case lane against sir robert cotton refer to Mersey dock v Gibbs l r h l h l c  Bennett v baize l I ex Bainbridge v postmastergeneral king b the postmaster  general be not liable to a action for the recovery of Exchequerbill S contain  in a letter and deliver to a clerk at the postoffice and lose from the office  a S c Mod S c salk S c comy Rep S c Carth S c Mod S c holt S c ld ray in a  action on the case the plaintiff declare recite the statute of car c by which  one general postoffice and one general postmaster be erect for the send of  letter all over the three kingdom c and also the statute of James c and that  sir Robert cotton be make postmaster by letter patent of the five of may in  the three year of William and mary pursuant to the say Act of car by which the  say master have power to make deputy and deputy and other officer and servant  under they as they shall think fit that the modern report say master by these  patent be to obey such rule and order as shall be give he by the king under  the sign manual and as to the revenue of the office the master be to observe  the order and direction of the lord of the treasury and in the say letter  patent the king covenant that he shall be only answerable for such miscarriage  and neglect as shall be his own and not for that of any other body and for the  execute of this office a annuity of fifteen hundred pound ayear be grant he  out of the profit of the office that the plaintiff be possess of eight  exchequer bill S in London do enclose they in a letter direct to one Jones a  goldsmith in Worcester and deliver the say letter with the bill S so enclose  to one b then a officer under the defendant duly elect to take in and deliver  out letter at the office in London to be send accord to the direction that  this b receive his salary by the hand of the receivergeneral and that the say  letter be so deliver to he be take out of the office of London by a unknown  hand and lose the question be whether a action lie against the postmaster or  not it be argue for the plaintiff the office of postmaster be a ancient  commonlaw office but exerciseable by any and as many as will take it upon  themselves against who any person have his remedy for any damage that happen  through their default this be the law before the say statute whereby one  general postmaster a it have also be decide that a action will not lie against  the postmaster general for a banknote steal by one of the sorters out of a  letter deliver into the postoffice Whitfeld v Lord Le dispenser Cowp modern  report er p be appoint but not by way of create a new office but make one  public office of all the prior private one and the end propose by the  parliament in so do as the Act tell we be a more speedy and safe conveyance of  letter so that this be a ancient commonlaw office ought to be govern by the  same law with other commonlaw office and therefore the post whether private or  public be to be consider as common carrier of small packet and consequent  liable to make satisfaction for miscarriage as other common carrier and that  the statute mean to make they liable appear by its say the office be make  public for great safety and since before the party that send letter by a  private post have the security of a action against he if he miscarry of  necessity that remedy still continue in like manner against the postmaster  general or else the preamble of the statute be false by the second section of  the statute it be ordain there shall be one master or general officer who from  time to time shall have the send of all letter and packet c to modern report  their several address from whence I infer first that all letter be to be send  by he second that he be a officer by the eight section none but the master  general or his deputy be to receive or carry letter by the sea or land or hire  horse or boat for that purpose the Act do not say that none shall carry letter  but the master or other officer put under he by the king but by he authorize  vide S and by the fifteen section he be bind to find posthorse under pain of  five pound for every failure which show that he be to answer for his  underofficer and in the letter patent whereby the defendant be nominate there  be a covenant from the king that the defendant shall not answer for the  default of any but his own which show he apprehend himself liable for those of  his officer and therefore provide against it by the covenant and it be no  reason to say that the underofficer be the king servant and not his because  the king and not he pay they for that be not so by the Act of parliament but  only by a private agreement between the king and he and such agreement can  deprive the subject of a benefit which the law give he the sheriff who by law  be oblige to take upon he his office be answerable for the miscarriage of his  under officer a strong in this case where one be not compellable to take the  office upon he and it be for this reason that a grant of the office of a  county clerk by the king be void   then there be a manifest neglect in the  defendant for by the statute the master and his servant be to send letter and  packet to their direction and it be part of the case that the letter in  question be deliver to the person appoint to receive letter in the office  which be the same thing as if it be deliver to the defendant himself and his  duty be to send it wherein he fail for it be agree it be take by a stranger  out of the office beside the letter be give to be send and be receive it so  and his receive to send be to send safe accord to Soutcoats case   and it be  upon this reason that all tradesman be oblige to do thing careful and skilful  and if they fail therein case will lie against they for the very take upon  they to do it be a take to do it careful and well and if it be so in every  private person case a strong it will be so in the case of a public officer who  one be compellable to use and upon this reason also it be that modern report  case lie against a sheriff for the escape suffer by his bailiff much a hard  case than the present by the same reason the defendant have take upon himself  this office have also take upon himself to do it careful