Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-01-01

handed down from the law COURT
Washington County.
Ada Cont VS.. American Express Co.
Rescript, King, j.
This case comes up on report 1t is an
action to recover damages for Injuries to
seven trunks, one sewing machine, and a
quantity of music in one of said trunks
carried by the defendant. as a common
carrier, from New York to PASSPORT.
Maine.
1t appears from the report that the
plaintiff visited Italy in 1910 She re-
turned to the United States in Novem-
Der of that year by the Hamburg
American Line from Genoa to New York
She intended to take the trunks and sew
ing machine along with her as personal
baggage, and says that the sewing ma
chime was properly Grated and that the
trunks We're in sound condition and Sc
curely locked and tied with ropes. In APP
pears inferentially that this baggage may
have been sent by rail to the steamship
company at Genoa. 1t had not arrived
there, however when the plaintiff sailed
and the steamer agent was to forward it
later. About three weeks after she ar
rived IN EaStport the trunks and sewing
machine was delivered to her by the de-
PENDANT, she paying the charges thereon
and she. claims that they Were then in a
damaged condition, No bill of lading or
shipping receipt from the defendant COM
pany is shown, and no evidence was of
fered to show who delivered the property
to the defendant company in New York
PENDANT received it.
The plaintiff says she heard nothing
about the baggage after she left Genoa
until she received it in Eastport. But
when asked on cross examination if she
left any directions with the steamship
agent i'm New York as to what should be
there, she said: Yes. | told him to send
1T to me-. 1t is, therefore, reasonable to
infer that the steamship company, in
compliance with the PLAINTIFFS request.
lati rod he hon, fbn A ,,,n ,fna,,
Express Company in New York to carry
TO Passport.
Held:
l. In an action against the last of
series of carriers to recover for injuries
to goods in transit, when the goods We're
shipped in good order, the presumption
arises that they continue in that condi-
ton until they reach the hands of the
delivering carrier, and the burden is on
1t TO SHOW that the injury occurred before
the goods came into its possession.
p To hiring this case within the appli-
cation of that rule it must be shown that
the defendant company was the last of a
line of successive carriers. carrying the
goods, continuously in pursuance. of a
through bill OF lading or contract of ship
ment and that they We're received by the
initial carrier on good condition efg q
3. The evidence in this case does. not
show that the American Express Com
pany was the last of successive carriers
of the goods in pursuance OF any con-
tinuous carrying of them under a through
bill 'of-tading from -Italy~te Eastpert; hat
on the other hand, that the defendant re-
ceived the goods in New York as a new
shipment Independent of. and without
connection with any previous carrying
of them.
A. This suit is based on the negligence
of the defendant The burden is on the
plaintiff to prove it. 1t is not enough for
her to show that the goods were in
damaged condition when the defendant
delivered them to her. She must show
that they were injured while in the de-
PENDANTS possession by its negligence.
If she had shown that they We're unin-
jured when the defendant received them,
that would have imposed upon it the bur-
den of generating itself. But she Of
fered no evidence on that point. The
mere fact that the goods We're in a
damaged condition when the defendant
delivered them to the plaintiff is not, in
the opinion of the court, sufficient ev-
dence to sustain the burden of proof that
the goods were injured by the defendants
negligence. because there is no evidence.
or presumption applicable in this case.
that the goods We're uninjured when re-
ceived by the defendant
Judgment for defendant.