yet farther, it includes an implied stipulation against ob scenity, that immodesty of approach, which borders on lasciviousness, and against that wanton disregard of the feelings which aggravates every evil, and endeavors by the excitement of terror, and cool malignancy of conduct, to inflict torture upon susceptible minds. What can be more disreputable, and at the same time more distressing, than habitual obscenity, harsh threats, and immodest conduct, to delicate and inoffensive females? What can be more oppressive than to confine them to their cabins by threats of personal insult or injury? What more aggravating lhan a malicious tyranny, which denies them every reasonable request, and seeks revenge by withholding suitable food
and the common means of relief, in cases of seasickness and ill health? In the case of Nielo v. Clark, I Cliff. 145, this decision of Judge Story's was cited with approval by Judge Clifford. While 1t is true that in two cases cited the carrier whose liability was under consideration was a carrier by water, still the doctrine laid down in these cases has been followed in cases where suits were brought for wrongs of a similar nature inflicted upon passengers in a railway carriage. See Craken v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 36 Wis. 657, 17 Am. Rep. 504; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Ballard, 85 Ky. 307." We quite agree with the court that a carrier by land is bound to be just as polite as a carrier by water.
