New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1873-05-20

Charles A. Bessac. We. John "; Cannon: master
and owner OF steamboat Robert E. Lee.-Thls is an
Satehez. Mississippi against John W cannos,
master and part owner OF tie steamboat Robert T.
Lee toT the sum Of $ l5o Plantif alleges tn Una,
Of March le1l, in carrying passengars and 1lelSh,
| for hire between the ports of New Orleans ana
Natchez that on the seven h day o. March, lo'l'
he caused package marked C. A. Bessae,
NatciIez, Mississippi 70 be delivered 10 the SAD
steamboat to be by the said steamboat carried
| and delivered 10 plaintiff at Natclez, Mississippi:
that said package was of the value Of $50; that
plait has in vain frequently dsmanoe9 t Ges .a
| steamboat: that defendant refuses 10 pay the
value Of said package" Judgnsnt is PRAYED for
against the defendant individually ana as master
| and owner OF said steamboat.
| The defendants answer denies all and singular
tanned and further answering tefendant pleads
that at or about the time mentioned ID the FetI-
Lee TO be transported to Na,chez and there deliv-
cred to plaintiff that the said package dld not Ia
any nanner show that the contents were
in any way valuable, or required any extra
particular care i'll its TRANSPORTATION
other than packages of similar appearance; that
there nothing in its appearance TO Indicate or
! show its value, and the defendant not III
formed of It's contents; that defenF ant had then
| no knowledge whatever of the contents or of the
| value of sad package but soon after the arrival
OF the Robert Z. Lee at Natchez the said package
was Delivered to the said Bessac IN the same cond
ton il which il was received board said boat:
| that the said package was not opened on boa:d
| :he boat. ard whatever its contents were VIXEN IT
| the said Bessac. who received the same without
any ofi ection. and paid the freight thereon and
| made liz claim until this SUI. was brought
John p Fellowes resident o: the city OF New
York, examined under commission from TINS
court in behalf OF paint ii, says he is member
| of the firm of F-llowes Co.. doing business at
No. II Maidenlape il said city; that on the third
day of March, 1871, his firm forwarded by express
| a package o Charles A. B ssac; OF Satchtz, Mis-
| sissippi, 10 the care of B axe L Tower. New Or.
| leans that the contents Of said package was one
god watcf: that it was vel, and carefully packed
1,oy licb Vvra ned
with Irvine: that Mr.. Bessac was advised by his
firm On The day of shipment by letters sent TO hiIr
Co.'S exprets, and they now hold their 1ecei pt for
| the package; that he estimates the value OF the
might value it at higher price; that the package
was marked &C. A. Bessac. care OF Blake X Tower
| New Orleans louisiana"
! James E. Weir. another member Of the firm OF
Felowes &C.. testlres that on the third OF March.
| 1871. he forwarded for his firm package by ex.
| to care of Blake Tower, New Orleans; that the
contents O! SAID package consisted OF gold hunt.
was he n UP lhe Of Ls said
| firm. obOIates tie testimony OF Eel owes and
Weir. from entries which he found on tie books o:
Tue following is tie letter OF advice above re.
New YORK. March 3. 1871.
DEAR SIKEWr tor yard gold case by to.day's ex.
p.ess care Of Blake ( Tower. New Orleans as We
FELLOWES & Co.
Blake Tower, or receipt of the package. Tor.
waTGed il 20 Satcl.ez by sad steamboat TIE re.
ceipt given Cor :. at The office Of The boat by the
clerk Isl evidence. Tie freight bill was pad by
the plaintiff a: NatcheZ OF presentment by one OF
the watch in question had been given by its
owner 10 Bess t. be rec .sed: Il was forwarded
| 20 Fel:ow.s X CO. by registered mail. Bessac
describes is dgube case gold e,a, s0 Il
was worth. he says. ia good order, with new
| Ga. ard gold in March, 1871. in Natchez, at
| least + 10, The package was not marked Oft the
frrisl. book as having been delivered The freight
bill of fifty nts was paid on the ninth or tenth
Of March. 1871: and several demands for the miss
| ;rr package were made of the officers OF the boat
| tl!-Ieattec AID ietore this SUIT was instituted.
! Two witnesses. Charles V. Taylor and J. ". c.
Love- corroboraie +he evidence OF Bessac as to the
failure OF boat to deliver the package up to the
twentieth Ct March or the early part OF Apri! of
eontfnv.rsr. after IS telivery in New Orleans by
| express. placed on board T. the sad steamer
On TIE seventh of March, by Bake Tower and
| the Office Oh the boat aid handed to one OF the
clerks therein. tie latter giving receipt for il.
test il was neve: delivered to Bessac OK to any one
! authorize by him TO receive y.
-.e n 81 Sstch.z "a .vi,. ce nr NJ ieast
| p1esuI ption that Bessac received the package.
Tor :: lie lad not ree,iyed It be would not lave
lpa:d the tiesli. bill The payment III the freigat.
10 be sure WORLD create presumption OF de VERY.
but "onl, pre- sumption. which could be easi dis.
peed by positive evidence. 1t appears that Bessac
had rad other business with the said boat; that he
| had ,ece.ved oilIer parcels and s.egl. ty ieI.
