BAGGAGE.
Gone.--Company liable for Lost Baggage.--Carelessness of
Owner.--Checking.--What is Baggage?--Papers.--Spring-horse.--Household
Goods going West.--Luggage left in Cloak-room.--Limitation
of Liability.--Taking Change.--Railroad Police.--Beauties of
Checks.--Fall of a Window.--Legs and Arms outside.--Officials
squeezing Fingers.--Stern Boreas.
Misfortunes never come singly, for birds of a feather flock together.
Scarcely had I got to the hotel and begun ruefully examining
the discolorations on my nether limbs and putting a piece of
sticking-plaster on the top of my proboscis, when a thought struck me,
and really hurt me, so that I involuntarily exclaimed, “Why, where’s
my bag?” Of one thing I was soon satisfied, namely, that it was not
there. I ran my fingers through my hair to let the cooling air as near
as possible to my heated brain, and after mature reflection came to the
conclusion that I had seen nothing of it since I had left it in the car
while I went out after those refreshments already referred to; for on
my return, finding in my seat a lovely girl, with long dark eyelashes,
soft tender dark-blue eyes, a bewitching smile, and dimples which
rippled round her ruby lips as she talked and laughed with a young
fellow of a vinegar aspect who sat beside her, I had located myself
elsewhere. Both these individuals had got out at the next station, but
I had never again noticed, or even thought of, my bag.
When I met the Q. C. in the dining-hall I told him of my loss.
“What had you in your bag?” he inquired, with the air of a man who
thought that he knew a thing or two about lost luggage.
“Nothing but my brushes and razors, pen and ink; some shirt-fronts
_alias_ dickeys, and other clothing.”
“Ah well! you are all right! you can easily recover the value of the
waifs and strays from the company; for all those things have been held
to be such personal baggage as a traveller has a right to carry with
him.[444] Have you got your check?” he added.
“No. It was not checked. I carried it into the car with me, and left
it to keep my place when we got out for refreshments, and it was gone
before I got back into my seat--at least I have not beheld it since.”
“_N’importe!_ as the frog-eaters say. You are entitled to recover, for
your ticket gives you a right to be carried with your luggage;[445]
and a by-law to the effect that a company will not be responsible for
baggage unless booked, has been held bad in England.[446] Of course,
if you had kept exclusive control over your bag, the company would not
ordinarily be liable.[447] And when a man has his traps taken into the
car with him for his own convenience he impliedly undertakes to use
reasonable care; and if one were to leave his portmanteau in one car
while he went and travelled in another, and the portmanteau was rifled,
he could not recover for his loss;[448] nor, if he stupidly forgot to
take his overcoat with him, when he left the train.”[449]
“I had an idea,” I said, “that a Canadian judge had expressed an
opinion to the effect that the system of checking in vogue in this
enlightened country was notice to passengers that all articles must be
checked or handed to the company’s servants, except what they desire or
prefer to keep under their own personal care and at their own risk. Did
you ever meet with such a dictum or decision?”
“Oh yes, I noticed the case only the other day. Morrison, J., did speak
to that effect, but he was overruled, and Draper, C. J., said that
he considered checking only as additional precautions taken by the
company, beyond what is customary in England, in order to prevent the
luggage from being given up to the wrong person; that the company would
be liable for a loss in case no such means of checking was in use, and
if, notwithstanding, a loss occurs, the liability is unchanged, in the
absence of express notice on their part that they will be responsible
only for articles checked.[450] By the way, were there any papers in
your bag?”
“No; they were all in my pocket. I have not many with me, and I
remember seeing it decided that title deeds, which an attorney was
carrying with him to produce on a trial, were not baggage for the loss
of which a carrier would be responsible.”[451]
“Prudent man!” replied my friend, as he turned on his heel and departed.
What I did at the place where I now was concerns nobody except those
who had the pleasure of paying my travelling expenses to and fro and my
hotel bill while there. To dilate with any particularity on the subject
might lead one into a breach of that well-established rule concerning
privileged communications between attorneys and their clients.
At length my labors were at an end and I was at perfect liberty to
return to my _Lares et Penates_ at my earliest convenience. My readers
must not suppose, from the fact that my bag and baggage had been lost,
that I was acting the Nazarite all this time; no indeed, I had bought
all the necessary articles of a gentleman’s toilet and some changes of
raiment, and with these in a brand new valise I was ready to start _en
route_ for the place whence I had come forth.
