Page:Repository of Arts, Series 1, Volume 01, 1809, January-June.djvu/39

 the brandies were gauged by the precise gaugers and the delivery from the docks. The plaintiff insisted that this deficiency was occasioned by pillage, and that the Dock Company being bound to keep all merchandise secure and safe, were liable to make reparation for the loss.The Dock Company, in their defence, endeavoured to shew that the deficiency arose from natural causes: first, that the brandies were landed on their quays in hot weather, and consequently liable to evaporate from the rays of the sun; and secondly, that the puncheons being made of soft Hamburgh timber, open and full of veins, the liquor had exuded through the pores and a great loss was sustained by leakage. This last point was replied to by stating, that it’ the puncheons were in the condition stated, it was the duty of the Dock Company to have given notice of the fact to the plaintiff, and to have seen that they were properly coopered. The plaintiff, however, was convinced that the imperfect state of the puncheons was an after-thought, and it would be monstrous, it was said, if it were otherwise, as the Dock Company had charged the plaintiff between 2 and 300l. for warehousing, coopering, and keeping safe the brandies in question. Another proof of its being an after-thought was, that the deficiency in some of the puncheons was 10, 12, and 13 gallons, and in others only one: however, as there might be some loss by leakage, the plaintiff was inclined to make an allowance of one gallon in every puncheon, and take a verdict for the remaining loss. This was considered to be a fair proposal by his lordship, who said, he wished the Wet Dock Companies to understand, that they were bound to give notice to the merchants of the imperfect state of their puncheons and packages; to cooper and preserve them, if necessary; and, in short, to give every requisite care and attention the merchandise in their custody should require. The jury found for the plaintiff for a deficiency of 275 gallons, and the duty, amounting to 220l.

A motion was made in the Court of Chancery, Dublin, for an attachment against an attorney, for publishing in the newspapers the proceedings of that court in reversing the decree of another, as it cast reflections on some of the parties, and introduced matter which was hurtful to their feelings.

His lordship said, he was proud to find the proceedings of courts published, and he wished to see a great deal more of them, as they answered most salutary purposes. It shewed the people how to guide themselves when similar cases would occur: and, if judges acted wrong, the proceedings ought to be published. He, for his part, wished every decree he had, or would make, was in every newspaper in the kingdom: if the press were to be gagged, God knows where it would end.

Such language does honour to the head and the heart of the noble and learned lord.

Motion refused. E2