The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1867-04-22

Ments sufficient fof the ofdsary requirements Of the
seen accident or circumstance.
The law neither hnpos simpossibilities or unrea-
sonaole requirements upon them In this behalf.
itlmposes upon them tn duty Ct prov1oinS .ns4
selves with certain means Of transportation, anu :.
requires them to receive such goods only az tey can
transport with the means the law fequires-.nen 70
have. Ii, however, railroad corporations, acting as
carriers do receive goods ior uansPot ,a,oh,
il is their duty 10 convey them with reasonable des-
nntch and II the ordinary equipments are not sufc-
lent, they must employ other means. OF respond IN
damages, unless excused by some RUE OF law or
will de deli them with reasonable despatch.
THE shipper does not know the means of CARVING
which the carrier has the amount of goods he has
to carry. The carrier does know, or should know
these acts and II he contracts with party to carry,
when he knows be has not the means to carry Accord
ing to his contract he Is inexcusable and must re-
spond in damages for such inexcusable acts He can
not be allowed TO lead the shippers goods INTO his
hands under the belief and promise that the goods
will be carried and delivered with the ordinary des
patch, when he knows it cannot be done, and then
has promised he win do. If he receives goods when
he know he cannot carry them and does not notify
tne smpper OF his condition, he be held respon
shipper.
II goods are offered him which he knows he cannot
carry with the ordinary despatch, he should notify
per see fits deliver them under such circumstances,
ne cannot complain if they do not reach their dest-
What is reasonable despatch in any case is ques-
ton for the Jury determine under all the circum-
stances OF the case considering as well the season Of
stance affecting the question. They are not always
required to deliver goods in the ordinary time
quired for transportation a,ti over the line. Crcum-
BILE; and longer time may be reasonable despatch.
such facts may exist will afford an excuse Tor the
delay beyond the ordinary time of transportation.
While the law will not the carriers for not de-
livering unless prevented by the act of God the
public enemies they not strictly held as to the
not amounting to the s.act Of God the public
mics" the transport OF the goods 10 obstructed
or delayed the carrier VIII not be answerabe FOR the
gree of exerton and diligence In the transportation
temporary unavoidable obstruction only suspends
and does not avoid tho contract.
This rule you will perceive, applies TO unavoidable
occurrences; that is occurrences which human fore
sight cannot perceive in advance and provide against
by the exercise of ordinary care and intelligence
When such things do occur and delay Is 0ccasiOned
by it, the carrier Ii not responsible tor It, he has
used reasonable degree Of exertion and diligence in
Whether or not such accidents or occurrences exist
is question for the jury They find not only what
facts exist but whether they are accidents Or mis-.
ed. tits the duty Of the carrier to equip himself SO
structions. II the goods which require passage over
the line are Of such character as need projection
from storms of snow or rain the carrier must pre-
pare himself with the necessary protection. He
not screen himself from the effects Of delay by saying
storm of rain arose and could not carry without
exposing the goods to wet for want OF covered
The ordinary rain storm 10 not one OF the accidents
or misOrtunes that excuse II the line passes through
country subject by natural laws to snow storms At
certain seasons OF the year, reasonable diligence and
means must be used by the carrier to overcome the
obstacle of an ordinary fall Of mow, and 1t delays
are occasioned by the failure to use such means the
sonabe despatch or unreasonable delay under such
circumstanc s is question for the jury.
vene and occasion delay, all that ID required OF the
carrier ia reasonable diligence and reasonable
ton to overcome them and complete the transports-
ton for they required to be equipped in any
number of unusual emergencies. II, however, the
carrier with these unusual occurrences present and
consequences receives tho shippers goods and does
not acquint him wi his situation, but allows him to
ship them in entire ignorance Of his endorsements
have been reasonable but iOr the unusual occur
rences, he is responsible for tho damages flowing
n MS he nus Ssr the
the plea of inability to carry by reason of such unus
al occurrences.
The carrier cannot justify the delay beyond the rsa-
sonable despatch, by proof that all his means were
employed in carr ing merchandise for Others II such
merchandise was received subsequently, unless it
was merchandise entitled to preference.
IT. for instance, the plaintiffs goods were received
January 1G 1896 aid other parties sent in goods on
e a for x
in delivering the plaintiffs goods because they were
using all their means in conveying these subsequent
y received goods, unless they were goods entitled to
preference, where goods which could be conveyed
upon different II they goods that could be
conveyed upon different cars and their conveyance
upon such cars did not delay the other freight it
would furnish no cause for complaint. If they did
delay the other freight by reason Of using the moving
power that could not be applied to to
the earlier received freight the mere fact that they
were used upon particular kind OF car would not
excuse the preference. r7 il.4r.I 7.5 ST.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiffs for
S2,O16. ,rs ,tiJAalt.-J. ..sl
We learn that the jury found that 900 barrels
of the flour were unreasonably delayed until
the price had declined three dollars per barrel,
amounting to $500; to which they added in
terest for two years.
Mr.. Barnes gave notice of his intention to
file exceptions. -. .,
Davis and Drummond for plffs. Barnes for
defts. ssfEs. asfEsM tsErrf
The second jury were excused ON Friday till
Tuesday the 3Oth The first jury were excused
after returning their verdict till Wednesday,
May 1, at 10 o'clock A. NJ.
At 12:55 the Court adjourned
Before adjournment the following case was
decided:sf IS - -fFeaE "
Ellen M. Smellage, hbe1aat, " George W.
Smellage Libel for divorce; cause, habitual
intemperance and neglect to provide for his
family. Divorce decreed and custody of child
awarded to libellant until further notice OF
Court. ok I'D q siLJtA ,A -
S. L, Carleton for ibellant; no appearance
for ibellee.1 iisl us.453 sI