The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-12-01

whether he has proved IL TO the BatlSfactlon
of his late comrades or not, is scarcely o
question of public Importance. The chief
point of interest to his late antagonists, of
whom the General talks very handsomely, is
the mo, emphatically no." with which he
answers the question, ''Shall another attempt
be made to invade Canada2" On this point,
at least, we can fairly applaud General
ONeill's good sense, and trust, further, that
it may be shared to the full by his impetuouts
friends and compatriots. But should another
attempt be made, we hope Mayor Hall will
lead it, arrayed in his well-known green suit.
THE LAW OF RAILwAYS-wHAT ARE
THE RIGHTS OF TICKET-HOLDERSP
From the NJ Y. Sun.
case has Just been tried in the English
Court of Exchequer, before Baron Martin and
a jury, which is of much interest to the
very large number of persons who hold sea-
son tickets on our railways. The law of rail-
ways in England has grown up at the same
time with that in the United States, and
similar questions have arisen in both coun-
tries. The decisions of the courts of the
State of New York in this branch of the law
are regarded by the British courts with great
respect, and frequently are referred to and
followed by them. The fact that in these
cases the tribunals of one country not sell
dom look to the courts of the other for pre-
cedents and for guidance, makes the case to
which we refer more interesting and import
ant to u.s..
1t is entitled 'Buckmaster against the
Great Eastern Railway Company, and was
tried on November 10. The plaintiff was
miller at Framlingham, in Suffolk, and the
holder of a season ticket issued by the COM
pany, by which they contracted to convey
him by any of their trains running between
FIamlingham and London. In the course of
his business it was necessary for the plaintiff
frequently to attend the London corn mar
ket. The company advertised an early train
to start from Framlipgham at Gas A. NJ,
and one merning last autumn the plaintiff
went down to the station to go to the market
by this train.
But it so happened that on this particular
morning the fireman was lazy. AT a quarter
to seven the fire in the engine was so low that
there was no steam, and of course the train
could not start Although of apparently
little present consequence to the officers of
the road at Framlingham, this delay was no
slight matter to Mr.. Buckmaster, and so he
informed them. Nothing was done to for
ward the train, however, and the station
master brusquely told Mr.. Buckmaster in
answer to his complaints that if he wanted
to go on he must pay for special train.
This he agreed to do, and special train was
ordered and took him to London at an ex-
pense of nearly two hundred dollars. But
he reached the city too late for the market,
and thereby incurred loss of fifty dollars.
The suit was brought to recover these two
amounts-tbat paid for the special train, and
the loss consequent upon the delay.
When the plaintiffs case had been proved,
the counsel for the defendant submitted that
no cause of action against the company had
been shown. He argued that the contract
between the parties was expressed on the
season ticket, the terms of which were that
it was issued subject to the rules and regu-
| lations of the company for the time being
and that the timetables expressly stated that
while every exertion would be made to secure
| punctuality, the arrival and departure of
| trains at the time therein stated would not
| be guaranteed, nor would the company hold
themselves responsible for any delay or its
consequences arising out of accident or other
causes. He argued also that the company
| were not in any event liable for the damages
| caused by loss of market.
On these points the Judge decided against
the railway. In charging the jury, he said
| that no action would lie against the company
for the mere discontinuance of any particular
train. That, however, was not this case.
| Here the defendants servant had been guilty
of the grossest negligence, in consequence of
which there was an entire failure to forward
an advertised train. No accident whatever
| had occurred; and it could not even be said
that the company had used their best efforts
to send on the train. On the contrary, they
had done nothing of the kind. AS to the
damages, he thought the plaintiff ought to
recover the pecuniary loss which he suffered
through losing the market, in addition to the
cost of the special train.
The jury rendered verdict for the plain
tiff for both amounts in full. After the YER
dict, Baron Martin said he was surprised that
the company had not sooner repaid to the
plaintiff the amount which they charged him
for the special train.