The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-01-10
'. VI The COURT DEA1kEhER III
CHIEF JUSTICE HANDY.

II a
OPINION OF THE COURT DELIVERED By
CHIEF JUSTICE HANDY. ~
This was an action brought by the defen-
dant in error against the Express Company
| to recover the value ofa trunk and its con-
tents, placed in charge of the company, as
common carriers, to be delivered at jackson,
and which was not delivered but lost =. -. Z
The principle ground Of error relied on bv
the PLAINTIFF In error is the following instruc-
ton given for The plainf ~ ~ y s,5ss
IN q ease Of this sOft, plaintiff IS not re-
quired to specify all the articles contained
IN his trunk. he may state Ehis general
objection OF the contents of his trunk and
his estimated value thereof; and if the ale
CATIONS ofvHlue be not dispr0ved by other
evidence In the cause, plaintiffs statement
should be relied on.n F1.s S..
The0nly testimony in the record, as to
the contents, of the trunk, was that Of the
plaintiff himself, who testified in substance,
that he could not say exactly everything
that was IN the trunk, but he specified q
number of articles of wearing apparel and
one pistol stated that the trunk was packed
right full of clothes and contained many
articles whicl he could not then remember
1t was O large esole-leather trunk, not much
used, and cost him six dollars. He would
estimate thelyalue of the trunk and contents
at $500 in United States currency. The
CAOGnCo W6I0 KOCl1a anu uaQ nOG D6eQ mUCh
injured by use, and many of the articles had
been only worn on special occasions. Most
of tue clothes were bought about 1889. A.
Virden testified that clothes were scarce and
high in February 1868. Bloom and Lemly
testified as to the value of articles of CLOTH
ing of the kind specified by the plaintiff in
his testimony, and dstated the prices at which
snch articles, il new, could have been pur-
chased in jackson and it appears that
1o m naV &oka Ill
5he al eles specified by the plaintiff as com
iained mA.his trunk, would have cost In
Jackson about $fsS sar $50 in Confederate
money, which compared with Unite7f SCateS
currency lgreenbacks) was worth s 80 of the
former for 81 of the latter, which would
make the value of the articles. 20 far as
specified by the plaintiff, of about the yalue
{ IL Is now insisted that the verdict-which
was for $238 II was contrary to the evidence
ind that this result was produced by the in
,truction above stated.
/, We think the objections to the instruction
ire well taken. It directs the jury, that the
plaintiff was not required to specify all the
articles in the trunk but might state his
general recollection of it's contents and his
svalne Thus far the instruction
was proper But il proceeds to. o.state that if
Jhe allegations Of value be not disproved by
Sther evidences In fa6 case, his statements
;houla be relied on. This was requiring an
thing Of the defendant; foE
IT 1tentsof Tie tr11plz were not apecia
d ! the plalntiH, and SO far as II,
were specified, they appear to appoint to not
Ted by him. 1t must necessarily have been
for the defendant to disprove
the correctness of the estimate Of articles
stated by the plaintiff when the articles for
the most part were not enumerated and