ponsibility.

Perhaps the reader would like to know _what the company must do in
carrying a passenger's baggage_. This is a very practical question. If
he takes his grip in the seat with him, he alone is responsible for
its safety. If some one should get in the seat beside him and in going
out should take the grip along with him, the owner could not ask the
company to make good his loss. On the other hand, if he delivers his
grip to the company, then the company is bound by the same rule as
when carrying other goods and merchandise. The price paid for his
ticket is also enough to pay the cost of carrying his trunk or other
baggage, therefore the carrier cannot escape paying for its loss when
having possession of it on the ground that the service is purely
voluntary and without compensation. As the company gets compensation
it must pay for any loss while taking baggage from one place to
another unless the loss or damage should be due to no fault or
negligence of the company.

Every now and then we receive a cheque for a trunk or other piece of
baggage stating that in the event of loss the company will not be
responsible beyond a certain amount--$50, or $100, or other sum. Is
that statement on the cheque worth anything? The courts have held that
if one of these cheques is taken by a passenger and he reads it he is
bound thereby. This is a contract between carrier and passenger,
consequently he is bound by the figures mentioned under ordinary
circumstances. This rule is just and is based on a good reason. As
every one knows, whenever a trunk is lost it is very difficult for the
carrier to get any proof of the real value of its contents. All the
evidence is in the hands of the passenger. If he is without a
conscience and apparently proves that the things in it were worth
$200 or $300, he may succeed in getting this much, although it might
have been full of shavings. It is because of much experience of this
kind that carriers have tried to limit the amount for which they will
be responsible, and so long as they do this in a fair, open way the
law regards their conduct with favour. If, however, a passenger
receives such a cheque and at once puts it in his pocket and does not
know its true nature, then the courts have held that he was not bound
by any limit of this kind.

Again, a person has no business to put diamonds and rubies and
jewellery and the like in his trunk. If he does and they are lost, he
cannot compel the ca