A New Zealand Glaostone-Bag.

Te Aroha News, Volume IV, Issue 204, 21 May 1887, Page 8 (Supplement)

A New Zealand Glaostone- Bag.

A cafe of considerable interest to/ AngloColonial travellers was decided before Mr Justice Den man and a special jury on Tuesday last. The plaintiff was a Ne^s Zealand sheep farmer, and the defendants , the London and Tilbury Railway Company. The action was for the non-delivery of a Gladstone bag, which had been entrusted to the defendants to carry between Tilbury and Fenchurch-slreet Railway Striion. According to the evidence of the plaintiff, he arrived at Tilbury on a vsyasjp from New Zealand on June 13th last yeaiv A tender of the defendants' came alongside, by means of which the plaintiff, ■"xith the whole of his luggage, consisting of, 11 packages, was conveyed to the shore. On reaching the landing stage, as the London train was \ about to start, and the guard seeing him looking for a place, showed to him to jump in. The plaintiff replied that his luggage was nofc labelled,, upon which the guard said that some of it was in the train, and the rest would follow by the next train. Upon arrival at Fenchurch Station the plaintiff waited for the next train, and searched the van for his luggage, but the Gladstone bag was iiqlj. forthcoming. Subsequently, a return passage ticket, which was in the bag, wajC traced to the under steward of the ship,, who, it appeared, had raised money on % and there was strong reason to believe,, therefore, that tliQ> bag (which, with its contents, was worth. £52) had been stolen. The defence was that the defendants had done everything that was usual and reasonable. Passengers were warned that th# second train was tlt# proper one to proceed to London by, and aaa matter of fact, the CL§adstone bag was pufc into this train, and therefore, have reached Fenchurch -street. As to what happened at Fenchvu'ch-street, a porter o£ the defendant's proved that the luggage was placed on the platform, and that the plaintiff selected, three pieces of his own, and that when tb.o porter asked him if that was all he replied "Yes." Later h\ the day a portmanteau of the plaintiff s, vr as found on. the platform, a fact which was relied upon by defendants to show tha^ the plaintiff did not himself know how many pieces ought to have been in the second train. It was further urged that the plaintiff had been afforded every facility, but had himself failed to use duo care. The jury evidently took this view, for after a very short deliberation they found a verdict for the defendant 3 . It is fair to state that tho trial took place in the absence of the plaintiff, who, had he been present in person, might have put a different colour on the affair.