Case ID: ad_89/html/0442-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Jenks, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The City of New York, Respondent, v. New York and Queens County Railway Company, Appellant.
    
      •Ordinance requiring a placard stating the destination of a car — what is a compliance therewith — ordinance requiring that passengers he carried, to such destination without change of cars—what accident does not render compliance therewith impossible—judicial notice that Flushing was a village in Queens county.
    
    The posting upon a street car of a placard bearing the words “ Mushing via Jackson Avenue ” is a sufficient and substantial compIiance'With an ordinance of the city of New York requiring street surface railway companies to place' upon each of their cars a placard stating the destination thereof.
    .Evidence that the passengers upon a street car in the city of New York were ■transferred to another car, because an accident to another car had delayed traffic upon the road, and because the railroad officials thought that they could thereby serve the greatest good of the greatest number of proposed passengers, at the expense of those who were actual passengers entitled to be carried to their destination, does not bring the ease within the exception contained in the ordinance of the city of New York requiring street railway companies to carry their passengers to their destinations without change of cars, unless “ by reason of any accident, compliance with the ordinance is rendered impossible.” •The court will take judicial notice that Flushing was once the name of a village or town in the county of Queens now merged in the city of New York.
    Appeal by the defendant, the New York and Queens County Railway Company, from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the •city of Ííew York, borough of Queens, in favor of the plaintiff, •entered on the Yth day of April, 1903. ' ■
    The action' was brought to recover penalties for. violations of the following ordinance of the city of New York:
    
      “ Section 1. Every car owned, operated, managed or controlled by a street surface railroad company in the streets or highways of The City of New York, shall carry throughout its route on the outside, in front and on top of each and every car so operated, a signboard or placard upon which shall appear conspicuously the destination of the said car. Every such company must carry for a single fare upon such car, without change therefrom, each and every passenger to any regular stopping place desired by him, upon said car’s route, in the direction of the destination so designated; and for •every violation of the ordinance there shall be recoverable against the company so offending a penalty of one hundred dollars in an action to be brought in the name óf The City of New York.
    “ Sec. 2. This ordinance shall not apply to a transfer made to a ■connecting line, going in a different direction from that in which such car may be going, nor where by reason of any accident compliance with the ordinance is rendered impossible.”
    
      William E. Stewart [George F. Hickey with him oh the brief], for the appellant.
    . Eichmond Weed, for the respondent.
   Jenks, J.:

I am far from saying that “ Sandford and Parsons Avenues, Flushing,” might not fall within the term “ destination.” But that is-not the question. It is rather whether “ Flushing, via Jackson Avenue,” is a compliance with the. ordinance in that respect. The purpose of the ordinance undoubtedly is to enable proposed passengers to board the car which will carry them to the place they seek. The placard is like a signboard on a road, its purpose being-to direct the traveler. The court may take judicial notice that. Flushing was once the name of a village and town in the county of Queens, now merged in the city of New York. It is still presumably a popular description of the territory formerly within that village or town, and, as so used, indicates a particular part Of that city.. If a card bear the placard “ Flushing,” is it not a sufficient-description of the destination to inform the passenger who desires, to travel to a place within the territory formerly within that village, or town that the car will take him there ? If I speak of a city as-my .destination, I do not necessarily mean that my journey is to end at the first reached bounds of that city, but the term is an apt: description if my proposed journey is to end at the heart of the city or even at its uttermost limit.

On the other hand, I do not believe that by the use of the placard “Flushing, via Jackson Avenue,” the company, though that, particular route extended into Flushing, could contend that its destination need be the first boundary line of that place. Of course, if" the route of the car was wholly within a place known as Flushing, the placard would be meaningless, but when, as in this case, the car-started in the territory of one former city and village and traveled, to another, I think that the description was a sufficient and substantial compliance with the ordinance.

As to the second alleged violation, I think that the defendant has-not proved that compliance with the ■ ordinance was impossible by reason of any accident. True, the traffic was delayed in consequence of an accident to another car, but the transfer was compelled because the inspector or other official thought that he could serve, the greatest good of the greatest number of proposed passengers, at the expense of those who were actually passengers entitled to be, carried to the end of their respective journeys. Accident, then, did. not make the continuous travel of the car impossible.

The judgment should be modified in accord with this opinion,, and as modified affirmed, without costs.

Bartlett, Woodward, Hirschberg and Hooker,- JJ., concurred..

Judgment of the Municipal Court modified in accordance with, opinion of Jenks, J., and as modified affirmed, without costs.