AID when tie blk referred 70 was presented, II wac
nc. strange that he paid j. without having de
| nialt,ei tile parcel IN suit. Such premature pay.
me. Shows nothing Incompatible with lis theory
| OF non delivery. 1t only shows that he had conf.
! d-Ice il Captain Cannon as reliable carrier. and
his sxrecta:io:. tina. the package would ev cntGa-y
reach IT'S destination. ba! thele : abundant pos.
tive evidence cha: the boat na' er delivered the
package 20 Bessac notwithstanding .ae all. CATION
OF ttie:ltlatt 20 the COZ trarv. IL his answer HIS
counsel tie argmeH. o: the case virtually ahan.
1
ground CT resistance 20 Plaintiffs demand IS BASED
oA.he prime PIE that. were package Is O. sne ei
! tied TO :o!ce. thar he may keep II under lock
| ar. KEY. and tina: j: such notice De not gwen Tie
carrier : not spot .iDie tor the loss II cenn.c.
on wit! ina: ,iew Of possibility. It was proved
,La: ], tie package lad been de Jared valuable, or
safe. AID would have been delivered by the first
ce;k 10 the agen, OF the boat. and receipt taken
Tor Il. Can Tot asstnt 10 this principle. do rot
| think that every valuable PAL Gel sent " steam
boat mus. Necessarily be put under lock AID keyto
| !rslc its .fe transportation and H"eryo Such
precauton would be extraordinary care, and under
package TO te Clerk IL the Office OF the boat. Ihe
| carrier would be bound to show only Ordinary
| care. Has IL. shown ordinary care From The
| evidence am constr aimed TO say lie has NOT. The
| c.erk lavin: been sought by she messenger Of
Bake Tower and the kage given TO the clerk
III the off ce Of tie beat the sn.Iuees of the par
eel. and she fact Of lis HAVING been brought to
New Orleans By express, ought; 1t seems 70 zee 10
have indicated &c the mind OF tie clerk that was
| q vs.ualJl. package. IL treated as such i'm
pie ly ~ least, by the pItcaaton Of the messen'
ger o, The express company, who delivered il only
| in .ie Office, and into the hands o: I'll. clerk.
viii ne; say that Vie clerk wa. bound 20 lock j: II
h. safe but ne had = N his Ole. ana re was
| Coinpara.I OF little vae. If the package a.
stead 81 being slclen o: lost, had merely lts coz,
tents injured il the harding Of IL the boat woa q
lot, perhaps, he lab FOL sucl. injury because 6.
.hc failure .i the shipper to d sc!e>e the Iuaic "i
is contents: but :he loss Of the parcel after ds'-
cry 20 tie cl.r. can DO; oe regarded OH rw.se
tiaE as neg Sence whct! NeG'ts IesToils bl y
on the iar OF tie carrier 20 him whom such neg -
| ssiCc Las deprived OF his property.
| The defendant: intends hat s-en Il lie be
| spoI.sib.e for tie value Of ths package aioresad
he is o1iy h.id 30. Ii. sufn g, because III. let
ter Of advice above forth has reference Only 10
| god case, ..voiced AT $50. and makes Il" men
! 'i"a ~ watch 70 heins the contents OF the
Bessac enl:ac.a onIv the matter 81 Tue Gp! case
and us SITTING 10 the watci fo-wa ded 10 them ~
Z all j. is cIlc natural that il: their letter
they c"Ltieed 'tien Ives 20 the mater OF ir-i-
F. LESS between them and Bessac. There was n n .
ce- ity %: Their parI 20 ittrr TO wat:h: 'he' ID
Their reference 80 the id case does :ot preclude
! the assumption :lat !: Contained ;ae machinery
This regard IS lei: to psation o: s,I:ni.-e, n
thei: evidence they swear that they packed goG
! watch and forwarded she same ~ cypress 20
! Ees.ac. Tie theory of the value o: the los: pack
age hing OILY So. i. entirely untenahic
tcon-'..r IL" al 'G4'ions OF plaintiff. petition
| care TIE part ~ the person or persons char d
with the ear. OF sic watch AFORESAID WHO suffered
x loS' 10 us G'r!t.. pflp4z sea! ii!'-
at..ii'v IN Il. "a" ouDt; or owners ~ the
sa, s:ea,1oa: -. h al! vaue o. the t4G. LOST
| TIL. j. -lol2n 20 he = -"
TL-,-ti. =: .heye re iu.ginei; 20. PAM Il as
| Fifth District Court.
! State e: -. z. $. Deauee -Iia5eas "orprs. Ee's
! .rr alleges tina. he IS n custody o. tie sltrl BY
virtue oi an eI.l.r OF the Foutn District Court.
! Tia. .!lr laid "lIer does not show any good reason
COP I'LL. me III for fovyeis. hours. .Ge
agIee vii Sc! for rel that II ppare n
| Ill. fuulti. court nae exceeded its authority II
.iI.j.rIsor M fcI that time :. bel shown Che som