New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-14
: NEW: 9RftlHt4aNS
SIR AGAINsr THE sODrhRRN Elk
. L. PRESS COMRANY = u
Charge of Judge Woods.

Company, before jury, on the eighth an
and tenth instant, Judge Woods charge
| the jury as follows: -,..
, Gentlemen of the Jury-The plaintiff
claims that the defendant, being commol
carrier, on the twenty sixth day of NAV
1866, undertook and agreed with plaintiff
for valuable consideration, to transpor
from Mobile Alabama, and to deliver TO j
b. Alexander q Co., in the city of New
York, sealed package which the plaintiff
on that day delivered to the agents of de
fendant in Mobile, containing six thousand
dollars, the property of the plaintiff. Thai
by and through the negligence and careless
ness and improper conduct of the defendant
and its servants said package and its con.
tents were wholly lost to the plaintiff.
Plaintiff further AYERS that on the third
day OF June, 1866, the defendant as such
common carrier undertook and agreed with
plaintiff, for valuable consideration, 10
transport from Mobile Alabama, and to de-
liver to j. b. Alexander & Co., in New York
city, another sealed package, which the
plaintiff on that day delivered to the agents
of defendant in Mobile, containing five
thousand dollars the property of the plain
tiff and that by the negligence, carelessness
| and improper conduct OF the defendant and
its servants, said last named package and
| its contents were also wholly lost to the
| plaintiff. He thereupon seeks to recover of
! the defendant the amount of money con-
tanned in said packages, with interest He
has also included in his declaration counts
| for money had and received, and upon an
account stated. The defendant pleads the
| general issue, with leave to give in evidence
any matter that might be specially pleaded.
This action is brought against the defend
ant as common carrier. The undertaking
OF a common carrier is to deliver the goods
entrusted to him against all events but the
act of God, or the public enemy, unless his
liability is limited by contract
Before the plaintiff can recover he must
establish his case by proof substantially as
therefore, be: Did the plaintiff deliver the
packages containing money, or either of
them, to the defendant to be carried to New
York and delivered as alleged, and did the
defendant, for a valuable consideration.
undertake and agree to convey them to
New York city and deliver them to j. B.
Alexander & Co, as the plaintiff AYERS, and
has the defendant failed so to deliver them
On the question of the delivery of the
packages to the agent of the defendant in
Mobile, and the failure of the defendant to
deliver them to j. b. Alexander g. Co, in
New York, presume you will have little
trouble. / do not understand the defend
ant to cOntr0vert these facts. They mast
be proven, however, to your satisfaction.
But the defendant alleges that its lines of
business reach only as far north as Lynch
burg. Virginia, ON the route to New York
city: that this fact was known 10 plaintiff,
and that its agreement was not to convey
the packages to New York, but to convey
them to Lynchburg, Virginia, and then |
safely to deliver them to the Adams Express |
Company; that it did so transport and safely |
deliver the packages, and that it is there |
fore not liable to plaintiff for any loss |
which aft Toll ~
Adams Express Company.
You are to decide, gentlemen, from the
facts in the case, and controlled by the
rules of law as | shall give them to YOU.
what the contract of the defendant with the
plaintiff was.
instruct you that the reception by an
express company of a package for trans
portatlon, directed to a point beyond the
route of the express company, and the re-
celpt by such company of the entire COM
tor the transmission and delivery
Of the package to the point to which it il
makes out u prima facie case of n
contract to carry and deliver the package
according to the superscription, and will
bind the company, unless a different con-
ract Is shown. or a settled and uniform
'ule established by the company not to be
pound beyond its own line, which rule is
brought home to the consignee either By ex-
)ress notice or by nOtOriety so general |
hat ne may fairly be presumed to have
lad notice.
IT you find the fact to be that the defend
mt received the packages of the plaintiff
Erected to j. b. Alexander & Co. New
ork, Tor transmission, and received the {
ay for the entire route from Mobile to New |
ork, then instruct that prima facie the I
lalntlff has shown q contract on the part :
defendant to carry the packages to New $
Ork and deliver them according to the di- +
ectiOn, and that the Adams Express Com |
any and Its servants were the agents of L
etendant to complete said transmission O
nd delivery. This proof would, however. {
My make prima facie case, and the de- I
'ndant may rebuff it by other proof e
1t was competent for the defendant to C
'ntract that it was to be bound for the safe c
ansmission of the packages over its own n
mes only, and if it has satisfied you by d
'OOt that 1T did so contract, then it can if
Ut be held liable for the default of the | I,
dams or any other company which un- ! II
,rtook to complete the conveyance of G
e packages. a
/ believe il is not claimed that defendant ST
AIDE any such contract expressly with the G.
alntlf, but 1t Is insisted that such con- q
act may be fairly implied from the form sc
receipt given by the defendant for money in
ckages, and that such receipts must, from 81
cir general use by the company, have Gu
en- known to the plaintiff. The defendant us
Us that its receipts for money packages su
ntained provision in these words: THAT ic
is company is to forward the same to its dc
ent nearest or most convenient to destin.
on only, and then to deliver the same TO Pl
her parties, they to complete the tran en-
Drtation; such delivery TO terminate all M
Dlllty OF this company for such packages 81
on will first determine from the proof he
iether the contents of this receipt were pa
ought home to the knowledge of plaintiff. by
you find they were, then | say to YOU al
1t the true construction of this provision hi
that the defendant undertakes to deliver tr,
ckages at any point upon its own routes, or
upon the routes of any other company err
III which 1t has an arrangement to receive TT;
lvey and deliver packages for pro rata OF
ire OF the compensation paid by the ship no
: but when the terminus of its own route | mt
the route OF such a connecting company br
cached, and the package is to 90 to a pu
MT beyond, then the defendant is only tel
IND to deliver the same to other parties the
complete the transportation, and on such tut
livery its liability ceases. VII
instruct you, gentlemen, that if YOU find lta
III the proof that there was an under wh
nding between the defendant and the MOI
ans Express Company, by which the lat thf
agreed to receive from the former at tbe mi
OF its route all packages for transmits def
over the routes of the Adams Express wa
npany, and to deliver them, according TO am
superscllptlon, at any point on the CIV
ties OF the Adams Express Company, and the
elyed pro rata share of the money maid pie
defendant for the transportation of the by
kage, then the Adams Express COMPANY rat
; the agent of the defendant referred to tina
he language of the receipt. And, if the tina