The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-02-15
FIRST DISTRICT C0DRT.
Alleged Abuse of the Warehouse SYSTEM.
Pafn

Alleged Ahnse of the Warehouse System.
Before Justice Quinn.
Beach vs. Gardner.-The eXtortions Of the general
oroer stores which have just received exposure by
the Investigations OF the Senate Committee OF Con-
gress, are not the only ones to which importers are
subjected in reference to bonded warehouses. The
excessive charges for transportation st0rage' are
very frequent causes OF complaint, and recently
many suits have been brought by aggreved mer-
chants to recover moneys illegally exacted. One Of
these has just been tried in the First District Court
before Judge Quinn. Herbert Beach, an extensive
importer OF earthenware, had a consignment Of
about fifty crates OF crockery by tue snip star
or Hope he sent his carman to get them,
who carted all but seventeen crates, when
he was told by the delivery clerk OF the vessel that
went away. me delivery clerk, however, had al.
ready sent word to John W. Gardner, a transporta-
receive these goods. The seventeen crates were
sent to Gardner's store that evening" and IN two
him $50 to pay charges. 1t was found tnat Gard
ners charges were SIS Tor carriage, storage ana
and commissions, and he would not deliver the
goods without full payment The money was paid
under protest, as Beach mad sold the goods and
wanted them Immediately. On the trial a large
number OF warehousemen were examined as to the
customary charges for storage, and was cOntendcd
on the part OF paintn that Gardeners charges were
quadruple what they should be, and The atters Cwn
Witnesses showed that they were double what was
ordinarily exacted. 1t was shown that no money
had been paid tor insurance commissions.
Defendant said he had recollection tnat PLAIN.
TIN protested To the payment when 1t was made,
while the latter testified positively tnas lie did pro-
test.
Justice Quinn, in deciding the case first deter.
mined mat the charges were too hlgh, and should
not have been more than $37 20. The question then
was whether the payment made by the plalntlfr 10
obtain a release OF the goods held by him as ware
hOuSeman was voluntary payment or one made
under protest. II made under protest such
portion Of 1t as was eXtOrtOnate ana In excess
OF the fair and reasonable charges to which ware
hOuseman is entitled may be recovered back, other
planlir would be driven back to his action
under the claim and delivery process provided by
the Code. The Court cited the case OF Harmony W,
Lougham eJ al e Herman, 99), among others, The
evidence OF the plainti in his OPINION showed that
the pay ment was not u voluntary 0ne but was made
under protest. The doctrine In the cases cited was
applicable to the facts OF this case, and entitled
plalntin to Judgment for $44.
Another Warehouse Case.
Rorke and Others VS.. Charles H. Rahe.-This
case (also tried before Justice QUINN is Of ike
nature to the preceding one. The Messrs. Rorke
are importers OF glassware and had $50 cases con-
signed to them from Belgium on the ship Joana
Kepeer Captain Rahe Plaintiffs received notice
at twenty minutes past four p. Al. July 70 from the
them went Immediately 10 the pier, wnere he arrived
AZ SIX minutes past I'VE. On the way he saw three
truck loads o his goods going TO the stOrehouse OF
MIR. william ID. Gau He prevented any more OF
his goods being taken there but had 70 pay Gaul
S6 10 Or storage Tor the goods tnat mad Deen taken
The cOnslgnees Of the vessel had advertised mat the
goods must be taken before five O'Clock The own
ers sued captain kahe Tor the money paid 10y them
Tor storage, and the Court gave judgment IN their
iayOr