Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1897-06-16
Daily gtautbse 5uurnal.
TO CYCLISTS.
Court Of Appeals Dealt a Blow. Today.

Judge Bond, Of the Court of Appeals,
Judges Bland and Biggs concurring,
has dealt heavy blow to suburban BIZ
cycle riders The court has decided
that railroad companies are not COM
peled to carry the bicycles Of their
patrons free as baggage.
This reverses the opinion which Judge
RUSSELL rendered last fall. and which
brought joy to the hearts of the thou
sands of wheelmen who lived in sur
rounding towns. and brought their
wheels to the city for use during the
day. The case in which the point arose
was that Of j. Il. Belts, who. durin,
April, 1896, bought ticket from Web
ster Grove to st. Louis, and rendered
an uncrated and unguarded bicycle as
baggage The baggage agent refuse
to accept it as free baggage. To test
the validity of the railroads rule not
TO carry wheels free, Belts sued out a
writ of mandamus under the statute
which provides for the carriage of i
certain amount of ordinary baggage.
Judge Russell granted a peremptory
writ, and the railroad company APP
pealed.
In his opinion, Judge Bond says:
Ordinary baggage is made up of two
clements. First. certain things which
may become such; second, the bags,
trunks, valises, satchels, and other re-
oeptacles in which these things are to
be put before they can become bag
gage As to the things which may be-
come baggage when properly con-
u. 81. "a, 4
csions and by text writers are full and
comprehensive. Probably the best def
milton is that of Chief Justice Coch-
burn, who said: We hold the true rule
to be- that whatever the passenger
takes with him for his personal use or
convenience, according to the habits Of
the particular class to which he be-
longs, either with reference to the inn
mediate necessities or the ultimate pur-
pose of the journey, must be considered
as personal luggage All other things
can only be taken as baggage when ac-
cepted as such by the carrier.
Under these rules Of law, can it be
said that PLAINTIFFS bicycle should have
been accepted by the defendant as or
binary baggage in the state and condi-
lon IN which it was rendered?
The consensus of authority estab-
fishes that the locomotive machine.
known as the bicycle, belongs to The
genus vehicle or carriage. Taking
plaintiff S as a type of the bicycle of to-
day land leaving out Of view for the
moment the fact that it was unpackad
and unprotected when rendered to de-
fendanD- was it thing comprehended
within the definition OF personal or or
binary baggage? OF course, it had no
utility during the trip. 1t is claimed.
however that it was convenient ard
useful at the end of the journey, as Il
method of further locomotion. Con-
cedlng this to be true, can not the same
DE said, and with equal truth, of every
other form or vehicle or carriage which
the traveller might be able to own?
some of these-as the two-wheel skele
ton cart used in training horses-fail
"ithin the statutory limit OF 100 pounds
IN weight All Of these vehicles would
doubtless contribute as much to tee
convenience and pleasure of the partic-
uiar class using them at the end of a
Journey as bicycles would to their own
80 ''"L VIC nave NOT Dtt1l tlltu " any
authority from any source holding that
carrier must receive as ordinary bag
cage carriage or vehicle, however
Varlent its form. The lesser size of the
bicycle Is obviated by its delicaey of
construction
Another view of this case presents
an insurmountable obstacle TO the re-
iiel asked. The bicycle was neither
ooXed' packed nor guarded in any way
Mheh the plaintiff demanded its recep-
uoh as baggage. The law does not
recognize as baggage the things con-
famed as discerpted from the bag or
INK which contains them; nor is any
"uiy cast upon the carrier to receive
PERSONAL baggage until it has been
piaced IN condition of reasonable Sc
ruiity Tor handling and transportation.
ohuer the facts shown in this record
'"e defendant had the absolute right 10
ieiuse to accept the bicycle rendered as
PERSONAL baggage. on the ground that
1t was not deliverable to him as such
uh'll 1t had been properly packed.
rated or otherwise protected The re-
suit Is that the judgment of the trial
sourt IN awarding peremptory writ of
.,a''danus was erroneous. 1t will
usn'ie1ore be reversed. All concur. -
ioih the st. Louis Star, May IS, 1897.