23e FEDERAL REPORTBB. �The effect of the contract made between the parties was to impose upon the plaintiflfs the burden of proving that the loss of the goods by fire arose from the negligence of the defendant or its agents. In Clark v. Barnwell, 12 How. 272, Mr. Justice Nelson says: "Although the injury may have been occasioned by one of the excepted causes in the bill of lading, yet still the owners of the vessel are responsible if the injury might have been ayoided by the exercise of rea- sonable skill and attention on the part of the persons em- ployed.^jn the conveyance of the goods. But the onus pro- bandi ttxou. becomes shifted on the shipper to show the negli- gence." [See syllabus.] In Transportation Co. v. Downer, 11 Wall. 129, the judgment of the court below was reversed because the jury were instructed that it was incumbent upon the defendant, the carrier, to bring itself within the exception by showing that it had net been guilty of negligence. Other authorities to the same point need not be cited, as the cases referred to are conclusive upon this court. �The plaintiffs have not shown negligence upon the part of the defendant, and therefore cannot recover. But, irrespect- ive of any considerations concerning the burden of proof, when it appeared, as it did here, that the fire by which the plaintiffs' goods were destroyed was the act of a mob, engaged in a struggle with the military authorities of the state, with- out anything to show that the defendant was bound, from the circumstances, to anticipate such a resuit, the defence was affirmatively established. �The motion for a new trial is denied. ��� �
