The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-17
SUPREME coUaT-GEEERAL TERM.

Liability Of Common Carriers.
Before Judges Gilbert, Joseph f. Barnard and Tap
pan.
Henry G. Ely and mother rs. The Nero Hapen
Steamboat C0mpdRy.-The plaintiffs sued the de-
PENDANTS rs common carriers to damages for
the loss Of certain leather received by them
for transportation from New Haven to New
York. The property was placed on board
the steamboat Continental, and on the 4th OF july
1860, 1t reached New York, when the leather
moved and II lay upon the wharf until the morning
OF the 9th OF July when 1t was destroyed by ure.
The court decided for the defendants, taking the
ground that their responsibility ceased at the time
Of the fire.
The piaintins on appeal claim that the action
was properly brought; that the liability OF The de-
PENDANTS az common cal riers for loss by Dire con-
tlnued until the delivery OF the goods to the plain
to some person authorized by the plaintiffs to re-
ceive them or due notice must have been given to
them OF the time aud place OF delivery; thai to
for personal delivery and to the Defendants
from giving notice TO the plaintiffs, as exempt
them from liability FOR loss by IRE on the wharf, they
must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence the
existence OF long continued and notorious custom
FOR vessels to deliver and cOnsgnees 10 receive goods
on the wharf without notice; that there eyi-
dence OF any such custom In this case. II was
also s shown that the an Of July was 2 national
usually closed on that day. that notice OF the
rival OF goods was sent TO the defendants on that
day, and the Judgment should be reversed and new
The defendants contend that carriers BY rail or
are discharred nom their I specal Iablits i a,
carriers as soon al the goods are landed al
their destination and ready for delivery to their
sgnees There Is no rule oflaw requiring notice. rhe
palntifs cannot claim to extend the liability Of the
defendants az insurers over the 4h Of July into the
5th on the ground or the 4th being holiday. 70 was
not q day when labor was unlawful. After some
further points mad been submitted the argument
A Landlord and Tenant Case.
Txi drof fI<joyp Ilpt.f ~ Irn,u Diaip ~
appealed from an order In the city denying motion
for trial and from Judgment in favor OF plain
till. The action was for damages sustained by plain
tin by fall from piazza OF house owned by de-
PENDANT, but In possession OF tenant under written
lease containing no covenants to repair the part
or the landlord The defence set up was that the
plaintiff had right to be the premises; she was
trespasser. The plaintiffs answer was that the eyi-
dencc clearly established tho negligence OF the de-
PENDANT In erecting, maintaining and unfolding the
piazza In an unsafe and dangerous condition. This
made him liable.
Renttiss tho brig Rush.
Jesse Caru, Respondent, rs. Pau W. Spo1orf,
AppetlanI-This suit was instituted for materials
furnished and work and labor performed by plaintiff
for defendant In renting the brig Rush. The case
was tried before referee OF the Supreme Court IN
Suffolk county The complaint alleges that such iaoor
$12 23e 49, which sum defendant promised to pay To
plaintiff; that defendant has paid 10 plaintiff upo1
account the sum Of 800 and that there Is su due
Judgment IL demanded.
The answer admits that the plaintiff furnished
materials and performed services at request OF defsn
dant, but denies that such services and materials
were worth 236 ~, or that the defendant pro-
missed TO pay hat sum- therefore tho referee reported
In favor OF the plaintiff for the full amount claimed
The defendant claims that the work was NOT done
In accordance with the contract, and that he
report Of the referee was incorrect. Plaintiff urseI
that 1t was not claimed by the defendant that he
services for which this action was brought were hot
performed IN Workmannke manner, nor thai they
fbnf
contrary, DEFENDANTS agents testified that the vol
was well done and that the bills were'corrcct: thai
In all negotiations plaintiff had refused to giye IN
estimate OF the cost or the work, a. he could not do
more than give q rough estimate Of the expenses.