Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-05-08
THE .C0CETS.

jackson. This is an action OF ejectment brought
by the plaintiffs against the defendant TO recover
OF High street, Geor getown, ID. q, and the case
comes up on exceptions taken i'm the court below
70 the admission OF certain deeds IS evidence.
TIE CARPEsTER DIVORCE CASE
To-day, the case OF Delcs CARPENTER agt- Mary
CsTpenter-divorce case, in which q decree was
MADE in the Equity Court some days since-was
called, the defendant having appealed. Mr..
Riddle, for the complainant, moved TO dismiss
the appeal, on the ground that the defendant
had accepted the decree of the court below.
Nj L. T. CritteDden. for defendant, resisted
thss motion, and read in opposition to the motion
athdavi;s that Carpenter had caused Mrs. Car
penter arrest five times, had threatened TO take
the property from her by warrants. and force
the family TO the poor house. Chief Justice
Cartier asked II the counsel wanted them to GO
together again. Mr.. Crittenden said that the
defendant woald be much safer as his wife,
then she would not be exposed TO arrest for lar
ceny from him as now. Judge Mac Arthur said
the wider the parties were kept apart the better
Il would be; that the courts were open TO her If
she needed protection. Judge Cartier said they
xoRld grant the motion, and it defendant in
sisted they would make another decree OF
divorce. tLauehter.l
TELEGRAPH CASE.
The case of Ennis vs.. Western Union tele-
graph company was argued by mr.. Payne for
the pIalntiT:, and the brief OF Air. Buchanan for
defendant submitted. The facts in this case
are that plaintiff Mr.. j T. Ennis, an Attorney
was employed in November, ls<8, by Mr.. L. L.
BTien, of New York. to negotiate the sale OF
judgment of record in Baltimore county. Md,
ard on the Sth of December following BrIen
delivered to defendant at New.i erik a message
that Lemon has sold the Judgment for over it-
teen hundred" which was not delivered TO him,
nor any one for him, and he was net advised of
said dispatch until the receipt of another, four
days after. The case was submitted in the
court below tcircuit) and Judgment given for
$3.50. and defendant appealed.
The defendants Points are as foliows:-1st. As
there was no obligation or agreement, express or
implied, between the plaintiff and defendants.
that the defendants should deliver the telegram
referred TO, in the ease stated TO the plaintiff, he
is not entitled to recover in this action, because
the defendants did not deliver it to him. 2l 1t
is clear, from the declaration, and case stated,
that the plaintiffs action is based upon tie allie
cation that the damage was caused by not
ceiving the telegram; and since he was net the
sender If the message, bat the person TO whom
the telegram was addressed, he cannot recover;
for the defendants being the aCeStS OF theBcndcr,
they are responsible only TO hiEa tor negligence,
so far a. such negligence consists in non-feasapce
merely. Sd. IL is true that eOBisoa carriers may
be sued, either IN case. on the custom, or in
afsumpsit, on ttcr contract But telegraph
company is not common carrier. = at a bailee,
performing, through its agents. a work for its
employer, under rules which, unGe- the law, il
has right TO make tor its government.
the plaintiff contToverts these points. and
saY6 the two first are based on the third point
thaS a telegraph company is not a cofa Elon car
rlerSsat bailee working for its employer, and
eXcliIsiyeiy the sender of the message. He saws
10 show the unsoundness OF this theory it is ONLY
necessary to consider the public character of
The employment of the telegraph company. its
Identification with the interests and REQ sire-
ments OF tie public generally, the rights are
conceded. % ii upon the grounds of public use
IFS duty 10 serve the public without preference
or Dissatisfaction, and TO accept all the labor
offered to Il in the line OF its business, &c. By
numerous authorities the business of the tele-
graph company is aSsmilated to that of COM
mon carriers, and very wide distinction is
drawn between the former and an ordinary
baIlee with regard TO their respective duties
and liabilities. A telegraph company is the
- 1T 9th Of
tie line, and is responsible TO the person in
jrUed 10y delays or mistakes, whether he be the
one who sent or the one who was TO receive the
message As the eoSisignee, who has a right of
property in the goods, should bring the action
against the carrier tOT their loss or damage so
the party who has An interest in the message
and its delivery is the oEe to bring the action
for errors or non delivery. In the present case
the plaimiff (appellee) was the only party who
was interested in the contet4s of the message,
and the only one who could lie damaged or in
jured b. its non delivery. He is therefore the
proper party TO maintain this action.
