65 lb., to be conveyed to Exeter as soon as convenient, by the Subscription coach, of which the defendants are proprietors. The cochineal was put into a small box, and addressed according to order, to "Mr. J. Worthy, Exeter." It arrived at the coachoffice of the Old London inn, Exeter, on Saturday night; and soon afterwards a person opened the office door, and without showing himself, inquired for the box according to the address, the sum due for carriage 16s. 1d. and whether he could take it away on the following day, Sunday? The answer was in the affirmative; and in the evening of the next day, a man of the name of Whitfield came to the coach-office, and producing the money for the expense of conveyance, asked for a box directed to Mr. J. Worthy. The book-keeper gave him the box containing the cochineal, and another parcel with a similar address, at the same time inquiring the man's name: he gave it without reluctance, adding, that a person waiting without had sent him for it. Whitfield went out of the office with both box and parcel, but afterwards returned the latter. The plaintiffs, when they sent the cochineal by the Subscription coach, wrote a letter to Mr. J. Worthy, by the post, advising of it, and enclosing an invoice; and they were very much surprised by receiving an answer from Mr. Worthy, that he had never given them any order for cochineal, or any other drug. One of the plaintiffs in consequence hastened to Exeter, and an inquiry was set on foot, when it appeared that a fraud had

been practised upon them, and that the order for the cochineal was a forgery. Whitfield was soon found, and he pointed out a person of the name of Bennet, as the man who had sent him into the coach-office for the box, and who had given him 16s. 1d. to pay for the carriage. Bennet was immediately taken into custody, and before a magistrate Whitfield swore positively to his person : he, however, succeeded in establishing an alibi to the satisfaction of the magistrate, who admitted him to bail. None of the parties obtained any further intelligence respecting the cochineal, and Bennet was not prosecuted.

The present action was brought to recover the value of the box and its contents, 1147., on the ground that it had been lost in consequence of the negligence of the servant of the defendants in mis-delivering it.

After Mr. Marryat had stated the particulars above detailed, he. called the clerk of the plaintiffs, who proved the value of the box. and the address put upon it, viz. "Mr. J. Worthy, Exeter." In this early stage, in answer to a question from one of the jury, his Lordship said, that he should hold, in point of law, that a common carrier discharged himself from liability, if he showed (in a case like the present, where the address of the box contained neither the abode nor business of the party) that he had delivered it at his own office, to a person whom he might reasonably suppose to be the individual, or to come from the individual, designated in such address.

The clerk of the plaintiffs, on cross-examination, denied that he was aware of the existence of a notice in the coach-office of the defendants in London, where the box was sent by the plaintiffs, stating that they would not be responsible for any parcel, &c. above the value of 51., unless entered and paid for accordingly.

Perry, the porter of the plaintiffs swore to the delivery of the box. He received from the bookkeeper at the Bull-and-Mouth a receipt, which the witness had written and the book-keeper signed. He admitted, on his cross-examination, that he had many times carried parcels, &c. to the inn; but he had never seen or been told of any board stating the limited responsibility of the proprietors of coaches until six months ago.

Mr. Knipe, one of the defend ants' principal managers, was called to prove that they were proprietors of the Subscription Exeter Coach.

Cross-examined. He deposed that a very large board, on which was painted the notice of limited responsibility, was placed against the wall in the most conspicuous part of the coach-office; it had been there for the last 14 years, and a person delivering a parcel could scarcely avoid seeing it.

