New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-02-28
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY q, 1873.
SuDeYiCf Dintrlc1 Court.

| and obtained judgment, with order or selz
| ure and sale; that the sale is null and VOID
l. because plaintiff. being an absentee. was
| never legally cited. ,. Because the city
| did not ask that curator ad hoe be APP
f! pointed, as il should have done under
| Revised Statutes 329S and 1858, and section
| five Of act OF 1874. That the property has
| been purchased by James Eustis, tho judg
ments being unrecorded, and that in order
| that petitioner should not be held liable tc
| said Eusti5 it is necessary that the said
! illegal Judgments be 50 declared
Superior Criminal Court.
George H. Braughn, Esq. presiding.
NoLLE PRosEQUI ENTERED.
S.abbing, etc.-James Ross.
Larceny-Pac Welsh.
ACQUITTED.
Alice Matthews, of embeZzlenent.
CONVICTED.
Henry Brown, of embezz!ement- William
Alexander, OF burglary.
ON TRIAL.
State VS.. George Brown and George Muir
ray-Lirceny.
Fourth District Court.
Noamie Le Bourgeois vs.. John c. Rogers.
her acknowledgements tor plaintiff, and
separation of property decreed.
Sarah Jane Eastland VS.. William East
land, her husband. Judgment Of separa.
ton Of property decreed.
Fifth District Court.
Judge Cullom rendered the following
decision:
Charles II. fancy VI. Pullman Palace
Car Company.-In the month Of Septembe
last the plaintiff and his wife left the city
of New York for New Orleans, on the
Mobile and Ohio railroad. Attached to the
train were several Pullman palace cars.
for TING comforts and privileges OF which
the plaintiff paid SIS. On entering the car
the plaintiff and his wife took each a
'satcheJ, containing few articles of Eeces
sity, such as combs and brushes shaving
materials, stockings. handkerchiefs, wrap.
pers, ETC., including the English Tranter
pistol, valued at $50. The entire list of
This suit was instituted to recover that
sum Of the Pullman Palace Car
Company. the satchels, with their con
tents, having been stolen Ell route. The
company denies all the allegations of
the petitioner, and particularly that
it is in any manner responsible for the loss.
Counsel tOc it contends that it is not II
common carrier, and that therefore it is not
liable as such. That it is not an inn or
tavern, and that the stringent rules of law
applying to them should not be made the
standard Of its responsibilities. In short,
he substantially contends that, as the pecu
liar business of the Pullman Palace Car
Company can not be classified as a COM
mon carrier nor as an inn. it is entirely
irresponsible for anything that may betall
such unwary travellers as pay for its com
forts on their journeys. He refers the court
to the opinion of the Supreme Court of the
State OF Illinois i'll the case of Chester NJ.
Smith vs.. the Pullman Palace Car Company,
in which it was held that the plaintiff could
not recover $780, or any portion thereof,
of the company, where il was shown that
he put the money under his pillow at night
in his vest pocket. 1t said: 1T would be
unreasonable to make the company re-
sponsible for the less of money which was
never entrusted to its custody at all, of
which it had no information, and which the
owner had concealed upon his person"
l. appears TO me there is a very essential
difference in that case and the one now
under consideration. Smith had q large
sum of money concealed on his person. of
which the company had no information.
That fact alone would have exempted
any common carrier or innkeeper from
liability under rules of proverbial ard
universal adoption. fancy had nothing Of
great value about him, and what he had
was not concealed. The conductor himself
is shown to have handed the satchels in the
car when the plaintiff entered with his
wife. The large sum of money on the per-
son of Smith was unnecessary to personal
deceDcy and ordinary comfort, and under
the rules in all such cases should have been
deposited with the proper custodian Of the
train. The Supreme Court in that case
does hold that the company is not a com
mon carrier, nor an inn, and exonerates it
from liability On the grounds above quoted.
Several authorities arc cited to establish
the first part of the proposition. The ire
sponsibility OF the company, however, has
no other authority than the dictum of the
court. Whether it be common carrier or
inn, or not is not a matter OF any import
ance. Suffice it TO say that, on general
and well recognized rules of law, the opinion
pany in that particular case is correct. The
cases referred to by counsel reported in our
own annual reports, are without application
here according to his own argument. They
each refer to the liability of hotel keepers,
and as he contends the Pullman palace cars
are not inns or hotels, of course they are in
applicable. But were it otherwise, the facts
as to the value of the property lost and the
fleet of special laws regulating the extent |
of the liabilities Of hotel keepers in Louisi- |
ana are such as to render them useless in /!
this case. The fact is that the peculiar |
business of this company, it's anomaly as to |
positive or defuitive classification, affords |
its only plausible defense.
1t is shown that it has its own conduc- |
tors, who have the exclusive management |
Of its palace cars. No one is permitted to |
lodge in them without tickets procured at a
liberal price from them. The officers of the
railroad have nothing whatever to do with
he palace cars but to furnish the motive
power for their propulsion. Were they
Iuder the supervision and management of
he Mobile aud Ohio Railroad Company,
here would be no doubt OF its liability IN
,ases of culpable negligence. Counsel init
mates that if the defendant herein be a car
Ter at all. it is especial carrier" and Ia
therefore, liable only tor ''gross negligence"
md this conclusion he reaches by inference
rom the decision in Nineteenth Wendell
Reports. He says the defendant does not
propose to accommodate every one who
ONES along-but only u particular class. l
hink it warranted by the uniform
curse of tho company. and by
ught that appears in the evidence
o the contrary. to say that this "particular
lass" consists of all such as are willing and
BILE to pay. The Mobile and Ohio railroad
nd all others take this class and are not
ompelled 10 take any other. But why
INIT its responsibility to cases of gross neg
gence only! la the company not well paid
)r it's accommodations! Did it furnish
hem gratuitously l could readily concede |
be correctness of cOunseIs proposition.
Int it demands. if not exorbitant at least
cry liberal pay, and will it be said that it
lcurs no liability when it sets up COM
lete monopoly and takes from the traveller
Il the rights of protection which the rail
,ad company would otherwise afford him'
5 it permits none to enter but particular
ass. can it reasonably belpretended it is not
.srOnsibie for the conduct of that selected
ass The tact that it does not discrimi-
ate is the very soundest foundation for its
ability. Counsel says that it can be held
sponsble only for the authorized acts of
- -, 80 Ia, hal rna