“Well, I don’t think you are a prudent man; besides, I fancy that’s only an American authority,” I remarked.
“Only an American authority! Suppose it is, it is not to be despised. Bramwell, B., once said, that although the American authorities are not indeed binding upon us, still they are entitled to respect as the opinions of professors of English law, and entitled to respect according to the position of those professors and the reasons they give for their opinions,[316] and Spragge, C., in a late case, uses a similar expression.”[317]
“Of course I bow to the dictum of the learned baron and chancellor. But doubtless there are American cases the other way.”
“Perhaps. In fact I know there are.[318] But the great American authority, Judge Redfield, thinks they are incorrect.[319] I can give you a Pennsylvania case sustaining the Massachusetts one I quoted; and that is where the company in their advertisements stated that passengers were prohibited from taking anything as baggage but wearing apparel, which would be at the risk of the owner, and the trunk of a passenger contained specie—the extra weight beyond the usual allowance was paid for and the company’s agent took charge of it. The trunk wandered from the right way, went astray and was lost; and it was held that it was not incumbent upon the passenger to inform the carrier of the contents of the trunk unless he was asked, and that it was immaterial whether it was to be considered baggage or freight, and that the company was liable for its loss through the negligence or fraud of their agents.”[320]
“Well, such may be the law on the other side of the line, but in this hyperborean Dominion of ours I must say that I think it is somewhat different. I think that if the conduct of the traveller has in any way contributed to the loss, he has no ground at common law for demanding compensation from the carrier.[321] Why, there is that old case in Burrows where a prudent man like yourself hid £100 stg. in an old nail-bag with some hay, and gave it to a common carrier to be taken to a banker; the money was lost, but the carrier was held not responsible, as the consignor had neglected to tell him the exceeding value of the bag and so prevented him taking due care of it.[322] Then there was the case of the guineas tied up with a bit of string in a brown-paper parcel,[323] the case of the sovereigns in the tea,[324] and the banknotes and gold in the school-boy’s box,[325] in all of which the carriers were held relieved from liability. Then in England there is the Carrier’s Act (11 Geo. IV. and 1 Wm. IV., c. 68), applying to all goods above £10.”[326]
Here I was interrupted by the sudden cry of “Tickets! Tickets!” which rang through the car. The conductor entered, and stopped in front of a gentleman who said:—
“I have not got my ticket here. I hold a season one.”
“That won’t do, sir;” said the man. “Holders of annual tickets travelling on the line are bound to produce their tickets as much as ordinary passengers.[327] So take your choice, show your ticket, pay your fare, or out you go.”[328]
“Well,” replied the gentleman, “sooner than be turned out with my baggage, wherever you in your wisdom should deem best, I will pay my fare.”
“Don’t do it, sir;” I almost without intending it called out, so eager was I in my crusade against the company, “the conductor has no right to demand the tickets, nor receive any fare, nor in fact can he exercise any of the powers of his office, or meddle or interfere with any passenger or his baggage unless he has upon his hat or cap a badge indicating his office;[329] and a company before they can enforce any law as to the production of tickets must bring themselves strictly within the terms of the law.”[330]