but instead of that  the letter be take away in the very office where none can come without his  leave and if this be through the neglect of he or his servant he ought to  answer for it like the case of a innkeeper who shall answer for his servant  neglect it be object the king have all the revenue of the office and the  master but a salary insufficient to answer casualty of this kind answer it be  his folly to take the office upon those term and this be a strong case against  they than that of ray for here it do not appear that any trick be use to get  the letter from they or that they use convenient care if the master be not  liable to our action we have a injury do we and no remedy for it we have it  not against the king for he be only to nominate this officer and the  underofficer be only servant and Accountable to their master only and then the  consequence will be very dangerous both to the king and subject for by the Act  none can send letter by any private post and if one can send his letter but by  one hand and that he may with modern report er p impunity embezzle all letter  farewell to all trade and commerce one of who chief support be correspondence  by letter and what can be more fatal to the revenue than a decay of trade it  be argue on the other side first that exchequerbill be not such thing as the  postmaster be by the duty of his office oblige to take in second that by the  Act he be not bind to make satisfaction for every particular man loss in the  thing within the extent of his office three that in this case he be not  answerable the first depend on the construction of the statute what it intend  to be send by post and the statute intend a maintain of correspondence at home  and abroad and that by carry of letter not good or money for that be not  necessary for mutual correspondence indeed whatever thing by the intent of the  statute be within the office of the postmaster be not to be do by any other  but without doubt any other may carry money or good without offence against  the statute ergo such thing be not within the extent of the postmasters office  and a carrier may carry a letter along with good now exchequer modern report  bill be of the same nature with money and current as such and by consequence  may be send with a letter by a carrier ergo not within the duty or extent of  the postmasters office and one may as well say the postmaster be bind to send  jewel and it will be a hard construction that the master shall carry  exchequerbill for these reason first he must send his packet by day and night  for the speed require by the statute second he must trust boy and indigent  people who poverty will make they obnoxious to temptation for none of  substance or ability to give security will undergo such slavery three it be  impossible for he to send sufficient guard from the smallness of the prmium  the dispatch they must go with and incertainty of wind and weather therefore  from the nature of the thing the parliament intend the office for such thing  as in their nature may be send with speed and safety which exchequer bill be  current as money be not there be a clause in the statute which show it intend  not that thing of value shall be send by the post for it say such thing may be  send by messenger and bill of exchange be the only thing which may seem of  value that it mention may be send by it but the reason of that be because  first it be very convenient for trade second there be no danger in it for when  this statute be make bill of exchange be Payable to a three person or order  and if they be foreign bill there be letter of advice so there be no  temptation of steal they and by consequence no danger second if we consider  the smallness of the prmium we find it bear no proportion with the risk he  will run if he be liable for miscarriage which be a demonstration the  parliament do not intend he shall for they do not proportion the prmium accord  to the value of the thing send but accord to the weight and distance of place  and there be a clause that the price shall not be enhance upon account of bill  of exchange which plain show they do not intend he shall answer for a  miscarriage of they the statute empower he to appoint agent and deputy all  over the world and the argument use will make he liable for the miscarriage of  they and such construction will destroy the office itself there be no  comparison between the office of carrier and this a carrier be not bind to  travel but by day and if he be rob he have his remedy over he himself may  travel modern report with his wagon in person if a thing of value be send he  may make his own price accord to the risk be run whereas the post must travel  by night trust deputy have no remedy over if he be rob by night and can insist  upon a price but what be cut out by the statute this be not like the case of a  master of a ship who be answerable to the owner for damage do by the seaman to  their good because first be be there in person to see and correct what be  amiss second that be upon a particular contract between he and the owner  accord to the maritime law and be may choose whether he will go or not if he  do not like his reward but in our case one may send one thousand pound worth  of exchequerbill and the master know nothing of it nor be it like the case of  a sheriff who though liable to serve against his will yet must answer for  escape of his officer for first he be answerable only for the affair of one  county second he may raise the posse come to secure his prisoner modern report  er p three this letter be take out by a unknown person and that must be  understand to have be forcible and against our will and if so we will not be  answerable no more than a factor will be to his principal for what he be rob  of and Turton powis and gold justice be of opinion that the action do not lie  against the master because this be not like commonlaw office in which the  superior answer for the inferior as his servant but this be a office new  create by Act of parliament and as gold justice call it find in government  that be in which each have a distinct branch to exercise yet with  subordination and dependency on the chief master but not