New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-01-24
THE COURTS.
LIABILITY FOR STEAMSHIP BAGGAGE
MISS DORA WHEELER, THE ARTIST. sUEsSFO1


MISS DORA WHEELER. THE ARTIST. sUEs'FoR
PICTURES THAT WERE LOST.
The Court OF Appeals last week handed down .
decision which is OF considerable interest 10 the thV
cling public as it determines the liability OF steamship
companies for loss OF baggage under certain
circumstances in which the courts have hithcro heid
them TO be exempt from such liability.
The plaintiff was Miss Dora Wheeler, the artist, ana
her case was dismissed by the court at the trial. ana
mat dismissal was affirmed at the 6enerai ierm'
These rulings now reversed by the Court OF APP
peals The ground of the plaintiffs nonsut was
United states statute which provides that unless
shipper Of certain valuable articles among Others pic
tnles) whether shipping them freight or baggage
give written notice the agent Of the vessel OF the
true character and value OF the property shipped the
master ana owner oil such ship or vessel shall moi %
liable as carriers thereof, in any form Manner
Judge Finch, witng the opinion Of the court, says:
Dora Wheeler, the plaintiff, and described IN tho
evidence an artist Of established reputation. re-
turning home from IA foreign Journey took pas SAGE
the steamer Germanic, and I'm addition to her orii.
nary baggage delivered to the ship for transportation
a package OF valuable potra, which she had painted
while abroad These were contained In box Of wbJs
wood, with iron hinges and clasps and closed
by lock- The package itself, besides the address,
was marked studio and its appearance Enthusiastically
indicated something other than and different from the
There attempt 10 deceive the defendant as
to its true character or by artfcc Misrepresentation
to make appear TO be personal baggage or shield II Is
such from proper freight charges. Nevertheless. 1t
not entered upon the bill Of lading with notice OF
its cha acter and value in any manner whatever.
but put In the hold Of the vessel for transportation
to New York. Tile voyage was unattended by either
accident delay, and it is reasonably certain that The
package in the ship TO its port Of destination
1rpi,n rh.pf Tho trtpE Ii aptn aHka Of
passengers were landed upon the wharf each individual
being left find and collect together his own. The
package in question was delivered 10 its owner,
but was probably msdelvered permitted To be taken
by one having no right to receive IL.
The liability for negligence as balee survives even
when by special contract the carrier has thrown Oh
his liability as SUCH and the courts Of this state. hrvr
exhibited very decided purpose to retain and ENFORCE
that liability wherever ii is possible
The court then holds that though steamship %" a.
pany may By special contract. exempt itself from the
consequences OF its own negligence, and that Cone'ss
may also so exempt il by statute. an act OF Con s
must necessarily leave the lesser liability OF balts
unaffected if 1t merely removes the liability as car Ter.
and doc, not By clear and definite language Inc ''s
its purpose to 20 further. 30 much ana no p'r'
than thar the section under consideration accompl nd
for it distinctly removes the liability as carrier WIN
launching that a, balce The plaintiff in her COM
nIaint alleged negligence and the facts which she
proved prima facie established IL lic hoi-ueNc'!
at the port Of destination Is presumPuSe Sa ,n
such negligence. In addition II was shown tliat eho
vessel stopped nowhere until the port OF desthatoh
was reached and then the baggage was placed upon
tho wharf with little order control. ana leaving inc
,as.eneers 70 find their IN the consequent con
f1sion. And SO "a case made which should nave
gone TO the jury -, e,oo .ho a.,,o, w.s
begun the plaintiff. Miss Wheeler. has been hsIcu ="
Boudinot Keith who was her counsel IN me scuon :
Lawrence Godkln was the counsel FOR the deieho"h'
con