The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1872-11-27
HEAVY VERDICT AGAINST y
RAILROAD COMPANY.

Herald q detailed account Of the suit
brought nc ainst the Camden and Amboy
YAilrosd company by Messrs. Lamb y
Eastman OF this city, TO recover for the
loss Of cotton bales destroyed at the burn
ing of the wharf and warehouses of the
company at pier No. i. North River, 90
the 2slh of July, 1864 said fire, as will br
remen bered, having originated on The
steamer John Potter, belonging 10 tbs
company, and at the time moorcd ut tb,
wharf The cotton burned 81 bales al
together) was part of u consignment sen'
from Cairo, Illinois. At the time Of ship
ment written contract was signed except
Ing the transporting lines from losses by
ere. The company fell back cn this con
tract and refused TO make good the los!
on the cotton. 1t was claimed in opposi'
tion and as not covered by the terms oil
the contract that thu lre was the result OF
the
NEGLIGENCE OF THE RAILROAD CoMPANf'
The latter refused to see the matter in
this light. and the result was seeking
through The channel Of the courts to com
pel payment. After some two years Of
preliminary legal sparring the case was
brought to trial before Judge Cardozo,
a, that time justice of the court of
common pleas. The result Of the trial
was a verde, for the plaintiffs. An ap-
peal was taken from this verdict to the gem
e-sl term, who affirmed the verdict. 1t
was carried then to the cour. OF appeals,
which ordered new trial. All this, of
course. has taken time, 1t now being eight
wears, US stated above siacc the fire.
AsEcosD TRIAL
com menced on last Wednesday. In "A case
Of such magnitude eminent counsel were
employed Mr.. Luther X. Marsh and Mr..
Shepherd appearing for the plaintiffs, and
Mr.. Thomas Cuyler of the Philadelphia
bar. and ex-Judge Fullerton and Mr.. San
ford Of this city representing the railroad
company. The evidence was msinlya rep
elton OF that at the previous trial, and so
was the summing up of counsel, all OF
which was fully reported in the Herald
at the time. A feature Of special interest,
however, was the
CHARoE-oY JUDGE LABREMoRE
Of the curt Of common pleas, before whom
the case was tried. This charge is not only
specially interesting, rs defining the legal
liabilities of common carriers, but mas
much as upon the result of this suit de-
ponds host Of other similar suits by other
parties sustaining loss by the same fire.
Another fact enhancing the public interest
in the defining of the law in this case is
the applicability Of the same rules Of law
to the late burning of the warehouses in
Brooklyn--thsti is 20 say, IL, despite con-
tracts exempiing liability through loss by
fire, negligence can be proven. The fol-
lowing is the charge:--
"A common carrier 10 one who UNDER
takes tor hire TO transport from place 10
place the goods Of such as
choose TO employ him. He is responsible
for any loss or damage not occasioned by
the act Of God or the public enemies. But
this general liability may lie limited by
express agreement, and i: is for you 10 say.
from the facts in this case, whether the le-
GAL res possibility Of the defendant is gen.
eral or limited in its character. There arc
two theories tina, arise upon the evidence
20 which shall briefly direct your attcn'
tion. The one is that meintsInci by thc
dsfendant-thsi the bill OF lading issued
by the Illinois Central railroad company
was the contract under which the cotton
was transported. 10 it, ~ you will re
member, IL ID provided thst the through
rate should be 81 per che hundred pound:
and that the company arc not responsib!
70! dsrnsge or lOss By fire. Although thi
Suit Is nOt brought against the compaR,
with whom thIs contract il claimed 4
have b-en made, Yet the defend nt. VII
undertook the carriage OF this cotton an
in whose custody i: was losl or cestroye,
is subject - the same liabilities ard CT
titled 70 the benefit Of the same exemption
81 w-re imposed and contained in the fir
bill OF lA9ing. This t.l Of lzdiug is ev
dspcs Of she cOnirsc. made by the pariie
and i; presume! 70 embody al tbs, WI
agreed upon between them. II yOa y
lisye, therefore, upon the testimony, 81
The plaintiffs or either o! them authorize
or sssenlei - the Issuing Of this bill Of Ia
ing, either psr-Onslly or by their Ggei
then the defendant 10 entitled - the ben
a. Of the exemption clause in respect
the non-liabilily Of loss By are. The effc
OF this would be to relieve IL OF it its cot
mon law liability Us a common carrier =
establish the relation between IL and |
plaintiff, a. bslee for him. In this
lslion they would only be liable for I
loss Of this property by reason OF tb
own negligence. Upon this branch Of |
case charge yon, FIRST MS a prepositi'
that the defendant is not liable for the !
unless it appear tina, the fire which eau,
it resulted from the negligence of the
PENDANT or its servants. 1t is incumb,
upon the plaintiff. 10 estsb ish this Fl
before they can ask for verdict IN tn
favor. It's for you TO determine upon
evidence offered whether there was sucl
want Of care on the part Of the defenia
the exercise of which would have pl
vented the loss. In reaching a conclusi
upon this point you will tako into cons
GRAFTON tie situation Of the premises VIII
the injury occurred and all it, surronn
ings, the character and condition of |
pier and the goods thereon the means Il
were employed for the protection q
safety against peril OF this nature, a
then say whether that degree OF care "
USED winch the circumstances of the q,
demanded; Tie care required was su
as persons OF ordinary prudence wol
taHe OF such property under Just such c
cumstances. II you believe that such c.
was exercised the plaintiff. cannot
cover for the exemption clause in ,
bill of lsding discharges deiendan, fr,
liability. II, on the contrary, you bell,
that the loss occurred by the neJ
gence OF the defendant or its servants !
Will then find for the plaintiffs.
other theory OF the case IL that which
pisfntlns rely upon as ii ground Of rec
cry. They claim that the agreement
the transportation OF this property v
verbal, that 1T was made with the d,
authorized agent Of the Illinois Cent
railroad, the cotton was to be carried FRI
Cairo to New York by "all rail- and II
no exemption for loss by FIRE wa. AR,
70 or even spoken Of. y
piutntiHs no swotu ,,nsi,tynI,, ,,n,,, .