as servant ut by the  very constitution and erection of the office and this by Act of parliament to  which every one be consent and be say every one of these in his own peculiar  station be as much a officer pro tempore as the master and compare it to a  corporation in which the head be over the rest yet not answerable for the  miscarriage of a inferior member Edward and Turton justice and be agree that  exchequer bill S be not thing proper to be send by post and they also all  agree the reason before offer for the defendant but powis justice hold there  be sufficient word in the Act to comprehend exchequerbill holt chief justice  content argue thus notwithstanding what have be say at the bar by Mr attorney  since chief justice of the common plea modern report my brother wright since  Lord keeper and Cowper king counsel and by my three brother on the bench I be  of opinion that the plaintiff ought to have judgement this case be comprehend  in a narrow compass before I give my reason it will be proper to observe upon  what point I go and insist on and for that it be to be consider that it be no  part of the question here whether if a letter be put into the post and send  safe out and the man on the road be rob or some other mischance happen whereby  the letter be lose whether I say the postmaster be liable in that case be not  the question now for that be mere foreign and deserve a separate consideration  but as this case stand now before we where a letter be deliver to the proper  officer in his office in London and there lose in the very office though no  diversity have be take between these two case either at bar or the bench yet I  think they different there be reason the master shall answer for the  miscarriage of any letter or packet that be lose in the office though not  actual deliver to he but to his servant because by the constitution of the  office he be entrust with the profit and interest of the subject and a trust  be repose in he for the discharge of which he have a certain duty or salary he  be make a public officer by Act of parliament that there shall be one general  postmaster and it be plain the statute design this for the benefit of the  subject as appear by the preamble thereof and this be a matter of general  concern for trade and commerce and to the end that speed and safe dispatch  shall he have of letter and packet which in the judgement of the parliament be  more likely to be have by make one general office and officer so it appear to  have be do for the more benefit and safety of the subject second this office  be fix at London which be the centre of business from which all letter be send  and all letter be to come so there be a certain place settle where this office  be to be three it be a office of care and that care be commit to the  postmaster that none but he his deputy or servant c be to take receive or send  any letter except such as may be send by the carrier coach c as the Act direct  so there be one man set up and all the rest to be his deputy or servant so  that from the nature of the trust he be bind to keep safe in his office all  letter and packet deliver in there at his peril because it be a trust modern  report repose in he by Act of parliament that be by law this office be not at  all distinguishable from that of marshal of this court or of warden of the  fleet who be entrust with such office by commonlaw and it be no excuse for  they to say that their prison be open by unknown person though it be by people  in open rebellion as in the case of Henry the case of the duke of Norfolk and  the reason be because it be a trust by law in a public officer and it be do  under a government in which it be suppose he may have a remedy over at least  such remedy as the law allow though the wrong be by person in open rebellion  and there it be hold that debt lie modern report er p against the gaoler for  such a escape upon the statute of Richard this be the case at commonlaw where  a capias only lie for damage in trespass but not for any action of debt till  Edward c   and upon this subsequent Act which give capias in debt upon a  judgement in it if the sheriff suffer one in execution on such capias to  escape debt will lie against he for it though at commonlaw which make sheriff  liable for escape where capias then lie no such process as a capias on a  judgement in debt be know and he be as much bind to keep those that be in for  debt since that statute as those who be in for damage in trespass before and  so be the law upon a to lift up facias by the statute of Westminster the  second c a elegit be give and if sheriff take good upon a elegit he shall be  liable to answer for they if they be rescue as if they have be take upon the  commonlaw process of to lift up facias upon the statute of Edward de  mercatoribus the sheriff be liable for good which he take in execution by to  stretch out facias by consequence of law mere for such a thing be not before  that statute then what difference can be make between the marshal of this  court and warden of the fleet and this officer for the master be to keep the  letter safe till he send they out as the gaoler be to keep his prisoner till  they be legal discharge out of his custody another reason why the master shall  be liable here be because the subject pay a reward for keep and send away  their letter and this reward be pay to one who make it his business and  employment to take and send letter and packet deliver to he and wherever a man  take upon himself the exercise of a office the exercise whereof be for the  benefit and advantage of the public and take a reward for the same he shall be  answerable at law for any modern report harm the subject receive by his ill  administration of that office or employment and for all event and chance even  from thief and like malefactor cro if good be leave with a innkeeper by one  who be no guest or traveller and they be lose he shall not answer for they  because he have no benefit for the keep and it be not his employment to keep  such but if a horse be leave in his stable and he be lose he shall answer for  it because be receive profit thereby arise from the meat consume by the horse  and hob in