| Title | Problems of the old coaching days: were not the proprietors of mail or other coaches common carriers, and so bound to carry goods and parcels to a county, e.g, co. Caernarvon, according to the rates fixed by the magistrates of that county at their Easter Sessions (according to 3 William & Mary, c.12, & 21 Geo.II,c.28). Had the proprietors the right to charge 2/- for the journey from London to Shrewsbury, and 1/2 from Shrewsbury to Bangor, this 3/2 being in excess of the regulated price for carriage of goods from London to Bangor? What of places not mentioned in the Justices' regulations, e.g., Leamington, would the carriage from thence be strictly assessed by distance carried? If a parcel was booked for Bangor, could it be taken to Holyhead? Had the proprietors the right to refuse a parcel to be carried from London, unless their own charges for the carriage of the same were paid for at the time of the booking? |
| Description | The queries arose from certain incidents in October, 1824, when Mr. Pennat's agent was overcharged for the carriage of two parcels; when information was laid before the Bangor magistrates, one of the coach proprietors was subjected to a stiff fine; the reaction to that was to allow a Penrhyn Castle parcel to go to Holyhead, and bring it back to Bangor the following day; also the aforesaid propretor threatened to appeal against his conviction at Bangor. Two counsel gave their opinions - N. Hibbert on 26 Nov., and N.C. Tindal on 9 Decr. Hibbert was doubtful if the 3/2 was an overcharge, as prices would be fixed at Shrewsbury by the rates of the Salop magistrates; but if it was the general practie of the proprietors to drop Penrhyn parcels at Bangor, an action would lie against them for taking them to Holyhead.
Tindal advised caution, because such a case would require malice to be proved, and gross negligence; was it certain that the Holyhead transit was not an accident? Hibbert could not condemn the practice of the proprietors insisting on the carriage being paid at the time of the booking: "a carrier is not bound to give credit to a consignee of whom he may know nothing ". It was evident from the combined effect of the two opinions, that the costs and vexation of taking proceedings would outweigh any advantages gained. |