The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-11-20
KILLED BY A mail BAG
Important Court Of Errors De-
eision in a Famous
Railway Case.
Special to the jersey City Nears.

TRENTON, Nov. 20, 1~S94.-Several de-
cisions were announced yesterday In the
Court of Errors and Appeals. An i'm
pcrtant one was in a suit for damage
against the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pany for the death of Henry P~apenbur5,
at Railway.
Papenburg was struck and killed by a
United States mail bag thrown from the
mail car attached to n of the COM
pany's trains. The bag was thrown from
the postal car, not by one of the COM
pany's servants, but by the mail agent of
the United States Government. The place
where the bag was thrown from the
train was about the centre of Cherry
street, in the city of Railway. Papen-
burg approached the place upon a road
used by the public in Faining access to
the station alongside the track.
PAPENBURG'S DEATH.
A mail crane had been erected, from
which moving trains might take on mail
bags. The base of this crane was the
spot designated where the mail bags
should strike the ground after being
thrown from moving trains. In order
that the bags should fall at the base of
this crane, it was necessary to throw
them off the train before the mail car
actually reached the crane. Upon the
night In question the United States Mail
Agent threw off the bag some eighty
feet before reaching the crane, and killed
P~apenburg.
In the court below it was contended
that it was the duty of the baggage
masters to observe how the mails were
thrown off and to use precautions
against injuries therefrom. In this con-
nection the jury was told that any ne
glect of this duty by the -baggagemas-
ter, by which injury arose, was the ne
elect of the mpa
The basis of the Courts charge upon
this point was a printed notice signed
by Superintendent Crawford of the rail-
road company, and also by Superinten-
Zen jackson of the United States Mail
Service. h notice admonished bag
gagemasters and mail agents to use all
possible ~precaution against liabilities OF
injuring any one in throwing off the
bags.
THE JUDGES MISCONCEPTION.
The learned Judge below m~isconceived
the meaning of the notice n placed
the liability OF he company upon I'M
tenable grounds. The jury was, in effect
told that when mails were thrown from
moving trains, whether by ~trainn1a1 or
mail agent. it was the duty of the rail
road baggage masters to observe the
operation with the view of averting
injury, and that their failure in this re-
spect would be the neglect of the rail-
road company.
Says the Court:-"Applied to the case
of a mail bag thrown from a mail car
by the United States official in charge
thereof, I don't think that this notice
contemplated any oversight or inter
ference by the ordinary trainnien, but
that properly interpreted such a direc-
ton would be found in it.
1T was shown that some trains carried
mail cars in charge of mail agents, while
upoa Others the duty Of handling the
mails was left to the railroad employees.
The natural meaning of the joint notice
of the Federal Government and the rail
road company is not that -baggageTas-
tiers on trains that carried United States
mail agents should oversee the latter,
throw off the mail should observe care
and exercise all possible p%recaution
aginst injury. 1t is admitted in this case
that the ba-ggagemaster did not oversee
the mail agent who threw off the bag"