The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1874-05-25
psar.ss,. Liabilities 10 Das0SifOrs

(Fr1m the New Dfk " bTiu, a.as ~
Sunday evening, january u, 1872, while
tie churcll.g9 ling people Of Trenton were IN
attendance upon divine service, a haii-dezen
professional burglars were '.Soing through
the old Trenton Bank, an institution more
ihaa half century cid, which bad never
before been disturbed by the knights OF the
screw and jimmy. The burglars were
adopts, ard their plans were skillfuIiy az
RANGED. One Of them occupied an elevated
lookout in an adjoining building. where be
had telegraph arranged by which be could
notify his partners within upon the arproacn
Of any suspicious chalactcrs. The Two
wachmcn were doing quietly IN church,
the bank being left unguarded du-
ring two or three hours Ill the
evening, which were improved to the utmost
by the burglars. When the police entered
The building they found the two Watchlncn
bound. the floor strcwcd with books, papers,
and battered tin boxes, the window open,
and the burglars gone. Every one Of the
burglars escaped, and, although a reward Of
81, 0V0 was offered for their detection, not the
slightest trace of them has ever been found.
'fWo or three days were required to make an
accurate examination of the plumber taken.
Thirteen private boxes were rifled, and the
amount stolen foots up $4,000. None
of the funds of the bank were gone.
Among the losers by this robbery was
Mrs. Harriet Leeds, of Trenton, who last
week instituted a claim against the bank
for the value of her bonds, which, with
interest, amounted to $4,000. She based her
claim upon the plea that the bank officials
lection of the valuables entrusted to their
al ,r,lo
both sides, and suit was brought in the Mer-
Ger courts before ChiefJustice Beasley. 1t
was opened Friday CT last week and re-
sumed to-day. After the plaintiff rested,
Dir. Gummere began summing up, but was
interrupted by the Court, who requested
counsel for plaintiffs to define the grounds
upon which they rested this case.
Mr.. Holt, for the plaintiffs, replied
that they assumed that there was a
deposit, and that it was stolen, and through
the negligence of the bank, which had
failed to take that care of the deposits which
any reasonable person would exercise over
his own resources. Chief.Justice Beaslcy
said: "Iu this case there is a gratuitous
bailee-tbat is, property delivered to another
TO be taken care OF. It is the same as though
| request some friend to take care OF my
property. In this case, If the bank had
been a paid bailee, there would not then
have been case made out against it. 1t
would he absurd to suppose that such
parties are responsible. If they are, so
are we all. No lawyer could return home
at night feeling safe in property,
for he could be held accountable for
any papers that might be abstracted from his
safe. This Maryland and Pennsylvania law
is new to me yet. 1t is not prevalent in New
Jersey, and l don't want to see it so. To
saw that a bank is negligent because it does
not keep a constant guard in the building is
wrong assumption. can't see that the
plaintiff has made out a legal case"
The Chief-Justice granted the plaintiff the
right to take exceptions, and the case viii
probably be appealed.