The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-01-31
Marine COuxt--In Chambers.
Before Hon. Judge Thoupsou.

for the defendant Mr.. vultes counsel for the plaintiff
to open that default and that the plaintiff be
permitted to prosecute the action. The only question
which arises upon the motion is whether the default
should be opened with COSTS to the defendant Teller
had never been licensed to practice attorney in any
Of the courts Of this State Counsel plaintiff contends
therefore, that the defendant IL not entitled to COSTS
By the provisions Of the r. e. part chapter g. title
section counsellors and attorneys may licensed
title T. section S. Of the same chapter every male c
zen. Of the age of twenty one years, Of good moral
character &c. may be licensed BY the Justices Of the
in all courts in this State. By part chapter title
section TO- every person Of full age and sound min
prosecute or defend an action in perlon By the next
section any OF good moral character although
not admitted as an attorney may manage prosecute or
defend SUIT for any other person, pIovic cd he Is
ciay authorized that purpose the party for whom
he appears, in writing by personal nomination in
open court By the following section, whoever shall in
person protecue or defend any suit shall recover the
tame fees for any services performed therein which he
would be entitled to such services had been
performed by attorney counsellor. In all
ing the law raises an implied authority on his part to
do In this there proof before that Tel
Ter had any authority whatever to appear for the de-
endant Ia the action. But If he had neither hs
the defendant 10 entitled to any costs upou this
motion. To entle party to costs in this court In any
suit or proceed ng he must either be attorney Of
the Supreme Court or he must prosecute or defend IN
person. And no person appear in any action, for
either party, unless the court possess satisfactory
that he has been specially authorized to do In
cordance with The provisions OF the statute 1t Is due
The great amount OF business here transacted
chara ;ter and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. that the court
should enforce every statute calculated to prot.ct the
rights and interests Of tisatng parties Motion grant
ed, without costs.
Davies Us the Hudson Ricer Railroad Company.
sssp brought to the value 81 two casks q
the property the Sth Of June last. In August
September last the goods were demanded OF agent Of
that the casks had been marked for New Hamburg,
Duchess county. The fact was the goocs had been
marked for Bloomfield, New Jersey, and had been de
vered to the defendants by the stake Of the plaintiffs
carman There proof offered TO show that the
goods had been lost that they had not been received
by the consignees. The allegation OF the plaintiff
that the goods not delivered 10 the consgnees.
Although the allegation u negative one, yet some
proof should have been introduced to support it. Judg
Rush u.s. Exams and others-The plaintiff Is stevedore.
The defendants the owners Of the British ship Queen
Of the Avon In November last the captain Of the snip
employed the plaintiff load and unload her cargo The
plaintiff engaged several men and team to perform the
WORT The time occupied was twenty days This
ton was brought to for twenty days per-
sopal service Of the psnt The captain agreed to pay
the plaintiff fifteen shings per day for each man by
bin employed and three dollars for the team These
services to about hundred and ninety dol
lars, which had been paid. The proof that when
boss sevedore is engaged to supernend in person the
gang he employs he receives three dollars per day. other
wise, he receives shilling day man In this case
the evidence does not the Court in I'm ling the
fact to be that plaintiff was employed to superintend
in person the loading and dischargins Of the vessel
Judg me mt for defendants.
PHILLIPS, 1.-THE testimony in this case being almost
wholly dispositions taken de beneesse have noted there
on my ruling The various objections taken question
and answer, with the proper exceptions.
The plaintiff claims to this action, under the
rules OF Law applicable to innkeepers and the defendants
resist the claim the folio wing grounds:
That they have the rgh' to make rules and regula
tions TOR the well government Of their house. and that
their guests are bound to obey them.
2 That under the principle OF law treating nnkeepers
as commen carriers, the defendants are oay liable for
sufficient money to cover travelling expenses AMI the
could 1t be deemed such2
3. The money lost was acquired by the plaintiff after
Tor anything which not the plaintiffs AT the time he
commenced boarding.
Der and lett the 10TH must therefore, be presumed
that he there boarder aud not q traveller,
and # SO defen iants are not liable.
8. That the defe ndants had designated particular
place in their hotel for mouey and valuabe- TO os depo
sed given notice that they will not responsible
for their safety unless they deposited Guests
bound to take notice Of this rue they keep their pro-
perty at their risk. Ignorance Of the nsuage
the part Of the plaintiff is no excuse
An questions Of fact the defendants conteud-frst,
that there is evidence hey ond the plaintiffs de-
castiops, that he deposited any money in the dressing
there is evidence to warrant 6nting that the plaintiff
ROBBED himself.
Before considering the questions of Law shall dispose
OF the facts. The evidence OF Pierre Gbeins plaintiffs
cousin, IS most positive upon the disposition Of the
mo, ey by plaintiff. lie says:-"My cousin put thirty
twenty dollar pieces into his dressing CASE saw him
shut his dressing and lock IT. 1t strong very
strong" Nor is his testimony AZ all shaken cross
examination, for in answer to the question, How do
TIL placed IN his dressing caseY he says ;-"Because
my cousin said TO me, keep five huodred francs for
myself and put the rest in my dressing cass;' Mr..
Santiago made the ejaculation before me my cousin
took out Of the pile Ave hundred francone hundred
dollais-snd put the rest in his dressing case"
With regard TO the point that this was a "self.rob-
bpry ~ I n
cuated to throw the slightest shade OF suspicion upon
or tarnish the fair fame Of the plaintiff The robbery
Plaintiff went hastily to his for his glass-dis
covered the robbery. and in few moments returned
without his coat highly excited and eomplsasd Of his
tin at the time warrant the suspicion that he the
robber certainly would have attracted the attention
Of the keen and experienced ocer Of the house. Who
by immediate search of the persons Of the parties
could have ascertained its truth falsty Nothing
however, seems to have awakened his suspicion No
search instituted. Nor did the defendants
have entertained any doubt TO the character OF the
plaintiff as he and his friends remained 10 the hotel
not only most unjust, but TO my mind, outrage
assumption, upon this testimony, to place any
Now as to the law On which he defendants rely in this
Hotel keepers have uncontrolled right TO make
such regulations as they may deem proper for the gov
by them they necessarily avoid any legal liability; and
this brings up what Ia really the aimportant question
In this case Was the notice on the dooi OF plaintiffs
teDtsf notice that the defendants would be
liable for loss unless the money deposited in the safe
could not operate discharge Of any liability by them,
unless that notice directly and conciusivey brought
TO the knowledge of the plaintiff For all the purposes
of this action the rules and liabilities attached TO
carriers are to be applied tonnkeepers In all cases
theD when the notice cannot be brought home to the
person interested in the goods directly constructvey
II IL mere nuity and the burden OF proof lie 10 the
carrier to show that the person with whom he deals
fully informed Of the terms and effect of the notice
Brooke vs.. pickwick, Bing r. 2ls 2Greel Ev 216.
The most usual evidence to show that the plaintif
has bad notice Of the defendants terms, has been by
proof that notice put up In the Office when the
oods received and entered for the purpose Of
rsge in copspicuoss situation that must (uness
be was guilty Of wfu nesgence,) have attracted the
attention Of the plaintiff Stark. Ev 1893. And the
printed conditions Of line OF public coaches held
TO be sufficiently known to the passengers by
being posted up the place where they book their
nsmes-Wh tssill vs. Crane. Watts and g. r. 369. But
this proof fails when the party who delivers the goods
at the Office cannot read.--Davs Willard, Stars. r.
40 Another usual mode Of proof Of notice Is by evil