Phelps v The London and North Western Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 May 1865 |
| Date | 26 May 1865 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 144 E.R. 811
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 259; 12 L. T. 496; 11 Jur. N. S. 652; 13 W. R. 782. Adopted, Macrow v. Great Western Railway, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. 620. Referred to, Roche v. Cork and Passage Railway, 1889, 24 L. R. Ir. 256.
'. the london and nokth western railway coju-any. May 26th, 18G5. fS. C. 34 L. J. C. P. 259 ; \'2 L. T. 496 ; U Jur. N. S. 652 ; 13 W. R. 782. Adopted, Macrow v. Great Western Railway, 1871, L. R. 6 Q. B. G20. Referred to, Roche, v. Gvrk and Passage Railway, 188'J, 24 L. R. Ir. 256.] *' Ordinary luggage," for which a railway company is responsible, does not include title-deeds belonging to a client, which an attorney is carrying with him in his bag or portmanteau for the purpose of producing on a trial in a local court; or banknotes (to a considerable amount) carried by him for the purpose of meeting the contingencies of the suit. This was an action brought by the plaintiff', a solicitor, against the London and North Western Railway Company, to recover damages for the delay and expense he had sustained through the negligence of the defendants' servants on two several occasions where he [322] was a passenger on their line, in consequence of the temporary loss of his luggage. The cause was tried before Byles, J., at the sittings in London after last Hilary Term. The facts were as follows :-The pUiintill' was a solicitor at Lunsford, in Kent. In July, 18G3, he was retained for the defendants in an action brought in the county-court of Montgomeryshire holden at Machynlleth, and accordingly proceeded thither by the London and North Western railway, taking with him a portmanteau, in which, besides his necessary clothing, he had certain deeds and writings belonging to his client, and which were essential to his defence in the proceedings in the county-court, and 651. in Bank of England notes, which he took for the purpose of paying money into court if that should be desirable, or of paying the amount of the judgment in the action if his client should be defeated. On his arrival at Shrewsbury, where it was liecessary tp change to another train, the plaintiff saw his portmanteau on thejplut-form : but,,wheji he reached his journey's end, the portmanteau was not to be fecund. Not being prepared to produce the deeds, he was compelled to apply to the judge to adjourn the cause, which was allowed on payment of costs. After remaining several flays at Machynlleth in hopes of recovering the portmanteau, he was compelled to return to town without it. It was ultimately discovered ;it the lost luggage office, and restored to the plaintiff in safety. In May, 1864, the plaintiff had occasion again to attend the same county-court, touching the same matter, and was again a. passenger by the defendants' line, taking with him the same deeds in a leather bag. On his arrival at Machynlleth, the leather bag was not to be found, and the plaintiff was in consequence again obliged to apply for an adjournment of the cause, which was granted upon the same terms as before. [323] The plaintiff claimed compensation in this action for his loss of time, and tavern and other expenses on the first occasion, and the expenses he had incurred in 812 PHELrs f. THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN UY. CO. 19 C. B. (N. a.)324. consequence of the two postponements of the trial, and also the expense of the two journeys which had thus been rendered abortive. The defendants pleaded a plea founded upon the Carriers Act, 11 G-. 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 08; and also a plea that the contents of the portmanteau and bag were not passengers' luggage within the meaning of the (ilith section of their special act (a)'. The first plea was demurred to, on the ground that the Carriers Act applies only to the lost and not to damage resulting from the mere temporary detention of property (b). Oil the part of the defendants it was contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to carry as "ordinary luggage" deeds and Bank of England notes, and that the claim in respect of the fruitless journeys (or at all events so much thereof as related to his journeys from Lunsford) and the postponements of the trial was too remote, as not being in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Roche v Cork, Blackrock, and Passage Railway Company
...South-Eastern Railway Co.ENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 75. Walker v. JacksonENR 10 M. & W. 161. Butcher's CaseENR 16 C. B. 13. Phelps' CaseENR 19 C. B. (N. S.) 321, 330. Van Toll's CaseENR 12 C. B. (N. S.) 75. Harris' CaseELR 1 Q. B. Div. 555. Gabell's Case 2 C. P. Div. 416. Parker's Case Ibid. Bats......