The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1864-12-20
Important to Railroad Corporations and
r.. Conductors.

case was tried ia our Supreme Judicial
Court last week, in which Mr.. Thomas o.
Good, the oldest conductor on the Grand
Trunk Railway xas defendant. 1t was an
action for assault in forcibly ejectng pas
senger who refused to pay the sum demanded
Of him in the car. The circumstances were
stated in our account of the trial.
Some instructions were given to the iury
by Judge Dickerson which are of great inn
portance to railroad corporations and. conduc-
tors in this State-especially if the points
laid down by the learned judge are sustained
by the full court They are as follows:
1. The presiding judge instructed the jury
that railroad corporations have the right TO
expel passengers from a car for noDpaYment of
tare-uslng only SUCH force as is necessary to
accomplish thai purpose, doing it at a proper
time and place, and not intlicting any perman-
ent injury upon him. Such corporations NAV.
also, demand prepay of fare in all cases.
2. If 10 the case az bar The passenger APP
piled TO the ticket master for ticket, and Of
tered pay his fare, presenting his THROUGH,
and believing that it entitled him to be carried
over the road at a reduced or government
rate, and the ticket master referred him to the
conductor without receiving the fare--this
would be waiver of the company to demand
the full fare payable in the car, if that exceed
ed the sum required at the ticket office. 1t
would be otherwise if the passenger presented
the Through in bad faith. a2sgfi aseii aatg9s /
8. Ii the passenger paid the conductor the
fare required at the ticket office, the conduc-
tor must return the amount thus paid, before
hewould be authorized TO expel the passenger
for nonpay ment of the difference, though in
other respects he might be authorized to do
80. Theoconductor would have no right to
deduct from the amount thus received IrO
rata or regular fare TO the place of expulsion.
A. Ii the officers OF a railroad company,
having regulation requiring larger sum to
be paid for passenger fare when paid in the
car, than when paid for ticket at the office,
would protect themselves against liability for
ejecting q passenger, who, being without q
ticket, refused to pay the larger sum, it must
appear in evidence that the passenger had
knowledge Of such regulation before he en-
tered the train; that the defendant could not
justify his conduct in this case, unless it was
shown in evidence, to the satisfaction of the
Jury, that the regulation under which the de-
fendant acted was made known to the pas
senger in question, before he entered the
train; that a railroad passenger has right
to presume that the amount to be required for
his fare will be the same, whether paid at the
ticket office, or in the car-the transportation
OF the passenger ana the rate 10 De pald tnere-
for b9ing matters of contract-and instruct
. ed the jury to determine whether 1t was
proved that the passenger in question had
read the sign board, on which the regulation
for discount was stated, or had knowledge of
such regulation otherwise. rrsyt4 qfft,ef
20 A regulation, such as that adopted by
this COS pany, by. which the larger rate
was required to be paid in the car, with a
discount to those purchasing tickets at the
office, was oHly another method to SECURE
the payment ola higher rate Of fareif paid
in the cars. than when paid at the ticket
Office, and did not differ Ia substance from a
regulation by which the lower sum should be
required to be paid at the ticket office, with
an additional sum when paid in the cars that
the difference in form was immaterial, and
that in either of such cases, If a passenger,
without knowledge OF such regulations, en-
tered train, and there offered for his fare
the sum required to be paid at the ticket Of
fee, conductor would not be justified in
ejecting him from the train upon his refusal TO
pay the larger sum. 81. ( 800 81. ..,..a
2 To the 4th and 9th instructions MIR. Barnes
counsel for the defendant excepted, and his ex-
captions will be argued at the Law term to be
held in this city next July. la ass5s 800
VS.