vertance de la part des employés des demandeurs, la signature de J. Nardini." Mais il est spécialement allégué que les demandeurs en sont les seuls et véritables propriétaire. Après les délais convenables, il est constaté que les deux statues déposées au dépôt de la défenderesse ne sont pas parvenues à leur destination; et les demandeurs par leur action, réclament de la défenderesse: 1° le prix de deux statues, soit: $45; 2° la somme de $55.00 comme compensation des dommages résultant de l'imprévoyance et de la négligence des employés de la défenderesse. La défenderesse a répondu par une exception et défense, alléguant que les deux boîtes (two boxes plaster statues) ont été transportées régulièrement et avec diligence, dans les délais convenables, à la ville de St-Jean, dernière station de la défenderesse, sur son chemin de fer, via St. Albans, et que, là, elles furent remises, en bon ordre et condition, et en temps convenable, à la Compagnie de chemin de fer connue comme: "The Vermont Central Railway Company," laquelle les a, de suite, et en temps convenable, transportées, en bon ordre et condition, jusqu'à New-York, le point le plus rapproché de Jersey City.' Les demandeurs prouvèrent, par la production de la lettre de voiture, et par l'audition de plusieurs témoins, la réception des statues, et l'engagement pris par la défenderesse de transporter, ou faire transporter, les dites statues jusqu'à Jersey-City. Mais sur le dos de ce bill of lading, se trouvent plusieurs clauses spéciales limitant la responsabilité de la Compagnie, celle-ci entre autres: "The Company will not be responsible for any goods mis-sent, unless they are consigned to a station on their Railway." La plupart de ces notices spéciales sont exorbitantes du droit commun, ayant pour effet de limiter ou restreindre la responsabilité et les obligations imposées par la loi aux voituriers, tant par eau que par terre. Ajoutons qu'elles sont imprimées en très petit caractère, et qu'elles remplissent un large espace, ce qui rend assez difficile la tâche prudente incombant à l'expéditeur, souvent illettré, ou souvent trop pressé pour lire ces commentaires spéciaux, au bas desquels il met sa signature, sans connaître toute la portée de l'engagement auquel il s'astreint. Les principaux points de droit soulevés lors de l'audition de cette cause sont les suivants: 1° Le voiturier peut-il, par des conventions particulières, limiter sa responsabilité pour le transport des effets qui lui sont confiés? Autorités citées par la défenderesse: Code Civil du B. C., art. 1676; Rebel, Lég, des chemins de fer, p. 282, n° 506; Troplong, III, no 926, 942; Duvergier, II, Louage, nos 324, 325; Persil & Croissant, Commissionnaires, pp. 185, 186; Pardessus, Droit Com., II, no 538. 2° Les parties sont-elles libres de régler les conditions auxquelles doit être effectué le transport dont l'une se charge

