New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-11-14

pOWtf EiFr Z,
tcos would be Of little avail &C. u,moawe.ls1 -
Power, he'csf 596 Hell w. Power IL ibid 1872.
hy ire ruNs bbd ttgu'atCns OF the New OK ard
Eiie Railroad Company every psssengsr requires to
Ell bill biz ticket be tss QUE 10 tao cond aotor 1p)o
request OF lie bas ticket 20 psY ks i.Ie and &C
G. pt orei ard upoS refusal 20 comply with the reS1'a-
toe il is made the outy Of The conductor to remove
such de1queLt Passenger from tbs cH-. Inc fegci>
ton, 1t eppesTs to ne, IL rJ unre ssonaole LOT tae
Company Is iespons.ble for its urius. application or
for enforcing il with undue severity. No well dis
coed passepger viii rea'e to accept ticket and er-
bibt il es Otter the conductor may reasonably dere
IT, ard il quite usl 10 place The ticket IN sone con
pcucus place about the person Of the passenger 20 .,
TO supersede the Iecessi.y Of repeated inquiries II
one passenger NAV contsmn the regulations OF the
Company and put the conductors at defiance, all msy
ard such result you'd put it out Of its power to pro-
tect itseif from Jury and TO fulfil It's duties TO those
who committed ihems lves to its charge. The regu-
lston referred to- assumes that an individual within
the cSs who re!uset, upon request 70 EXHIBIT 10 Tee
conductor the customary evidence Of his right to
seat to pay for and accept such evidence an To-
tiuder ard wrong deer and has no legal right 70 re-
Issin where be ia. Such thibk, should be the legsl
il certainly is tie natural presum otion II is there
fore quie right that he shoud be requested to leave
tte cars, when he marifest'y had hight to remain.
IL be refuses, the conductor may them employ
so much force a. may be necessary to effect
bis removal, at the ssme time using no NO
ltnce, and doing no unnecessary injury. II, how
ever, the passenger refuses to comply and resist,
ard injury happens, X Is injury for which the
Company Is rot Responsible for it is result at.tib
utsble TO bis own wrongful conduct. The counsel for
the defendant requested the Juoge to charge tue Jury
that when the plaintiff paid his fare and took
bis ticket from the ticket Office at Hornssvue for
Lees he sgreed to conform TO the rules and regu-
latons Of the Company by showing b.. ticket to the
conductor when requested to do So" TIE Judge de-
cineo 20 to charge and the defendant excepted. Ia
this think be erred. II appear, to me the proposition
embodied In the request is too plain to admit OK Q
doubt The regulation as necessary aud reason.
l. - nj al
control they are bound to observe reasonable and
proper ulstions while within the cars, clai ming the
seivces and the care and the foresight Of the Com
psny. The refuss to instruct the Jury requested
coupled with what the Judge said to them aftervard
eft them TO infer that the knew the fare had
been paid the plaintiff justified in refusing to show
TIE ticket The Judge then ;arged that the ucket
beirg the ordinary evidence Of the payment OF fsre
passenger is bound to exhibit his ticket when rea
"soraby requested to DO; but il the conductor knew
that toe plaintiff! had paid his fare be hsd night to
"e1pel him from the csrs although he refused to ex
"hbit his ticket" To this, also, the defendant e1-
cepted. This part Of the charge imports that il the
conductor knew the plsintf had paid his fare, the
latter was under obligation TO shew his ticket and
that the sole Office Of the ticket the evidence thathe
faie has been paid In this particular also think the
Judge erred. 1t justification to the plain
tf though the conductor did know that the fare
was paid. The ticket does not bear the name OF tbs
persUn 10 whom II lie issued; it is Usually nscnbed
with the day when and the Office from whence 1t was
issued and the place to which the pass nyer proposes
70 travel But coed in the hands OF stranger as
il s in the hands Of tie person who paid for and took
il from the Office; and the conductor hsd right to
see it from tine time that he may be assured 1t is
not made the instrument Of carrying two passengers 10
