The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-01-19
IMPORTANT CASE
FOR RAILROADS
--
Supreme Court Passes Upon the
Limit Of Liability for
Baggage.
HoBAcK Gaze REVERSED
Court Will Not Sit To-day On
Account 70 Legal
Holiday.
IoBAcK CAGE REVERSED

The two most important decisions hand
ed down on yesterday by the Supreme
Court OF Appeals were the cases Of
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
VS.. Beaslcy, Couch and Company and Ho-
back vs. the Commonwealth.
The court In the Hoback case reversed
the judgment of the Circuit Court of
Floyd county, giving Fred. s. Hoback,
the man who is charged with the MUIR
der of his sisters lover, John Jet, a new
trial.
In the lower court the accused was
given an clght-year term In the penl-
Tertiary, but yesterdays action of the
higher court, in granting a new trial.
means that the prisoner at least cannot
get longer term IL he Is again con-
victed.
The circumstances connected with the
homicide have a touch of Romance in
them, as Jett, 1t is believed. was pre-
pairing to elope with twenty-t wo-ycar-old
Kate Hoback, sister of the accused and
daughter of DR.. A. J. Hoback, at the
time he nrct his death.
Inc unfortunate man was a widower
with several children, whose ages ranged
respectively from two to twenty years.
According to tho record. his reputation
was not good. IS his first wife was d.
vorced from him. but married him again
IL.
The. Hoback family did not think the
intentions OF the widower towards Kate
were OF the most commendable sort-in-
deed, they doubted whether he actually
intended to marry the girl. and conse-
quently they. bitterly resented his visits.
which sometimes were made in the dead
Many threats were exchanged on both
sides. and the clinax came on January
30, 1906, when Jett and young Hoback had
Il quarrel In public and the accused shot
the widower.
Great Interest was excited by. the case
and the Hobacks are widely known and
each faction has its sympathizers.
The lower court was reversed on pure
tx Wien fieh's fhe an was S apnw the manner
Railroad Case.
peake and Ohio VS.. Beasley, Couch and
Company is far reaching. for 1t affects
railroads generally throughout the State.
stance. that in view OF the Virginia
statute, which provides that no agreement
made BY ON company for
occasioned by It's own neglect or miscon-
duct as common carrier shall be valid,
sgeh vnRd thea a
bility. even though II be in consideration
of carriage at a reduced rate, and the
contract Tas fairly entered dH into
dissent from the opinion of the majority
of the court, which is written by Judge
This case arose out of the destruction
OF three sample trunks and contents,
owned by Beasley. Couch e. Co., and car
ried by H. A. Dudley. their travelling
salesman. as baggage. The trunks were
tain on a mileage book. upon which Dud-
ley was travelling, for which he paid
one-half a cent per mile less than the
regular fare. On the back of this book
a which consideration
of the reduced charge. Dudley signed.
providing. aiming other things. that in
the event of loss or damage to baggage,
no claim therefor should be made in eX-
cess of 500. Upon their arrival at Eagle
Mountain. on February l. 1904, the trunks
We're put in the company's baggage-roonl
and Dudley. went to a hotel. That night
the station building was destroyed by fire,
together with the baggage.
The contention of the railway company
that the fire resulted from no negligence
on its part. and that its liability was that
Of n warehouseman. and not of COM
mon carrier is overruled. 1t being stated
that n railroad company is an Insurer
of the goods 1t undertakes to carry for
hire, and from its duty to deliver them
safely can only be exonerated by the
act of God or of n public enemy. This
liability for a passengers baggage, It is
said. continues during transportation and
for such a time thereafter as affords the
passenger q reasonable opportunity to
remove 1t; and from the evidence 1t is
concluded that Dudley was not afforded
a reasonable opportunity to remove his
baggage on the night of bis arrival at
Eagle Mountain.
Then is taken up the error assigned to
the action of the Circuit Court in giving
Judgment against the company for $500 AZ,
the amount ascertained by the jury to
be the value of the three trunks and con-
tents. instead of 500. the amount to
which liability was limited by the cons
tract.
Hinged On Word Exempt"
1t is shown that when the mileage
ticket In question was purchased the
statute contained in the Code of 1857 was
ment nrade by a common carrier for eS-
emption from liability for injury or loss
occasioned by his own neglect or miscon-
though not wholly Identical. language
was used In the Code of 1904. which was
in force when Dudley took passage on
the train. The opinion then quotes at
Yvy