The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-08-03
INTERESTING CIsES IRON 1HE LATEST
Law REPORTS.

real estate.
INTERESTING CIsES EYOH THE LiTEST
Law REPORTS.
People whose farms are fenced with wire
will do well to note n recent decision Of the
English Common plons Divisional Court. Tho
plaintiff aud Yorkshire iron mining company
held adjoining premises under the same land
lord. with whom the company had contracted to
fence the land IL occupied. For this purpose
lines Of wire rope supported by posts wcre
placed along the border Of the plnintiff's farm
which was used for pnsturng milch cows. The
strands Of this rope were rusted away by long
exposure to the weather. Bits Of the wire fell
Into tho grass on the plaintiffs land. where
they were hidden from view and involuutariy
eaten up 10y the cattle grazing near the fence.
The result was the death ofthrcc valuable cows
\ suit WIS brought t. recover the value Of the
third animal thus lost, and the County Court
Judge held the mining company responsible.
on the principle that they were bound TO uso
their own property SO as not to damage
nnothcr's. His decision was affirmed by the
Common Pleas division in London. which de-
cnrcd that tho injury to the COW was tho nat
ural result Of the acts OF the defendants. They
knew the nature of the wire; that it should fall
on the adjoining land when it dccaycd was to
be expected; nnl the pieces. being concealed in
the grass were plainly Liable 10 be swallowed
hy cows rasturing there. Upon the prin 'iplc
already mentioned the company was aljudged
to be answerablo for the loss Of the cow.
Tho Obligations 81 railroad corporations In
respect 10 the delivery Of baggage TO pnsse ngcrs
travelling by the same train with ii are clearly
defined IN case lately decided by the EN-
oh 81 lao Iis,b -
In England maid had been Iourncying with
her mistress on the Greot Western Railway.
and they alighted at Padiington station in Lon
don. where she saw all their baggage. incud-
Ing her own trunk taken from the cars and
placed together on the platform She won't for
a ho'el porter 10 take the baggage 10 hotel. hut
II appe9rs that he did not ilnd her trunk. for il
was not among the things which he brought 10
the hotel Upon the trial OF suit To- recover
$3.50 as the value Of the trunk. the jury found
that the loss occurred through the negligence Of
the company, and that there WINS no delivery TO
the plaintiff They rendered a verdict in her
favor. which was upheld on motion for new
passage from Rcdneld's American work on
carriers. as very intoiiiyihlc and convenient
statement Of the law; # l. tho duty Of a rni.
way company. in regard to the baggage Of a
passenger which hn. reached il. dcstiuntion 10
have the baggage ready for delivery upon the
platform at the usual placc Of delivery until the
owner. in the exercise Of due diligence. can call
and receive IT, and II is tho owners duty To call
for and remove II within a reasonabletimc."
An Ohio bank has been defeated in n some
what remarkable suit brought to recover dam
ages for the non-deivery II n telcgraphic mes
sage. \ person had applied to the bank o.
have draft oashcd. Being doubtful as to his
responsibility. the officers wrote to n core
spond"nt in another place, making inquiries.
ana asking a response 10y telegraph The lottcr
"is' stated ih'l II no telegram wore received 10y
gwen "n'' IN" ur"'i would he caeh'd'
pnnv 90 b" sent in reply. hut il never reached