In regard to the proof of the contents of a passenger's trunk, lost by, or while in charge of, a common carrier, the prevailing American authority holds that the liability of the carrier for same amount having been established aliunde, the plaintiff is a competent witness ex necessitate, to prove the contents of his trunk, and their value. (g) From the same necessity, the wife of the owner has been admitted to prove the same facts. (h) But the rule for the admission of such evidence does not extend further than to the proof of such goods or baggage as being commonly carried in a traveller's trunk, may be expected to be there. (i) In Massachusetts, it was formerly held that the common-law rule prevailed, and neither the owner nor his wife could be a witness in an action brought by the owner. (j) Such was * the law in South Carolina. (k) But a statute of Massachusetts, passed since the decision above referred to, permits the plaintiff to put in evidence in the case a descriptive list, sworn to by him. (l) l

(fh) Baltimore, etc. R. R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 30 Md. 224.

(g) Sneider v. Geiss, 1 Yeates, 84; dark v. Spence, 10 Watte, 386; Oppen-heimer v. Edney, 9 Humph. 385; Johnson v. Stone, 11 id. 419; Whitesell v. Crane, 8 W. & S. 369; Mad River R. R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318; Sparr v. Wellman, 11 Mo. 230.

(h) McGill v. Rowand, 3 Penn. St. 461; Mad River R. R. Co. v. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318.

(i) Mad River R R. Co. Fulton, 20 Ohio, 318. Therefore it has been held not to extend to "medical books, medicines, surgical instruments, and chemical apparatus." Pudor v. B. & M. Railroad Co. 20 Me. 468. And see Bingham v. Rogers, 6 W. & S. 406. The cases of Dibble v. Brown, 12 Ga. 217, and Doyle v. Kiser, 6 Ind. 242, illustrate almost the whole law concerning the liability of the carrier for the baggage of a passenger. In Hopkins v. Westcott, 6 Blatchf. 64, it is held that manuscripts carried by a student, author, or professional man, for the purpose of study or business, are a part of "his baggage." See ante, p. * 100, n. (kl).

(j) Snow v. Eastern Railroad Co. 12 Met. 44. See further on this question, the editor's note to Great Northern Railway Co. v. Shepherd, 9E.L.& E. 477; s. c. 8 Exch. 80, and 1 Greenl. Ev. 348.

(k) Dill v. Railroad Co. 7 Rich. L. 168.

(l) Supp. to R. S. c. 147, § 5 (1861). And a statute of 1868, allowing the parties to suits to testify, would seem to settle this definitely.

1 See Pub. Sts. c. 169, § 18.