On the part of the defendants, Mr. Scarlett submitted two points to the jury: 1st, that it was impossible to believe that the plaintiffs' porter was not unacquainted with the existence of the notice; and 2ndly, that the defendants, or their servants, had not negligently conducted themselves in delivering the parcel at

Exeter to the individual who correctly described it, and stated that he came from the person to whom it was addressed. The first position he left upon the evidence already adduced on the other side; and to support the last he called

Thomas Whitfield, who swore that a man of the name of Bennet had accosted him near the Old London inn, at Exeter, and had asked him to go into the coach-office to receive a box addressed to Mr. James Worthy, and to pay for the carriage: he gave him 16s. 1d. for that purpose, and promised to pay him sixpence for carrying it to the Half Moon public-house. The witness went into the office accordingly, received and paid for the parcel, stating, when asked, that his name was Whitfield, and that a person was waiting outside, to whom he was about to carry it. When he left the office, Bennet walked a little way with him, but soon took the box into his own charge, and dismissed him, paying him only 3d. The witness was positive as to the person of the man, and swore to it before a magistrate.

The book-keeper at Exeter confirmed this story, as far as came within his knowledge. He admitted that he knew that there was a Mr. J. Worthy in the town: his parcels were usually delivered at his dye-house.

Mr. James Worthy deposed, that he had never ordered the cochineal of the plaintiffs, but that, for the purposes of fraud, some person had employed his

name.

Mr. Justice Abbot left the two

points of fact stated by Mr. Scarlett to the jury, and went over the whole of the evidence given on both sides.

The jury retired to deliberate; and in an hour and a half brought in a verdict for the defendants.

COURT OF CHANCERY, WEDNESDAY, JULY 15.

Marriage Settlement.

Kennedy and others v. The Earl of Cassilis and others. This was an application to dissolve an injunction. The facts connected with it were as follow:-Lord Kennedy, the eldest son of the Earl of Cassilis, paid his addresses, towards the latter end of the year 1813, to Miss Ellen Allardice, a young lady, at that time 17 years of age, residing in Aberdeen, and heiress to a very considerable property-30,000l. in Bank stock, and landed estates in Scotland to the amount of between 3 and 4,000l. a-year. Lord Kennedy was then 19 years of age; and his addresses having been encouraged by the young lady, as well as her mother, with whom she lived, he communicated his wishes on the subject to his father, who resided in London. The mother lost no time in informing Mr. Innies, one of her daughter's guardians, and he in consequence came to London, for the purpose of making with the Earl of Cassilis the proper arrangements previous to the marriage. The Earl of Cassilis constanly professed that money was no object either with himself or his son. It happened, however, that there were many diffi

culties in the way of a final settlement. Various sets of propositions were made by Lord Cassilis, none of which were agreed to by Mr. Innies. The last set of propositions made by the Earl of Cassilis, declared that Miss Allardice should have 1,000l. a year, during the marriage, to her sole and separate use-that if she should survive Lord Kennedy, this annual sum should be increased -that her mother's (Mrs. Allardice's) jointure should be increased from 600l. a year, which it then was, to 1,000l. a year; and that the house in Aberdeen should also be settled upon her. It was proposed that 1,500l. of the Bank stock should be applied to purchase lands, in order to produce the 1,000l. a year for the sole and separate use of Mrs. Allardice; and that the remainder of the real and personal property should be settled on the issue of the marriage. While these propositions were under the consideration of Mr. Innies, Lord Kennedy was in Aberdeen. It was now about the end of April, 1814. He was anxious to hasten his marriage with Miss Allardice: he told her of the propositions. which had been made; he himself believed that all the necessary deeds were in preparation, and, as the lady was perfectly satisfied with the propositions, she was prevailed upon to marry Lord Kennedy, and accordingly the marriage was solemnized on the 1st of May. Some time after this, a marriage settlement was made, which varied very con siderably from the propositions, particularly with regard to the 1,000l. a-year to Lady Kennedy's

sole

sole and separate use. For this was substituted 1,000l. a - year after the death of Lord Kennedy, or in case any misfortune should cause a separation. These were the facts, according to the statement of Mr. Innies. Since the marriage of Lord and Lady Kennedy, as soon as the latter attained the age of 21, an action was commenced by Lord Cassilis in the court of session in Scotland, the object of which was, in the first place to obtain a conveyance from Mr. Innies, of 30,000l. in stock, which stood in the Bank of England in his name ; and in the next place, to compel Mr. Innies, who was all along the active guardian, to give in an account of his management of the property during the minority of the lady. As soon as these proceedings were commenced, Mr. Innies applied to the Court of Chancery for an injunction to restrain them, which injunction was granted, upon ex parte hearing, 6 months ago. It was to dissolve this injunction that the present application was made.

