The New York herald., 1868-03-13
NEW YORK CITY.
THE COrRTs.

Liability OF Common Carriers.
Before Judge Shipman.

Before Judge Shipman.
Hopkins rs. Westcon ct aL-Judge Shipran yes
terday rendered an elaborate opinion in this case,
from which, the following extracts are taken and will
prove OF interest to the travelling public:-
shpman J.--Tnis case has been submitted upon
an agreed statement Of facts
First-The defendants constitute the WeStc0tt Ex-
press Company and are carriers for the public Of
freight and baggage for hire to and from any points
in the city OF New York. Second-On the lst OF
October, 1885, the plaintiff passed from his home
in Massachusetts over the Hudson River Rail-
road TO Ne% YORK s 1oseIner Mlsn neeE M
which, on his arrived at New York he delivered to
the defendants to enable them to obtain the trunk at
city, no rate of compensation being named. Third
The defendants obtained the trunk but failed to de-
some way unknown to the defe ad,,nts the plaintiff
FourtTnat upon the delivery OF the metallic check
10 the defendants they delivered to the plaintiff
paper upon which the number OF the check was
endorsed and which contained also the follow
irg printed matter Tile wesicott Express
chandise or jewelry oontained' in baggage
received upon baggage checks NOR for loss
S soeay M aarees or N nR 5
check receipt aad the extra risk paid therefor
And the owner hereby agrees mat Westcott Express
printed matter however, the rfaintfs did not read
at the time II was delivered to him, till after
Ffth-That the general custom Of express companies
Is TO charge forty cents for everytrunk, and twenty
five cents In addition for every 500 OF value beyond
$780, and that the plaintiff was Ignorant OF this GUS
tom. Sixth-That the defendant was student ut
golumbia College, and was proceeding 10 New York
ibr the purpose OF prosecuting his studies OF that In
sitution; and that certain manuscript books which
formed part Of the contents Of his trunk were neces
ssty to the prosecution OF his studies
IL Is said that no case can be shown where the
carrier sheen held liable for manuscripts. No snch
case has been cited, and IN my researches l have
fou nd none But see no reason for adopting rrue
by which they should be- excluded under all cifcun-
stances from the list Of articles termed baggage
With'the lawyer going to distant pace to attend
court with the author proceeding to his publishers
with the lecturer travelling 90 the place where his
engagement 10 to be fulfilled manuscripts often f0rm
though small yet indispensable part Of fs baggage
They are carried such In hia trunk portmanteau
among his other necessarycffect They are indis-
pensabe to the object Of hsjourney, and they are
carried with his baggage In accordance with unver-
sal custom, see no reason why they should not be
deemed as necessary part OF ais baggage as his.
novel or fishing tackle. In the present case the
manuscript books lost admitted to be necessary
articles for the student at the institution to which he
was proceeding. They mustanntier ail the circum-
stances, be deemed part OF Ills baggage for which
the defendants are LIABLE
The list of the contents Of til q trank and the value
Of each article thereof are agreeto and they amount
In the aggregate to $744 10. It was c0ntended on
the argument that she notice limited the liability Of
the carrier 10 500, unless greater value was dis
closed, and that as no greater value was disclosed
Judgment should he rendered for that sum only.
But far from giving this notice liberal Sbnstruc-
zion In favor Of OF the carrier, am inclined to con-
carriers strict responsibility is.foundcd upon high
considerations Of pnbc policy and the security OF
the property OF travellers Every limitation OF this
should be express sd In each in
clear and unesuivocal terms. Notices Of this charac
ter should therefore be construed strictly against the
carrier They given to travellers Of all ages and
sexes In the bnste Of rapid transit from place to
ancsher, in crowded vehicles and dep0ts, and they
sl sud be free from all doubt ambiguity, 40 that
their contents should be clearly apprehended at
glance. Let Judgment be entered Tor the plaintiff for
+ 200. " it'll costs.