The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1855-02-08

~ 63nAs0t NV y
Rsecsder, y ccnnssl for the plaintiff, summed ma
Mr. {. Balm bridge Smith on The part Of the dsfsaN y
The Juoge cAngsd TIE jury, who retired = NJ
for the plaintiff, assessing 6s vsass q ths pro
pefssyy 1t $500, and the dasagss - 500, bsGtdes IN
Mysst On The $500 rUn October, 1858.
q. b. ConAinisslohsrs ConrA.
CHARGE OF SLAVE rxAH1C.
Before Geo. W. Morton, Esq.
FEE. 6-Ths United States %. Bsaaco-Ths q.
animation in this case was continued George ]. jan
win being examined BY the District Attorney, de-
posed that he knew the bark Millaudon; she was In
the port.of New York about the 18th December, 1868;
/ shipped her crew on thatdsy; had partner
Pcrtugusre Consul, paid our Arm for he crsv'i
shipping; the bill wss paid TO Mr.. 6eayer. W. o
Babbidge deposed that FiganieIe paid the bills fa
the bark Millsudon. Adjourned.
United states Dist,iet Attorneys ONCE.
FEE. THE United States District Attorney
having been satisfied that the brig BLear was noe
intended to be or gagged In the slave trade has con
selted to her discharge.
Marine Court.
Before Hon. Judge Thompson.
LIABILITY OF wAREHoUsEMKN FOR DAMAGES TO
PROPERTY ENTRUSTED 10 THEIR CARE.
FEE. 7-Woodruf & Robinson Va. E. N. & "
L. RobtTts-This action was brought 10 recover foi
GtGYage Of 1906 bushels of corn belonging TO the de-
fendsnts. The plaintiffs are warehousemen, doing
business In Brooklyn. The defence TO the action
was, that by reason Of the carelessness Of the p lain.
tins, the corn wss damaged TO q considerable extent
while in their possession. In order to relieve them
selves from liability for any such damage, counsel
for the plaintiffs offered to prove Q custom amone
-nvahnuannA~ H. -Asrh a. t. A. - -.
tte storer to perform all acts necessary TO preserve
his grain while on storage. The Court ~overruleS
the offer, whereupon the plaintiffs counsel disoon
tinued the action, and judgmen. Of discontinuano
was therefore rendered for the defendants, witt
costs. The reasons for overriding the offer are con;
tsiDed in the following opinion:
THOMPSON, Jas warehousemen, the plaintiff
were bound to take common and seasonable care Of
the property. entrusted to their keeping BY the de-
ferdsnts. This 10 q well settled principle Of law
and can only be avoided by . special contract k
the contrary. Proof Of custom or usage Il alWsyt
tshlished rule Of Law. So that If the pIaintias ia
this case have relied upon any custom which they
pretend relieves them from exercising ordinary cart
over commodities entrusted to their charge BY the
which must inevitably dissppoint them, and can Of
ford them no possible protection. But II, notwith
standing the care, skill. and diligence Of the plain
tiffs the corn hsd sustained damages, II II had
eumed by FIRE, they would not DO ans werable to thu
deferdants. On the contrary, the warehoussmau
In liable for losses occasional by the mis-
takes Of himself and his servants, 10 making adelf
very Of the goods to . person not entitled 70 them.
For II 10 q psit Of bis duty to retain the goldsmith
they are demanded by their owner. II BY mistake
he deliver the goods to q wrong person, he will be
responsible for the loss, q upon q wrongful cnvsr,
sion. In no event, therefore, can be excuse himself
from liability for injuries to the property stored, OK.
cept by showing that he has exercised over : that
degree Of diligence which q man Of common sense,
btbitually careless, or of little prudence, generally
takes IN his own concerns.