Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 31, 2025
Here's this impudent young beggar, who sneaked of poor old Coggs for sucking jujubes, and very nearly got us all into a jolly good row, with his own box full all the time; butterscotch, if you please, and jam, and ginger wine! You'll just put 'em all back again, will you, you young humbug!" "Do you use those words to me, sir?" said Paul angrily, for he did not like to be called a humbug.
It appears to me that it has not always been sufficiently borne in mind that the same thing may be a consideration or not, as it is dealt with by the parties. The popular explanation of Coggs v. Bernard is, that the delivery was a consideration for a promise to carry the casks safely.
This is further illustrated by the fact that, when the duty was thus set forth, it was not alleged as an obligation peculiar to common carriers as such, but was laid as the custom of law of common hoymen, or lightermen, &c., according to the business of the party concerned. It will be noticed that Chief Justice Holt in Coggs v.
"You little brute!" cried Paul, "I could have you up for assault for that!" But upon this Coggs did the very same thing only harder. "Last term you'd have shown fight for much less, Bultitude," they both observed severely, as some justification for repeating the process. "Now, perhaps, you'll drop it for the future," said Coker. "Look here! we'll give you one more chance.
It had begun to totter when the reporter cautioned bailees to accept in such terms as to get rid of it. /1/ Accordingly, although that decision was the main authority relied on for the hundred years between it and Coggs v.
Coggs and Coker welcomed him with open arms as an equal, while Siggers, a short, slight, sharp-featured boy, with a very fashionable hat and shirt-collars, and a horse-shoe pin, drawled, "How are you, old boy?" with the languor of a confirmed man about town.
"I should be most happy to meditate, sir," protested Paul, lowering his chair on discovering that there was no immediate danger, "if that that bloodthirsty young ruffian there would allow me to do so. I am going about in bodily fear of him, Dr. Grimstone. I want him bound over to keep the peace. I decline to be left alone with him he's not safe!" "Is that so, Coggs?
"We don't want any fine language, you know," said the relentless Coggs. "Yes or no. Will you promise to be your old self again?" "I only wish I could," said poor Mr. Bultitude "but I can't!" "Very well, then," said Coggs firmly, "we must try the torture. Coker, will you screw the back of his hand, while I show him how they make barley-sugar?"
Coggs stared idiotically and protested, but after a short and painful scene, was sent off up to his bedroom, yelping like a kicked puppy. "One word more," said the Doctor, now almost calm again. "I know that you all think with me in your horror of the treachery I have just exposed. I know that you would scorn to participate in it."
The replication was that the goods were delivered to the defendant out of enclosure, and Fitzherbert says the party was driven to that issue; /1/ which implies that, if not in the chest, but in the defendant's custody, he was liable. Lord Holt, in Coggs v.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking