The Washington times., 1908-11-09
In Suit Such Articles De-.
clared Not Needed
in Travel.
RECOVER FUNDS
OR NECESSITIES
Woman Loses Handbag With Val
liable Gems, But Loses
Case.

owen J. Roberts. as referee in the
suit OF Miss Ida ). Riegel. of Riegels-
Vile. n. J.. against the Pennsylvania
Railroad. has placed in official form
what he regards as articles Of personal
necessity for q woman when travelling
Miss EiegeI sued to recover S4,2OO64. the
value OF a small handbag and contents,
which mysteriOusly disappeared in a
railroad wreck at Eddiugton, on Sep
teTahsr q. 1906.
The bag itself was valued at 500, and
contained a diamond and pearl crescent
brooch. worth S34; a pearl necklace,
valued at $4,000: turquoise and pearl
brooch $50; turquoise ring. so. silver
SILT purse. SIS; two pairs of gold eye
glasses, Sl3: railroad ticket. Sl.S9; two
mOther-Of-pearl nail cleaners. 90 cents.
and TWO handkerChfefs. SL25. The ref
cree only allows Miss RiegeI recovery
for the loss Of the purse, the eyeglasses.
the railroad ticket the nail cleaners,
$50 in money, and the handbag Dam
ages for the loss of The jewelry are
denied her.
Necessary Baggage.
The railroad company contended that
the lost Jewelry could not be properly
regarded as baggage. as it was not
placed in the regular and proper com
partment used for the carnage OF bag
gage, and that in any event the Penn
sylvania act OF 1867 limited the recoy-
cry for lost baggage to $500.
Lawyer Roberts, the referee, was Of
the opinion that the articles lost could
be properly construed as baggage, as
they consisted of ordinary things for
Fr4 Ia p lfea.F
by Miss Riegel 10 carry. II the plain
tin had proven thai her loss was di-
rectly due to the negligence Of the rail-
road company, the referee said, she
could have obtained a recovery Of the
value of all missing jewelry and the
other lost articles Her proofs, how
ever, as TO the negligence Of the com
pany were not pTOEimaLe enough. the
referee found As 10 the recovery Miss
Riegel is entitled 10. Referee Roberts
says
purse, the eyeglasses. the railroad
ticket, the nail cleaners. the handker-
chiefs the money and the handbag
containing them are articles or strict
personal necessity. as much as the
Clothing upon the body OF the passen-
ger. It is entirely conceivable that any
or all OF them might be needed by the
passenger for her own personal use al
any time during the journey. While
thew are not clothing neither are they.
strictly speaking. baggage
Nature of Baggage.
TT the money or the ticket were
placed IN the passengers wallet and
the wallet placed in her pocket, II IS
hardly conceivable that such money
and ticket would be designated as bag
gage. To hold that the act Of 1861 goes
so Tar as 10 require the passenger ID
deposit his money, his watch or his
scarfpin In the baggage car would be
an absurdity- When the act speaks OF
baggage or property we must cOnstrue
il as referring 10 property in the nature
Of baggage So construed, IL would
permit a recovery for articles of i'm
mediate personal necessity, and as a
womans handbag takes the place of
a mans pocket, the referee has thought
Il not inconsistent with the terms OF
the act to hold that, for the articles
which may be construed to be those OF
personal necessity. usually carried upon
the person upon a railroad journey, the
plaintiff may recover
The act OF 1867 fOrbids a recovery
by the plaintiff for articles which do
not upon the particular journey in
question, constitute the clothing OF the
passenger and are not OF any immediate
necessity