Baggage

Such articles of apparel, ornament, etc., as are in daily use by travellers, for convenience, comfort, or recr< "It includes whatever the passenger takes with him for his personal use or convenience according to the habits or wants of the particular class to which he belongs, either with reference to the immediate necessities or ultimate purpose of the journey;" per Cockburn, C. J., in L. R. G Q. B. 612; only such articles of necessity or convenience as are generally carried by passengers for their personal use; Glovinsky v. Steamship Co., 6 Misc. 38S, 26 N. Y. Supp. 751. It is said that (lie decisions and text-books give us but one definite limitation to the term "baggage," and that is that it must be something for the personal use of the traveller; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 119; but that which one traveller would consider indispensable would be deemed superfluous by another; 19 C. B. N. S. 321; so that his station in life must be taken into consideration; Coward v. R. Co., 16 Lea (Tenn.) 225, 57 Am. Rep. 227; New York, C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Fraloff, 100 U. S. 24, 25 L. Ed. 531. What may be necessary for a voyage on land is unfit for a voyage at sea; and the length of the journey must be considered in determining the quantity of baggage necessary for it; 12 Harv. L. Rev. 119, and cases cited. The traveller is entitled to have carried with him whatever is essential to the ultimate purpose of his journey; Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 262, 20 L. Ed. 423; unless his requirements are unreasonable; Oakes v. R. Co., 20 Or. 392, 26 I'ac. 230, 12 L. R. A. 318, 23 Am. St. Rep. 120; Merrill v. Grinuell, 30 N. Y. 591. It has been held that a bicycle is not baggage under a statute allowing 100 pounds of "ordinary baggage"; State v. R. Co., 71 Mo. App. 3S5; but in several states they are expressly declared baggage and in Now York they must be carried free of charge if the owner travels on the same train. In [1S99] 1 Q. B. 243, it is said there are certain requirements which articles must meet in order that they may be regarded as "personal luggage": 1. They must be for the personal use of the passenger. 2. They must be for use in connection with the journey, i. e., something habitually taken by a person when travelling for his own use, not merely during the actual journey, but for use during the time he may be away from home. It was further considered that the word luggage involves the idea of a package, and that the law does not recognize as from the receptacle which i and does not cast any duty on the carri< receive personal baggage until it had placed in a position of reasonable security for handling. This term has been held to include jewelry carried as I.Inch formed a part of female attire, the plaintiff bi journey with bis family; 4 Bingh. 2 tiill v. Rowand, 3 l'a. 431, 45 Am. D A watch, carried in one's trunk, is p. ge; Jones v. Yoorhees, 10 Ohio 145; Walsh v. Wright, 1 Newb. i'.'i. Fed Ci 17,1 1"); but see Bomar v. Maxwell.

9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 821, 51 Am. Dec 682; i.

Instruments of an army surgeon; Hannibal J. EL Co. v. Swift, 12 Wall. (1 20 L. Ed. 423; valuable laces carried by a foreign woman of rank, for which the jury found in $10,000 dan Stew York,