ExploreUK is getting a new design. Try the beta site!


ExploreUK home

0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

Adams Express Company v. The Commonwealth of Kentucky

Part of Harkins Family papers

., .I t"'--val"*1WWM _ , V I 7 I Agni; I..;Z . ,,I, L, 3. I i? goods were prepaid by the shippers, but on each package was narked ; "C.O.D. charged", which were paid by the consignee to the Agent at ii the place and time of the delivery and was returned by the Agent 2} so receiving it,oy express, to said Company at Cincinnati, and there : r delivered to the shippers. It is contended by The Connouwealth thd} I 7 this was a violation of Sec. 2557 B4, KcntucKy Statutes. Defendant . says Not; and that the said Statute was and is in violation of ' , Section 8 of the constitution of the United States which is "Congress ; has power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the schral states and with the Indian tribes", and in so far as the ' said Act of the Kcntwct/ Legislature undert~kes to interfere, reg- ulate or restrict inter-State commerce, it is unconstitutiwnal and void. American Express Cormany v. Iowa, 136 U. S. 153; Adams EXpress Company v. Iowa, 156 U. S. I47. I The trial Court erred in not sustainin? the defendant's motion to instruct the jury to find for Defendant; and further erred in instructing the jury as in No. I and No. 2 given and No. A and No.B. asked and refused. In instruction No. I giVen, the benefit of the protection of InterState Commerce is withheld from defendant upon I either of three propositions:- I I. If the goods were consigned from an unknown IlppeT, 2. Tlat Hobinett had not ordered the merchandise which 5 the Court says in the instruction was whiskey, { 3. Thai defendant or its agent Know that hobinett had not ordereed the same, or had notice that the some had i not been ordered by Robinett % any one of which was sufficient, according to the Court's idea i expressed to authorize the jury to rind the defendant guilty. 1 Tiernan, witness for defend nt, shows that the packages daily E handles by the defendant Company in Cincinnatu amount to 15000, more i than ten packages each minute of the day. What time, I ask, would I this allow the defendant Company to make inquiry of each shipper to } find out the details of the transaction of every package tendered } for shipment? You answer, a most unreasonable requirement which would I