
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
    NOV. 1809.
    Foster v. Taylor.
    The proprietor of a cotton machine, for cleaning cotton-wool from, its seed, who takes cotton to gin for reward, is answerable as a bailee for ordinary neglect.
    Motion for a new trial, or nonsuit. Trespass on the case, tried before Bay, J., at Abbeville. Verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant was owner of a machine for cleaning cotton from the seed, for a certain toll. The plaintiff sent a quantity of cotton to the machine to be cleaned. The defendant worked his machine • at night, by the light of a candle in an old lanthorn, under the management of a negro. The gin house, and its contents, were consumed by fire. Tbe question was, whether the defendant was answerable 1 The jury, in their verdict, stated that the evidence proved a want of ordinary care.
    
      Bowie, for the plaintiff.
    Taylor, for the defendant.
   The court

were unanimously of opinion, that in this case the defendant was responsible for ordinary neglect, the bailment being beneficial to both parties.

The counsel for the defendant argued from the evidence, denying the conclusion drawn by the jury that the defendant had not uged ordinary caution ; and that the plaintiff had requested him to gin at night. Ordinary and common care was all that was required. Cited Jones on Bailment, 223, 91.

Plaintiff’s counsel insisted on the express finding of the jury, that the verdict was founded on the want of due and ordinary care. But contended, further, that the defendant was bound, at ail events, because of his standing in a public character. Cotton was sent like corn to a mill. Quoted Pow. on Cont. 251.

The court considered it as the case of a bailee, who is answera. ble for common or ordinary neglect.

Motion rejected.  