The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-05-08

bis agents, landed the boat on the Opposite
sids Of the river safe and sound that he
had notice Of this the next mOrnlng and then
refused 10 have anything farther TO do with
tho boat that he might have had her
brought back to his woodward with but lit
tie expense and delay and without injury TO
her or loss Of the wood and that she was
actually brought IN and delivered 70 his
agents near his woodward by another per-
son, but was not received by him. II the
Jury believed these facts TO be established by
the evidence, it showed voluntary
abandonment, on his part, of
this boat, which remained In his pos
session after tho wrong was done of casting
her off by the steamboat; and according to
the principles above stated this condnct was
in his own wrong. 1t showed clearly that II
the boat and wood were lost II was the
direct result of the failure Of the plaintiff to
take ordinary care ofhis property, which re-
NAMED in his possession, unlnjured after the
wrong done by the defendant in casting her
Off and he was clearly not entitled to re-
cover the value of the boat and of tho wood
remaining on her because that loss, in this
view of the evidence, was occasioned by his
own wrong, for which the defendant was
not responsible,
The injury sustained, in the loss of the
boat and the wood, was separate and indie
pendent of tho wrongful act Of the defend
ant In casting off the boat, and not the
necessary and natural consequence of that
wrongful act, and hence is not chargeable
upon the defendant.
In order to enttle party to recover for
an injury flowing from o particular wrongful
act, 1t must be the immediate and necessary
result of that act. Mayne on Damages IA, 10.
1t is plain here that the loss of the boat and
wood was not the natural and reasonable
result of the defendants wrongful act; for
both theboat and wood were safe and sound
in his possession, after the defendants wrong
full act was completed.
Again, though remotely arising in conse-
quence of the defendants act, when caused
wholly or principally by the plaintiffs act,
it cannot 10 regarded as the necessary re-
suit of the defendants misconduct Thus, o
party. having been wrongfully imprisoned
by the captain of ship and after being re-
leased, changed into another ship, sued to
recover the costs incurred by the change;
and it was held that he could not recover
for these costs. Lord Peterborough said the
special damage should be clearly connected
with the trespass which was the foundation
of the action Here the imprisonment was
not the caasa prorin,G of the transhipment.
Boyce VS. Bayliffe Camp Go. In another
case, the plaintiff had taken passage to
Australia in the defendants ship, but was
not allowed to sail, under the mistaken be-
lief that no had not paid his entire fare.
The error was Immediately discovered, and
he was offered q passage in another vessel
which sailed q week after the first Instead
Of going by 1t he remained in England con
siderable time to sue the defendant. It was
held that the expenses of his keep till trial
could not be allowed as damages, since he
might have gone long before, if he had wish
cd. Mayne on Lanis, 81.
The second instruction was, therefore,
correct and should have been given.
The verdict of the jury gave the plaintiff
the value Of the boat and OF the wood,
which was doubtless the result of the refusal
of the Instructions asked by the defendant.
Thejudgment must, therefore, be reversed,
the. verdict set aside, and the cause remand
ed for new trial