Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1853-11-11
1mrortant Legal Deoieion.

Important Legal Decision
The duties and responsibilities of stage owners,
railroad companies, &c, who undertake to carry
passengers aud their baggage for reward, are 80
/ generally misunderstood by those parties rs
wen as by the public, that il would not in
appropriate 10 give publicity 10 n decision on the
subject, by the circuit court for this city, at its
present term, Judge LEfGu presiding. A suit
was brought against Parish * co. to recover
the value Of the contents of trunk which had
been cut from their stage and rhed. II appear
ed in evidence that the plaintiff delivered the
trunk 10 the agents of the defendants and that it
was put upon the stage at the time he got into it,
and that dry or two after il should have reach
ed its destination, it was found broken open, and
most Of the contents taken out Al this point,
The piaiatiF himself was introduced to prove, by
his own oath, what the contents of the trunk
wcre-to which the defendants counsel Objected
for, that man could be witness in his own
cose-and that the only exception to this general
rule OF evidence was when it WIS first proven
that the carrier or his agents had been guilty of
the robbery, and that the ground of the cxcep-
ton wa= the odipm spotiatoris-for the suppress
sion of fraud. But it ruled by the court that
a foundation having been luid,by proof of the de-
livery 10 the defendants, aud the loss, the plain
tiff should be admitted to prove whit was in the
trunk, from The necessity ofhe ca8e, for no gen
tlcmnn Is expected to show what he puts into his
trunk. The court observed that this applied oniy
10 nearing apparel, which made the principle less
dangerous. Goods sent by one merchant to an
other are inyoced, and the invoice is the proper
evidence OF what they were.
The defendants then offered To prove that IA no
tee was kept posted conspicuously in their of
fee, "All baggage at the risk of the owners
that the sumo was printed in large letters at the
top OF the woy BILL and that proclamation to the
same effect was habitually made before the sta
gcs started from the offices. The plaintiff obiec-
ted 10 the Introduction of this evidence, on the
ground that such notices did not limit the liab-
ty of curriers', whom the law regards as insurers,
except against the act of the owner the act of
/ God, Ia stroke of lightning, &c.,) or the act of
/ public enemies. The court held that n carrier is
iobc,eNeept Us just stated, and that he cannot a
void that liability by notices. He may qualify
/ it in respect to the place of delivery, or he may
! by such general notice require persons, when
/ they take send articles of great value in small
compass, to acquaint him with the fact, that he
may take greater care, for that would be but rca-
S""''I'' u " sPcc'o' agreement taat the carrier
should not be responsible were proved, it might
/ be u question whether that would remove his la
/ hility or not-but no generol notice will
1t may be well to add a point which, though
not arising IN this case, is also generally misun-
derstood- viz; that stage owner &c, has no
! right 10 refuse TO take u person who will not a
/ gree to be responsible for his own hnogaero
! rhev hold ,bon,soI,os am, os ,a,,u;,,,. :. -.
,,o,..'.,.'. - " ''''
| persons anu thelr baggage ior II certain sum, and
] hnt1, Al. tr.,,1J. ,,,1 a.. 49,.