The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1893-12-20
IN FAVOR OF CUILMARTIN.
The Merchants Bank Did Not Exercise
Proper Diligence.

| elusive in the Carhart Case-Other
Gases in the Supreme Court.
In the case of L. j. Guilmartin vs. the
Merchants National Bank, which was a
suit for 4 special deposit of securities
with that bank, amounting to between
| 81, 900 and $751; 900, the supreme court has
affirmed the decision of Judge MacDonell,
and sustained the verdict of the Jury in
the city court in favor of the plaintiff.
| This case, together with that of Mr..
| George p. Carhart and Mr.. r. NJ De-
| mere, grew out of a defalcation of the
! former cashier of the bank. Messrs.
! Guilmartin and Carhart were the holders
of receipts for special deposits of securi-
ties with the bank, and upon the death of
| the cashier the securities could not be
| found. Suits were brought in behalf of
| the plaintiffs by Messrs. Charles n.
West and j. r. Saussy.
THE FIRST DECISION REVERSED.
On the first trial of the Guilmartin
| case in the city court, Judge Harden pre-
siding, it was held that the bank was
| liable If its cashier stole the property.
| This case was then carried to the supreme
| court, and the decision of the city court
was reversed on the ground that the
| court had gone too far in its charge to the
| jury.
The supreme court held that the bank
would be liable for the theft of its cashier
only in case he had been properly selected
| aud properly retained in Office and duly
| supervised by the board of directors, and
| that that was matter for the Jury to de-
| eide
On the second trial of the Guilmartin
case the plaintiff offered testimony to
! show the lack of that proper attention
| and supervision that should have been eX-
| erclsed. Testimony was offered to show
| the lack Of even that slight diligence
which the law requires, in the retention
| and supervision of the cashier, and an
| other verdict was rendered for the plain
tiff.
| DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CASES.
Messrs +. G. duBignon and Pope Bar
| row made a motion before Judge Mac
| Donnell for new trial. The motion was
| overruled, and the question of this de-
cision was carried to the supreme court,
and has been affirmed by that tribunal.
The difference between the case of Mr.
| Guilmartin and that of Mr. Carhart
which has just been won for him in the
| city court lies in the fact that Mr.. Gull
martin was the claimant for his own Sc
curities, whereas Mr.. Carhart, as was
shown by the receipts, lent the
depositors,r Malcolm Mclean and
Alfred l.. Martin. money upon
the faith that the receipts would be paya-
BILE to his order. 1t is said, therefore, by
those representing his side of the case,
that he has not only the strength of Mr.
Guilmartin's position, but the greater
strength of a party loaning his money in
good faith on the receipts as expressed
by the contract. 1t is not known
yet whether the decision in the Gull
I martin q a will ha appnntn6 cit-a
in the case of Mr.. Carhart The amount
represented by Mr.. Carhart S suit is about
S37, 900, and there being some points of
difference between his suit and that of
Mr. Guilmartin, it may be that the de-
PENDANT will carry it to the supreme
court.
Messrs. Saussy and West. who have
conducted these cases for the plaintiffs,
have given them the greatest care and at
tention, and they are to be congratulated
upon the success which they have
achieved
The Demere case is entirely different
from either of the two foregoing cases,
and the decision has not been rendered
yet.
AMBROSE HARRIS TO GO Up FOR LIFE.
The case of Ambrose Harris, now under
sentence of life Imprisonment for muir
| dering Rogers Brougbton, which was ap-
pcaled by w. E. Morrison, ESQ, for the
defendant, has also been decided by the
supreme court. The Jury in this case
brought in a verdict of guilty, with a
recommendation to the mercy of the
court, and Harris attorney held that that
was an improper verdict, and that the
jury had ought to have recommended i'm
prisonment for life.
The supreme court referred to the case
OF West versus the state, 79 Ga, page
773, and held that a recommendation to
the mercy of the court where verdict
of guilty was found in a case of murder,
was the equivalent of a recommendation
that the guilty party be imprisoned for
life.
oHENEY's CASE TO BE TRIED.
The supreme court reversed the de-
cision Of Judge MacDonell in his decision
granting non-suit in the case of Cheney
vs.. the Ocean Steamship Company.
Messrs Saussy q Saussy appeared for the
plaintiff, and Messrs. Lawton a. Cunning
ham for the defendant. The case Is
summed up as follows:
Where it was essential to the safety of
laboTers employed by a steamship company
in the loading of its ship. whose place of work
was in the hold of the vessel, thata hatch
tender should be stationed at the hatchway
TO warn them when bales of cotton were
about to be thrown into the hold, IL was the
duty OF the company to supply person to
be stationed at the hatchway for that pur-
pose.
The superintendent of this work having
been intrusted to Hoffman II he represented
the company in the duty of furnishing a
sufhcient supply of employees TO effect the
work with reasonable and ordinary safety to
those engaged in performing it, he YVES as to
TINS duty, the alter ego OF the company, and
not a fellow servant Of the laborers.
II Holman was general foreman over the
loading OF the whole snip, the laborers we're
entitled TO rely upon his promise when he or
dered them to go into the hold and begin
work that "hatch.tendern would be sta.
toned at the hatchway; and il one of them
relying upon this promise, obeyed the
order, and no such person was placed
OF the hatchway, the company would be re-
sponslole for personal injury occasioned by
MS being struck by bale of cotton thrown
into the hold without warning, il he did not
know or had no reason to suppose that ii was
ABOUT TO be thrown down, although the person
who threw it down was a fellow servant
ana was negligent in doing so in
the absence OF 'hatch-tender" with.
out himself giving notice. If "hatch.
tender was duly stationed but afterward ab-
scented himself without the knowledge OF
Holman, his absence would be the neqli.
gence OF fellow-servant and not that
OF the company. II there was no
promise to station a 'hatch.teudern and
the plaintiff went into the hold knowing