Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1867-06-27

AN IMPORTANT DRoIsIoN.-The hereto
fore prevalent supposition that rail-
road ticket was good until used, has
been ieXploded by recent decision of
the General Term of the Supreme Court
of the second judicial district of New
York, before. Justices Lott, Barnard and
Gilbert, in which the court held that
railroads may limit the use of their
tickets to single day. The case was
that Of James II. Elmore .. Lewis @,
sands, conductor on the Long Island
Railroad. The Tribune gives the opinion
of the court as follows:
The plaintiff, on the 23d OF November,
1865, claimed the privilege of passing
over the Long Island Railroad, from ia
maica to Hunters Point, on the produc-
tion to the conductor OF ticket dated
on the 10th of that month, and marked
or stamped "good this date only" The
conductor refused to permit him to pass
and demanded payment of the usual
fare, which the plaintiff declined to pay,
and thereupon he was put Off the car by
the defendant.
There is no pretension that any unnec-
essary or improper force was applied for
his removal, if the ticket produced did
not give him the right Of passage on the
day it was presented.
The plaintiff admitted that he "pur-
chased the ticket two or three DAYS be-
fore the occurrence" and it was doubt.
less bought on the day of its date, was
illegible at the time of the trial, it is
shown by the testimony of the conductor
and another witness that it was legible
on the day it was offered, and the plain
tiff at the time was informed by the con-
ductor that the rules of the Company,
and his instructions would not permit
him to take any ticket after its OATS. It
was not claimed on the trial that the
ticket produced was not dated nor that
it was illegible, and the testimony fully
warrants the conclusion that the plain
tiff was aware, before he was removed
from the car, that the ticket bore date
on a day previous to that on which he
claimed the benefit of it, and that the
words good this date only" were
marked or stamped thereon as above
stated, and that with a knowledge Of
these facts he insisted on the right to
pass over the road without the payment
of the fare demanded.
The only question then to be decided
is whether he had that right.
1t is conceded that common carriers
have right to make special contract
limiting their responsibility and duties
to passengers, and that they make
reasonable regulations In relation to
their transportation. The ticket referred
to is relied on by the plaintiff as the evil
dence of his right to pass over the road.
1t Is, therefore, to be treated as contract
between the plaintiff and the Company,
and all it's provisions are to be looked at
in ascertaining the relative rights Of the
parties. That gave the plaintiff the
right Of passage over the road, not at
any time it might suit his convenience.
or whenever he might choose to exercise
the privilege, but on the day of its date
only. We are unable to discover any,
thing unreasonable in that restriction,
A proper regard to the accommodation
OF passengers with the necessary cars,
and to the protection of the company in
reference to the moneys received by their
agents, and many other considerations
that might be suggested, seem on the
other hand to dictate it's propriety,
These views are sustained by the de-
cision OF the Court in Barker agt. Coffin,
81 Barbour, Supreme Court Reports, p.
367, and the cases there cited lead US to
the conclusion that the Judge at the
Circuit properly directed the jury to find
a verdict for the defendar' Judgment
must therefore be enter - that YER
dict in favor of the Defendant, with
costs.
EJ. II. Armstrong for plaintiff; Aaron
j. Vanderpoel for defendant.