envers l'autre ? Pardessus, Droit Com., nos 539, 576; Vanhufel, Traité, Contrat, Louage, pp. 66, 72, 73; Dalloz, Dicti. Juris., ve Commissionnaires, no 178, p. 429; Angell, Law of Carriers, sec. 247, 248, 249, 251, 330; Story, On Bailments, Ed. 1863, SS 541, 549, 556, 557, 558 et suiv.; Parsons, On Contracts, Ed. 1864, II, sec. 15, p. 223; Redfield, Law of Railways, Ed. 1869, II, 88, sec. 177 et suiv.; Torrance et al. vs Allan, 6 L. C. Jurist., p. 170; 10 R. J. R. Q., p. 260, et 22 R. J. R. Q., p. 480. Gelinas vs le Grand-Tronc, jugé en Appel, 9 sept. 1869; Gutman vs le Grand-Tronc, jugé en Appel, 8 sept. 1871. 3 R. L., p. 452; 1 R. C., p. 477, et 22 R. J. R. Q., p. 480. 3° La responsubilité du voiturier étant limitée par convention particulière, le fardeau de la preuve de négligence contre le voiturier, tombe-t-il sur l'expéditeur ou consignataire des effets? Troplong, Louage, III, n° 942; Bourjon, Droit. Com. de la France, II, 494; Vanhufel, Contrat de Louage, p. 91; Rebel, Lég. chemins de fer, p. 299, n° 530; Angell, Law of Carriers, sec. 247, 276; Story on Bailments, § 573, Greenleaf, On evidence, II, p. 211, § 215. 4° Les Compagnies de chemins de fer sont-elles responsables des effets qui leur sont confies pour être transportés au delà des limites de leur chemin, surtout s'il existe une convention spéciale à cet effet? Redfield, On Railways, II, 112, § 180; Parsons, On contracts, II, 212, Book 3, ch. II; 7 Exchequer, Fowles vs Great Western R. R. Co., rapporté aussi dans 16 English L. & E. Naph. p. 340; Carr vs Lancashire & Yorkshire R. R. Autorités citées par les demandeurs: Code Civil B. C. art. 1676; Huston vs La Cie du Grand-Tronc. 3 L. C. Jurist, 269; 6 J., p. 173; 8 R. J. R. Q., pp. 1, 10; Harris vs Edmontone, 4 L. Č. Jurist, 40; 8 R.J.R.Q., p. 85; Le Grand-Tronc vs Mountain, 6 L. C. Jurist, 173,8 R. J. R. Q., p. 10; Samuel vs Edmonstone, 1 L. C. Jurist, 89; 5 R. J. R. Q., p. 449; Troplong, Echange et Louage, III, § 155, Ed. franc.; Le même, p. 155, § 121; Pardessus, Droit Com., II, 461; Chitty, On Carriers, pp. 124, 130, 137, 144, 148 et suiv. Le même, p. 150, s'exprime ainsi : " Where Railway Companies hold themselves out as carriers, and receive goods to be carried to places beyond the limits of their own line, and even beyond the realm, they are responsible for a loss of or injury to the goods, although the same may not have happened on their own line of railway."

Le jugement est en ces termes: "Considering that, if plaintiffs have the right of Nardini, these do not amount to any thing to warrant a condemnation of defendants, who are proved to have done all they promised towards Nardini; that the statues referred to were, by defendants, at the end of their railway line, delivered duly, for further carriage to the Vermont Central Railway Company, for whose misdoings or

TOME XXIII.

3

wrongs, defendants cannot be held responsible; in the delivering of said statues to the Vermont Central Railway Company, defendants having acted merely as mandataires of Nardini, under their contract with him and the condition, particular of it, in this respect; Considering that defendants have proved their first plea, or exception, to extent sufficient to destroy plaintiffs' action, doth dismiss said action, &c. (17 J., p. 26.)

E. LAREAU, avocat des demandeurs.

CARTIER & POMINVILLE, avocats de la défenderesse.

INSCRIPTION.-PROCEDURE.

SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 31th October, 1872.

Coram TORRANCE, J.

SIMPSON et al. vs BowIE et al.

Held:-That the option of a party that the case shall be inscribed at the same time for proof and for final hearing on the merits, imme diately after proof, in the terms of C. C. P. 243, is sufficiently made by service on the opposite party of an inscription of the cause upon the role de droit for Enquête and hearing on the merits at the same time (17 J., p. 28.) (1)

F. J. KELLER, for plaintiffs.

KELLY & DORION, for defendants.

RESPONSIBILITY OF POSTMASTER.

SUPERIOR COURT, Beauharnois, 18th March, 1872.

Coram DUNKIN, J.

A. V. DELAPORTE et al., vs JOHN MADDEN.

Held:-That a postmaster is responsible for a registered letter lost through his neglect or that of his minor son, employed by him as his assistant, in leaving it in an exposed place in his office, contrary to the regulations of the Post Office Department.

This suit was issued, after notice of a month, to defendant, as a public officer, to recover $575, the amount said to have been

(1) A similar decision was given, at the same time, in n° 1829. The Trust and Loan Co. vs Drummond, & Drummond, oppt. It was intimated, at the time, that MACKAY and BEAUDRY, JJ., concurred.