the action against the hoiman which be the first of the kind to be  meet with in book be upon that reason because he have a hire for it my brother  gold say this be a office find in government if be mean that it be a office  create and frame by law he ought to make a quite contrary conclusion for so be  the office of a marshal and yet he shall answer for escape and shall not it be  so too in case of a officer create by Act of parliament for the one and the  other be by law the one and the other for the benefit of the subject in the  one case the prisoner to be keep for their benefit to have their debt pay in  the other that their letter be safe keep and send away with speed and why then  shall the officer in one case be answerable to the subject for his neglect or  default and not in the other and since then he be entrust with this office for  the benefit and advantage of the subject whatever consequential damage befall  the subject through his neglect he ought to answer for it another reason of  brother gold against the action be that if it do lie it must be upon a  contract express or imply and true I do not think that but that he be  Chargeable by the law and the nature of his office another objection be that  the reward do not go to the defendant whoever give a reward to have a thing do  for he ought to have a remedy if the thing be not do and when a reward be give  to a officer of public trust that entitle the party to a remedy if he be  grieve through neglect or other default of such officer and if he ought to  have such remedy sure it must be against he who receive his reward and be  fifteen hundred pound ayear so small a prmium as not to encourage those that  enjoy it to be more diligent in the execution of their office so at least as  to suffer no neglect within the very wall of the office as it be here and  though all the salary or revenue of the office go not to the defendant yet his  salary be to be pay out of the revenue of the office modern report and there  be no diversity between this case and the case of moss and slay a which be  thus good to be a in the king bench in Hilary term car but enter mich term car  roll report keb vent raym Mod lev keb modern report er p transport to foreign  part be ship in the river Thames and there be a competent number of man on  board for sail the ship but they be in the river overpower and rob and the  question be whether a action will lie against the master of the ship and at a  trial at bar the special matter be find and in arrest of judgement this very  exception be take to excuse the master that he do not receive the hire but the  owner do and the master have only a salary from they but it be resolve against  he first because he be a public officer second because his salary be part of  the hire and do arise for the care and diligence that ought to be take for the  safe custody of the good and so here the postmaster be a public officer and he  have a salary from the profit of the office my brother have take a difference  between the two case for that in the case of the master of a ship be may have  take precaution which postmaster can use but what caution can there be use in  one case and not in the other it be true it be say in that case that if the  owner of the good have bring they before such time as be convenient before the  ship be ready to sail he may refuse to receive they and that may be and it be  so in the case of a carrier if good be bring to his inn before the convenient  time for he to be go be may refuse to take they but in both case if one who  they entrust to receive good before such convenient time receive good and they  be lose the carrier shall answer for they and so shall the master but no man  shall by law justify to deny the duty of his office for there be a perpetual  obligation upon they to keep the thing to they commit till they have discharge  their trust and when they have do and no soon be they discharge this case be  within the same reason of justice and equity of law upon which all action of  this nature be bring and it have all the ingredient whereby one be make  responsible in like case for negligent keep of good for what be the reason  that a carrier or innkeeper be bind to keep such good as he receive at his  peril it be ground upon great equity and justice for if they be not Chargeable  for loss of good without assign any particular modern report default in they  they have such opportunity as they have by the trust repose in they to cheat  all people they will be so apt to play the rogue and cheat people without  almost a possibility of redress by reason of the difficulty of prove a default  particular in they that the inconveniency will be very great and though one  may think it a hard case that a poor carrier who be rob on the road without  any manner of default in he shall be answerable for all the good he take yet  the inconveniency will be far more intolerable if it be not so for it will be  in his power to combine with robber or to pretend a robbery or some other  accident without a possibility of remedy to the party and the law will not  expose he to so great a temptation but be must be honest at his peril and this  be the reason of the civil law in this case which though I be loath to quote  yet inasmuch as the law of all nation be doubtless raise out of the ruin of  the civil law as all government be spring out of the ruin of the Roman empire  it must be own that the principle of our law be borrow from the civil law  therefore ground upon the same reason in many thing a and all this may be  though the commonlaw be time out of mind and it be to be doubt that there be  intelligence give here that there be Chequerbill S in this letter otherwise it  be improbable this letter shall be single out from all the rest I do not here  arraign the integrity of the gentleman that manage the office but we must here  consider the whole mass of mankind and though these be worthy person yet have  may succeed they who may search and open man letter and none be the wise or  able to fix it upon there be transact in their own office and lie only in the  offender privity who thus may with impunity abuse the trust repose in he and a  common