The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1873-02-12
TEE OLD CAMDEN AND ANNOY
RAILROAD SUIT.

The Burning of the Camden and AmbOy
Railroad Compauy's Wharf-Hcavy
Loss Of Cotton and Suit for Recovery
Liabilities of Common Carriers-A Long
Litigation Ending i'm a Verdict Against
the COmpany-Charge OF Judge LOcyv.
In the Court of Common Pleas, Part Q, Judge
LOew presiding, an Old suit, once before tried
and in which the jury disagreed, has occupied the
attention OF the Court and jury Tor several days
past. The case was reported at length at the pre-.
vious trial, and the circumstances will be- there
FORE remembered. To state it In brief the de-
fendants-the Camden and AmbOy Railroad Com
pany-had in charge. for conveyance and delivery,
"a large amount OF cotton the property OF the plain
till, Marcus p. Woodruff, and while still in their
stroyed in common with the burning ana destruc-
tiOn Of the company's wharf The defendants con-
tended that they were not liable by the conditions
of their contract for loss by fire. The first jury
failed to agree; but, under the clear and lucid
charge OF Judge Loew to the Jury who just tried the
case, that body has rendered a verdict for the
plaintiff in full.
In charging the Jury Judge Loew said IF you
believe from the evidence that the cotton in ques-
ton was carried under the verbal agreement, as
claimed and testified to on the part of the plain
TIT, then the defendants acted as common carriers
OF insurers and as SUCH became liable Tor all loss
and damage except such as might be caused by the
act OF God or the public enemy, and as the fire by
winch the cotton in question was consumed does
not come within the exception, 1t will be your
duty to find verdict in favor OF the plaintiff,
whether the fire resulted from the negligence OF
the defendants or not. But common carrier may
restrict his liability by express agreement, and II,
therefore, you believe from the evidence that
the plaintiff or his agent assented to the
terms OF or accepted the bill OF ladng en-
bodying the contract between the parties, then
the defendants by reason OF the clause therein
contained exemptng them from liability for loss
Occasioncd by fire. are relieved IRON responsibility
and entitled to verdict at your hands, unless you
believe either that the fire was caused or the cot
ton in question consumed by reason OF the negli-
gence Of the defendants or their employees. The
Onus or burden OF proving this negligence ~ on the
PLAINTIFF and If he has established to your salts
faction, from all the evidence and the circum-
stances OF the case, that the fire referred to re-
suited from negligence on the part OF the defend
ants, or that the cotton was consumed by reason
dict in favor OF the PLAINTIFF; otherwise
you Will find in favor OF the defendants.
In case you find verdict in favor OF the plaintiffs
II will be Tor the value OF the cotton, less the
freight, which value, ] believe, IL conceded to he
$27,S93 So; and you may also, In the exercise OF
your discretion, allow interest thereon, which
amounts to $16,567 s3.
The Judge also submitted the following questions
to the jury First, was there any agreement as
sented to by the parties exemptinR the carrier
from risk by fire Second was the loss OF the
cotton occasoned by reason OF the want OF due
care on the part OF the delendants'
After a snort consultation the jury found for
plaintiff principal and interest, $44, ago o. And to
the first question, "There was none" end to the
second, at was"
Counsel for plaintiff, Messrs Marsh and Shep-
herd; for defendants, Messrs Cuyler and SANFORD.