New-York tribune., 1866-12-06
CIVIL COURTS.
United STATES CIRCUIT COURT.-DEc. Before
Judge SsfALiEY.
LIABILITY OF COMMON CARRIERS FoR TRANsHIPPBD
GoODS-ACTs or PUBLIC ENEMIES
-. W Kennard ac.. agt Bgn. Hallaaay

LIABILITY OP COMMON CARRIERS FoR TRANSHIPPKD
GoODS-ACTS or PUBLIC ENEMIES.
Tbos. W Kenuarl &C.. agt Bon Halliday
This was On action TO recover ifom defendant the
veco OF raekace OF money which plaintiff alleges IN.
trusted defendant common carrier to be delivered oy
Psr alleges that tlc 3t Of Januory 1865 Atcison,
Kanas he delivered 10 defendant fhc package n question con
tanning United States Treasury Of Tie aggregate value OF
$1,000 10 De delivered IN Central City Colorado; they
deliyeIed that demand for the package was
made and acknowledged but the delivery Of it refused
II that the package really sent by the United states
Express Company from this city that an application was se
by The guOr the Office OF Ben Halliday this city but
that be referred to the Office OF the United STATES Express
Company and informed that the latter company the proper
line send the parcel BY Haadays Overland Stage Com
pany did parcels In this city but that they were
sent to Atchson by the United States Express Company ana
then ranhppcd 10 the Overland Stage Company The parcel
by the United States Express Company On inc
nOn.deyery OF the parcel Its destination search was oue
for it, and il was traced to the possession Of defendant
Testimony was taken establishing the of the transfer OF
the money from tie United States Express Company W tn
Overland Stage COMPANY lie loss and the subsequent refusal
Of the defendant to reimburse plaintiff ii,
The defense asked the dismissal the complaint eonenong
that defendant had nothing to do with the uAtu i,J 1
press Company with whom this money had been u
that defendant never received the money, as Deng ~
him by plaintiffs that defendant was not eaIel 81 S o
parcels lOm this city Cooradoi that the contract lor he
United States Express COMPANY; that when in
IN New York in relation sending the parcel plaintiff was t3d
that the United States Express Company were INC les No
could make such plaintiff desired 10 enter mo
and that they deendant not the proper parties % tno
mere fact OF the money being traced 70 tle M snus VI S
eonbctn carvng ropte or line and il the latter
the the English and all other decisions IN smr Sass
in Of the liability Of parties situated as delenu
cees il Tnode with one company deliver
parcel or package to place hn company response
bic TO the consgnor and not connecting line OF company
Jn3ye eaiF sod ths rort was important and lad often
bcp discned m he believed lad never decided in the
H. = Supreme Court lie believed that the decisions IN the
En rts were based on the nature of the contract made
between the parties and he thought that the contracts in those
cases cuoted by defense varied from those usually made IN
tb country He thought il was best not 70 limit response
articles to De transported Mhc
the articles had by connecting other lines TO arrive az
their destination unless specia made TO that
effect thought best for the public interests anu u
was also reasonable 70 suppose that when an aruce
was sent any point involving the necessity Oi
it's beng transported by than line mode Of convey
ance company line transporting IT, should be held
responsible IL while IN their custody and the burden OF
proof should be with each such line company showing that
they had either transferred the article 10 the next line n con
necon had delivered to the consgnee There Is no such
specific shown m this and the usages and necs
sites Of trade and the public interests require that cases INC
Of this at the bar should not be dismissed Tor the
reasons advanced by the defense.
then contended by the defense that they were not
liable for the that ts money was token nom the Gus
ody by force by public enemy Indians az war Win the
establish this defense by proof Gnd witnesses were examined IN
relation TO this point It being left totbe jury TO determine, om
the evidence whether the defendant had used due care and pre-
and exercised due vigilance in preparing FOR such
gency and had protected the property in their custody to
the best Of their ability when the attack was made AZ the
conclusion Of this testimony MI H. NJ Hugges summed Up
for defendant Mr Laro9ue will up for the plaintiff and
the jury viii be charged this morning.
ADMISSION PRACTICE
On motion Of A. Foley Harry Allen admitted 10 prac
tce in the United States Courts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURr-Dec. Before
Judge BETS
BOYS IN THE ARMY-LAw OF BNLlsTMBETS IN RELA-
TIOH TO MINORS.
In 70 the application the discharge Of Michael j. Conley
from the Army
This was an argument in relation TO the night of the
United States Government retain In the army minor who
had enlisted without the Of his parents and II
0m application for of haheas corpus ~ produce tie
body Private Michael j. COnley United states Army
the petition OF bis mother Cathanne Conley praying or DIS
discharge the ground Of bis minority Tie WIT was served
on Breyet MaorGen Daniel Buttered Superintendent Gen
eral Recruiting Service H. T. Herman esq for Petitioner:
Gardner 9th United States Infantry for United
States The prisoner brought up rum Fort Columbus and
produced I'm court with the return OF Gen Buterteld
The Government proved enlistment Of Conley through
BIcyet Brig Gen NJ Robertson, Second Artillery and by
the gnal enlistment paper In which appeared that COncy
made oath to being S OF and further declared
himself TO be 10 years and III months old
The Attorney for petitioner offered 70 prove by Concys
parents that he only years old Lieut. Gardner objected
First: That the COnstuou cons Congress Tho power
support aud make e laws necessary thereto %
quite clear that Congress declare uAdf sbau constitute
Wild COuttHct Ol enlistment.
Second That Congress constitutional enlist minor,
into amy without the consent Of their parents.
Third That public policy required that minor shall be ~ liberty
cntuc ae State whenever soeh contract
not positively forbidden.
Fourth: Tns sinoe the passage Of the act Of Februsry
minor between the 10 and year., To enlisted without
the Of biz aud tat the oath Of enlistment taken hy
him bis age eoaeuye In evidence and binding tho
Courts.
The Court held that the oath Of enlistment taken BY the
cit his under this conclusive and binding
hs uicors Tie decision IN us case was
looked 70 With great establishing precedent in
similar to the " Law Of Enlistments