The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-10-25
1IAs111TY OF CARRIERS OF FREIGHT
Shipping Goods on Dsck-Importan'
Case.

An action was brought few days ago oeiore
Trial Justice Minott by A. G. LeaVltt, mas'ei VI
the schooner Henrietta, plaintiff against hoi"ee
h Calder. defendants, for freight on certain goous
shipped on the deck OF paintln's Vessei ion
Philadelphia to the defendants in Cnarleston. Inc
plaintir received the goods in good condltf u as
shown by the Dill Of lading, which contalneu' as
nsnal the clause exemping common carriers
from liability for damage sustained oy gooos
on,nned on deck from breakage, DC. The Hen
retta arrived in Charleston In good condition,
and was found by the portwardens to have had
her careo properly stored and damaged. Two
barrels, among number Of others, were found
on deck, from one Of which some tWenty-!ou.
gallons and from the other about TWO gallons OF
oil had leaked.
Upon these facts the plaintiff based his claim
for freight on the entire quantity OF OIL snipped
on deck, without allowing, by way OF Set Oh, the
value OF that lost by leakage. The defendants
set up the value OF the oil lost by way OF SET on
against the claim for freight, and argued that 'he
plaintiff was responsible for the damage thus
sustained.
The Hon. C. a.. Simonton appeared as counsel
for the defendants, and the Hon. N. P. OConnor
for the plaintiff, and no issue Of facts being In
ye.yed, the counsel confined their argument
lst. As TO the extent Of the liability Of Ship
owners or masters for damage sustained oy
goods shipped on deck, and
%. AS to the validity Of exceptions OF risks or
liabilities made In bills Of lading IN FAVOR OF sucn
persons as common carriers.
After hearing tie argument In the case' 'usuce
Minott decided
oy,l
lst. That the plaintiff, as common carrier anu
by the terms OF his contract, as set lorth IN tne
bill OF ladIng, was bound to deliver the goods III
the same good cond!.!on that he received them,
and is therefore liable for all damage sustained
by them while under his charge, except sucn as
results from the act OF God, common enemy, or
from fraud on the part OF the C nsgnees, or from
inherent weakness Of the packages IN Wnlcn Inc
goods are shipped. That no legal or sumclent
evidence having been introduced to show tnat the
damages resulted from any Of the causes above
cited the law presumes that they resulted from
the negligence Of the common carrier, ana ne s
therefore liable to tbs sXtent OF the loss sustained
That in attempting to establish the fact that the
damage alleged resulted from causes other tnan
those for which the common carrier ID held laoie
at common law, the onus prooandt rests upon
the common carrier, and that the plalntn III tnis
case has failed to rebut the presumption OF law
thus raised against him.
I'd. That exceptions Of any risks or liabilities In
bills Of lading or other commercial paper are not
valid or binding in law where they tend to
exempt the carrier from his common law liaoili
ties, and that such is the tendency Of the excep-
tion In this case.
Decree for the plaintiff for the amount Of freight
claimed, less the value Of the oil lost BY leakage
Cnsts 20 be maid bY the defendants.