I was rather amused, while awaiting the arrival of my train at the
station, by a controversy between what was evidently a “fond parient”
of rural origin and the baggage-master. The father had invested in
a spring-horse for his youthful son and heir to exercise upon; the
creature was forty-four inches long and weighed seventy-eight pounds.
The man wished it passed as luggage.
“No, you will have to pay freight for this,” said he of the chalk and
checks.
“But I have nothing else, and I am certainly entitled to carry
something,” urged the man.
“Yes,” returned the other, “you are entitled to take your personal
baggage with you; but if you have none, that does not give you the
right to take other things instead,[452] and a horse of this color is
personal luggage by no manner of means.”[453]
Just then a friend came up to me and asked what was included in the
personal baggage which a man was entitled to take with him, free of
charge. I said:--
“My dear sir, that is a question which has often pressed itself
seriously upon the consideration of a contemplative traveller and
philosophic jurist like myself, when on entering a crowded train I have
found one half of the seats occupied by ‘stern realities’ or bipedal
extremities, and the other half by bundles and bandboxes, nursery
paraphernalia, and the oleaginous and saccharine products of the
kitchen and the cook-shop; and also when I have considered how gravely
the question has agitated courts of justice. One of our own learned
judges has forcibly remarked that ‘the authorities and references show
it is much easier to say what is not personal or ordinary luggage, than
it is to decide what it is which a carrier is bound, or which it is
usual for him to carry along with his passengers.’”
“You have made a long oration, but have not answered my question; just
like you lawyers, always darkening counsel by words.”
“State your question more definitely,” I remarked.
“Well, then, there is a poor man here, moving West with his family.
He has a bed, pillows, bolsters, and bed-quilt in a trunk, or a box,
with his clothes; he is carrying them for his own use. Should he be
compelled to pay freight on them? He says that he has no money; and I
don’t want to see the poor beggar put upon.”
“Yours is a question which I cannot definitely answer. In England, it
was decided that such things were not personal baggage.[454] In Vermont
it was held a matter for a jury to pronounce upon, after considering
the peculiar circumstances, the value, the quantity, and the intended
use of the articles.”[455]
“‘He would not, with a peremptory tone,
Assert the nose upon his face, his own;
With hesitation, admirably slow,
He humbly hopes, presumes it may be so.’”
said my friend mockingly, and then added pepperishly, “You
unsatisfactory lawyers will never give a sensible reply to the simplest
question.”
“Granted. But yours was not the simplest question. Were an ordinary
layman like yourself to read but a tithe of what has been written on
the moot point of personal luggage or not, you would be a sadder, if
not a wiser man than you now are; so voluminous are the decisions, that
a Saratoga trunk would fail to contain all.”
“Well, you are not luminous anyway.
“‘Lawyers each dark question shun
And hold their farthing candle to the sun.’
I’m off to get my traps in the cloak-room.”
“I’ll go with you,” I replied.
When we got to the room we found the door locked, and that the man in
charge was off for an hour or so.
“Well, that is a pretty how-do-ye-do; my train will be going in a few
minutes, so what am I to do?”
“Have you got a ticket for your baggage?” I inquired.
“Yes, and paid tuppence for it. Here it is.” On the back of it were
some printed conditions, but nothing was said as to the hours the
cloakroom was kept open, or at what time the box was to be re-delivered.
“It is clear,” I remarked, “that the company is bound to give you your
box on your reasonable request, and at any reasonable time.”[456]
“But what good does that do me, if they are not here to give me my
things now? I must go on whether I get them or not.”
“You can sue them,” I remarked.
“All very fine, but I have a case of patterns which I need with me; and
suppose it is lost?”
“Well, of course, you can’t recover damages beyond the actual value of
the goods. No warehouseman is responsible beyond the actual value of
the article lost or damaged, unless there was a special contract.[457]
What was the value?”
“Thirty or forty pounds.”
“What!”
“Can’t you hear? I say thirty or forty pounds.”
“Well, I am very sorry for you. Did not you see the notice on the
ticket that ‘the company will not be responsible for any package
exceeding the value of £10.’”
“Oh, but I did not read that.”