enclosed in a letter mailed and registered in the Valleyfield Post Office, of which defendant was posmaster, on the 30th of September, 1870, by the firm of J. & A. Anderson, of Valleyfield, and addressed to A. V. Delaporte & Co., of Toronto. The declaration sets out these facts, and alleges that the letter was regularly mailed, 18 cents paid for postage, and 2 cents for registration, and a receipt duly given, but that defendant neglected to forward it by the mail, as he was bound to do, and was guilty of such carelessness and negligence that the letter, with its contents, was wholly lost. A second count follows, in which the same facts are stated, but formal mention is made of William Madden, defendant's minor son, and his assistant in the post office, as acting for him in this matter, and charging the carelessness and negligence on both of them. A third count charges him with receiving the letter, and the 20 cents for taking care of it, and mailing it, without saying anything about his being posmaster. The defendant, by his pleas, besides a general denial, specially denied that the letter contained money, or was so represented to him, and maintained that he had given to the letter all necessary care and that, as postmaster, he was answerable only to Her Majesty, and not to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs examined defendant, his minor son, King the post office inspector, and the two Andersons. The defendant examined no witnesses. The case is fully set out in the judgment rendered by Mr Justice Dunkin. The following are the authorities cited by plaintiffs' counsel; Civil Code, Arts. 1053 and 1054; Statutes of Canada, 31 Vict. cap. 10, sec. 39; Campbell vs McPherson, 6 Upper Canada Reports (O. S.) 34.; Lane vs Cotton et al., 1 Lord Raymond, 646, and 1 Salkeld, 17; Whitefield vs Lord LeDespencer et al., Cowper, 765; Carey vs Lawless, 13 Upper Canada, B. R., 285 ; Addison, on Torts (3rd Edition) 1870, 15 and 16; Shearman & Redfield, on negligence (1869), sec. 180, pp. 211 and 212; Ford vs Parker, 4 Ohio State, 576; Angell, on Carriers, (4th Ed.) sec. 119; Dunlop vs Munro, 7 Cranch, 242; Bolan vs Williamson, 3 Bay, 551; Schroyer vs Lynch, 8 Watts, 453; Smith, on Law of reparations (1864), chap. 7, pp. 175 and 179. DUNKIN, J.-It is in evidence that, by the rules of the Post Office Department, known to defendant, postmasters were bound, whenever not required to have their office in a separate room, to keep mailed letters in a safe place, and under key; and, further, whenever an office might be kept in a store, or other place accessible to the public, to suffer no courier or unauthorized person to come near enough to the mails to be able to handle or examine their contents in any way; in a word, to allow no one whatever, under any circuinstances, except himself or his sworn assistant, to have

access to letters or journals in the office, or the key of the mail bag; that defendant, solely on his own responsibility, had, for some time, employed his son, then in his 19th year, as his assistant, leaving to him nearly all the work of the office; that the case of pigeon holes for letters, &c., had been moved, again on his own sole responsibility, from the least exposed corner of his store to a place more convenient to himself and his son, but most exposed to access of all parties frequenting the store; that close to this case, and belonging to it, there was a shallow, open box, in which registered letters were kept until they were mailed; that, about noon on the day alleged, Arthur Anderson delivered the letter in question, containing $575 in notes addressed to plaintiffs, to William Madden, desiring him to weigh and register it; that it was found to weigh between 2 and 3 onces, and, accordingly, six rates of postage, being 18 cents, together with the registration fee of 2 cents more (one third of such 20 cents forming the defendant's allowance, as postmaster, thereon), were paid on it, and it was duly registered, stamped and entered in the Registered Letter Book, and a certificate of registry in the usual form was given; that William Madden put it into the exposed box, and, soon after, by defendant's direction, went away for dinner, leaving two persons in the store, and his father either in the store or about the doorway; that defendant did not stay in the store until his son's return; that there was nothing to hinder any one coming in, from seeing and taking the letter; that the son, on his return, soon after set himself to make up the mail, and, at once, missed the letter; that it was earnestly searched for, but not found; that defendant instantly telegraphed for the post office inspector, who went up immediately, and made all further inquiries in his power; that, directly after the telegram was sent, it being then about two in the afternoon, Wm. Madden went to the Andersons to tell them; inquired how much was in the letter, and was told by them the amount as now sued on, and that the letter was never found, nor the party abstracting it detected. At the argument no case was cited as having ever come before a Court of Law, in this Province, involving the question of a postmaster's liability for a lost letter, nor is the Court aware that any ever has been. In the first English case bearing on the subject, that of Lane vs Cotton et al. (1 Raymond, 64), action was brought against the postmaster general, whose office was then (A.D. 1699) of recent creation, to recover the value of eight exchequer bills enclosed in a mailed letter; no mention to the party who personally took the letter at the post office, of its containing money value being alleged. No objection seems