The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-10-07

Before Chief Justice Nelson.
DECISION on APPEAL IN ADMIRALTY-LIApuIrY OF

CARRIERS.
or' s.,James n 0lney Us, The Steamship Fa,oon-
(carbnes which alleged to be lost in the Course
of shipment from this port to Chagres in the ship
lscs p, in April lS4g The bill of ladng which was
signed by the purser Of the ship, acknowledged the
ceip OF the box and engaged to convey and deliver the
same at Chagres In good order the angers the
cepted outside Of the bar, to s. Lea z.chrsson Mel
SON or their assigns The shippers Livingston Wells
Co. and the goods were destined to the of Coote
Baker Co., Of san Francisco the arrival the ship
at Chagres this box with other goods was put on board
boat In charge Of the second the ship
shore to be delivered Ramos whose place of
WAS ~ the landing and who the agent of the house
OF Mchrisson Nelson of Panama. the other side Of
the lsthmus The ship was anchored little over mile
from the place OF landing. After this s. lea
board and called for the box purser who charge
81 me landing the goods at that place advised him that
mouse at the place of landing and the usual custom Of
this ship in lS49 land the goods the stoehouse
Chagres, Whether the box reached that place,
the hands of Ramos does not appear have evil
dence respecting this from either the beliant OF claim
ants There proof that it did not reach tho house
Cooke Baker Co.. of San Francisco the ultimate place Of
its destination. The court below dismissed the libel the
ground principally that evidence of the delivery of
the goods Lea not sufficient to charge the car
rerthat evidence sheuld also have given of the
delivery to the house of Zachrisson Nelson the
other consignees TIE thus presented on the evil
dence is undoubtedly close one, and if it had been
before me or gnaliy, might possibly, in weighing the
evidence have inclined to different onclus from that
to whck the learned Jadge arrived But weak oon
in has not been strengthened by the additional to no
peal, had an opportunity to supply the defect per-
haps it but right to conclude That the inference of
the court below was the proper 1t seems to be
well settled that in order to charge the carrier some
evidence must be given the part Of the shipper
owners of the nondevery of goods according to the
requirement OF the bill OF adng I Car IL p. 10; IL Il.
Com Law r. 1888; Ad. Il ELL 543; Greenl. Ey. p. 2l3
Angel Carriers 400 Very slight evidence win be suf
the goods had been delivered But there must be
evidence in the first instance of the nondevery by the
shippers. Now the weak point of the the part of
ta tn I'm IF 1ulin
son. at Chagres Lea has been examined aud proves
clearly enough that the goods delivered to him.
But there total absence of any evidence of monde
livery to the other consgnees There Il evidence that the
box did not reach the house of Cooke Baker Co.. of San
Francisco; but this affords inference legal logical
that it did not to the hands Of Ichr-son Nelson
the part of the claimants that there was delivery
to Lea, but to Ramos who the agent Of zachris-
son d Nelson at Chagres to forward goods to. them
and his place of business and the place where the goods
that Of Lea. The box had been there before Lea
called for it board the ship and if any effect is to be
given to the rule of law, that the must give at
least evidence of the delivery in order to charge
the carriers it the fair applca ton of it
this susains the view taken by court below As
have already sad proving that the box did reach
Cooke, Baker Co., OF San Francisco in respect helps
the may have been lost in the hands Of Ramos
in the transit the Ithmus, before reached
Zachrsson Nelson If it did while in their hands at
Panama admit the point upon which the turns is
a nice one, and not without its difficulties and which
might have been cleared up and dembarrassed by fur
ther testimony either sde but inclined to think
upon the strict principles of the law governing case
the burthen lay upon the Hbeant to furnish the evil
dence He should have given testimony legally
tending to show that the goods had not been delivered
Zachrsson Nelson, to Ramos their agent at Chagres
find such evidence in this case and must therefore,
affirm the decree below. with costs.