“The legal inference, however, is that you did read it, and did assent
to it; and so I am afraid that the company, in case of a loss, will
not be liable as your goods exceed the prescribed limit.[458] For the
same reason they may also be excused for delay in redelivering them, at
least if such tardiness is not caused by any wilful act or default of
their own, and is without their privity or knowledge.[459] Samples and
patterns are not considered personal baggage.”[460]
“Many thanks for all your information. I think I can see my box through
this crack, and here comes the man with the key; so I am all right.”
“Well, good-by! there’s my train, anyway, so I am off. Don’t forget you
owe me a fee for this.”
As I was passing into the car, I saw a crowd gathered round
the ticket-office, and an unfortunate man--quite respectably
habited--struggling in the clutches of a policeman. I made inquiries
as to the cause of the arrest and was told that the prisoner had been
buying a ticket at the office, and in giving change the clerk handed
him two sous, a French piece; the man, whose name was Allen, objected
and demanded a British penny in its place, and as the clerk would not
take back the sous, Allen determined to help himself. The bowl of the
till containing copper coins appearing to be within easy reach he put
in his hand to get the money. Upon this the agent raised the hue and
cry, summoned the conservator of the peace on duty and gave A. into
custody on the charge of attempting to rob the till. It seemed rather
a hard case, as the poor fellow was only trying to help himself to his
change. (Being dubious as to what would be the upshot of the affair I
bore the matter in mind, and after the usual time required for issuing
a writ, bringing a case to trial, moving in term and giving judgment,
I discovered that in the action brought by A. against the company for
false imprisonment it was held, that as the arrest, after the attempt
had ceased, could not be necessary for the protection of the company’s
property, but was merely to vindicate justice, the clerk had no implied
authority to arrest the man; his authority only extended to the doing
of such acts as were necessary for the fulfillment of the duties
entrusted to him, and that the company was, therefore, not liable for
the act of the clerk, nor for that of the policeman who took A. into
custody. Blackburn, J., was inclined to think that if a man in charge
of a till were to find that a person was attempting to rob it, and he
could only prevent his stealing by taking him into custody, he might
have an implied authority to arrest the offender; or, if the clerk had
reason to believe that the money had been actually stolen and he could
get it back by taking the thief into custody, and he took him up for
that purpose, it might be that that also would be within the authority
of the clerk.[461])
A man standing by me asked how it was that the policeman had not on
the same style of garments as those of his fellows who perambulate in
blissful ease and quiet serenity the city streets. I told him that
railway companies had power to appoint constables to act on their
lines for the preservation of peace, and securing persons and property
against felonies and other unlawful acts on such railways and their
works, and in all places not more than a quarter of a mile distant
therefrom, and to take before a justice of the peace any person guilty
of an offence punishable by summary convictions under any act or
by-law.[462]
This time I had my _impedimenta_ checked, and thus was relieved of the
trouble of carrying them in and out of the car. All the world knows
that the possession of a check is evidence against the company of the
receipt of the baggage. The piece of metal has been compared to a bill
of lading, in fact said to be identical therewith.[463] It is always
the source of great wonderment to me that the British public do not
insist upon the British railways introducing the system on their
lines; the continental plan of registering, though far in advance of
the English, is still much more troublesome than the simple process
of checking, and very expensive. How convenient is our enlightened
plan, when one has to change cars _en route_: no trouble looking after
baggage; one simply has to walk out of one train into the other, ticket
for the whole journey and checks in your pocket, and if your traps are
lost, you can sue either or any of the companies.[464]
The car being rather crowded, the atmosphere soon became rather close
and stifling. A gentleman, after a considerable amount of coaxing,
pushing, shoving, and pulling, persuaded one of the windows to allow
itself to be lifted up to admit the sharp, clear, exhilarating winter’s
air. The person who opened the window got out and another got in and
took his seat beside it, and carelessly allowed his left hand to rest
on the ledge. As the train approached a station, the breaks were
suddenly put on, and the vibration caused the window to fall athwart
the man’s fingers, inflicting a serious injury thereon. Aroused and
attracted by the grunting and groaning, adjurations and exclamations
of the injured one, some officious people came round him, advising and
urging the poor fellow to sue the company, for that they were bound to
provide windows with good fastenings for the comfort and protection of
