The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1865-11-17
The DISPUTED RAILWAY FARES.

The Extra s'One Cent in Court-lts kSx-
action . Legal Right-Powers OF Con-
du.tors Over Hon-Paysng Passengers
Judge Peekham's Charge on the Law
Governing the Case-suit Against sne
Second Avenue Railroad Company
Verdict for tho Defendants.
SUPREME C0URr-ciEcuir.
Before Judge Peckham.
case involving claim originating in refusal OF
passenger TO pay extra cent fare demanded by
the city railroad companies up for trial in this court
yesterday forenoon 1t appears that ON the l4sh OF oc
tobe 1894 and soon after tho imposition OF the govern
ment tax on the railway fares Mr. John g. jackson,
rather venerable looking gentleman took passage ON one
Of the Second avenue cars The conductor in collecting
the fare was rendered Eve cens by Mr. jack
son. but demanded tho additional cent, at
the same time pointing TO the printed and
reccntiy posted notices TO the effect that the fare had
been raised The refused, and aiterca
on ensucd upon the attempt Of the conductor to eject
alleges was struck upon the BY the former, and
otherwise injured The conductor, however, commended
that tho injury from the cane which MT Jackson
In his resistance cantrvcd 70 get ACROSS his face TAO
testimony on this point was conflicting Finally the
passengers interforod and Mr.. jackson continued nus
Journey in the car He brought suit 70 recover the sum
~ five thousand dollars damages The counsel for the
plaintiff contsndod that tho exacten OF tho extra cent
demanded by tho conductor, and which icd 70 inc am
was claimed was unconstitutional The company Oh
tanned their chartered privileges from the state
ana - fos Ave cents Il was therefore con
tract with the public which the present company
VIC ated in demanding larger faro Even admitting
the right Of the company 70 exact the government
tax pcs capa their passengers one cent was moro
than they entitled t0--the correct amount being
and mills ana TOT the paymSa. OF tn ns
the defence II was contended that the passenger had
refused 70 pay his fare and under the law the conductor
Qrtin mr. moan
such force AZ was necessary so u do The conductor
had not transcribed his powers in the attempt TO eject
Mr. Jackson. As to the extra cent me company SUD-
mitted in evidence copy OF the act OF Congress
At the close of tho evidence ana The addresses the
Judge charged the jury TO guide their verdict by the
sonsgeTston Or the following matters q ,aw;f nc
enter the case For all present purposes tnas ACT
was obi gatory upon the community and therefore,
bindiny upon the parties to the present cause The
question then vas, Did the plaintiff pay his fares, If
he rendered only Owe cents, he DID not Now when
a passenger does not pay his fare the conductor
is authorized by law to eject him. but IN
SO doing to exert only the force necessary
to effect that object The attention OF the plaintiff had
directed the notices informing the public nat the
fare six cents yet he refused to accede 10 the de
mand II was point to be ascaraiDcd whether the
conductor than the necessary force in the
effort TO expe the plaintiff Upon the decision OF this
point depended the claims for damages Even weak
who assails strong man, aud ia turn IS beateh
and injured by the latter can recover damages Tor the
strong Is by law permitted to exercise only enough
force for his defence and any excess subjects him TO
liability for damages 1t their duty, then to find
verdict according the facts; should the popular
prejudice against railroad corporations influence them IN
their deliberations,
The jury, after an absence OF nearly two hours re-
turned unable agree but asked the instruction OF the
Cour. the following points, the cause OF their dls
agreements. Whether the conductor had right to
eject q passenger if he did not pay the six centss
q Whether il would not have been more law abiding on
the part OF the conductor call policeman to eject the
passenger
His Honor charged them again that IL was sufficient
for the refused to
more than five cents and that he was personally au-
thorzed eject without calling policeman TO do 80
The jury, without retiring aud after few minutes
deliberaton Ia their seats returned verdict for the de-
fendants