OCR Text |
Show BAGGAGE CHECK IS THE CHOSE OF S SOIT 11 COURT i Judge James A. Howell held a session ses-sion in his division of the district court, after S o'clock last night, to hear the appeal cast of E. C. Chrls-tenscn Chrls-tenscn against the Union Pacific company. com-pany. The case was appealed from i pa the municipal court where judgment for the plaintiff was given for the amount sued for Judge Howell too the matter under advisement. s It is alleged in the complaint that, in the early part of this year, tha plaintiff, a tailor, engaged one Samuel Rbu of Denver to come to this city to work for him and that he advanced him S17 75 on his ticket, taking tho man's baggage check as security for the loan. Rybu changed his mind and did not come to Ogden Chris-tensen Chris-tensen presented the check to tho railroad company but was advised that the baggage bad been turned over to Mr Rybu. It is said by the defendant company compa-ny that after the baggage had been checked In Denver, Rybu came back and demanded it. He did not have his check but satisfactorily identified the. baggage and It was turned over to him. The question is whether the railroad company had the right to deliver de-liver the baggage to the owner without with-out the presentation of the check- nr |