carrier or innkeeper or master of a ship must have answer and in the  case of moss v slay it appear the defendant be guilty of no particular default  for a power come upon he and rob he but sure more care may have be take in  this case for if breeze have do his duty the bill can not have be take out of  the letter in the office and the diversity between the case of a common  carrier and this upon account of the carrier have a remedy against the hundred  if he be rob it be a see justinian institute book title de lege modern report  er p none at all in the reason of the thing for before that remedy be give  which be only by the statute of Winchester modern report the action do lie  against he and yet he have no remedy but against the robber if he can catch  they and the master have the like remedy here and even now they be without  remedy in some case upon the statute of stannary other than against the thief  or wrongdoer as to the case of a innkeeper this diversity be offer between it  and this for that it be within his house which be his castle and he may make  his servant watch all night but sure they do not consider that these bill be  lose within the wall of the office in Lombardstreet which be likewise the  defendant castle and that he may keep his servant up all night if he please  and the care in keep up his servant to watch if notwithstanding that a  misfortune shall happen ought rather to discharge than to charge he and  therefore no more reason the one shall be bind than the other the case of the  innkeeper be much a strong case for he be bind to receive all manner of people  into his house till it be full but the postmaster need lot none into his  office but such as he please as to the case of Herbert v page a a action bring  against he for suffer a rasure to be make in a record in his custody and it be  think prima fancy the action lie but on better consideration inasmuch as it  appear that he have not the sole custody of they but that stranger of right  have access to they without his permission the plaintiff be bar but here the  postmaster have the sole custody and nobody have liberty to come into the  office without his leave I be apprehensive here some may think I will carry  this point far than I have already declare by compare it to the carrier case  and that by the same reason a action can lie if the letter have be lose upon  the road but I do not mean any such thing for I will not give any opinion  either the one way nor the other in that case for it be a thing that probable  may come in question hereafter but let that be as it will there be a  difference between that case and the present for the carrier receive the good  to carry safe and the postmaster the letter to send safe and those be the word  of the Act and I wonder no diversity have be take between the case of a letter  lose in the office and lose on the road be send safe out of the office for  there seem to be a great deal of difference and it maybe a question upon the  modern report word of the statute whether when the master send the letter safe  away he be not discharge suppose then he be not Chargeable in case of a  robbery on the road it will not follow from thence that he be not bind to keep  a letter safe in the office and in the case of moss v slay if the ship have be  rob at sea the master have not be answerable yet he be Chargeable at land so  here though be may not be Chargeable for a robbery on the road he may for a  loss in the office if a man bring a horse to a inn and desire the master to  put he into a stable till it cool and then send he to grass if the horse be  steal before he send he to grass he shall answer for he though if he have send  he to grass pursuant to the owner desire he will not be answerable and so he  shall be Chargeable till he have perform the trust repose in he and as soon as  he have perform it he shall be discharge so here perhaps if the letter have be  send away safe out of the office he have perform his trust and have be  discharge yet it will lie as the case be where he have not perform his trust  by safe send it out then by the duty of his office be be to take Chequerbills  though this have be deny by Mr attorney and my two brother but it be his duty  to receive they for these reason first by the word of the Act he be to receive  any letter packet or thing proper to be send by post second this be a thing  proper to be send by post as to the first wherever any subject take upon  himself a public trust for the benefit of the rest of his fellowsubject he be  eastern Self bind to serve the subject in all the thing that be within the  reach and comprehension of such a office under pain of a action against he and  for that see Kelway if on the road a shoe fall off my horse and I come to a  smith to have one put on and the smith refuse to do it air action will lie  against he because he have make profession of a trade which be for the public  good and have thereby expose and vest a interest of himself in all the king  subject that will employ he in the way of his trade a if a innkeeper refuse to  entertain a guest where his house be not full a action will lie against a side  a Keilwood pl modern report er p he b and so against a carrier if his horse be  not load and he refuse to take a packet proper to be send by a carrier and I  have know such action maintain though the case be not report and why shall not  a action lie against a postmaster here if he shall refuse to take in a letter  or modern report any other thing proper to be send by post and doubtless a  action will lie in that case if the inn be full or the carrier horse load the  action will not lie for such refusal but one that have make profession of a  public employment be bind to the utmost extent of that employment to serve the  public sure then where it be a public employment create by law the obligation  be the great as if the sheriff refuse a writ a action will lie against he  because the law charge he with a employment for the conveniency and good of  the public so here the law videlicet a Act of parliament charge the postmaster  with a employment for the good and convenience of the public therefore the  reason be the same as to the second these Chequerbill S be proper to be send  by the post for the Act do not confine what thing be to be send but leaves it  very general it do not mention any species but any letter or packet whatsoever  then it be plain the Act mean other thing than letter or packet of letter  shall be send for the prince be different for there be so much a sheet for  letter and so much a ounce for other thing as packet of writ deed or other  thing which word be as general as may be so the prince be vary from that for  letter and any thing whatsoever that may be send by post and all thing which  by their nature may be send with dispatch and without danger of hurt the horse  be proper to be send by post of what nature soever they be and nothing can be  more portable than Chequerbills for a small packet of they may contain to the  value of ten thousand pound it be object that they ought not to be send by  post because they be new thing create long after the Act for erect the  postoffice I answer they be within the reason of other thing which be in be  and within the Act when it be make   a b No agreement make before or after  marriage bar a woman of her dower though she accept what be agree on after the  death of the husband but the statute of Henry c make estate for life of the  wife to take immediate after the death of her husband to be a bar of dower if  it be make in satisfaction of her dower and at the time of make that Act no  land of freehold or inheritance be devisable but by special custom and after  by the statute of Henry they be make devisable if such husband who wife be  entitle to dower devise land to her in satisfaction of dower and she accept of  it after his modern report death though it be a thing not know or in be at the  time of make the statute of Henry that make a jointure a bar of dower yet be  within the same reason with other jointure mention in that statute it be judge  to be a jointure within it and by the same reason if Chequerbills be as proper  to be send by post as other thing that be in be at the make of the statute of  car though Chequerbills be not then know yet they shall be within the same  reason and the post as much bind to take and send they as any other thing  whatsoever another instance of the like be in the same case in   by the  statute of marlbridge make the Henry a man seize in fee infeoffing his son and  heir to defraud the lord of his wardship the feoff be make void as to the lord  and by Richard c beneficiary and use have power to make a feoff of the land  out of which the use arise by Henry c the heir of beneficiary and use shall be  in ware and if since that statute beneficiary and use make a feoff by virtue  of Richard c to his son and heir it shall be void by the statute of marlbridge  make two hundred year before and it will be as good a argument to say that if  one come by the Chequerbill of another unlawful that trover will not lie for  it for that they be new thing as that they shall not be send by post because  they be new thing but when a Act of parliament create a new interest it shall  be govern by the same law that like interest have be govern before it have be  object at the bar that the postmaster be not bind to answer first for bill of  exchange Payable to bearer because it be the party folly to make they so  Payable second be be not liable for the loss of they though make b dyer godb  more vent Bl Com modern report er p Payable the ordinary way videlicet to such  a man or order because be be to have nothing for they as such no hire or  postage as to the first a bill of exchange Payable to bearer be lawful and it  be prudence in any man that have a mind to negotiate a bill of exchange to get  it draw in that form for then it needs no endorsement and by consequence if be  do negotiate it shall not be Chargeable whereas if it be make Payable to one  or order for every negotiation there must be a new endorsement and every  endorsor be become liable in infinitum and all bill without exception be to be  send by post and this sort of bill be lawful may therefore be send modern  report but they pay no reward for send or carry they therefore the postmaster  ought not to answer for a miscarriage of they answer whoever write or send a  letter with a bill of exchange in it it shall be intend that the letter be  writ and send for the sake of the bill and therefore though the post do not  receive a immediate direct reward for the bill yet it receive a mediate  consequential one as in the case of a innkeeper a passenger pay nothing for  the keep of his good in the inn but pay only for his victual and lodging and  the reward which he pay for his victual and lodging entitle he to a action for  the loss of his good beside Chequerbills be not exempt from pay and without  doubt if a man send a great packet or bundle of they he be bind to pay accord  to the bulk of his packet but suppose nothing be due for Chequerbills no more  than to a sheriff for execute a writ of execution yet if the good so take in  execution be lose he shall answer for they he be a public officer for that  purpose and there never be a instance that a officer entrust by law with the  good of a subject but that if he lose they the officer by consequence of law  be liable for they and Southcots case a be very strong though by the by that  case as report there be not all law but where there be a special undertake to  keep the good for if there be but a general bailment and a general acceptance  and so the matter leave to a construction of law thereupon how the good shall  be keep the law will make construction you shall keep they as you do your own  but where there be a special acceptance to keep they safe there at your peril  you be bind by your special acceptance to keep they safe though you have no  reward and that you be not compellable by law to take they which be strong  than our case b but when good be give to a officer of law sure there it must  be intend that they be to be safe keep and therefore be shall be charge and I  do not think there can be a case put where a public officer or his deputy be  ever discharge in case against he for a miscarriage in they for good or other  thing lose through their neglect