passengers. I merely said, that without positive proof of the defective
construction of the window, the mere falling would not make a _primâ
facie_ case of negligence against the company, as a Mr. Murray found
when he sued a London railway company for exactly a similar injury.[465]
Some people seem to be possessed of limbs which do not appear to belong
to them of right, and with which they never seem to know exactly what
to do; and such uncomfortably constituted mortals are very apt to
stretch their heads, or legs, or arms, out of the windows of railway
carriages, having no other improper place to put them when travelling
by rail; to such eccentric genii I would remark, that if they are
injured while in this position, they will not be able to recover
damages against the company, for the negligence is their own, and the
company is not bound to put bars across its carriage windows as careful
matrons do over their nursery panes.[466] It was once held that a
company, in order to save the upper extremities of their passengers,
was bound to provide wire gauzes, bars, slats, or other barricades for
the windows,[467] but this fatherly decision has been overruled.[468]
Mrs. Holbrook found this to her cost when she had her arm broken (it
was projecting from the window) by something coming against it as they
were passing other cars on another track.[469] In the State where the
principles of brotherly love prevail, or are supposed to, it was held
that when passengers are liable to have their arms, if lying outside
the windows, caught in passing bridges, the conductors should give them
notice to put them effectually upon their guard, or the company will be
liable for injuries, and printed notices are not sufficient.[470]
Talking about squeezing fingers--a decidedly unpleasant thing to the
squeezee, when not done by the human hand divine--railway officials are
not allowed, as a rule, to apply extempore thumb-screws and pinch a
man’s digits in the door. This has been solemnly decided by the Court
of Common Pleas, at Westminster Hall. One Fordham was in the act of
getting into a railway carriage, of the usual English make with doors
at the sides opening outwards; having a parcel in his right hand, he
very naturally placed his left on the open door to aid him on entering.
The guard, without giving any previous warning, flung to the door
with a slam. F. having just at that moment his fingers where the door
should meet the door-plate, and they possessing that quality of matter,
compressibility, he had them badly crushed. The Court of Common Pleas
and the Exchequer Chamber, thought that the guard had been guilty of
carelessness, and that Fordham had done nothing to contribute thereto,
and so gave the latter damages against the railway company.[471] Mr.
Jackson made £50 out of his ride from Moorgate Street to Westbourne
Park by the underground railroad. The compartment in which he was
seated was full, but at Gower Street two more got in despite our
friend’s remonstrances. At the next station others tried to enter (the
door having been opened), but were prevented by those in possession.
The door remained unshut as the train passed along the platform, but
just as it entered the tunnel the porter slammed it to, and jammed
Jackson’s hand in the hinge. The court considered that all these facts
showed such a careless and improper mode of conducting business that
Jackson was entitled to keep the little sum mentioned.[472]
In another case, however, where a porter after he had called out,
“Take your seats--take your seats!” squeezed a man’s thumb in shutting
the door, the same court considered that the official had closed
the door in the ordinary and proper exercise of his duty, and that
Mr. Richardson had only to thank himself for his want of caution in
leaving his member where it might be so easily crushed.[473]
To return from this digression, which my readers will probably have
found as dull and heavy as most wanderings of that nature. Before many
hours had passed, thick heavy clouds began to send across the sky; the
wind sighed and moaned mournfully around the car; Boreas came raging
from the icy regions of the North, and the snowflakes whirled wildly in
ever-thickening clouds--as a Longfellow would have said had he been on
board that express train:--
Ever thicker, thicker, thicker,
Froze the ice on lake and river:
Ever deeper, deeper, deeper,
Fell the snow o’er all the landscape,
Fell the covering snow and drifted
Through the forest, round the carriage.
Slowly and more slowly did the laboring engine, laden with its long
line of cars, make its way against the obstructing showers of feathery
ice-morsels, and fears arose in the hearts of the passengers that our
progress would soon be entirely stopped and we would be left to spend
the long cold night imbedded in the rapidly rising banks of snow.
A lady, shivering as she gazed out into the now pitchy darkness, asked
me in quivering tones, what would be done if we came to a complete
standstill and the engine was unable to move at all? I replied:--
“If a line becomes blocked up and impeded by snow, the company is bound
to use all reasonable exertions to forward the passengers, although
that may put the company to extra expense which of course they have no
way of recovering from the travellers;[474] so I presume ere long extra
engines and snow ploughs will come to our rescue.”
