time, which him. to him, an town of Ipfwich, directed to any perfon or perfons being inhabitants unreasonable of the faid town of Ipswich, to or at the place of abode of fuch perthe defendant fon or perfons to whom the fame letters were refpectively directed, ought to have within a reasonable time after fuch letters were fo brought to delivered to him the faid F. G. at the faid poft-office of the town of Ipswich aforefaid; and whereas that alfo on the first day of April in the year of our Lord 1772, divers letters, (to wit) ten letters directed to him the faid B. R. at the faid town of Ipfanch, were fent by the poft for him the faid B. R. and were then and there brought to the faid J. G. at the poft-office of the faid town of Ipfwich, and received by him the faid John Goodchild there, (to wit) at Ipfwich aforefaid, in the faid county of Suffolk; nevertheless the faid J. G. well knowing the premifes, but not regarding his duty in that behalf, did not deliver the faid letters or any of them to or at the place of abode of the faid B. R. within a reasonable time after the faid letters were or any of them was fo brought to and, received by him the faid J. G. as aforefaid, but on the contrary thereof, he the faid 7. G. wrongfully and injuriously kept and detained the fame letters, and every one of them, from the fard B. R. for a long fpace of time, over and above a reasonable time in that behalf, (to wit) for the fpace of ten days, that is to fay, at Ipfwich aforefaid, in the county of Suffolk aforefaid, to the damage of the faid B. R. of 100. and therefore he brings fuit, &c. Plea, not premifes. And the faid 7. G. by George Hill his attorney comes and deguilty of the fends the wrong and injury when, c. and fays that he is not guilty of the premises above laid to his charge, in manner and form as the faid B. R. above complains againft him, and of this he puts himself upon the country, and the faid B. R. doth the fame likewife; therefore the fheriff is commanded that he cause to come here from the day of the Holy Trinity in three weeks, twelve, &e. by whom, &c. and who neither, &c. to recognize, &c. because as well, &c. Cafe for the court. On the trial of this caufe before my. Brother Whitaker, at the laft affizes held at Bury Saint Edmunds, in and for the county of Suffolk, a verdict was found for the plaintiff, with one fhilling damages and 40s. cofts, fubject to the opinion of this court on the following cafe, which states, That the defendant during the time in the declaration in that opinion of the behalf mentioned was, and now is deputy, poft-mafter of the town of Ipfwich in the county of Suffolk, under the appointment of the poft-mafter general; and that the plaintiff during all that time was, and now is an inhabitant of and within the faid town of Ipfwich, and that he and his place of abode there, are well known to the defendant. That That previous to the year of our Lord 1741, the letters which were brought by the poft from London directed to the inhabitants. of Ipfwich, were delivered to them at their refpective places of abode by the deputy poft-master of Ipfwich for the time being, at the legal rate of poftage only; but the inhabitants of Ipfwich conftantly for time immemorial, until the faid year 1741, paid to the letter-carrier employed by the deputy post-mafter for the time being a recompence of one penny per letter for the delivery at their refpective places of abode, of all letters which were brought by the poft from all parts of Norfolk and Suffolk, over and above the legal rate of postage, being delivered at a different time of the day from thofe which were brought by the London poft. That in the faid year 1741, the poft from London to Ipfwich was established fix days in a week instead of three, upon which occafion publick notice was given to the inhabitants by the common cryer of the town, that fuch of them as chofe to have their letters delivered to them at their places of abode, muft pay to the letter-carrier a recompence of one halfpenny for each letter as well for those which previous to the faid notice were delivered without recompence, as for those for which one penny recompence had been paid. That the greatest part of the inhabitants complied with this notice, and have ever fince voluntarily paid to the letter-carrier either one halfpenny over and above the legal postage for the delivery of each letter at their places of abode, or have agreed with the letter-carrier and paid her a quarterly or yearly allowance for the delivery of all their letters, except three perfons who gave the letter-carrier a Christmas-box. That the plaintiff hath, ever fince the faid year 1741, paid the recompence of one halfpenny for the delivery of each letter at his place of abode until April 1772, when he refused any longer to pay the fame. That the letter-carrier does not receive any falary from the defendant for delivering the letters, nor does the account to the defendant for any part of the recompence the receives from fuch delivery but applies the fame to her own ufe. That on the first day of April 1772, the defendant received at his office in the town of Ipfwich, ten letters by the London post directed to the plaintiff at Ipfwich, (being the fame letters as are mentioned in the declaration) which letters the defendant didnot deliver at the place of abode of the plaintiff in Ipfwich, but the the fame remained with the defendant's knowledge at his faid office for the space of ten days, as ftated in the declaration. On this cafe the queftion fubmitted, for the opinion of the court is, whether the defendant as poft-mafter of Ipfaich is obliged to deliver the letters to the inhabitants of Ipfwich at their respective places of abode ? · Thomas Walker for the plaintiff. This cafe was argued twice at the bar; the first time in Hilary term laft by Serjeant Walker for the plaintiff, and Serjeant Forfer for the defendant, the second time by Serjeant Hill for the plaintiff, and Serjeant Burland for the defendant, in Eafter term laft. The Serjeants for the plaintiff argued this cafe, firft upon the principles of the common law; and fecondly upon the statutes concerning the poft-office. 