The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-15
Common Pleas.
TAKT FTKNT
R.fnre Hon JuIv. Woodruff

Before Hon Judg. Woodruff
Der IL -L,abjttty u Comn)n Carriers lathe
case Of Pettee damn, w. rhos V. johnson $40
iona L Hunt ngton, an nction for value Of iroa
shipped by plaintiffs DO ard the schooner FrIuSes
Carey, Owned by the de'endt ants, and l0ss-are.dT
netice.i-di Honor, in charging tbs jufy SAID the
state OF the before devoives upon tbs dsfsn
ants the burhen oi showing your satisfaction thse
the loss happened from causes for the Ocaurres,e u
which they are not responsibie; and IN regard -
the nature and extent Of Ibe responsibility Of oar
ri. re- there il no be ference 90 tween she
counsel common carrier IL bound to carry safely,
and deliver goods entrusted TO hun unless prevsassd
by what the law deems the act Of God 1t il. n
its apple alton to this cause, by the sot0a
Of the elements, over which has c0nsrst
He is ony excused from loss hsppeoiag Ia
spite of all human sagacily,' under the cir.
cuMstances in which IL occurs; it is huasa
ssgscty employed in foresee,ng, not in revio Sios
event which could not be anticipated 1t IL 0Oo-
ceded that the imDediae cause of lOssth 1t Is t04
active agency which over whemed tho vesscl-~asA
sudden flaw Of wind This exonerates the defso%
fnts, unless IL appears that it by reason OF sbeit
Negligence Tor that of their ageDs) that this resAit
eusued from the action Of the elements. You vii
then properly inquire whether there neglig snos
on the part Of the defend snts?-was the sea-
worthy was the cargo properly st0wed!-~as shs
schooner properly nsvigsted! and was everything
done which the utmost skill snd prudence woad
suggest in tho time of peril! Ii In these respsstS.
The defeDdsDts without fault-if their eeosuse
was, in ell PARTICULARS prudent and proper in WV
OF 81 the ordinary perls of voyage from Ne~srk
VI RtW lOk, Oh suon u Hay anu Ia Sucu Vet'utr -
then prevailed with liability change and sil prss
tcsbe skill used when the extraordinary dassse
arose, then they not responsible for the loss %
the other hand, II the loss of tho schooner might
have been avoided by human foresight Or Oro
deDCe, then her loss no. o;c1sioned by the act
Of God, within the legal moaning Of that term.
Bat If in aOy particular they were negligent. OF
omi ted 10 use such precautions rs competent Skin
would suggest IN the moment Of perit-shen they
IRE liable, unless the power which ovorwhclmsd t0s
vessel was such that human skill could avert he
loss II the violence OF the gale WAS Of the latter
dtscrptiO0 then the cOntuct of the defendants csn-
not DO sad to have buted to tbs loss, for If
human skill could have avniled, the loss by aot
ii God, even although there VAS want Of skill on
their part Applying these principles to this
case, You will Ghd tor plaintiffs defendants,
cordiDg to your view Of the facts proved II
you find for the plaintiffs, they are eotitis1
to recover tho value OF the property and the damage
sustained by non delivery, which you may, yog
think proper, reg md be interest on tho vatns
from theiIme it ought to have been delivered fns
jury then retired, and not having agreed OF too
ming Of the Court, the Judge ordered . sealed
verdict
Ger IL Verdict for tho defendants
John Boilas Us I,anc Vrmifye This was On ~
ton for SANDER in calling the plaintiff thief. Ver.
dict against tho defendant for SO
SECOND.
Before Hon Judge Ingrahsm.
Ocr 12- Somud Ph,Hips vs. Henry L. Tss
Wnke This action for assault aud battsYy-
The defendant ia an aDctoneer, and on oocss,oa
told bis clerk Iot to take the " bid" OF tho ps,au9
unless he paid deposit. as no was in tho hsbis q
bidding for books and no. paying for them astef~
vaSds This the plaintiff said was untrue; where
upon the defendant showed hiIA out Of hts ausstya
room and down stairs Verdict for n'sntif, So
vhich carries an equal amount of costs.