The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1903-01-02
VERDICT IN PARR CASE
MAY CAUSE ROADS TO MAKE NEW
RULES.
Responsibility Of Ship Agents for Frei5ht
Charges Is the Point Which
Is Involved.

Galveston, Texas, January 1.-The case Of
II. It. Mcfarland VS. William Parr Il Co,
for debt, which was decided in favor Of tho
defendant yesterday, is one that has at
tracted widespread attention among ship
ping men and has accustomed no little com
ment. Briefly the points involved IN tho
case are as follows: During tho cotton
season OF 1s96-D7 william Parr d Co. gave
the Galveston, Houston aud Henderson rah-
road, of which Ii, +. Mcfarland was at
that time general freigdt and passenger
agent, bond with Adouo s. Lobit surciues,
conditioned that Parr g Co. would pay TO the
railroad company when due all railroad
charges for commodities delivered to ships
lor y hich Ptrr & Co were the Galveston
agents, when the bills we're presented ae-
comLanied b. receipts from the ships.
among the lots OF cotton that were dclT
cred under this bond were various ones con-
signed to q. B. Dobson & Co, which we're
delivered TO two ships for which Paw u Co
were agents
Tie fret Of these ships sailed from Gal
weston on December 70 1898, and tbt last
oHe sailed from here on December d. lSe''
Tho Inst delivery of tho Doospn cotton wa
made GU Christmas day. lsSo. Ihe ral-
road company ut hrst presented the uelslt
bills u UuhsOn & Co, 10 ue ppld by lhaL
urn. On December 81 Dobson ~ 90. sus
pended, and on January 8, 1881, I'VE Gay b
after the last ship dad sailed from Calves
ton and after parr s Co ns1 given Dopson
s. Co. a clear receipt for the cotton, Inc
railroad company pre- seuted bills for freight
amounting "a S3O0u incurred ~ the delivery
of the Dobson cotton TO Par h Co. Tor
payment Parr q Co refused to pay these
bills on the score the railroad company had
waited until thcy could not have recourse
to recover the money from pobSoL \ Co,
and also on the score that rs tne bills had
FIRST been presented 10 Dohson 60. py
this act notice was given >Parr & CO. as 10
where the railroad company looked for its
FREIGHT money The railroad company con-
tended the bond Of Parr & Co covered
Just such cases as those presented anu lt
was In this shape the matter was taken 70
the courts The arst trial did not result IN
verdict. but the trial that ended yestet-
day was 81 favor Of the cont'btlcns ef Pair
& Co.
The outcome ~ this suit will probably be
the railroads viii demand the payment OF
all freights due Ga conslgnments before INC
cars are ordered switched tn the ships
sides II this does result there VIII be q
world Of Inconvenience from Its practice.
Mr. James Il, Stubbs who was Parr y Co s
of the bonds the ship brokers now have
given to the railroads aud the decision can
In no way be construed to hold these bonds
Of indemnity worthless. II Dobson g. Co.
had had bond with the railroad the mat
ter would have beer settled with his sure
lies. INT thar drm did not have bonds with
the railroads Tor freight purposes on q
previous occasion Purr s. Co. returned "a
the railroad company certain bills FOR
freight upon cotton consigned TO Dohson G
Co. with the Information that Dobson a
Co would pay the particular bills. These
bills were afterward paid by Dobson 6 Co
upon presentation.
Not a few of the ship brokers now keer
deposits with the various railroad agents
here to cover freight charges and refuse "a
Issue clear bills of lnding to cotton shippers
until the shippers present receipted freight
bills from the railroads. In the event the
railroad compau niles conclude to play safe
"" 1t is highly probable that all the ship
brokers win be required TO keep such dc,
poslts and to replenish them ms they are
called upon to pay freight bills.
The total amount involved in the suit
including six years interest, Is approx.
mately $500 and costs Of court. Al appeal
, Will be taken.