1, They infifted that any man who undertakes to carry goods, is liable to an action at common law, be he a common carrier, or whatever he is, if through his neglect the goods are loft, or the party, whofe goods they are, comes to any harm, although it be not alleged in the declaration that the party undertaking to carry the fame is to have a reward for his pains; and for this was cited the cafe of Coggs verfus Bernard, 1 Ld. Raym. 909. where every undertaking of this kind is debated and confidered. The cafe of Wheatly verfus Low, Cro. Jac. 667. was cited at full length for the plaintiff, which was an action upon the cafe, wherein the plaintiff declared, "That whereas he was obliged to 7. S. in 40/. for the payment of 20l. and the "bond being forfeited, he delivered 10l. to the plaintiff to the "intent he fhould pay it to 7. S. in part of payment, fine ulla "mord; that in confideration thereof the defendant affumed, "&c. and affigns for breach that he had not paid; whereupon "the obligee had fued Wheatly for the debt, &c.; the defend ་་ ant pleaded non affumpfit, and verdict for the plaintiff: and "it was moved in arreft of judgment, that this is not any confideration; because it is not alleged that he delivered it unto "the defendant upon his requeft; and the acceptance of it to "deliver to another fine morâ, cannot be any benefit to the de"fendant to charge him with this promife; fed non allocatur; "for being that he accepted this money to deliver, and pro"mifed to deliver it, it is a good confideration to charge him; "wherefore it was adjudged for the plaintiff.. And error being brought "brought, and this matter only affigned for error, the judgment "was affirmed." And in 2 Ld. Raym. 920. this cafe is mentioned by the judges to be moft folemnly adjudged. And fo (per Holt Chief Justice) a bare being trufted with another man's goods, must be taken to be a fufficient confideration, if the bailee once enters into the trust and takes the goods into his poffeffion; and that a breach of a truft undertaken voluntarily will be a good ground for an action on the cafe for nonfeafance, 2 Hen. 7. 11. a. b. is a strong cafe to this matter. They alfo cited for the plaintiff a declaration in Raft. Entr. 13. b. in an action upon the cafe for planting thorns or a quickfet hedge in the plaintiff's hedge or ditch fo negligently, that they became dead and rotten, which is laid to be upon a voluntary affumpfit, without any confideration whatever mentioned therein. So if the post-mafter or any other perfon voluntarily receives a letter to carry, and to deliver the fame to a certain perfon to whom it is directed, he is bound to deliver it accordingly, whe ther he gets a reward for fo doing or not.--So if one fends goods by a carrier (whether he be a common carrier or not) to be by him delivered to A. B. at York; the carrier muft deliver the goods at his peril, and it is incumbent upon him, to find out and deliver the fame at York; to the perfon to whom they are directed; fo, before any ftatute for ercêting poft offices, a letter-carrier receiving a letter to carry, was bound to deliver the fame to the perfon to whom it was directed, in a reasonable time; and in failing to deliver the letter he would do a wrong, which nothing, at common law, could excufe him from, but the imperfection of the direction of the letter. The plaintiff's counfel cited Doctor Morley the man-midwife's cafe; he was fent for to the wife of A. B. who was with child, and near the time of her delivery; he accordingly vifited her; and when the time of her delivery was come, and fhe was under labour-pains, Doctor Morley was again fent for, to come and deliver her, but he neglected fo to do, and fhe died for want of proper affiftance; A. B. the husband brought an action against the Doctor, and recovered 1000l. damages. Gould Juftice-That was for a reward to be given by A. B. to Doctor Morley. Counsel for the plaintiff-The Doctor had undertaken, and they relied upon him to do the business accordingly. adly, adly, The plaintiff's counsel confidered the cafe at bar, upon the ftatutes for erecting and establishing a poft-office; the first flat. is 12 Car. 2. ch. 35. the preamble whereof fhews that the office was established and erected, for carrying and recarrying letters with speed and fafe dispatch; fo that for greater speed and dispatch (this must mean that) fuch letters must be delivered to the perfons to whom the fame are directed, and that they must be fo delivered appears from the whole tenor of this ftatute. See the ftat. The fat. 9 Ann. ch. 10. is equally expreffive that all letters fent by the general-poft must be carried and delivered to the perfons to whom the fame are feverally directed; as it was at common law, where any letter-carrier accepted the truft of carrying a letter from one to another, he was obliged to deliver it to the perfon to whom it was directed; if he neglected fo to do he was guilty of a breach of his undertaking, and was liable to an action for damages. The flat. 4 Geo. 2. ch. 33. for obviating a doubt which hath arifen concerning the ufual allowance made upon delivery of letters fent by the penny-poft to places out of the cities of London and Welminster and borough of Southwark, and the refpective fuburbs thereof, was cited to fhew that fuch letters must be deli vered to the feveral and refpective perfons to whom the fame are directed, within the limits of ten miles from London and WestminThe rule of fer, by the exprefs words of that act; and that whatsoever is the common law rule and practice with refpect to the penny-poft, must be the fame is the best in with refpect to the general-poft. They confidered all these ftatutes minutely, and faid the best rule to conftrue them is by the rules of the common law, from whence they inferred, that every letter fent by the general-poft must be carried, conveyed and delivered to the perfon to whom directed; and that if the law was not fo, and the poft-mafter was not obliged fo to deliver the letters, it would be a flop and great difadvantage to the trade of this kingdom. conftruing acts of parlia ment. Savil 39. 252. The cafe of Barnes verfus Foley, poft-mafter of Bath, B. R. Mic. 1766, determined in 1768 was cited; the defendant Foley gave publick notice to the inhabitants of the city of Bath, that one halfpenny would be demanded for every poft-letter delivered to them at their respective houfes or places of abode, overand above, or befides the poftage; the plaintiff Barnes being a housekeeper in Bath, the defendant demanded and received of him one fhilling for the delivering twenty-four poft-letters to him at his house over and above and befides the ufual poftage, whereupon the plaintiff brought his action against the defendant for 6 money |