Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1908-12-11
Judge Not Hastily.

rs through the medium OF the press.
concerning transactions Of these two
individuals before the courts. Among
The prominent features in this con-
rcrtion. the ease Of Harris. against
tie Great Northern Railway Co, is
Wash. f37. figures conspicuonsly
The action was begun in the superior
CMrt Of Spopanc county by Harris
against the company, to recover 81
i5i 10 for the loss Of household goods
slipped hy the plaintiff from SomerS,
Montana. to Spokane. The trial
ruurt sustained the plaintiff claim
on appeal to the Supreme Court this
Judgment was affirmed. Judge Root
writing the opinion. The pronounce
mcnt in the Sylla bus reads: y
schedule of published freight rates
/ for household goods. specifying car
ricr'S liability limited to five dollars
per hundred pounds, so reccipted
! for. contemplatcs a limitation of
liability only when receipt is actually
issued. and where another rate was
also specified, and nothing was said
by the shipper on delivering the
goods, and no agreement made as to
the rate or limitation, and no receipt
issued. the carriers liability on loss
of the goods is not limited. (Ful-
lerton, Mount and Rudkin J. ]. dis
senting)'
According to the company's posi-
ton. the shipper was only entitled
to recover S2l4 on the basis of a limit
ed liability. The syllabus announces
the rule promulgated at the first
hearing. Afterwards the company
asked for rehearing. 1t is claimed
that Gordon wrote the later opinion
which was satisfactory to the COM
panys chief legal adviser at St. Paul.
While the latter opinion sustains the
original recovery in the case before
the court, the rule first promulgated
is somewhat modified; its chief value
was to serve as precedent in future
controversies. This decision holds,
that the bill of lading or receipt
showing the limited liability must
be executed and delivered at the
time the carrier accepts the shipment,
or promptly mailed in due course of
business before loss occurs"
1t is noted from the report that
this rchcaring decision was approved
by the full membership of the court.
1t is claimed the pronOuncement
therein is in accord with late rulings
of the U. S. Supreme Court in the
Interpretation Of the interstate COM
merce law. Some attorneys contend
that the first opinion contains the
safe and just rule of the common law
which was in the province of the
State court to determine; that in
stances are more or less frequent in
which the State and Federal courts
are at variance in this respect.
Lawyer Chas. W. Swanson who
was one of the attorneys for Mr..
Harris, the plaintiff, in an interview
published in Spokane paper asserts
that the part relating to mailing no.
tice as to limited liability is not to
be found in the federal decisions.
On the whole it appears that Harris
was not prejudiced in the collection
of his demand. But whether this
ruling will be approved hereafter, if
the same question shall arise, will be
a question for conjecture until again
adjudicated. 1t is to be regretted
that certain lawyers who have lost
cases before the high tribunal, take
advantage of the situation to criticise
the court, using sarcastic language in
SO doing, especially wherein Judge
Root wrote the opinion.
1t is an old saying there arc three
ways for disappointed lawyer to
take an adverse ruling: First, to
quietly submit; second to abuse the
court, and third to 60 to the nearest
bar and take a drink. The Good
Book says, Judge not; meaning
thereby. do not pass judgment until
you know the facts. 1t is not q wise
policy as some of our lawyers, lay
men and newspapers are pursuing to
assume certain things as established
facts, and then make deductions to
the detriment of your fellOw-man.
Lawyers, especially, should appre-
ciate the force OF this position, know
ing that little reliance can be
placed on current rumors. To con-
denim our fellow-men unheard is the
worst kind of injustice. 1t will
be well to wait till Gordon and
Root shall have chance to show
forth their versions of the con ro-
verSy.
SEATTLE is now Dragging about the
biggest bathtub in the world. and it
Il is said to be two inches longer than
the one built for Germany's emperor.
1t is for Alfred II. Anderson, the mil
lionaire logger, and he surely has a
right to use hogshead for a water
bason il he wants to. The Seattle
tub is Z feet 8 inches in length, and
is 4{; inches wide. It weighs 2 OOO