The Sun.
London, England, 1848-02-17 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Feb. IG.

(Sittings in London, after Term, before Lord Chief
Justice WILDE and Special Jut ies.)

RICHARDS v. LONDON AND BRIGHTON AND SoUTII-
COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.

Mr. Sergeant Byles and Mr. Phipson appeared for
plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Taltourd and Mr. Swann for
the defendants.

Mr. PutrsoN opened the pleadings. The first count
of the declaration stated that the defendants were the
owners of the London and Brighton and South Coast
Railway, and were also the owners of certain carriages
on the railway, and were common carriers ; and that on
the 10th of November, 1546, Charlotte Susannah
Richards, the wife of the plaintiff; was a passenger from
Woodgate station, near Bognor, to London, and that.
amongst other luggage she had a dressing-case, con-
taining jewellery and articles of great value, and by
reason of the want of care and negligence of
the defendants the dressing-ease was lost. The
second count stated the defendants to be com-
mon carriers from Woodgate to the hackney coach-
stand at London-bridge station, where it was their duty
to deliver the dressing-case to the plaintiff ; but by
reason of the defendants' negligence the dressing-case
was lost. The third count stated the defendants' duty,
as common carriers, to deliver the dressing-case by the
hackney coach at the plaintiff's residence. To this
declaration :the defendants pleaded, 1, not guilty; 2,
a denial that they were owners of the railway or of the
carriages; 3, a denial that they were common carriers ;
4, a denial that the plaintiff's wife was a passenger with
her luggage ; 5, that the dressing-case contained ar-
ticles of jewellery of above the value of 101., and that
the directors had posted a notice at the station that they
would not be answerable for the loss of such luggage,
unless an increased rate of charge was paid; that_ the
value of the dressing-case was not declared, nor any
increased rate of charge paid ; 6, a denial that the
dressing case was ever delivered to the defendants to
be carried. To these pleas the plaintiff replied that
the defendants were guilty of the negligence charged
against them without the causes in their special pleas
mentioned.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES, in opening the case for the plain-
tiff, said the plaintiff, Major Richards, was an officer in
her Majesty's service, and the action was brought to
recover the value of a dressing case, containing trinkets
of considerable worth, which was lost by the negligence
of the railway company, who were the defendants, on the
10th of November, 1846. In the autumn of 1846 the
plaintiff's wife was staying at Bognor for her health; she
was an invalid; and on the 10th of November she re-
turned to London. She drove to the Woodgate station,
having, amongst other luggage, a dressing case containing
articles of jewellery, the loss of some of which no money
could c,,mpensate. There was in it a gold cockle-shell
watch, made by Rundle and Bridge, and presented to the
plaintiff by the late Queen Caroline; also some valuable
earrings. a present from a gentleman high in office in
the Portuguese Government, and some valuable rings
and ether articles belonging to Mrs. Richards. The
train left Woodgate station about two o'clock, and
arrived at London• bridge at half-past 5. The dressing-
case was put under Mrs. Richards's feet. Mrs. Richards
was su ill with a spinal complaint that she hod to be
lifted in and out of her carriage. A lady's.maid was in
the carriage with her. On arriving at London-bridge,
the company's servants called a hackney coach, and
whilst the footman and lady's maid were attending to
Mrs. Richards, two of the company's porters said they
would look after the luggage. The luggage was placed
in the coach, and Mrs. Richards was driven to No. 2,
Cambridge-terrace, Hyde Park. On arriving there, the
dressing-case could not he found. The Learned Counsel
then stated that, as common carriers, the defendants
would be answerable for the sate delivery of the luggage
at the plaintiff's house, and also that they were respon-
sponsible as bailees for the safety of the luggage be-
tween the railway and tho hackney coaches at the
terminus. The facts put in issue by the pleas would be
proved, and it would be proved that there was no notice
posted at the Woodgato station requiring increased
carriage for articles of jewellery, &a , and limiting the
liability of the company under the Carriers' Act; the
defendants would not, therefore, be entitled to the bene-
fit of that plea. The hackney-coachmen were the agents
of the company, as only certain people were admitted
into the yard, and they were the agents of the company
to complete their contract of safely delivering the pas-
sengers and their luggage. This had been decided in
the case of "Pickford v. The Grand Junction Railway
Company," reported in 12 Meesom and Welaby. If he
proved these facts, and that there was a want of reason-
able care on the part of the company, the plaintiff would
be entitled to the verdict of the jury. Then as to the
damages, he should call the lady's-maid to describe what
the dressing-case contained, and a jeweller would speak
to the value of such articles being about 1301. or 1401.
The peculiar value attaching to them could not well be
estimated.

Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD, on the part of the defendants,
would give no trouble about the value of the articles.
They might be taken to be worth 1501.
The lady's-maid, Jane Soper, then proved the facts
opened by the Learned Counsel—that the dressing-case
was safe till the carriage arrived at the station at Lon-
don-bridge ; that when her mistress was lifted out of the
earring° two of the railway porters told her to look after
her mistress, and they would see that the luggage was
all put right. They then drove to Cambridge-terrace,
and the dressing-case could not be found. She had no
doubt of the dressing-case being put under her mistress's
feet at Woodgate.
On cross-examination it appeared that she had written
by direction of her mistress to Woodgate to ascertain if
the dressiug-case was left there.

The driver of the coach at Bognor was called to prove
that the dressing-case was put into the carriage. The
footman proved that he never saw it after leaving Bog-
nor. The clerk of the plaintiff's attorney proved having
gone to the Woodgate station to search for the carrier's
notice, and there was no such notice hung up there. A
demand of payment for the last dressing-case was then
proved, which was the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Sergeant TALSOURD objected that the plaintiff
had no case. The undertaking of the defendants was to
receive Mrs. Richards and her luggage, and the duty
imposed on them was to bring them safely to the end of
the journey; and that there was no further duty on
them to carry the luggage either to the hackney coaches
or to the residence of the plaintiff. The defendants
were mere gratuitous bailees in carrying the luggage
from the railway terminus to the hackney coaches, and
the luggage was safe at the termination of the journey.
Mr. Sergeant BYLES admitted the strength of the
objections as to the first count, but submitted that on
the other .:ounts he was entitled to recover.

His LOUDSLIIPwas of opinion that the contract was