The application was supported chiefly on the ground that it was not competent to the court of chancery here to restrain proceedings in the court of session in Scotland. The court of session was itself a court of equity; it was independent of the jurisdiction of any other court, save that of the House of Lords. If the court of chancery could issue an injunction to restrain proceedings in the court of session, the court of session would have an equal right of issuing an interdict to inhibit proceedings in the court of chancery. Such an interposi

tion was expressly in violation too of the act of Union.

The application was resisted on the ground that the court pos. sessed the jurisdiction, because the Bank stock was in England. The parties who made the contract, so far as it was made, were, with the exception of Mr. Innies, domicile subjects of England, and the matter was negotiated in England. The court of session in Scotland could not make any order by which the Bank of England could be affected, and therefore that court was not competent to take cognizance of the matter. The merits of the case were then gone into, in order to support the injunction. Doubts were suggested as to the terms of Lord Cassilis's final propositions, and it was therefore hoped, that if the court could dissolve the injunetion, it would at least direct an inquiry to be made to ascertain what were really the terms of the final propositions.

It was re-urged on the adverse side, that the injunction was originally obtained in order to protect Innies from giving in his

the part of the children of Lady Kennedy. No injury could be done to the children by the Scotch suit, as the court of session, while it might compel Innies to give in his accounts, could not make any order which the Bank of England would be obliged to obey. The other trustees of the property were not, it appeared, made parties to the suit in Scotland; but even if Innies and they consented to convey the stock, still on the part of the children it was competent to the court of chancery to enjoin the Bank of England not to transfer the stock in question. Although the act of union ought certainly to be considered as sacred, yet cases might arise in which it would be impossible for the court of session to proceed with effect, if it were not aided by the court of chancery here, and vice versa. His Lordship concluded with ordering the injunction to be dissolved without regard to the merits of the case, and he desired the order not to be understood as giving any encouragement whatever to the other trustees to join in making a conveyance of the Bank

stock.

CIVIL SIDE, FRIDAY, JULY 17. Breach of Promise of Marriage. Hardenn v. Causton. This was an action against the defendant for a breach of promise of marriage with the plaintiff, and the case, which was tried by a Special Jury, excited universal interest from its peculiar circumstances. The damages were laid at 5,000l.

The plaintiff's case was con

ducted by Mr. Gurney and Mr. Chitty.

The leading circumstances proved in evidence were these: The plaintiff, who was represented to be a young lady of great personal attractions, singular amiability of disposition, and possessing an accomplished and well-cultivated mind, is the daughter of a respectable tradesman residing at Hatfield, in this county; and the defendant is a gentleman of independent fortune, lately retired from the business of a printer, which he carried on in Finch-lane, Cornhill. The parties are first cousins by the maternal side; and in the year 1809, the defendant, then about 30 years of age, and the plaintiff about 21, commenced his courtship, having known each other from the earliest infancy. From that time down to the month of May, 1817, a voluminous epistolary correspondence 'was carried on between them, the defendant professing throughout the whole the most devoted and tender attachment towards the plaintiff, whose language, in reply, evinced on her part the warmest reciprocity of affection. The defendant's promise of marriage, relied upon in the plaintiff's case, was expressed in these terms:-" I will marry you as soon as circumstances will permit."

It appeared that the defendant's family were averse to the match, and took every occasion to discourage the connexion, imputing the regard of the plaintiff towards the defendant to sinister motives. The defendant had gone the length of proposing to marry the plaintiff in private, to which she consented;