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, would receive "more kicks than coppers" for
his good intentions; and indeed, cases like the one supposed are few
and far between.
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 which shall prevent the
mislaying of letters, by carelessness _within_, or their abstraction
by theft from _without_. The boxes and delivery window should be so
arranged as to render the interior of the boxes inaccessible to
outsiders, and of course no one should be admitted within the
enclosure, under any ordinary circumstances.
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 that persons were frequently allowed to
pass behind or near one end of the counter within the enclosure, to
transact business with the post master.
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 had the letter in his possession or control, and withheld it,
or had actually appropriated the letter, or money, to his own use.
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.