New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1871-05-14

toconsider another brandt Of the dsfend
4 ants defense. This is that the rule Iof the
defendant was that packages Containing
money should be sealed ina certain way,
that the amount of the contents should
be Endorsed upon the package, and GER
tam afateOf compensation tor carriage in
| proportion to the amount of Snneney con-
veyed should be paid. That the plaintiff,
well knowing this rule, placed the money
which he alleges was lost in an envelop
not sealed according to the rules, nor con
tanning statement Endorsed upon the en-
yelep of the amount of the contents, and
that he only paid the rate charged by the
defendant Tor the transmission of an or
binary letter containing no inclosure of
| value, and that by reason of this default on
the part of the plaintiff the packages were
entrusted to an agent of the Adams Ex-
press Company in New York who was only
employed to deliver ordinary letters. and
not valuable packages, and was thereby
lost.
Upon this branch of the defense instruct
you, that the rules of the company, in order
to have any influence upon the decision of
the case, must have been known to the
plaintiff, and these rules must have been set
tled and uniform. If these rules were not.
by the proof, brought home to the notice of
the plaintiff or if the defendant was in the
habit OF departing from them, and allowing
exceptions to be made to them and these
facts were known to plaintiff orif there was
any understanding or agreement between
the plaintiff and the agent or superinten-
dent, that the rule was not to be enforced
against the plaintiff, in either of these eases
the existence of the rules can have no effect
upon the decision of this case. In short, the
rule must be settled, uniform and known to
plaintiff. If you find they were thus settled
uniform and known to the plaintiff, and no
exception was made by the agent of defend
ant IN his favor generating him from a COM
piiance Herewith, and you find that the
contents and the value of the packages sent
ny plaintiff were improperly concealed by
him from the defendant for the purpose of
depriying him of a part of the condensation
the defendant would otherwise have claimed
Tor the transportation and risk. the defend |
ant would not be liable, If using the ordi- |
nary vigilance which a prudent man would
exercise over his own property of the same |
apparent value. instruct You further that. |
II by reason OF the failure of the plaintiff to |
comply with the rules of the defendant, |
known to him, the defendant was ignorant |
of the value of the package. and in conse- |
quence thereof was induced to entrust the |
package TO messenger who was employed |
only to deliver packages of no intrinsic
value, and failed to place it in the hands of
It's messenger known TO be honest and trust
worthy, who was uniformly employed to de-
liver valuable packages, and by the dishon-
esty OF the messenger to whom the package
was entrusted 1t was lost in that case the
defendant would not be liable.
If you should find for the defendant upon
these issues, it would nevertheless be your
duty to consider that branch of the plain
I'm s case which arises upon what are called
the common counts. Under them the plain
aH claims that the Adams Express Com
pany Is the agent of the defendant that
Tue Adams Express Company, as such
agent, has not lost the money of piaintiff,
)r all OF 1t, but has it or a large part of il
n Its possession, or has converted it to its
,wn use. If you find, under the instruc-
ions already given you, that the Adams
express Company is the agent of the de-
endant, aud that it has retained the
money of the plaintiff in Its possession, or
las recovered it from any person who stole
Z, then you should find verdict for the
'lalntlf for the amount which you NAV de-
lde has come to the possession of Adams
Express Company and is retained by it. or
as been converted by it to its own use.
nth interest from the date of demand, if
on Should find that demand has been
lade, If not, from the commencement of
Ills SUIT; TOR although the plaintiff NAV
ave knowingly violated the rules of the
efendant IN transmitting this money, still ,
nat does not divest the plaintiff of his .
roperty in the money, nor authorize the
efendant, either by itself or its agent, to :
Dntiscate it. The defendant is bound to ;
ay it over on demand with interest from ,
lie date of demand
The jury IN the case of Newton ST. John :
3. the Southern Express Company, rem ?
cred verdict for defendant on Friday.