The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1900-06-19
HELD ON TO THEIR TRUNKS.
TWO GYgNAsTIC PERFORMERS
WANT DAMAGES FROM G. & s. RY.

They Came From Charleston to sa-
vannah TO Pursue Their Calling
and Arrived TO Find Their Co.'S
TUNES Under Lock and Key.
Agent Demanded Excess Baggage
Charges Before He Would Give
Them Up-FOr interference with
Their Business and Injury TO Their
y Feelings They Each Want 81 900
Damages-Mix-up of Regular nnG
Excursion Tickets Caused the
TanGle.
Two suits against the Charleston ana
Savannah Railway Company based on
Identical causes of action, stating the
same facts and asking the same amount
of damages, were filed in the City Court
on yesterday. The plaintiffs in the cases
are w. c. Manning and Louis DuCrow.
The plaintiffs are one-legged trapeze
performers and gymnasts who for some
weeks, have been doing a turn at one Of
the local music halls. They allege that
on May 20, they purchased first-class tick
cts from Charleston TO Savannah, expect
ing TO come to this city for the purpose
OF filling an engagement they had made,
and their baggage was checked on these
| tickets.
Upon checking the baggage the agent of
the company at Charleston, punched the
tickets, B. c." thus showing that bag
gage had been checked upon them. and
protecting the company against any
abuse of the baggage privilege by having
n he firm oly- nt,ao
els. Checks were of course, given for the
baggage
upon arrival in Savannah the plaintiffs
offered the agent of the company in
charge of its baggage room here the
checks for the trunks, and was refused
permission TO take them. The agent ad-
mitted that che trunks were in his pos
session, but refused to deliver them to the
defendants until a ticket had been sur
rendered and certain charges that had
| been assessed against the baggage had
! been paid
In fear of having their engagement
! cancelled the plaintiffs submitted to these
demands, delivered a ticket and received
in exchange the baggage. It is alleged
| that the company well knew that the
| PLAINTIFFS were thea trical performers and
that the trunks contained their wardrobes
and other paraphernalia incident to their
business, without which it would be i'm
| possible for them to appear in public
| and thus make the money that would
otherwise be theirs.
1t is charged that the refusal of the
| company to deliver the trunks on demand
was wrongful and tortious; that it sub
| Jected the plaintiffs to annoyance and
chagrin, and that such action was
| fragrant Infringement upon the plaintiffs
| rights. The of he
| are said to have been the necessity In
| Cured by the plaintiffs to employ coun-
| sci and serious interference with their
| business.
For the wrong and damage alleged to
have been inflicted for their wounded
| feelings and as a punishment to the COM
pany for its failure to deliver the baggage
on demand, the plaintiffs each ask a re-
covery in the amount of $1,000 They are
represented by Mr.. R. L. Colding.
1t is stated, as matters of fact not en-
| braced in the petitions filed in court, that
when the plaintiffs came to the station in
| Charleston they were provided with excur-
sion tickets from that point to Savannah
and that the agent of the company told
| them they could not check their baggage
on these tickets. They then purchased
frst-class tickets to Savannah, had their
baggage checked on these and themselves
used the excursion tickets to defray their
| passage to Savannah.
When the agent here refused to deliver
the baggage it was on the ground that the
tickets upon which it had been checked
had never been taken up on the train. IT
was only after repeated arguments and
| remonstrances that they consented to yield
up one of the tickets and pay excess bag
gage rates in order to recover their trunks
! and costumes. The other ticket has never
been used and is still in the plaintiffs pos
| session.
The case involves an interesting ques-
| ton of law. It's decision, if the facts
stated he undisputed, depends upon the
right of a railway company to refuse TO
deliver baggage until the tickets upon
which the baggage has been checked have
been delivered up to its conductor or other
agent. To the lay mind 1t would seem
that the ticket entities the passenger to
| transportation for both his baggage and
himself, and that if he neglected to avail
himself of either privilege, it is none of
the company's business. The company
would seem to be effectually protected
against having 90 check the baggage twice
by the punch marks, that are placed on
the ticket. by the station baggage agent
al the point of departure.
GOT ALL THE FIGHT HE WANTED.