The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-11-04
SUMMARY OF LAW CASES.

Mr.. Charles Steckler was yesterday admitted to
tho Bar. by the Supreme Court General Term.
Discharges in bankruptcy were granted yesterday
in the United States District Court by Judge Choate,
to David Pohalshi. l. Hanson and II. Newman.
A decision was rendered yesterday by Judge Choate.
in the United States District Court, dismssng the
suit in admiralty of ]. H. Hagerty against the steam
tug William.
John Lewis was sentenced to the Pententiary on
the 25tn of last June for four months. He was de-
tanned at the Tombs for fifteen days before being
transferred to the Island and Warden Fox of the
Penitentiary sought to detan him to serve out the
fifteen days he spent at the City Prison Messrs.
Howe Il Hummel, however. sued out writ of
habeas corpus, and brought Lewis yesterday before
Judge Lawrence in Supreme Court, Chambers,
whore motion was made for his discharge Judge
Lawrence decided that Warden Fox had no right to
detain the prisoner and ordered his discharge
The other appeal case argued was that OF Little n
Hudner against William Sohn. The plaintiffs, who
machnists, sued the defendants to recover
S1O2 96 machines they made for the defendant to
be used by him III his meat chopping business. The
case was tried before Justice William II. Kelly in the
Sixth District Court, who. after hearing all the evil
During the trial of the case Justice Kelly held that
matter of fact the original contract had been re-
scinded by the parties to which decision Mr. Alfred
Stecker. counsel for the defendant, excepted. The
appeal yesterday in the General Term OF the
Court Of Common Pleas. and resulted in reversal
OF the judgment OF the District Court
Judge Gildersleeve opened the November term of
the Court OF General Sessions yesterday Mr. Francis
Amidon, of Fifth avenue. being selected foreman
of the Grand Jury His Honor. in delivering his
charge to the members of that body, after calling
attention to the usual statutory provisions, re-
marked that IL in the course of their investigations
they could not find that the legal evidence against
person strong enough to lead to tho &C Inclusion
OF guilt the party accused should not be subjected to
all the ignominy Of indictment and the harashps
of Imprisonment. to the injury OF his health and
part / was adjourned until Thursday. and Judge
Cowing who presided in the upper court. adjourned
court until to- morrow morning.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
RESPONSIBILITY OF RAILROADS FOR LOSS OF
PASSENGERS BAoGAGE-CAsE OF THE coUN-
TESS OLGA DE MALuTA TwALoFF AGAINST
THE HUDSON RIVER ROAD.
WASHINGTON. Nov. 3, 1879.
In the United states Supreme Court to-day the
following business transacted
No. 81. The New York Central and Hudson River
Railroad Company. plaintiff in error. vs.. Olga dc
Maluta Twalof-1n to the Circuit Court
of the United States for tho southern district
of New York.-This case comes up a writ
OF error from a Judgment against the rail-
road company in action to recover the
value of certain laces alleged to have been taken
from the trunks of defendant in error while pas
senger upon the cars OF the company and while her
trunks in tho companys charge for transporta-
Russian countess who was travelling for
pleasure, and the laces which, 1t Is al
valued ut $4,000. 1t argued by
counsel for the railroad company that the failure OF
Countess Twalon to inform tho company's agents.
when she gave them her trunks. OF their value aud
the cxtrao rdnary nature OF their contents, was in
itself act of bad faith and fraud upon the car
rier. which should prevent any recovery In this
action.
OPINION
In tho opinion of this Court IL IL undoubtedly
competent for a carrier of passengers, by specific
regulations distinctly brought to the knowledge OF
the passengers, to protect itself against liability
as insurer Tor baggage exceeding fixed
amount In value. except upon the payment of
additional compensation proportional to the risk
and In order that such regulations may be made prac
tcaly effective aud the carrier advised OF the extent
of its responsibility. 1t may rightly require, as
condition precedent to any contract tor tile trans
portaton OF baggage. information from the passen-
ger to its value, and II the value
thus disclosed cxceede that which the passenger
could reasonably ask to have transported baggage
without extra compensation, the carrier may make
such additional charge as the risk justihes. 1t is
also undoubtedly true that the carrier may DO
discharged from ali responsibility insurer
IL the passenger by any device artifcc
puts of inquiry as to the value OF his
baggage. and thereby imposes upon the carrier re-
sponsibiity beyond that which he was bound to
sumo. In tho absence, however, of legislation linn
iting the responsibility OF carriers for the baggage
OF passengers, in the absence of reasonable reg
ulations upon the subject by the carrier, OF
which tho passenger has knowledge, and in the
absence or all inquiry of the passenger as to the
value of the articles carried the Court caunot, as
moro matter OF law, declare, ~ IL was In effect