This  is  the  only  evidence  of  his  intention  as  to  the  persons  to  whom
delivery  should  be  made.  It  is  further  said  that  it  was  the  plain-
tiff's negligence  in  forwarding  the  goods  without  ascertaining  that
there  was  in  fact  such  a  firm.  I  am  unable  to  see  what  the  defend-
ant had  to  do  with  this.  Its  duty  was  to  deliver  to  the  firm,  and  if
that  could  not  be  found,  to  warehouse  and  keep  for  the  owner.  The
same  might  be  said  in  every  case  where  goods  were  forwarded  to  a
consignee  supposed  to  be  at  a  particular  place,  but  who  in  fact  was
not  there.  The  usage  of  the  defendant  cannot  avail  him  in  this
case.  The  referee  has  found  just  what  was  done.  This  accords
with  the  evidence,  in  which  there  was  no  conflict.
The  judgment  appealed  from  must  be  reversed,  and  a  new  trial
ordered,  costs  to  abide  event.
SAMUEL  V.    CHENEY.
135  Mass.  278.     1883.
Tort,  against  a  common  carrier,  for  the  conversion  of  a  quantity
of  cigars.  At  the  trial  in  the  Su])erior  Court,  before  Colbl'kn,  .1.,
the  jury  returned  a  verdict  for  tlic  defendant;  and  the  plaintiff
alleged  exceptions.     The  facts  ai)i)ear  in  the  ()i)inion.
