The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-05-15 00:00:00

A ROCKING-HORSE IS NOT PER-
SONAL LUGGAGE!

In the Court of Queen's Bench, the cause of "Hudson v.
the Midland Railway Company" has been heard, and the
question was whether a " rocking-horse " can be considered
as personal luggage of a railway passenger, which he is en-
titled to have carried as such without charge for carriage.
The question arose on a County Court appeal. The rocking-
borie was 44 inches long and weighed 70th, Mr Macnareara
argued for the appellant, the passenger; Mr. Willa argued for
the company.
--- - -

--g—. •
Early in the argument, Mr. Justice Hannen referred
to the definition of "luggage" in the Dictionary (it is
believed, Bichardcon's) 'anything cumbrous and
difficult to carry; of more weight than value." (A
laugh.) That definition appeared to apply here.
Counsel being challenged to "draw the line," said he
declined to do so, and that it might be impossible to
draw any line "hard and fast," and yet it might be
perfectly plain that the particular race was outside of
any line that could be reasonably drawn, and it was
contended that this was so here,
Mr. Justice Lush: A sportsman may carry his gun
—may he bring home the game he has shot?
The Counsel for the company answered that he might,
but he said he had known of cases in which passengers
had insisted upon carrying a bartel of beer or a sack
of potatoes. (Laughter.)
Mr. Justice Hayes suggested that the point might
have been put that it require i a horse box. (Laughter.)
j The same lamed judge put the case (which he said
had occurred) of buffalo skins.
Mr. Justice Lush put the case of a child's cradle,
a perambulator. or a bedstead.
In answer to this it was said that a good deal must
depend upon size.
Mr. Justice Hannen put the case of a large picture
in its frame, or a large bath.

Numerous cases were put in the course of the argu-
ment ; the case of a gentleman carrying home a salmon
or a barrel of oysters for dinner, or a hamper of wine
for his cellar, or a case of books for reading in the
train, and so forth.
Mr. Justice liannen suggested that the rule might,
perhaps, be laid down thus—that the passenger was
entitled to have anything which passengers usually
or generally required for their personal use or accom-
modation on a journey, which would include a bath
or bathing tin, but exclude &rocking horse or cradle.
The counsel for the railway company accepted that
test.

After a long and entertaining argument, Mr.
Justice Lush, in delivering judginer.t, said he was of
opinion that the judgment of the County Court suns
be affirmed, and that their judgment must be for the
respondents. It must be taken that the company in-
tended by their regulations to express the same thing
as was expressed by their Act, although they used a
different phraseology. The regulation was that pas-
sengers should carry a certain weight of personal lug-
gage, not being merchandise or other articles carried
for hire or profit, free of charge. The respondents had
lint too narrow an interpretation on the words used.
I hey contended that personal luggage expressed only
such luggage as was carried for the peisonal use and con-
venience of the traveller. Lie could not think they were
intended to be no limited. The words "ordinary lug-
gage" meant something more than what a passenger
wanted for his own personal use and convenience. It
described a class of articles, and had reference to a
description ordinarily and usually carried by passengers
as their luggage. Taking that to be the meaning of the
regulation, it was intended ti have regard to thoze
things which were usually carried by them. The article
in question went beyond that limit. This was an
article called a child's toy. It was a spring horse sub-
stituted for an improved rocking-horse, 'Nibs. in weight,
and 44 inches in length, and could not come within the
meaning of a toy, which was something to be carried
in the hand; nor that of personal luggage in the sense
he had mentioned—viz., that description of luggage
which passengers usually carry. The other learned
judges concurred, and judgment was given for the res-
pondents.
THE QUEEN'S DRAWING ROOM.

Her Majesty the Queen held a Drawing Room at
Buckingham Palace, on Tuesday afternoon. Their
Royal Highnesses Princess Louise and Princess Beat-
r.ce were present, as also Lady Caroline Barrington;
Prince Arthur; the Duke of Cambridge : his Serene
Highness the Prince and her Royal Highness the
Princess Teek ; his Highness Prince Hassan Pasha,
son of the Viceroy of E:*pt ; his Highness the Nawal)
Nszim of Bengal, with his sons the Prince Ali Kudr
Bahadoor and the Prince Soleman Kudr liahadoor.

The Queen wore a black silk dress, with a train,
trimmed with crape and fringe, and a white
tulle cap, with a long veil, the cap ornamented
with large diamonds, and surmounted by a coronet
diamonds. Her Majesty also wore a neck-
lace, brooch, and earrings of opals and diamonds,
the Riband and the Star of the Order of the Garter,
the Orders of Victoria and Albert and Louise of
Prussia, and the Coburg and Gotha Family Order.
Her Royal Highness Princess Louise were a train of
rich blue crystalline silk, trimmed with white tulle,
and a petticoat of white tulle trimmed with blue satin
and yellow roses. Head-dress—Feathers and veil,
with roses and a diadem of rubies and diamonds.
Diamond ornaments.—Victoria and Albert Order,
Order of St. Isabel, and the Coburg and Gotha Family
Order. Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice wore
an Isle of Wight lace dress over a pink silk slip,
trimmed with pink silk riband ; a band of pink silk
with apple blossom in the hair, and a necklace com-
posed of pearls, with a cross of diamonds and emeralds
attached.