, 1863-08-05
LAW INTELLIGENOE.


road.
As the charge Of Judge Davis, published by M .
few days since, had not been revised bJ him. va
give it below as corrected by himself:
GESTIENEN OF THE JURY: I return Won rnv
thanke Tor the patient attention you have given tn
the fsets OF this case and tue a.guments Of
tounsel :.
This suit is brought to recover the value OF a
number of bales OF cotton which were destnoraS :
by fire Whtlc in the cars OF the Illinois Ceni,ai
hatl5oad, near Aehkum Station. on the 30th OF list
TLcfe isno questt5h that the agents of tts TN.
po's Central Railroad Company, Ut Memphis, did
safe delivery Of this eottor either 1t Cairo or Rs
timore. i is contended by tho p1aintiGs cnnnset
tLat the bill Of ladtng, given III evidence, wss opY
nc cont contract q H. parties as far "a Cairo; and
mon carriers muet attach The Court il Of 4 iit
feeht opnion and holds thst the bin Of ladins in
this ease; which T. the contract bet~cen the PsE-
ties, and BY which their rights are to DC detsr-
mind. blhds the defendant to deliver the cotton
safely at Baltimore. unless it should b. DESTROYED
By ire. Common carriers, whether steamboats OF
lail oads generally contract for the safe transit OF
freight only as far ~ their railroad OF steauboat
route e1tclds. But there Is 10 valid reason ,yhy
the Illinois Central Railso4a Company, II It
CHOOSES to employ agents ut Memphis 10 feed the
road, cannot make a contract there for the safe
conveyance Of freight, over the different lines OF
co1Ln4unication- to its place OF destination.
Evadsnte has been glren tending to show the
company TO give the steamboat rcct lot for coofs
delivered md IN The abseuce Of such recctpt, in
this cafc, 1t ls argued that the cotton could not
have been zcceN et on this bill Of ladtng,
Thie ts question Of fact for you to determine.
lfitwae the intention to s-nd the cotton By way
that the cotton WAS actually received on the road,
and transported over 1t, In PURSUANCE Of the bills
Of laoihg IN evidence-,thcn the bill Of lading Is
rial whether the ueual receipt was given Ut Cairo
OF Tot bill Of ladtpg usua!ty particulatlzes tho
articles carried aa freight but 1t frequently spcct.
nee the terms on which the freight Is carr,sd-and
by thoee terms the parties are bound Couamoa
carriers 10 the absence Of express contlactB, arc
ii su1e1s Of the freight CARRIED by them-and are
only i Se eea q aG YIN Or opea as a p !, as
mics. But common carE1ets hare a right to RE-.
s,1it their liability. especially Shea so 1anamua-
po1tauon. Ard tn his Gaze, II the jary believe
1Lat the cotton was shipped over the Illinois Cen
tral rafoad on this bill OF ladiug then the clause
age b lre, ia operative, and binds both shipper
It IL proved. thai: on tho soth day Of October
last, this cotton was burned near Ashlum station.
on the Illinois Central railroad, while On the csTs
Of the road on Its way from Cairo to Chicago.
The exemption FROM fire liability, inserted in
cssts Of destruction By fire. a carrier, notwIth-
standing that objection, is bound to nso reaso4a-
BILE care and vigilance in the transportation OF
ftefgbt-snch ca1e and vigilance as an ordinary
prudent m5n would e1e1c,se over lis own p.op.
srty and Z for the want OF them, loss occurs, t6e
liability attaches. .
ance and could not have been forcseen By care md
prudence, tic carrier ia discharged.
1t ID toE you, gentlemen, applying the rule Of ia
bilIty to the facts, to determine whether blame a.
Achcd to the servants Of the defendant You must
ti1st decide upon the origin Of the hte.
emoulderirg there when the trim ofcars passedby,
and Was blown Into hame By the wind caused ~
tie motion Of the cars. aud could not have been
wattlfujIess on the patt Of he employees of tue tue
road, then sou should find for ths defendant.
But II, on the contrary, the cotton was destroyed
rnuing directly to road. In lall view oi every
ore, then It is 1or the Jury TO SUI whether It was
not an act Of gross negligence 70 rnn train into
Wlo b lad propsr eonside1ation 10: tho % magnitude
OF the property entrusted to him should not hare
ss stsspssa hia train nitn all danger from fire had
The evidence is conflicting. It Is for you to re
concile 1t. There 10 no artificial rule Of evidence
to control your telief. Tou should, In weighing
81
With which he answers crose tnterrosatories, as
well as direct ones; tho consistency Of his state
and the intenig gence with which be testiaes: NA''
II you should come TO the conclusion that the
frc vas communicated TO the cotton, without any
will consider whether, after the IRE ignited the
cotton, they did all that reasonable men could
have done to prevent itB entire destruction. AZ
ter the cotton caught fire they were bound to ex-
est themsclyes u fais and prudent men should to
eaye as much Of the cotton as pas.lb1e. II they
did not put forth the Necessary efforts to save ths
burning cotton, then The defendant is responsible
for 20 much Of the cotton rs could hare rea soma.
bly, been eavcd.
little Jury should and that the IRE vas commu.
ntcattd to the cotton By means Of such negligence
AZ would be fncs tltablc In a prudent man whcn
managing his own property, then they will hnl
for the plaintiff the net value Of the cotton at Bal
timore, which was Its market valuc there lat the
time Of ite loss). dedQcttng freight. The Jury
u i'll also add interest
There is evidence TINT there were two bales Of
cotton eayed lIom car. loaded in part with COT
ton for the plafatfs, and in part win cotton for
firm in New York. and which we're not delivered
either to the plaintiffs or the New York arm.
The plaintiffs having entrusted cotton on that
particular car, 10 the defendant, the burden Of
psoofte On the defendant TO show that the two
bales tayed from the fire did not belong to the
plaintiffs.
jury Will, iu any eEcnt, find for the plaintiffs the
value ofthoee two bales.