The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1876-12-08

We give bolow the CHARGE of Hon William
u,..ii - u,Y
i1'"e''' !" '"e vase VI 'o'' - 4nciieiy vs.
lhe Delaware, Lackawanna and Western
Railroad Co., which was tried last week and
r,.ulted in a verdict for tho def. ndopts The
.t,,.,,,;I,I. -, ..,,.;..;.... -.
c"i'Be VIII oe vi Interest Us eAPI'''iiis "here
ana now railroads companies are liable icr
goods entrusted to them and under what cir
cums ,onces thew cease tn no resnonsible
Gentlemen Of the jurv: This is an action
brought by John J. McHepry against the Del.
aware, Lackawannn & Western Railroad Com =
pany, to recover the value of barrel of sugar,
for which the plaintiff alleges the defendants
became liable, by reason of its having been
committed to their charge for transportation
and also by reason of its remaining in their
custody "a warehousemen.
The liability of common carrier is very
strict; he s, in fact considered as an insurer of
the property entrusted to him, and ia bound to
deliver it at all events, the acts of God and of
the public enemy only excepted but, when the
property has been carried to its destination,
and there deposited in warehouse to wait he
nw0er's convenience, the duty of the carrier ,
ended, and he becomes thenceforth responsible
only as a warehouseman, baIee, bound to
take such care as a prudent man takes of bis
own goods, and liable only for neglect in pro
tecting and preserving ii for reasonable time,
or for carelessness in delivering it to some 9TH
er person than the copsignee or his authorized
agent. In this case if the sugar was lost, the
burden of proof Is upon the plaintiff to show
that such loss was caused by want of ordinary
care on the part of the railroad company. 1t
il not necessary that the company should give
actual notice Of the arrival Of the goods to the
thousands of persons with whom they deal
Men are governed in their action by tn, Sc
things that usually occur, and, therefore, the
general certainty of the safe and prompt arr-
val of goods by railroad is sufficient construc-
tive notice The railroad company, in this
case, receives nothing for storage beyond the
consideration that by taking care it will encour.
age and induce business upon the line Of its
road You will have no difficulty under the
evidence in this case, in coming to the concu-
sion that the only liability of the defendants i,
that of warehousemen Was the property pro-
perly cared for while at the depot ? and was it
delivered to the plaintiff? Upon the first point,
we hear no allegation to the contrary: the
building was kept locked the company's agents
were in charge nothing was stolen. Upon the
other point if the sugar was delivered to any
person duly authorized to receive it for Mr.
McUenry. then the railroad company is not
liable, although the sugar may never have
reached Mr. McHenry; if it was taken from
the depot by either Mr.. Long, the stage driver,
(who, it seems, was authorized to carry goods
for Mr.. McHenry,) or by Mr.. Alberson the
teamster, (whom the plaintiff EMPLOYED Ia
haul his goods or il. at the request of Mr. Long,
the barrel of sugar was put out upon the plat.
form and checked off as delivered, then in eth
er of these cases il was no longer in charge o.
the railroad as the keeper of a warehouse, and
the responsibility of the company as carriers OF
as warehousemen was equally at an en- But
if the company or its agents delivered the suga,
to any person unauthorized to receive it, ,ha
was a negligent delivery and makes the ware
h ouseman liable as does non.delivery, or +
refusal To deliver uDon the ground that III,