place of one. IL the rule laid down by the Court Is
ccect and the conductor has Only the right to see
TIE ticket when he has no knowledge that the fare
has been paid there is nothing to prevent psssen-
ger bo has paid his fare With the Knowledge of the,
conductor from passing his ticket over to stranger
as evidence that he also has paid his fare and hiss
right to be csrIied IN the cars. The ticket Is the
properly of the rairo6 company and Is part OF the
me ans by which il condu is its business. IL Is de-
hvered 10 the passenger to be held by lin temporarily
for special purpOee and sso to that extent carrying
special property in II. When tie journey is ended
or about to end It is TO be delivered t. the conductor
1t serves threefod purpose. 1t Is evidence IN the
passengers hands that he has paid his fare and has
rjeht within the II insures the payment OF the
pssss money by all that take seats, and when It is
TeoeliveIed TO the company 1t becomes voucher IN
lie hands sgsnst the Office agent who seoed II, IN
The adjustments Of ts accounts To say that the pas
sepger bound to exhibit his ticket when reasonably
Teque stedbut il the conductor kew the passenger
of whom the itqueet made had psd hid fare he nad
no right to Enforce bis requests contradiction In
terms. There ebculd De new thai, with costs, to
abide the event.
Per DEMO, Che! Justice.-I AN Of opinion that it
vas lawful for this rer0hd company :, require thst
persons engaging passage in ia CARS should show their
tickets whenever required by their servants intrnsted
with that duty, upon pain OF being LEFT to trsvel the
remaining distance 10 some other way IN case OF re-
fussl do Lot ,hrk It was correct tJr the Judge to
leave il 20 the jury, he did, whether he to
show the ticket second time was unreasonable. The
regulation required that 1t should be shown when re-
sut sted by the conductor and the question Tor the
Cont 10 determine was whether that regulation was
lawful. The Judge would not pass upon that ques.
tCp, but submitted 10 the jury whether was reason
able 20 requiIe conformity 20 1t on the psit 81 lhe
pairtif. There evidence tendingto show that
the conductor wished ~ the plaintiff or put him 30
iroopyenetce After tie plaintiff had pa,oha.ed bic
ticket and taken his seat AID had once e1h oed his
tick ct, the train had stopped at station Westv!ie
and had sgsin stared on IL course, when the con
ductOr defired to zee the tcAa sgain, and was re-
fused. lie may not have been able to remember, II
be knew thar TIE pIsit!i had psid bis fare, whether
Il was for Wesvile for place beyond that station,
or he may net have mbereO his person so as 70 be
able TO dtiernDe whether he got on at estgile, or
bad cone EOm Uorneisvilc or some plscs further
wett Now Mr.. Ciepdall Informed the conductor that
the psitth fare was paid and that he hsd ticket,
md MIR. Crspdall may lave been known 70 the con-
ouctor 10 TO a trutt fu person. Oh he ray have been
an utter stranger. The Company, however, had
test far conyeriept to al concerned than the
.aitg Of tes.imcIy 70 wit. the exhibiting OF their
own tcket, which the plaintiff had In bis pocket, but
which ho pertDAciously refused to show.
IL IS true the Jucgo put 1t to the jury, u cay
Wheeler the conductor knew thst the plaintiff had
paid bis fare. Ordinarily, the law would notd that
VT at petson knows a. time, he should be taken
10 know aad remember a. q snort distance Of time
siitrward. The conductor had seen the plaio.fs
ticket al mad come opportunity Of studying rs co.,
MIS- ard under this charge the jury would necessarily
frd FOR the plaintiff. The Judge made accouu. Of
lie REGULARITY of the circumstances Of the number IL
persops the corductor would be obliged, In order to
protect the Company, to recognize ard remember CT
the divers kinds OF ckes which must be C,ed, and OF
re haste with which this business must necessarily be
dohe Ii precisely in consideration Of these crcrm
stances thst the rule was made. and that it was
reason able ard there foie lawful
am In favor OF q reversal