another reason to charge the defendant be  because before the statute of car the subject have liberty to send his packet  by any other postmaster he please of which there be many in those day it be  then lawful modern report for any man to set up such a office and if such as  have set up such a office then have be rob the subject will have have his  action and recover against they as much as against a common carrier and this  be admit by the other side so it be very reasonable that those that take it  now shall take it upon the same term it then stand and the office be not new  but only that instead of be exercise by many before it be now exercise only by  one and all person by this Act be forbid to use any other post or to send by  any but by this one that be to be by letter patent under the great seal and  the postmaster be as I say Chargeable at commonlaw before and the employment  be now the same that it be then only that of be exercise by one person  therefore every thing that be incident to it then remain so still and since  the subject be deprive of his election of trust who he please with his letter  sure to compel he to send by one against who he shall have no remedy will be  the most unreasonable thing in the world and the most unjust construction upon  the statute it be object at the bar that they have this remedy against breeze  I agree if they can prove that be take out the bill they may sue he for it so  they may any body else on who they can fix that fact but for a neglect in he  they a   b and note this case be better report in cro Elizabeth note to former  edition modern report er p can have no remedy against he for they must  consider he only as a servant and then his neglect be only Chargeable on his  master or principal for a servant or deputy quatenus such can be charge for  neglect but the principal only shall be charge for it a but for a misfeasance  a action will lie against a servant or deputy but not quatenus a deputy or  servant but as a wrongdoer as if a bailiff who have a warrant from the sheriff  to execute a writ suffer his prisoner by neglect to escape the sheriff shall  be charge for it and not the bailiff but if the bailiff turn the prisoner lose  the action may be bring against the bailiff himself for then he be a kind of  wrongdoer or rescuer and it will lie against any other that will rescue in  like manner and for this diversity vide Leon cro Edward Ro which be not well  report but the inference may be well make from it and here the defendant have  the power in he to manage the office by himself his deputy or servant and  every deputy or servant be by he that put he in and therefore he ought to  answer for he and the reason why a modern report principal shall answer for  his deputy be because as be as principal have power to put he in so he have  power to put he out without show any cause and that though he have express  give he a estate for life in the deputation vide hob more h and a deputy or  servant may bring a great mischief than this come to upon his principal for if  one have a office of inheritance in its nature forfeitable for such and such  offence or misdemeanour and he put in a deputy who commit such act as will be  a forfeiture in the principal if he have do they he shall forfeit the office  for his principal h the case in die to my great wonder have be quote by my  brother gold as a authority for he for it be direct against he by the Henry c  any customer that shall conceal any of the king custom due for merchandise  shall forfeit Triple the value of the merchandise and by the statute of  Elizabeth c the customer of any port may make a deputy for the custom of any  creek belong to that port and a deputy so appoint have conceal the custom and  the principal ignorant of this fraud certify his account into the exchequer  without take notice of this fraud or the custom due for the concealment and a  action bring against the principal and adjudge it lie and what be the reason  thereof but because the principal shall answer for his deputy and where it be  say that the deputy of the postmaster by the Act have power to make deputy and  they be to have servant who be to act under they that make no matter for the  principal shall answer for all the neglect not only of the deputy be make but  also of that deputy deputy and servant and so down for he shall be answerable  for every act of they that shall tend to the prejudice of another in their  deputation but that be not this case for breeze in this case through who  neglect this letter have be lose be immediate put in by the defendant himself  though if it be by his deputy or servant it have be the same my brother powis  say they be all fellowservant that be the postmaster and lettercarrier because  they all receive their salary from the king though retain and put in by the  defendant and compare they to a steward and servant of a nobleman house but I  answer that they be pay by the king as deputy and servant of the defendant and  there be no diversity but in the manner of pay modern report they for they be  under the command of the defendant and to act accord as be direct and it be  intend by the Act that he shall pay all his servant out of his salary and if  be agree with the king to have so much clear for himself and that the king  shall pay his servant they be no less his servant because the king pay they  and if they be not his servant what become of the defendant who be by the Act  to manage the office by he and his deputy and servant and if he let people  manage it who be not his servant and over who he have no power and they  imbezil good or other thing sure the defendant shall answer for it for he do  not manage the office as the statute direct and his let people in that a see  the case of stone v Cartwright that no action lie against a steward manager or  agent for damage do by the negligence of those employ by he in the service of  his principal but the principal or those actual employ be only liable term Rep  modern report er p be mere stranger that ought not to be there at all shall  not excuse he from neglect or other mischance but now my brother have find out  a better employment for he and compare he