New-York tribune., 1908-01-31
BEAR DIVIDES COURT.
NO NATURE FAKE, EITHER
Judges of Court of Appeais Study
Bruin from AH Sides.

Is q bear-not a Teddy bear. but a real oeaT OF
the sort that did fall to the crack of the
Presidents trusty rihe-wel anyhow, is such a
bear TO be classed with nitro glyceTtne ana gun
powder? Would it be fair 70 put him In the same
boat with dynamite. matches. aqua fortis and OIL
of vitriol? Even II he could stand it, he would
be peevish. In fact, he'd be cross as grizzly
Perhaps there are enemies of the bear who dis
like him because, when he is on his native run
ways, he has fits OF dementia rustcanaf ano emo
tonal insanity. But like men OF the same I'M
certain nature. he has many admirers when he's
behind bars. So LET them rejoice and make a glad
noise-but not too the cages in the Bronx
Geological Park.
This is nature fake. The bears status has
been decided by majority opinion of the Court
of Appeals OF the state Of New York. He couldn't
have received more complete absolution II he had
brought libel suit against great editor for
comparing him a patient To be sure, there
was dissenting opinion rendered by Chief Judge
Cullen, but the majority of the court reversed a
decision Of the lower court and rehabilitated the
great attraction Of the Louisiana canebrakes IN
his social standing before the world.
II ali about through the trial of the suit
of Molloy agt. Starin, In which Jonathan Deyo rep
resented the PLAINTIFF and Dickinson ". Richards
defended Mr.. Starin and the reputation of bears
Mr.. Starin owns line OF steamboats, tit run
from New York New Haven and back again
Among the parcels OF freight taken aboard one OF
these boats at New York last year were four large
cages. each being the travelling compartment OF
way to fill engagement at the home of the boola
hat football victories and the Consolidated Road
When the boat warped up to the New haven
wharf the manager of the bears showed how differ
he was from Mr.. Hammersten-he was not
there to greet them. So Mr.. starin's employees
moved the four compartments down into the shed
and, knowing how persons in the profession ike
quiet after a journey. the workmen placed the
cages in the form OF a hollow square, with the
barred sides facing inward. This gave the bears
a chance to commune privately, while the SOHO
wooden sides presented to a pryins Pubic
There would not have been any need to have ali
the above testified to under oath il it had not been
for small boy named Molloy. The boy wanted 10
see how educated bears act when off the stage lie
ventured the barrier and got so close to the
cages that the bears were annoyed one or tnenl
showed resentment at the intrusion by fnJuring the
boy. So it happened that the boys parents brought
suit against MI Starin. The lower court held that
Mr.. Starin was guilty of no negligence but that he
was liable under the old common law doctrine tnat
the owner or keeper of a wild animal should De
held responsible because he is maintaining a nui-
sance that he should abate by killing the beast
Mr.. Richards, for the defence, contended that
the precedent does not apply to a common carrier,
whose duty it is TO transport the animal and who
has right TO kill it The lower court. however.
held Mr.. Starin liable. SO the case went TO the
Court Of Appeals.
Judge Gray IN delivering the majority opinion
that reversed the decision Of the lower court said
that, while the owner keeper of the bears might
well be liable for keeping that dangerous kind or
property" Mr.. Starin not in that position AS
a common carrier he received them as so much
freight. as he was warranted IN doing continued
Judge Gray. The plaintiff yielded to an idle Gu
riosity in interfering with the defendants perfectly
safe disposition OF his freight, and under the cir
curstances think he did at his peril. The case
should not have been submitted TO the jury.
Thus the bear passenger placed in
favorable light, But Chief Judge Cullen took
IIy- view n opinion.
held that Mr.. Starin under no obligation
whatever to carry the bears. He continued:
A common carrier is not bound to receive dan
gT0S articles Soca as o If Tfre s
OF course. the same principle of law controls the
like Here the defendant knew the character OF
the animal he transporting. and, without any
tariIy. presumably for sufficient comPensatio,n
the same position and was under the same liability
as any other owner or harbcrer Of a wild animal
Judge Cullen wrote that. while there may be few
decisions on this point. the proposition seems to
be accepted unquestioned both by text writer's
and in judicial opinions
Judge Willard Bartlett wrote a separate opinion
in which he pointed specifically that he found
it impossible to concur in the view of the law
in this case expressed by Chief Judge Cullen
He doubted whether high explosives needed in en-
gfneering and mechanical work could be refused.
Reverting 10 the bears. he went on:
And when we consider the large sums of money
which appropriated from the public treasury
by national government and in the several
states for the establishment and maintenance of
collections of wild animals for educational pur-
poses it may also well be doubted it seems TO me.
whether common carriers are at liberty to
refuse to convey the wild animals necessary to
con stitute such collections from point 80
other where their presence is desired
He believed that carrier should be liable only
when he neglected to exercise proper degree OF
care in the custody and management of the beast
in transit" But the trained bears that travelled
by the Starin Line received plenty of attention, as
sworn to by witnesses.