Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-01-30

THE Sun AsArSsT THE CLEVELAND STEAM
BOAT CoMPANI-CHAReE OF rHE COUKr.-We
learn from the Detroit Tribune, of Saturday,
that the suit brought against the Gle veland
line of boats, by Mrs. Rebecca Mckee, to
recover the value Of money and property
stolen from her pocket book, while she was
occupying a state-room, on board the City
of Cleveland, one CT the boats owned by that
Company, was concluded Friday at the Cir
cult Court, the particulars of which case
were given in our Saturday evening edi-
ton. The plaintiffs counsel asked the
Court to charge the jury as follows;
IL The defendants are common carriers.
and are liable without any proof Of negIi-
gence, and if the Jury find that plaintiff
took passage and paid her fare, and the fare
included a state-rOom, and plaintiff 5 money
was stolen from the state-room, where she
had deposited it by placing it off from her
person in her own dress pocket, her dress
being off during the passage, while off her
person, it is immaterial whether stolen BY a
person without or within the state-room, the
plaintiff may recover.
2. Common carriers are liable for the loss
of all meney carried by the traveller for the
necessary or reasonable expenses of the
journey, and if they find this amount was
reasonable or necessary, and that it was
stolen from the state-room, she can recover.
3. The purchase of a ticket for the passage
and the assignment of state-room to plain
tiff was modification to the person in charge
of the boat of the intention of plaintiff 10
take ~passage,snd this was a constructive de-
livery to,and acceptance, by the defendants
Of the property Of plaintiff, and plaintiff
can recover.
l. If the Court did not charge as requested,
as to the common carrier, the plaintiff
asked the Court to charge that If the Jury
find defendants contracted to carry plaintiff
from Cleveland to Detroit, the contract i'm
plies a safe conduct of person and baggage
and money 70 e reasonable amount for traY-
cling purposes; and if they find the room
unsafe and there was not due and reasonable
diligence on the part of defendants, that
plaintiff is entitled TO recover.
The Court refused to comply with the re-
quest of the plaintiff 3 counsel. The de-
PENDANTS asked Judge Wftherell 70 charge
the jury
4. That if the jury should find from the evil
dence that defendants were common carriers
Of passengers and baggage, and that the
A4lllG1 anu GnHAA MEId- EtgLEu LOLl DidIuILH
IS alleged, then they must find the further
fact that plaintiff delivered the money and
chain to defendants or their agent, or they
should not find defendants liable as common
carriers.
I'd. That If the jury find from the evi
dence that the plaintiff retained the posses
sion of the money aud chain upon her per
son, and did or said nothing by which the
or their agents were informed of
any delivery to them of the money and
chain, then there was no such delivery to
defendants of the money and chain as to
make them liable as common carriers.
Sd. That, although the liability of the
common carrier, after II attaches Is the same
IA ezteat or degree as tina Of the inn-keeper,
yet the common carrier does not become in
SareT until the properly is fairly III his Gus
tody, while the inn-keeper becomes insurer
when the traveller brings his property to the
inn n becomes a guest. &
4th. That, If the jury shall not find such
a delivery of the money and chain to de-
PENDANTS as will bind them as common car
there was no such delivery under the
facts as will bind them as bailees,
and the verdict must be for the defendants.
The Court charged the jury al, requested
by the defendants counsel, to which charge
the plaintiffs counsel took exception. In
accordance with the Judges charge, the Jury
brought in a verdict of ono cause Of action
The case viii most likely be carried up to
the Supreme Court.