The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1874-06-17
IMPORTANT TO WAREHoUsEMEN

What Constitutes Liability In the stor-
age OF G00ds-Chloridc OF Lime VS..
Dyed Jute.
Travers vs.. McBain.-Thls action was brought
by the plaintiff in Marine Court, Part 2-Judge
Gross presiding. to recover from the defendant
$591 co. with interest from January, 1870, Tor DAM
ages he claims to nave sustained in consequence
OF the improper storing Of a quantity Of jute in
defendants storehouses, on Peck slip. The de-
fendant admitted having received certain prop
erty Of plantn for storage, but denied he received
the quantity alleged, and claimed that 1t was CON-
mttted to his care as warehouseman-to keep
the same till it should be called for, and that he
exercised in regard TO the same all the care
and diligence that prudent man would
exercise towards his own property. From the
evidence 1t appeared that considerable quantity
OF the jute IN question, was what Ia termed in
the trade "dyed' jute 1t, with other Jute or
hemp, was storer In certain rooms OF PLAINTIFFS
store in January, 1870 The property injured was
stored in room above one In which quantity OF
chloride OF lime or bleaching powder was stored.
In the July following the defendants attention
called to the fact that OF the bres OF the
dyed jute were discolored and he at once, fearing
that injury might result to the jute as whole, on
the same day in person called on tie platinum and
notified him OF the tact and the danger that might
result II 1t was not removed At this time the de-
PENDANT as he stated In his evidence, estimated
cent The injury, II was alleged by plaintiir arose
from gases arising from quantity Of
chloride OF lime stored in rooms below
cessive hot weather OF the summer OF 1870 causing
the chloride OF lime to ferment, and emitting gases
SO noxons and dangerous to health and lie that
after little time Il was impossible to remove
them. The chloride Immediately under the jute
was at once removed as well as 1t was possible to
do 1t, the workmen being compelled 70 hold
sponges TO their faces. The plaintiff. claimed that
the defendant ought not to have stored such an
article In any proximity 10 the jute or hemp, and
that this negligence on his part was the sole
warehouse men testified that 1t was customary to
store chloriGe Of lime and juLe on the same noors
and that they had never known any injury
to arise thereirom.. The two principal Law points
arose from the two interviews between the
parties; the first when the defendant notified the
plaintiff to remove the goods, which he failed to do,
second wnen plaintiff made his personal exanina-
ton Jour weeks alter. The latter swore tnat
tnat occasion defendant admitted that the I'M ury
arose from the chloride Of lime, and then stipu-
lated that he would see broker about 1t and have
1t sold Tor what IL would be worth for the manu-
iacture OF paper. and that ne subsequently made
prOffer to sell 1t for two and rhree-quarter cents
pound, which plaintiff refused to accept. There
was q great deal of confilcting testimony in the
stipulation OF the kind and that the plaintir left
his own risk.
Judge Gross. in his charge to the jury, after re-
order to hold the defendant liable for the injury,
1t was necessary to find that the defendant was
varehouseman was only held TO ordinary care,
such care as reasonable and prudent man
would take OF his own property, and when he
aa TO t al e
have to be satisfied that he did not use ordinary
care for the protection OF the property In question:
verdict for the plaintlr OF IL per cent on the
whole storage new trial Will be moved for.