  RESPONSIBILITY OF POST MASTERS. Cases sometimes occur of the loss of letters apparently by the carelessness of post masters or their clerks; and in view of such cases, an important question arises; namely, to what extent a post master is responsible for the consequences of such carelessness? The subject is not free from difficulties. In many cases it would be hard to say what constitutes culpable carelessness. It is common in country towns for persons to take from the post-office the mail matter of their neighbors, especially when they live at a distance from the office, as an act of accommodation to them; and many letters are thus safely delivered every day. Now should a valuable letter in this way come into the possession of some dishonest person, and be retained by him, it would seem severe, if not unjust, to prosecute the post master for the loss; since in committing it unawares to improper hands, he did but act in accordance with ordinary usages, countenanced by the community. It would undoubtedly be a safer way of doing business, to insist upon an order in every case where a letter is delivered to any other person than the one to whom it is addressed, or some one usually employed by him for this purpose. But the country post master who should rigidly insist upon this rule, In cities, also, something like the following might and does frequently happen. A person known to be in the employ of another, comes to the post-office, and says he is sent by his employer for his letters, and the clerk in attendance, believing his statement, gives them to him. He robs the letters and disappears. In this case, it hardly seems that the clerk was guilty of a culpable degree of negligence. Here is another instance of the manner in which a letter may go to the wrong person, where the fault is not chargeable to post-office employÉs. In the list of advertised letters, one is found for John Smith. An individual calls for the letter, claiming to be the identical John, and receives it; but a day or two after the "Simon Pure" appears, and is indignant at learning that his letter has already been appropriated, or that the clerk knows nothing about it, having forgotten the circumstance. Of course the clerk, in such a case, might require the supposed John Smith to identify the letter as far as was possible, by mentioning the place from which he expected it; but many supposable circumstances might destroy the conclusiveness of this evidence of identity, such as the acquaintance of the false John with the real one, and his knowledge of the place whence he received most of his correspondence. Besides, the real claimant might not be able to tell where the letter was mailed, for his correspondent might have written from some other place than the one where he usually lived. But it is needless to multiply instances. Those that we have mentioned, and many others which will readily occur to the reader, will suffice to show that the number of cases in which a post master can justifiably be prosecuted, is very limited by the nature of the circumstances. On the other hand, a proper diligence requires of the post master not only the obvious precaution of securing reliable assistants, but a care in relation to the minutiÆ of his office I am aware that these hints are unnecessary to the great body of post masters in this country; yet it can do no harm to mention such things, as it appears by the following report that post masters are sometimes held to answer before a court, for the want of diligence in discharging the duties of their office. The suit was brought in 1849, by Moses Christy of Waterbury. Vermont, against Rufus C. Smith, post master at that place, for the loss of a letter containing fifty dollars, mailed at Salisbury, Mass., Nov. 23, 1849, by Moses True, Jr. Moses True, Jr., testified that he carried the letter to the Salisbury post-office, and showed the money to the post master, who counted it, and it was then enclosed in the letter, and left with the post master, who testified that he mailed it in the ordinary way, and forwarded it to Waterbury by the usual course. The letter not being received by Christy, application was made for it to the post master, but nothing could be found of it. The post-bill, however, which accompanied it, was found in the Waterbury office. It was shown that a son of Christy and one other person were in the habit of calling at the post-office for his letters; but they both swore that they did not remember receiving the letter in question, and that if it was taken out by either of them, it was, in the absence of Christy, laid upon his desk or placed in a private drawer. It was further proved that the Waterbury office was kept in a room about sixteen feet square, divided in the centre by the boxes and a railing, which separated the part devoted to the office business, from the portion appropriated to the use of the public; that the boxes were so arranged that the box of Moses Christy could easily be reached through the "delivery;" and There was no evidence to show that any persons, other than the office assistants, were permitted to go behind the railing at the time the letter in question arrived at the office. It appeared that the post master employed several persons as assistants in the Summer and Autumn of 1849, but there was no evidence to show that any of these persons were regularly appointed and sworn. It further appeared by Christy's postage account, that one or two letters were charged to him on the 24th of November, 1849, and he produced four or five letters, which, by the ordinary course of the mails, would have been received on that day. We here copy from "Vermont Reports," Vol. 8, p. 663:— The defendant requested the Court to charge the jury as follows:—1. That the defendant does not in any manner stand as an insurer in relation to the business of his office, and is only held to ordinary diligence in the discharge of the duties of his office, and can only be made liable for losses occasioned by a want of such diligence, and that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff, to establish the fact of the want of such diligence. 2. That in order to establish the fact of want of ordinary diligence, the plaintiff must show some particular act of negligence in relation to the letter in question, and that the loss was the direct consequence of the particular negligence proved. 3. That although there may have been official misconduct on the part of the defendant, yet unless it be shown that the plaintiff's loss was the result of such misconduct, he cannot recover. 4. That if the letter were by mistake delivered to the wrong person, stolen by a stranger, or embezzled by a clerk, the defendant is not liable, unless he has been negligent, and the loss was the direct consequence of his negligence. 5. That it is not sufficient, to entitle the plaintiff to recover, merely to show that a letter was received at the office, and that the person to whom it was directed has not received it. 6. That the post master is not liable for the negligence of his deputies, unless he is guilty of negligence in appointing wholly unsuitable persons. 7. That the defendant being a public officer, he would not be liable in an action of trover, unless, at the time the letter was called for, he The Court charged the jury in accordance with all the foregoing requests, except the second and sixth. In relation to the second request the Court charged the jury, that it was not necessary, in order to enable the plaintiff to recover, that he should show a particular act of negligence in relation to the letter in question; but that, if the plaintiff had shown a general want of common care and diligence on the part of the defendant, either in the construction of his places of deposit for letters, so that they were unsafe, or in the management of the post-office, in permitting persons to go behind the railing who had no legal right to go there, and had also satisfied them that the letter and money in question were lost in consequence of such negligence or misconduct of the defendant, then the defendant should be liable. In reference to the sixth request the Court charged the jury, that as there was no proof that any of the persons who were employed by defendant in the office had ever been appointed or sworn as assistants, they were to be regarded as mere clerks, or servants of the defendant, and that if, through negligence or want of common care and diligence on the part of such clerks or servants, the money and letters were lost, the defendant would be liable therefore. Verdict for plaintiff. Exceptions by defendant. The decision was sustained in the Supreme Court. If the report of the above case shall have the effect to render any class of post masters more careful of the custody of correspondence, and in the general management of their offices, the object of its insertion will have been answered. |
|
