45 P. 1 | Nev. | 1896
When a bailee, either for hire or gratuitous, is entrusted with the care and custody of goods, it is his duty to return them at the end of the bailment or account for their loss, and show that it happened without legal negligence upon his part. If he fails to do either, the presumption is that they have been converted by him or lost through his negligence, and he is responsible for them. (Beardslee v. Richardson,
11 Wend. 25; Logan v. Mathews, 6 Pa. St. 417; Wiser v.Chesley,
The very fact that they were so taken and used, is, under the circumstances, strong evidence that it was either done with the defendant's consent, or through gross negligence upon his part. (Boise v. H. N. H. R. R. Co.,
Had he been able to establish that the goods had been stolen, or used without his connivance or negligence, this would have constituted a complete defense for him, even though the wrongful act had been perpetrated by a servant or some one in his employ. (Jones on Pledges, sec. 408; Story, Bailments, secs. 88, 338.) But no explanation whatever left him responsible for the loss, and, as already stated, this is equally true whether, after payment of the debt, he was bound to exercise ordinary care and diligence, or was liable only for gross neglect.
We are of the opinion that there was some substantial evidence to support the finding that the damage was done while the goods were in the defendant's possession, and not while in charge of the express company.
*207The judgment is affirmed.