Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/240

 332 FEDERAL REPORTER. �although his exclusion from the possession and control oî it may last for two days before it is thus destroyed. �7. I decline to affirm this proposition. �8. I decline to affirm this proposition for the reasons that the petroleum cars were presumably in the usual and proper place for them in the depôt yard; that they were at a safe distance from the cars containing the plaintiff's goods, and -were there secured by mechanical appliances usually employed for that purpose, that they might lawfully be kept there, and that their removal into contact with the other cars was the act of the incendiary mob which had, for two days before, maintained a forcible mastery of the situation. �9. I decline to affirm this proposition. �Upon the wliole case I am of the opinion, and so find, that the loss complained of was caused by fire, while the plaintiff's goods were in transit by the defendant, within the meaning of the exception in the bill of lading; that the defendant is not shown to have been guilty of any negligence by which the efficiency of the exception is in any wise impaired ; and hence that the plaintif is not entitled to recover. Judgment will therefore be entered in favor of the defendant. ���Webtheimeb and another v. The Pennsylania Eaileoad Company. �{Circuit Court, S. X>. New York. January 23, 1880.) �Biiii/ op Lading — Common Carrier — Siiipper. — The aoceptance of a bill of lading binds the shipper and precludcs him from alleging igno- rance of its terma. �Same — Negligbnck — BuKDEN OP Proof. — Where loss arose through one of .the excepted causes contained in the bill of lading, the onus probandi rests upon the shipper to show that sueh loss occurred through the neg- ligence of the carrier. �Adolph L. Sanger, for plaintiffs. Robinson e Scribner, for defendant. . Wallace, J. On or about July 17, 1877, the defendant received from plaintiffs, at the city of New York, for transpor- ��� �