Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-07-21
LIKE THE OWEN CASE.
An Interesting Decision in a Charles
ton Court.
From the Neqos ana Cowrier


In the Court of Common Pleas Friday,
Judge Witherspoon presiding, the now
celebrated case of the South Carolina
Loan and Trust Company against Pitt
man Bros. was resumed. The testimony
having been closed on Tuesday the day
was devoted to the argument Of counsel,
and as such eminent lawyers as the Hon.
Henry BUST, Major q. Lamb Bui st, Col.
e.. ii. SimOntOn and Mr.. j. Y. Nathans
were engaged in the case, the court room
was crowded with large audience. COM
posed largely OF merchants, bankers and
lawyers.
1t would be impossible, without occu-
plying unreasonable space, to give fair
Idea OF the arguments of the counsel,
their elOquence and the skillful manner
in which the testimony was presented to
the jury, but as the legal positions Occu-
pied by the opposing counsel raise ques-
tions of considerable public interest, these
positions will be briefly outlined. Messrs.
BUST & Buist, for the plaintiff held that
il had been shown by the testimony that
Pittman Bros, the defendants, were
the lessees OF COmmins' wharf, where
they conducted a general wharf bust
ness and employed A. l.. Roumllat as
their agent and whartinger, and appar-
emily clothed him with the authority
usually conferred upon persons in such
employment, and that the defendants
were liable for the acts OF their agent,
RoHmillat. That Roumillat, being the
wharfnger and agent of the defendants,
had the power to execute receipts for mer-
chandise delivered at COmmins' wharf for
storage. That RoumiIlat, having exc
cuted the receipts and thereby attOrned
to the plaintiff for the property de-
scrlbed, that then the receipts became the
symbols OF the property described, and
the defendants were bound to deliver the
property to the plaintiff or their order.
That the receipts executed by ROumilIat,
wbarfnger of the defendants, were prima
facie evidence of the delivery to the de-
PENDANTS OF the property described, and
were contracts between the plaintiff and
the defendants that the property de-
scribed was received and held subject to
the order Of the plaintiff, and the de-
PENDANTS were bound to deliver the goods
or its value upon the order of the plaintiff.
and that the burden OF proof was on the
defendants. That even If the receipts were
fraudulentlY executed the defendants
were responsible tor the damage arising
from the fraud OF their agent, and that
the defendants were estopDed from deny
ing their liability for the act OF their agent,
That 1t had been proved by the plaintiffs
testimony, without contradiction, that 1t
was the custom of the banks to lend money
upon the faith and credit of such wharf
receipts as those produced in this case as
the symbols of the property therein de-
scrlbed, and that the receipts being exc
cuted by Roumillat as the whartnger Of
the defendants within his apparent au-
thOrity, that the plaintiff was entitled to
the delivery OF the property or it's value.
In sitting the evidence Maj. BUST
claimed that the bank was entitled to re-
celve the whole i92 casks of spirits or its
value. although this would exceed the
amount OF the banks loss. tie claimed
however, that $40 casks had been proved
TO have been purchased by Riggs aud dc.
liyered to Roumillat. For this amount,
he commended, the plaintiff was entitled
beyond question.
On the other hand the counsel for the
defendants contended that the action be-
ing one Of claim aud delivery for certain
barrels Of spirits with certain marks, or
in default thereof for sum OF money
there must be proof positive that the bar.
r6ls of spirits SO claimed had actually been
placed into the hands OF the defendants.
PifimAn Bros, or their agent, Roumlllat,
on the wharf before the defendants could
be held liable. That the business OF q
wharhnger was that of the custody Of
property and That the authority OF the
agent Of the wharf owner or warehouse
man 20 bind him in the course of his
agency is conditioned upon tue possess
sion and custody " such property, In
other words the defendants claimed
that Putnam Bros, as principals,
were only liable Tor the acts
of their aGeut within the
scope OF mis- authority, real or apparent,
and thar il Riggs had not the spirits OF
turpeutinp on COmmus' wharf when he
gave the orders in question 10 the PLAIN
tlh. aud that the orders were fraudu ent
aud that the defendants never authorized
Roumillat. us their agent. " receipt OF