The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-04-25 00:00:00

A HORRIBLE TRAGEDY.

The kind of tragedies which sometimes happen on the far
Western frontier is shown in the annexed telegram from
San Francisco, under date of the hit of April, says the Ame-
rican Correspondent of The Timer :

"A despatch from Austin, Nevada, to-night gives
the particulars of a horrible tragedy in Smoky Valley
in that State. It appears that Christopher Reckstein
had been for a long time jealous of his wife, in conse-
quence of attentions paid to her by a young man
named Norton, and they had frequent quarrels about
him. Yesterday a man named Osterlaaus went to
Reckstein's house, and receiving no response to his
demands for admission, broke open the door. On the
floor lay the naked body of Mrs. Reckstein, cut into
pieces, and her head split open. At her feet were the
bodies of their two little girls, their heads nearly severed
from their bodies, and near by were the dead bodies
of Reckstein and young Norton, grappled as if in a
death struggle. Reckstein grasped in his right hand a
large bowie knife, covered with blood, and in Norton's
right hand was a dragoon pistol, two chambers of which
were discharged. There is no living witness to this
terrible affair."

"HARRISON v. THE GREAT WESTERN
RAILWAY COMPANY."
This case, which is again before the Law Courts, raised
a point of great importance to the travelling public
The plaintiff sued to recover damages for the loss of
a portmanteau and its contents, which formed part of
the plaintiffs luggage as a passenger from Ctilham to
Birmingham on the Bth of August, 1874). The plain-
tiff's luggage, consisting of a bag and the portmanteau
in question, both of which had the plaintiff's initials
painted upon them in large letters, was delivered to
one of the defendant's porters at Culham, and was
labelled by him in the ordinary way for Birmingham,
and placed in the luggage van. The train reached
Oxford, where the Birmingham passengers and luggage
are shifted into the Birkenhead express' which stops
only about five minutes at Birmingham. The plaintiff
saw his luggage on the platform at Oxford, and pro-
ceeded to Birmingham in one of the hindermost car-
riages of the train. The train reached Birmingham in
due course at 9 45 p.m., when the plaintiff alighted ;
but, instead of proceeding at once to claim his luggage,
he delayed about a minute for the purpose of making
an inquiry for a fellow-passenger. He afterwards
went towards the van to claim his luggage, and on his
way, and when about 50 yards from the van which
was next the engine, saw a portmanteau similar to his
own taken up from the heap of luggage on the plat-
form and carried away by a man, a stranger. The
plaintiff did not follow or try to stop him. On reach-
ing the van the plaintiff received his bag, but his
portmanteau could not be found, and the company
have been unable to trace it. The train was delayed
by reason of the search for the portmanteau some
short time. No witnesses were called for the defen-
dants, but their defence was that the company were
not insurers of passengers' luggage as they are of goods
delivered to them in the ordinary way as common
carriers; that no greater liability attached to them in
regard to the carriage of passengers' luggage than in
regard to that of the passenger himself-- viz., to
exercise a reasonable care; and that their liability as
carriers of passengers' luggage terminated as soon as
the luggage was deposited on the platform, and a
reasonable time allowel to the passenger to claim it.
They also contended that the plaintiff was guilty of
contributory negligence in losing time in making in-
quiries for his fellow-passenger. The jury found for
the plaintiff for £43, the amount of damages claimed,
leave being given to the defendants to move to enter
a nonsuit or to enter the verdict, on the ground that
there was no evidence of liability and that the plaintiff
had been guilty of contributory negligence.
Mr. Field, Q.C., now moved, pursuant to the leave
reserved, for a rule nisi to enter a nonsuit or to enter
the verdict on the above grounds, and cited the cases
of "Richards r. the London and Brighton Railway
Company" (7 C. 8., 839) and "Stewart v. the London
and North-Western Railway" (3 11. and C., 135) as
authorities in his favour.
Their Lordships granted the rule, thinking, at all
events, the matter was arguable.