the station-clerk at that place and demanded a
ticket.

Couldn't have it, this official informed him.

"Why not?" Mr. Blank demanded.

"Great Northern train goes no further than
Milford Junction," responded the clerk.

" But the time-tables say otherwise," suggested
Mr. Blank.

"Hull train ceased running since they were
printed," replied the clerk.

"Change published?" asked Mr. B.

Clerk.— "No."

The clerk's statement was correct; but Mr.
Blank (who did not reach Hull as he intended)
having brought an action against the company
for his detention at Milford Junction, recovered
damages.

The limitation in the time-tables as to the arrival
of the trains, was construed by the court
as referring to inevitable accident, and was not
deemed sufficient to exonerate the company. The
more especially, my Lord Campbell said, as "the
time-tables contain what the law calls a false and
fraudulent representation."

For all this, however, we cannot undertake to
say that railway companies can, in all cases, be
held responsible for the unpunctuality of their
trains, even when accident is out of the question.
True, there have been instances in which County
Court Judges have decided for their responsibility,
and occasionally the Sheriffs' Courts of Scotland
have laid down the like principle. On this side
of the Border, however, the question is one of
such uncertainty that we would not recommend
our illustrative man to raise it. Let us discreetly
pass over it with this transient glance,
and endeavour to find matter of which we may
speak with more confidence.

Transferring our attention, then, from the passenger
himself, let us treat of his "impedimenta."
Clearly, to our thinking, all railway companies
are responsible for this. Very great pains are
taken by the companies themselves to persuade
the public to the contrary, but without materially
affecting our opinion. Large-typed placards,
which assert boldly that  every passenger may
carry so many pounds of luggage, but that the
company will not be responsible for the care of
the same unless booked and paid for accordingly,"
have no weight with us.

Does not the following incident of travel,
casually selected from the Reports, tend to alleviate
any anxiety we may experience for the
safety of our portmanteau? And if the lady there
referred to, recovered the value of her dressing-case,
why should we be intimidated by the large-typed
placards? Why should we be disturbed
by fears for our humble carpet-bag?

The lady, from whose experience we derive our
comfort, was, with her maid, a first-class passenger
on the London and Brighton Railway.
Before entering the train, her luggage was
weighed, and the excess paid for. Whilst it was
being placed upon the train, the driver of the
conveyance who had brought them to the station
deposited a dressing-case beneath the seat of
their carriage. The lady, on arrival at the
London-bridge station, was assisted from the
carriage, as she was an invalid, and her maid
looked after the luggage. Proceeding to do
this, she was told by the porters not to trouble
herself, as they would see to it. They saw
to it, however, so ineffectually, that the
dressing-case was lost, and the lady, having brought
an action against the company for its value,
recovered damages. "The company," said Mr.
Justice Cresswell, "could not be said to have
fulfilled their contract for delivery, and if it was
their usual custom to deliver the luggage of the
passengers at a particular part of the platform,
that was the sort of delivery the company took
upon themselves to make."

Before proceeding any further, however, it may
be as well to mention of what "luggage," in the
legal acceptation of the term, is supposed to
consist.

"It comprises," according to Mr. Baron
Parke, "clothing, and such articles as a traveller
usually carries for his personal convenience,
perhaps even a small present, or a book
for a journey, but certainly not merchandise, or
materials bought for the purpose of being
manufactured and sold at a profit." A traveller, for
example, having packed a quantity of ivory knife-handles
amongst his luggage, and lost them,
could not recover damages: because he was a
cutler, and they were ruled to be merchandise.

One more point, and this for the special edification
of Mrs. Blank. Sixty pounds' weight of luggage
being allowed to any individual passenger, it
has been decided that a passenger and his wife
may carry between them one hundred and twelve
pounds, and this, although the lady's share (a
terribly unlikely circumstance) may amount only
to the weight of three pounds.

So far we have been speaking of the luggage
with which Mr. Blank is compelled to encumber
himself whilst travelling; let us say one word of
that which he is in the habit of receiving and
despatching per rail. Not to involve ourselves
in the meshes of the Railway and Canal Traffic
Act, we will assume that Mr. Blank is the humble .
recipient of an occasional parcel, rather than a
merchant whose business is with tons.

Are railway companies responsible for parcels
received by them to be carried beyond the limits
of their line?

"It would be most inconvenient," "said Mr.
Baron Watson, in a case where this question was
discussed, "if, when a parcel is sent from London
to Glasgow (when it is carried on four different
railways), the owner were obliged to find out at
what particular part of the journey it was lost.
It is said," he continued, in allusion to that particular
case, "that the companies did not profess
to carry the whole distance, but if a person deliver
to a railway company a parcel directed to a
certain place, one sum being charged for the
whole carriage, that is holding out by these, to
the person who brought the parcel, that they