charged; and so, though they who stole the goods be unknown. But if the guest's servant, or he who comes with him, or he whom he desires to be lodged with him, steals or carries away his goods, the inn-keeper shall not be charged; for here the fault is in the guest to have such companion or servant. Calye's case, 8 Rep. 33. a. So an inn-keeper is not answerable for the goods of his guest which are lost through the negligence of the guest, out of a private room in the inn, chosen by the guest for the purpose of exhibiting to his customers his goods for sale, the use of which was granted by the inn-keeper, who at the same time told the guest that there was a key, and that he might lock the door, which he neglected to do. Burgess v. Clements, B. R. Trin. 55 Geo. 3. B. R. 4 Maule and Selwyn, p. 306.

INSURANCE, p. 910.-Abandonment was made after capture, but before action brought the ship was re-captured; it was holden', that the abandonment was not binding.

Insurance, p. 911.--The insured is entitled to a reasonable time for examining into the state of a damaged cargo, before he makes his election on the question of abandonment: therefore, where a ship bound from Liverpool to Calais, put back to Liverpool on the 20th of December, when the cargo,

f Hoar v. 'Mill, B.R H. 56 Geo. 3. h lb. 5 Maule and Selwyn,

g Mayhew v. Locke, Clk. 2 Marsh.

Rep. 377.

i Brotherston v. Barber, B R. M. T. 57 Geg 3.

consisting of sugar, was immediately relanded and surveyed:→→ the owners in London received a letter from their agents at Liverpool, dated 29th of December, stating, that the cargo was much damaged, but that it was still in contemplation to send it on; and another dated 7th of January, stating that, on further examination the whole cargo was found to be damaged held that the owners on the receipt of the latter letter, were still in time to abandon.

Insurance, p. 933.-A., abroad, having two warehouses, writes to this country to effect an insurance upon one of them only, without stating, as was the fact, that a house nearly adjoining to it had been on fire on that evening, and that there was danger of the fire again breaking out; and sends his letter after the regular post time. The fire having broken out again on the day next but one following, and consumed A.'s warehouse; held, that this was a material concealment, although A.'s letter was written without any fraudulent intention'.

Insurance, p. 961.-Goods are insured at and from Mogadore to London. The declaration avers that after the loading the goods, the ship departed on her intended voyage, and while in the course of her said voyage, was lost by perils of the sea.' Held that this was a material allegation, and therefore, the ship having been lost while at her moorings, and before the cargo was completed, the insured could not

recover.

SHIPPING, p. 1142.-A transfer of a ship and cargo at sea, conveyed by M. to S. as a security for money borrowed, by executing and delivering to S. a bill of sale of the ship, a policy upon ship and cargo, and indorsing the bills of lading, was held not to pass the property to S. where S. neglected, upon the ship's return and notice thereof, to take possession, or to do any act to notify the transfer of the property to him; but that the property passed to the assignees of M. who became bankrupt, as being in the possession, order, and disposition of M. at the time when he became bankrupt within the stat. 21 Jac. 1. c. 19".

TROVER, p. 1283.-To determine what evidence will be sufficient to prove a conversion in the defendant, it must be

k Gernon and another v. Roy. Ex. Ass, 2 Marsh. Rep. 88.

1 Bufe v. Turner, 2 Marsh. Rep. 46. m Abitbol v. Bristow, 2 Marsh. Rep.

157.

n Mair v. Glennie and others, assignees of Sharpe and Co. bankrupts, B. R. Trin. 55 Geo. 3. 4 M. & S. 240.

o Per cur. in Bruen v. Roe, 1 Sidf. 264.

known in what manner the goods came to his hands; for if they came to his hands by delivery, finding, or bailment, an actual demand and refusal ought to be proved; but proof of a tortious taking will supersede the necessity of proving a demand and refusal; for where the taking is unlawful, it is of itself a conversion; so likewise, if an actual conversion be proved, it is not necessary to prove a demand and refusal.

Trover, p. 1283.-A mere non-delivery of goods, which have been placed in the defendant's hands for a specific purpose, will not amount to a tortious conversion. Hence, where goods have been delivered to a manufacturer, in order that he may do something to the goods in the course of his business, and then return them; if the manufacturer, upon being applied to for the goods, merely makes excuses for not having returned them, and does not absolutely refuse to deliver them, trover cannot be maintained; the proper remedy is an action of assumpsit for non-performance of the con

tract.

p Forsdick v. Collins, 1 Starkie's N. P. C. 173. Ld. Eilenborough, C. J.

q Severin v. Keppell, Middx. Sittings, E. 43 G. 3. B. R. Lord Ellenborough, C. J. 4 Esp, N. P. C. 157.

VOL. II.

U U