Judgment Of court below affirEsed.
Mcdonnell agt. Lilley; argued.
RAILROAD CASE.
y: caro- agt. Washington and Georgetown
railroad Company, was argued by Mr. Miller
ant. This is the case known as the cigar box
case, in which plaintiff, in October last, got or
street car with pile of cigar boxes AID hav-
brought suit in the Circuit Court, and verdict
was given for defendant. The case now comes
up on bills OF exceptions to the rulings of the
court on the following poiHts:-After he had
proved that he 90" ru ~" ear with ten boxes OF
cigars, and hayiiE Seen told to 90 inside, and
replying that it was full, but he would 90 on
the front platform when they reached IN street,
he offered TO prove that it was his custom to
travel on the cars with boxes which was refused.
The Circuit Court ruled out that the conductor
at 9Th street said to lady waiting for transfer,
Cant you wait ? Cd d-n yOu." And over
ruled the plaintiffs prayers that he was entitled
TO recover if he was refused ride after his
boxes were set of; and If the conductor did not
ask for the customary fare for his boxes he was
entitled TO recover. Excepts also to the Circuit
Court granting the prayer of defendant that the
plaintiff had no legal right to occupy the rear
platform of the car with his boxes, and a YER
DICT must be found for defendant. The plaintiff
claims that the defendant is a common carrier
II 1t holds itself out TO the public as such and
the agreement TO receive or carry goods may be
shown by proof of practice or usage. There
fore, the Court erred in refusing to allow the
plaintiff to prove his customary use OF
me cars IN the pursuit of his business.
While the right to be carried by a common car
Tier is right superior to the rules and regula-
tons for the accommodation of passengers, their
accommodation while be ing transported is sub
Ject to such general rules az the carrier NAV
think proper, provided they are reasonable.
Whether reasonable is question of law and
fact TO be found by the jury under instructions
A common carrier is bound to carry for all per-
sons alike without favor or discrimination. Pas
seDgers are entitled to all reasonable and usual
accommodation. Common carriers are bound
10 carly passengers or gO0dS, III they have room.
Want Of room is no excuse for railroad. rail-
road company had no right to expel passenger
unless in case Of an intent to defraud If carrier
has admitted a person, even il he be pick
pocket into his conveyance, he is bound to take
him TO his journeys end, unless he is guilty of
such an improperly the road justifes his
being turned out. A person is a passenger from
the moment the carrier give any sign of assent
to his becoming such.
POLICE COURT, Judge SneU-Frank Down
ing, disorderly conduct in Georgetown; COL
lateral forfeited, 81. Henry Messenger, disor-
Derby in the county; pleaded guilty and was
fined 50. Cornelius Tyler, profane and drunk;
fined 50. Eliza Parker and Margaret Smith,
loud and boisterOus language and profanity on
Van street; fined IS each. Adam Lummux.
Richard Craig and John Cox, three colored
men. charged with disorderly conduct at the
Howard University grounds on Sunday last and
resisting the officer. Craig was discharged and
Lummux and Cox fined s. and costs. Geo. w.
GIllem, c0lOred, assault on Charles Ii. Wash
ington, one of the poundmaster's men, who was
endeavoring to drive a cow to the pound; fined
81 and costs. John Angerman, charged with
assault and battery with intent to kill Officer
Poole, in the county. Poole testified that yes.
teiday, at the Schuetzen park, he had occasion
to make an arrest. when Angerman ran into his
fathers house and got pistol, with which he
fired two shots at him (P0ole.) He jumped
from his horse and wrenched his pistol from
him and took him to the station-house. Case
sent to the grand jury.
AnC.