Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-07-21

! give acknowledgment for property not in
his custody as whartnger, or held him
out as so authorized, then the piaIntlf1
could not recover. That the bank as
sumed the risk not only Of the genuine
ness Of the signature TO them and of the
tact that ROumillat was wbardnger for
Plttman Bros, but also II his apparent
authority to give those receipts, and that
Koumlllat had apparent authority only to
sign receipts for goods actually stored on
the wharf and none other.
Col. Simonton. in his argument, told the
jury that the defendants admitted the
proof of Isl barrels OF spirits being de-
llyered on COmmins' wharf That ll9
! barrels had been delivered there during
the times specified in the wharf receipts,
ana for these the defendants acknOwl-
edged that they could be held liable. Be-
y0nd these there was no proof that any OF
the spirits claimed to have been pur-
chased by Riggs had ever been delivered
to the wharf.
1t IS due to Mr.. Roumillat to say that
the attorneys for the plaintiff expressly
dlsclalmed any charge against him, and
that the attorneys for the defendants,
whlle cont nding that his receipts did not
olnd Pittman, RETAINED from charging
him with misconduct.
AT the close of the argument Judge
Wltherspoon charged the jury with
marked ability. Upon the main point of
law in the case Judge Witherspoon
charged as follows: "The issue presented
IN this case is a novel one in this State.
The issue presented not only concerns
the parties directly Interested in this
case, but the final decision may affect to
some extent the business interests of this
community. Whilst the point involved
has not heretofore been adjudcated in
THIS state yet it seems to me that
the point here involved has been
decided by the Supreme Court of
the United States in two cases, to wit:
In the case OF the schooner Freeman vs.
buckingham, IS HO ward, 1872 and in the
case OF Pollard VS.. Vinton, Is Otto, p. 7.
Under the authority Of these cases l
charge you, as matter OF law, that if Rou-
mIllat acted as agent and whartinger for
the defendants his authority as such
agent could not be exercised or begin
until Roumillat had had possession, GUS
tody or control OF goods as such whartin-
ger, received within the scope of his duty
as wharfinger. Under these authorities
hold that if the owner OF a wharf en-
plOys an agent as wharfinger, the
owner would not be bound
| by fictitious receipt for
goods never delivered given by the
wharinger. Why so? Because parties
| who take such receipts are dealing with
an agent ana not with the principal. Inc
| principal under such circumstances has
I the right to insist upon the we'll recog-
nized principle of law that he is not
bound by the acts of his agent beyond the
scope Of his agency; that he who deals
with his agent beyond the scope Of the
agents authority must deal at his own
peril so far as the principal is concern
ed. Ii the goods had been delivered
| to Roumillat, as wharfinger, and be had
| traudulently disposed of the goods whilst
in his custody the defendants would be
liable. This court cannot make laws to
| suit the commercial interests of acorn
munity. 1t is the duty of this court to
| see that the law aseStablished is ntorced.
If this receipt or declaration had been
made by the defendants themselves in
| stead of by ROumillat, a different princi-
| pie would apply"
The jury after ashort absence returned
! into Court and asked for further eXplana-
! ton OF the COURTS ruling as to what con-
| stituted possession, custody and control
| by the wharfnger. Judge WitherspoOn
| replied that the goods must have been de-
! llVered on Commins' wharf, ond the de-
| PENDANTS could be held liable only for
| such spirits of turpentine as had been
| proved to be actually delivered on the
| wharf.
! The jury then retired again, and after
| an hours consultation returned the fol-
| lowing verdict: 1--WE find for the plain
| tiff $40 barrels of spirits turpentine, or
| its value, $3.50"