“It is to be hoped that the fuel will last,” said the lady. “How I pity
those poor cattle that we heard lowing so plaintively as we passed them
at the last siding,” she added tenderly.
“Yes; no great efforts will be made for their convenience; if a
snow-storm comes, the company is not bound to forward them by
extraordinary means and at additional expense.”[475]
“Poor things,” said my fair companion, who seemed
A very woman; full of tears,
Hopes, blushes, tenderness, fears,
Griefs, laughter, kindness, joys, and sighs,
Loves, likings, friendships, sympathies;
A heart to feel for every woe,
And pity, if not dole, bestow.
“Poor things, unless in the hereafter there is a place where the
spirits of animals be at rest, they have to bear a very heavy share of
the primeval curse, and pay dearly for Adam’s transgression and fall.”
FOOTNOTES:
[444] Hawkins _v._ Hoffman, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 586; Duffy _v._ Thompson, 4
E. D. Smith, 178.
[445] Gamble _v._ G. W. Rw., 24 U. C. Q. B. 407; Le Conteur _v._ London
& S. W. Rw., L. R., 1 Q. B. 54.
[446] Williams _v._ G. W. Rw., 10 Ex. 15; see also, G. W. R. _v._
Goodman, 12 C. B. 313.
[447] Tower _v._ Utica & Sch. Rw., 7 Hill (N. Y.), 47; and Wilde, J.,
in Richards _v._ London, B., & S. C. Rw., 7 C. B. 839.
[448] Talley _v._ G. W. R., L. R., 6 C. P. 44.
[449] Tower _v._ Utica & Sch. Rw., _supra_.
[450] Gamble _v._ Great Western Rw., 24 U. C. Q. B. 407.
[451] Phelps _v._ London & N. W. Rw., 19 C. B. (N. S.), 321.
[452] Pardee _v._ Drew, 25 Wend. 459.
[453] Hudston _v._ Midland Rw., L. R., 4 Q. B. 366.
[454] Macrow _v._ Gt. Western Rw. Co., L. R., 6 Q. B. 612.
[455] Ouimit _v._ Henshaw, 35 Vt. 605.
[456] Stallard _v._ Gt. W. R., 2 B. & S. 419; 8 Jur. (N. S.), 1076.
[457] Anderson _v._ Northeastern Rw., 4 L. T. (N. S.), 216.
[458] Van Toll _v._ Southeastern Rw. Co., 12 C. B. (N. S.), 75; 6 L.
T. (N. S.), 244; Harris _v._ G. W. R., W. N. June 10, 1876; but see
Henderson _v._ Stevenson, L. R., 2 S. & D. 470.
[459] Pepper _v._ Southeastern Rw. Co., 17 L. T. (N. S.), 469.
[460] Bayley _v._ Lancaster Rw. Co., 18 Sol. J. 301.
[461] Allen _v._ London & S. W. Rw., L. R., 6 Q. B. 65.
[462] Railway Act, 1868, § 49.
[463] Dill _v._ Railroad Co., 7 Rich. 158.
[464] Hart _v._ Rensellaer & Saratoga Rw., 4 Seld. 37.
[465] Murray _v._ Metropolitan District Rw., 27 L. T. (N. S.), 762.
[466] Indianapolis & Cincinnati Rw. _v._ Rutherford, 7 Am. Law Reg. (N.
S.), 476.
[467] N. J. R. _v._ Kennard, 21 Penn. St., 203.
[468] P. & C. Rw. _v._ McClurg, 7 Am. Law Reg. (N. S.), 277;
Pittsburgh, etc., Rw. _v._ Andrews, 39 Md. 329.
[469] Holbrook _v._ Utica. & Sch. Rw., 12 N. Y. 236.
[470] Laing _v._ Colder, 8 Penn. St. 483.
[471] Fordham _v._ L. B. & S. C. Rw., L. R., 3 C. P. 368; 4 C. P. 619
(Ex. Ch.); also, Coleman _v._ S. E. Rw., 4 H. & C. 699.
[472] Jackson _v._ Metropolitan Rw., L. R., 10 C. P. 49.
[473] Richardson _v._ Metropolitan Rw., L. R., 3 C. P. 374, n.
[474] Addison on Torts, 3d ed. 448.
[475] Briddon _v._ Gt. Northern Rw., 28 L. J., Ex. 51.