Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 06.pdf/66

 Rh or their further claim that the expression upon a man's face may be easily changed or distorted, and rendered very misleading, when brought before a camera. But the por trait in question has not been forwarded on this appeal, and we have no means of knowing whether it purported to represent anything more than those parts of plaintiff's body which could not have been affected by temporary effort or exertion, or, if the whole figure did appear, that the facial expression was of the hideous character so graph ically described by the able counsel for defendant, and could have had the effect upon the jury they insist it had. In Albert v. Railway Co. 118 N. Y. 77, it was held that a photograph of a plaintiff — his physician testifying that it was taken in his presence, and correctly represented the plaintiffs limbs — was properly admitted in evidence for the purpose of showing the manner in which these limbs were contracted, as the result of alleged injuries. It was said to be competent on the same principle as a map or diagram. We believe this to be a correct rule, and it has not been shown here that the court below was not strictly within it when making the ruling complained of. See on the general subject, an article in 31 Cent. Law J. 416."

Liability of City for Abating a Nuisance.— Orlando v. Pragg (Florida Supreme Court), 19 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 196, is rather amusing. It was an action against a city for breaking up the plaintiffs shop and destroying his property. " It appears that he kept a kind of curiosity shop and museum; that in the front sHop he kept various fancy wares, jew elry, shells, stuffed animals, etc., and in the yard in the rear he had animals of various kinds, among others water-turkeys, coons, snakes, alligators, turtles, snipes, chickens, owls, lot of shells, etc." Also sea-fowl and a fox. That the city marshal came there, with policeman and carts, '* and carried away all the animals, shells, etc., which witness had in the yard, and took them out of the city limits, and turned them loose" — shells and all. He recovered none, except some of the shells, which it seems he overtook. He had a judgment for $300. One defence was that his shop and yard were a deleterious public nuisance, complained of by neighbors, which he had been duly and reasonably notified to abate, and that the proceeding in question was taken at the official direction of the county board of health. This defence was proved and not contradicted, and the appellate court reversed the judgment. So this Old Curiosity Shop is scattered, and Sol Gills is without remedy. Bills of Lading — "Excess and Deficiency Clause." — An example of polite over-ruling is af forded in a recent New York case. In Abbe v. Eaton, 51 New York, 410, a bill of lading con tained this clause: "All damages caused by boat or carrier, or deficiency of cargo from quantity as

47

herein specified, to be paid by the carrier and deducted from the freight, and any excess on the cargo to be paid for to the carrier by the con signee." Held, that if the carrier delivered all that he received, his liability was discharged. This was an action by the carrier for freight on a cargo of corn against the consignee, and the defendant set up a shortage of seventy-one bushels. The decision was in the commission of appeals, Earl, Com., observing: "Here is an agreement that the carrier will be bound by the quantity specified, or that the bill of lading shall furnish the only evidence of the quantity. Such an agreement might doubtless be made by a carrier, but the language used would have to be quite clear and explicit to preclude the carrier from showing by parol a mistake in the quantity." Citing Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590. But in Rhodes v. Newhall, 126 N. Y. 574, precisely such an action as Abbe v. Eaton, and where there was a precisely similar provision in the bill of lading, and a shortage of 827 bushels, exactly the contrary was held, and the carrier was held responsible for the quanity recited in the bill of lading, although he delivered all that he received. The court said of Abbe v. Eaton and Meyer v. Peck : — "The rule acted upon in those cases, as stated in the head note of Meyer v. Peck, is that an ordinary bill of lading is not conclusive, as between the original parties, either as to the shipment of goods or the quantity; as to those matters it operates merely as a receipt, and is open to explanation on the trial by parol evidence." But as we have seen, the bills in those cases were not "ordinary" bills, but were just like that in this case. This case must therefore necessarily over-rule those cases in spite of the attempt or pretence to distinguish them. It is a little singular that Earl, Com., who was a member of the court in the last case, did not dissent. The doctrine of Abbe v. Eaton was disapproved by Judge Wallace in Mer rick v. Certain Bushels of Wheat, 3 Fed. Rep. 340, and it may be that the later doctrine is the better as applied to disputes between carrier and consignee, but a very pretty question lately arises as to its applicability as between carrier and con signor. Would this provision estop the carrier from setting up a mistake as against the consignor? This seems an undecided question, but if any of our readers know of any decision on the point we will thank them for a direction to it.

Burial — Easement of. — A novel point was established by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, in Hook v. Joyce, 21 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 96, namely, that an easement in a lot of land for burial may be acquired by prescription and adverse possession for