upr000329 78

f j i Loe Angeles, May 2, 1927. Mr. Halsted: Referring further to the attached f i l e in re­gard to weighing instructions: in the copies o f the T ra ffic World handed you herewith and find that they are not of any material assistance. held that evidence o f a very positive character as to the incorrectness of the c a r r ie r 's scaling is necessary before under a t a r i f f ru le providing fo r weighing at point of origin only and that shipments covered by such w ay-bills must not be reweighed: The Commission held that the actual weight of the shipment constituted the true basis upon which to assess transportation charges, and that the question wason e nf fjlfiju The Commission further 1teH tfia't the provision in the I t a r i f f quoted above was unjust and unreasonable and constituted fno valid defense in a case where the question at issue is the correct weight upon which the transportation charges are to be assessed. This case might ju s t ify the contention that the gommission would not be absolutely bound by t a r i f f pro­visions concerning weighing. vides that freigh t charges w ill be assessed on weights ascer­tained at Norfolk and Western regular weighing stations and th is rule w ill not be departed from by the Norfolk and Western Railway. There was a dispute as to the weights, the complain­ant contending that the weights as shown by his own private /scales should be observed. Commiesion held that the ru le in question was unreasonable, although i t stated that they would not countenance a general rule which would require carriers .to accept shippers* weights. Commission further awarded repa­ration on the basis o f the weights claimed to have been ascer­tained by the complainant. Commission on the contention that su fficien t evidence had not been introduced to overturn the c a r r ie r 's scale weights. I have checked the Interstate Coamerce cases The BrowneGrain Company case, in 20 ICC 163, another weight can be substituted. The Peters case, 20 ICC 59® > covering shipment In the Schenck case, 29 ICC 125> the t a r i f f pro- 1 / i y The Woolman case, ICC 530, was decided by the