New-York tribune., 1868-12-17
RESPONSIBILITY OF EXPHESS CoMPANTE.

In the Kings County Supreme Court, Gen
era Tern yesterday before Judges GbertBarnard. and
Tappan, the Of Henry G. Ely and Eugene b. Sanger
agt The New Haven Steamboat Company was argued.
This action brought against the defendants as com
mon carriers 20 FOR the loss OF certain leather re-
ceived by them for transportation from EcwIaven 20
New-YoTk. Tho steamboat Continental arrived at lts
wharf IN NewlOrk on the 4th or July, 1866 ana there
ana hs9 m SoaSe @ % b 5e Sarn2s Of e 3 o uy the
decided for the defendants, taking the ground
OF tho 1re. Tie plaintiffs on appeal, claim that
the action was properly brought IN their names tho ega
title the claims beng IN them under the assignnonts
that the liabilities Of the defendants common carriers
for loss by Are, continued until the delivery Of the goods
been TO person authorized by the plaintiffs TO re-
ceiye them due notice must have been given 70 them
make N delivery on tic wharf q substitute for per
so9a deMe M ana 10 excuse % S GeIsIq@ en ,r 1 syg
ror by clear and satisfactory evidence the existence
Of longcoutuucd aud notorious custom for vessels
10 deliver and cousignces receive good the wharf
without notice tnat there no evidence Of any such
custom in tins case that the attn OF July national
closed and no business was done on that day aud that
as no notice OF the arrival OF goods and goods
judgment should be reversed and new trial granted
with costs The dsfendants make the following
arriving at regular times at known depots oriwharves
arc discharged from their speeial HaJHitV as rsr.
rers as soon as the goods sie landed at their des-
Their subsequent liability Is only for ordinary care
usage for the consgnee to leave tho goods til called
for terminates the carriers special responsibility.
There no rule Of law requiring notice. Notice m l6n
OF personal delivery relaxation growing out OF new
methods OF carriage and the necessities Of business 1t
sanctioned by the courts not
and rigid rule, applicable to all cases Ike
statute, but as inst modification
Of previous rule which the changed modes Of convey.
ance had rendered ipappGablo Tho plaintiffs cannot
claim extend tue liability Of defendants insurers
the 4 OF July into the 5th the ground Of the Ih being
holiday. It is not day which labor IL unlawful.
The pamtifs had right to close their store IL they
chose but greater right do than the defendants
TO store the goods and go away II plaintiffs chose 10
leave their goods until tho 9th they lost defendants
responsibility insurers, and retain only that Of ordi
nary bailees. Tho plaintiffs store not open,
nor was their cartman on duty on tho 4th Of July
notice would therefore have been Intellectual The point
Of want OF notice, therefore, simply resolves itself into
the question whether congneo by closing his business
holiday, extend the liability OF carrier as In.
for an indefinite period The fact that Low aud
Roberts chose TO accommodate their brother cartmen by
undertaking to send him notices. and TO send him useless
trips to tie boat cannot enlarge the liabilities of defend
ants II the goods were st In the custody of defend
ants carriers when the fire occurred the defendants
exempt from liability under the act Of Congress OF
March 3, 1881.
For plaintiffs, Smith & Woodward for defendants,
owen Nash Gray. ~. n .I.