The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-27
u g. CIRCUIT C0URT--CHIEFJUST
g. r. CHASE, PRESIDING.

U. g. CIRCUIT COURT--CHIEFJUS
8. p CHASE, PRESIOING.
The court opened at 10 O'Clock yesterday
morning. Chief Justice Chase and Judge Bryan
presiding.
at the opening Of the court the Chief Justice
delivered the following opinion:
o1RGUIf COURT OF THB UNITED STATES. DISTRICT
OF SOUTH CAR0LMA-RICHARD ARNOLD y5.
STEAMSHIP MoNEKA-N ADMIRALTY-APPEAL
FROM DISTRICT COURT.
The libel in this case claims compensation
for injuries to three horses shipped by the
libellant at New York for Charleston in the
steamship Moneks.
II the responsibility OF the vessel il to be de-
teruIned BY the general Law OF common carriers.
it is u questioned that the ibellant is entitl-
ed 10 decree.
But it is claimed that there was special
contract concerning the shipment OF these
horses, which relieves the carrier from re-
sponsibiity.
ed il there was that the injuries were caused
by negligence in transportation, to which the
special contract did not and could not extend.
The proof Of special contract is net Alto.
gether satisfactory; but think the weight OF
evidence fairly warrants the conoiusien .tnas
there was one. :,
But the evidence does not show that the
shipper took on himself nything more than the
risks which are incident to voyage in g. sea-
worthy ship, conducted with reasonable care
and skill.
II NAV be we'll doubted, indeed, whether the
policy Of the Law will permit the carrier TO re-
iieve himself from risk, created by his own
omission of suitable provision for the voyage,
or by his negligence in the management OF the
nhir
Eminent and learned judges have condemned
any relaxation of the common law rule per-
mitting common carriers to limit their re-
sponabiity by stipulation, and though this
relaxation is now well established, 1t has never
been carried by the American courts to the e1-
tent Of allowing them to exonerate themselves
in this way from the consequences OF their
misconduct or culpable neglect.
The true rule was stated by the Supreme
Court OF the United States in the case OF the
York Company vs. the Central Railroad. II ID
in substance this "The responsibility intend:
ed BY the common law can only be restricted
and qualified by express stipulation for the
restriction OF qualification. But when such
stipulation is made, and it does not cover loss
es from negligence or misconduct, it must be
recognized and enforced" The only question
in the present case, therefore, is whether or
not there was misconduct or negligence on the
part of the officers Of the steamer. This is
question OF fact, and have carefully consider
ed it.
Il is not necessary to enter apon any minute
review Of the testimony. It is enough to say
that the horses were shipped on the 18th OF
December, Stalls we're constructed tor them
between decks at the expense OF the shipper.
Alter the horses had been placed In the stalls,
and after the regular time OF starting, the
steamer continued to take IN cargo till about
dark. This cargo. seems to have been stored Re
ALo and the
impression that it was carelessly slowed. Ger
tainly it became loose, and portions OF 1t, IN
cludipp some kegs of nails, tumbled against
the stalls. A heavy piece Of timber was also
left loose between decks. The stalls were
broken; one of the horses WAS killed; anoih her
30 injured that he died as soon as he WAS land
ed, and the third also suffered serious injury.
ft ia q fair conclusion from the evidence that
these injuries were occasioned by the ktose
stick OF timber and the loose cargo. 1 cannot
doubt that the exercise Of proper precaution
In stowsge would have prevented these in1u-
ries. Nor can doubt that the omission to
exercise proper precauton must be imputed
"a culpable negligence TO the officers OF the
ship. I think therefore that the Ebenant is
entitled TO decree, and as both parties have
declared themselves satisfied with the estimate
OF damage made by the District Judge, which
seems to me also perfectly Just and ian, the
decree Of the District Court will be affirmed.
Ex parte d. d. Chamberlain. Petition for
admission to practice as an attorney, solicitor
and counsellor In the United States Court for
South Carolina. D. T. Corbin, Esq, proctor
for petitioner.
The attorneys, Mesrs. James Conner, B. 8.
Duryea and Henry Buist, appointed to exam
;~e xs.. ->rrl;~.s,A-- s------~,
on motion OF D. T. Corbin, Esq, the applicant
was admitted, commissioned and sworn as at
torney ana counsellor Of the Cir,uit and Dis
trict Courts Of the United States for South
Carolina.
On motion Of J. B. Campbell, Esq, it was or
dered that Messrs. Samuel Lord, d. E. Young
and W. J. aayer, Esqs., be appointeds commit
tee to examine and report as To the qualification
Of Messrs. G. R. Walker and ". st. Julian Jer
vey, for admission to practice in the Courts o.
the United States for South Carolina, and alst
OF all other applicants who may file their peti
lions for admission on or before the 7th da!
Of May, 1869.
The Chief Justice stated for the information
of the members Of the bar that two cases in I'D
mirslty and two or more in equity we're passet
over yesterday. After hearing the case fixed fo
the day, the court would rseurns take up th'
admiralty docket and the previous cases II
equity, after which the court would regularl!
| 20 through the docket.
The court then resumed the consideration o
the case of G. A. Perdioar1s vs.. Charleoon Gas
Company. Bill in equity for relief.
Messrs. Memminger, W. D. Porter and 81. E
Young, Esqs., were heard for complainsnts
and Messrs. ]. B. Campbell and Edward Mo
Grady. Esqs., for respondents. Decision re
served. "a
The United States VS.. schooner Grapeshot
her tackle, furniture, &c. Libel for forfeiture
for violation Of revenue laws. D. T. Corbin
ESQ.,, for plaintiff, Messrs. Henry Buist and W
E. MfksD, Esq, for defendant. Case continued
william M. Rowland. ct al, vs. 1haddeui
Kelly. Bill for foreclosure. Magrath LowndeE
for plaintiff, N. P. O'Connor and ". D. Porter
Esqs., for defendant. A. G.. Magrath, Jr., Esq.
read the bill, and NJ. P. O'Conner, Esq, the
answer.
at the conclusion Of Mr.. O'Connor's argu
meut, the court adjourned to ten o'clock this
morning.
The following business was disposed OF or
the bankruptcy side of the court:
T;ttv~an khnar n Tpa OTIS