to a captain and his deputy and  servant to the soldier of a company and as the captain shall not answer for  the valour and courage of his soldier so neither shall he for the care and  diligence of his servant I be of opinion that if any particular person suffer  a particular prejudice by the want of courage of a soldier who the captain  take in by his own election he shall have a action against the captain for it  but that be not the case for where a trust be put in one person and another  who interest be entrust to he be damnified by the neglect of such as that  person employ in the discharge of that trust he shall answer for it to the  party damnified and he case of a master of a ship be much more like that of a  captain than the present and yet he shall answer for the neglect of his seaman  and it be not his captainship will save he and he shall answer for a robbery  commit on he on land and for neglect of his man at sea though he shall not be  answerable for a robbery on the sea and it seem plain to I the Act intend he  shall be answerable for all the letter and packet they shall receive and for  the default of their servant for first it have give the whole power and  government of the office to the mastergeneral and as this care be deliver to  he so nobody be to intermeddle but he and such as he shall intrust and if this  Act be say to create this office as a new office notwithstanding the action  will lie for when a Act erect a new office for the benefit of the subject  under the same circumstance with other office in which the modern report  subject have a interest in respect whereof the person exercise they will be  liable to a action for the default of his servant it must be presume the Act  design the new officer shall be liable for why else shall they make it so like  in reason and in this case he be entrust with the interest of the subject as  much as the sheriff or other officer of justice be and the Act direct the  letter shall be send with safe dispatch and who be to do that but the  postmaster further it appear that it be the design of the statute that he  shall be answerable for the default of his deputy and for that consider these  two clause first that the postmaster and his deputy and no other shall find  horse and if through default of postmaster any person shall fail of get horse  in all such case the master shall forfeit five pound consider the word and if  through default of the master not of his deputy which show they intend that if  any fault be that it shall be reckon that of the master for if one that ride  post can be furnish with horse who shall forfeit the five pound for every  default the master and not the deputy and then sure the default of the deputy  be the default of the master and this appear plain by this branch of the Act  it be object that this will rain the office but I think the contrary and that  it will be the mean to have the office well keep and will make they more  careful to do their duty and to discharge the trust repose in they but it be  object that one may choose whether he will send his letter by post or not for  he may send a messenger of his own and that be true yet it be no excuse for  the defendant for if there be several inn on the road and yet if I go into one  when I may go into another and be rob or otherwise lose my good there the  election I have of use that or any other inn shall not excuse the innkeeper so  here the plaintiff have election to send by the post or messenger and if he  send by post and that there be default in he he shall have his action and he  can send by the messenger with speed as by the post and speed be one of the  benefit resign by the statute to the subject and it take away the advantage he  have of send by a speedy messenger before and so will put he in a worse  condition which never be the intent of the Act and as to the smallness of the  prmium there be nothing in that for the law think it a reasonable reward and  if one do not like the condition of a office he may let it alone modern report  then as to the clause in the patent that the defendant shall not be answerable  for any neglect but his own immediate neglect it must be intend only in  relation to the management of the revenue for which they be to account to the  Lord treasurer or to be against law for it be not a grant by letter patent  that shall modern report er p deprive the subject of the benefit give by the  Act for the postmaster be to act accord to the statute and not accord to the  letter patent and where it be say that they shall from time to time observe  such direction as be send to he under the sign manual if any ill consequence  happen by such a observation they be not excuse I say then that this clause  that they shall not answer for miscarriage of servant or any but their own may  have this effect to exempt they from any mismanagement of the revenue of the  office because that be the king he may order that as be please but that clause  in a patent shall never deprive the subject of his benefit ordain for he by  the statute though it be with a non to stand before when non to stand before  be in their utmost vigour so for these five reason I hold the action lie first  because it be a public office entrust to they by parliament for the profit and  benefit of the subject which in its nature require care and diligence second  because the defendant have a reward for his care at the expense of the subject  three the same reason hold to charge they in this case as to charge carrier  innkeeper and such like videlicet the great inconvenience which will otherwise  ensue by reason of the dangerous temptation and opportunity they will lie  under to imbezil good entrust to they without possibility of prove a  particular neglect fourthly they be within the meaning of car liable and if  that be not so in this case defendant will be liable by his acceptance five  they may send these thing by other messenger before the statute against who a  action will lie for miscarriage which be take from they by this Act which be  design for their benefit it must be intend in reason that the statute leaves  they a like remedy these be my reason and I do not see any to the contrary