The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1877-10-20
Supreme Judicial Court.


FRTDAY.-John Winslow Jones We. TIE New Eng
land and Nova Scotia Steamship Company.
An action to recover damages for the loss of sixteen
cases OF canned salmon valued at $3.50, and ninety
three barrels Of -four valued at $79O5O In all
$3.50. 80.
both lois OF goods were destroyed at the Atlantic
whart by tne Portland fire of the 9th of August,
1915. Inc salmon was shipped at Halifax on de-
endants steamer Falmouth for delivery at Portland
and landed at the Atlantic wharf and in charge of
he officer of customs in the freight she there. The
Hour was in the freight shed on the east side of
Atlantic wharf owned by the Grand Trunk Co. and
used by them to deposit through freight ftom Mon
trea and intermediate stations to be re-shipped on
defendants steamer for Halifax; and also used by
the defendant company for the storage of freeht
from Halifax to Portland and as the plaintiff clamr
for the storage of local freight from Portland to Hal
tax. The defendants had but one steamer on this
route, the Falmouth whose advertised day arrival
Portland was Saturday of each week, and day Of
departure Tuesday
The plaintiff says that he bought one hundred bar
rels of flour in which arrived at Portland on tie
4th Of August; that he obtained leave on the 5th o,
John Porteoas, who the advertised freight ageut
OF the defendant company, well the agent
Grand Trunk, to ship the -four By the Falmouth
that day; that the Falmouth for some reason failed
to take it, and that he then obtained leave of the de-
PENDANTS agents to deposit the -four in the freight
house for transportation by the Falmouth on Tues
day the 12th and that being the first day OF sailing
thereafter the delivery was for immediate transpor
tation.
Defense was that to the salmon; they were spec
tally exempt by their bill of lading from loss BY fire.
And that as to the -four it never was received by
them, but if under the proof the jury should find
was So received, then their liability was
nnn line nrlx avid hat f
mon carriers as insurers
The judge insu ucted the jury, in substance, that
as 10 the salmon he exception in the bill OF Jading
was valld, and the burden was upon the defendants
70 satisfy the jury that the loss by fire did not hap
pen through their own negligence want of care
anu that as TO the flour the jury would ind as ma t.
Ter OF fact whether the defendants received it either
as warehouse for immediate trapspoJt
as warehouse men, then they were responsible only
oI negligence or want of care; but ii for immediate
transportation, then they were liable common
liers and as insurers. The judge said:
assuming that the evidence satisfies Won that
there only one beat being run by the defendant
corporation to halifax, and that it run on Tuesdays
only and that fact was known to Mr. JONES' the
plat ntiff; that this -four delivered on Wednesday
as stated by Mr. Chase, with tull knowledge that the
boat had left the day before for Halifax and would
not return until the next Saturday. upposng it was
the understanding distinctly by b0tn parties, the
agent of the defendant corporation and Mr. Jones
his agent that when The boat returned from Halifax
and was ready to receive another cargo that she
would then take this flour on board and transport it
to Halifax, and that in the meantime it should
main in that building, what would be the liability of
the defendants during that time? Here instruct
you that ii 1t was known to Mr. Jones, well to
the defendants that This -four would not and could
not be taken until the next tIip until the boat bad
returned again to her mOorings, and had discharged
her nbrought cargo, and was ready to receive the
flour which would be some six days, more or less,
from that time, thai il it then lett with the I'M
Outstanding that it remained there on storage until
the vessel was IN ndition to receive another car CO.
until that time The liability of the defendants would
be that of warehouse-men and not that OF common
carriers so that if at the time of this fire which is
claimed. and believe admitted you viii determine
how that is, occurred on the next Saturday the St
and before the boat had discharged her inbIougnt
cargo, and before she was in condition 10 receive
any articles OF tue outgoing cargo for the following
Tuesday, II the flour DESTROYED before that time
before 1t was understood by either Of the paries Thai
she would be N condition TO receive this flour for
transportation, instruct you thai the defendant
corporation is not liable for it unless it was lost
through their negligence want of ordinary care
that their extraordinary liability as that of common
carriers would not attach until the boat had
TO her moorngs, discharged her cargo and was in >
condition TO receive new one for Transportation tG
Halifax"
Verdict for the defendants.
The case will be carried TO the law court on excep-
tons.
Mattocks for plaintiff.
A. A. Strout for defendants.