The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-06-20

s
I.pertans Railroad Deoisi ea--Passensers are
Bound bv tho Prlnfod Rales ON the Tickets.
kuioH Waller -. zAs Dyy Deck, 8a2 BvoodUay awd
Bazssy Rad1vood Cbmposy This action commenced
In August 1885, sgainst the above railroad COMPANY 20
recover dollars damages claimed BY the plain
tin because Of hh having bssn he alseed improperly
sjsetsl from Of the dsfmdants railroad BY The
conductor Tor refusal TO pay fars Upon the trial Of the
cause bsors Justice Barrel Of the Sixth district and
jury plaintiff proved that the 18th OF August 1885,
he ives passenger Of The defsndanss cars that
he had previously Purchased q the once Of the com-
pany package Of twenty tickets being main ticket
Upon each Of the smaller tickets were printed the Words
s0ss rids due the person 70 whom Issued Not good
unless torn on By the conductor The main ticket
signed By the President and another ofcer Of the
company; and across IL face At the time Of purchase
the plaintiffs name was written The plaintiff himself
payment Of the faro Of himself and friend He did not
exhibit the mancket With It's signatures, 10 the
euco, nor would he pay fare s.sspt win me ticket: he
tickets and know Of the regulation that they only
70 be torn on by the conductor. He. therefore, was
this action 10 test the legality OF such regulation When
the testimony on the part OF the plaintiff closed de-
Insisted that the plaintiff had failed 70 establish any
cause OF action, BECAUSE
Nrs.-Ths act Of Congress known As the Revenue
law, amended July Is 1866, In pursuance or which
the tickets purchased by the plaintiff issued by m
provisions does not con emphatic the sale OF singe
tickets but requires that tickets shall be sold In
OF twenty or multiples OF twenty that the precise
tax imposed by law b collected and the form Of
the ticket In that view unobjectionaole Tho same
Law also provides that where the tax amounts TO the
factonof cent In default Of ticket The company may
coscl from any passenger the full cent in lieu Of such
Sssond-A railroad company hiss the undoubted legal
right established BY long current Of authorities. 70
% m, comfort and ssfsty o. their
sengeu 70 the payment 81 the regular fare and
70 protect the company from imposition and wrong. A
regulation actually or By strong inference made known
to him exempt them from any liability for the
qusscea He fress his right 20 ride and the conductor
ID lawfully authorized 10 e)cct him.
TArdThs acceptance Of araiIroad ticket BY passen-
ger constitutes contract between him and the COM
pany and II n only by compliance with the terms OF
the contract that he entitled 70 transportation He 10
also presumed TO and bound observe
able rules and regulations OF the company The only
question TO be determined in this 10 whether tho
reeulauoa 10 reasonable and this Is always question
Of Law for the ecSr. which = would Ss error s 70 submit
FurtA-This regulation was plainly reasonable and
just The Law compss the dsfendants 70 issue tickets
tickets which adopted used BY city railroad
companies opportunities for frauds have arisen The
~ " s,,s ssaD sS nS
purpose The conductor 10 required to inspect
main ticket bearing tho two signatures with which he 10
acquainted TO ascertain that 10 10 genuine; otherwise
may print and The small tickets, and do
fraud the company.
Juflco barreu c0ncurrod IN tneee Vfevk, ana the
plain ia nonsuItsd lilo then appealed 10 the Court
OF Common Pleas, where the cause was argued De-
cember last The decision OF the appeal in that
Court has just been rendered In accordance with the fol-
lowing opinion:-
DAY, r. J-rhis Judgment was right The defend
ants we're authorized BY the internal revenue ACT, ~
amended July Ia 1s0e, section l0S 70 issue tickets In
muuples OF twenty, 10 the price Of which amount
equal 10 the revenue tax was TO b added, and where
tickets not purchased they were authorized TO
charge six FOR each passenger The defendants
issued main tckst signed by two Of the ocsu Of the
company, a the end Of winch, and upon the same
sheet twenty tickets were printed, the main
ticket containing . notification that each ticket
attached sntlusd the owner 70 ride In the
companys cars, sud that the conductor alone
thorixed 20 on the tcketa The regulation In
spsot 10 the tearing on OF the tickets reasonable
one, the tickets could be easily forged by simply
printing them; but N the main ticket With the cou
pons attached had 10 BE- presented 70 the conductor
and reserved 70 him alone 10 tear on the coupon
opportunity was Afforded him TO BY the inspec
ton OF the main ticket that each coupon received for
ride was genuine This Of procedure served
protect the company from imposition and fraud, ana
required M the hands OF the passengers nothing tina
was unreasonable. The plaintiff knsw sf The rsgula
ton, but refused 70 comply with H. ,nd We put Of
from the Ne md nothing 70 COMPLAIN Of and th
ao.!os he sr:sgh. VS. gvoPssIf a,11 go: a,.n
sAs e. dssAahaak