The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-03-13
A Queer Lawsuit I'm Baltimore.
TIE RIGHTS Ind LIABILITIES OF COMMON CAR
RIERS OF PASSENGERS,
From the Gazette of yesterdaJy +.


TIE RIGHTS IND LIABILITIES OF COMMON oAE-
RIERS or PASSENGERS,
The case Of c. c. Burton against The Bal
timorc Steam Packet Company, John u.
Robinson, Esq, president, involving several
interesting questions as to the rights and liza
bilitics Of common carriers Of passengers,
was yesterday decided in the City Court,
lion, Judge Scott, by verdict i'll favor of
ihc defendant.
The evidence Of the plaintiff was that lie
took passage OH the evening Of the Goth day
OF November, 1870, on one Oh the defendants
loats called George Leary on his journey
from Norfolk to Baltimore; and that he pur-
chased his ticket and paid for the use of
sttteroom the key to which was delivered
to him. The boat left Norfolk shortly after
! o'clock in the evening, and stopped at
Fortress Monroe, where she was detained
nearly half M hour by getting aground.
About quarter past Q o'clock the plaintiff,
being weary and unwclI, retired to his state
room. and was asleep: Whcit he was aroused
by rap at the door of tie room which he
occupied in common with companion, and
q request was made tor the tickets Of the pas
sengers who were within. This request tue
plaintiff refused TO comply with, STAT
ing that he had gone to bed; few minutes
after there was another rap, which was re-
peatcd from time to time, but was still refused
by the plaintiff, who told those outside to 60
| away, and that he would deliver the ticket in
tie morning; that shortly after lis door was
| forced open by the captain OF the boat, who
demanded his ticket, which, after some little
controversy, lie delivered 10 him, and he WIS
then mole,tcd no more; chat his rest was
ed, aud Lie therefore sued the company fu:'
$1,000.
| The evidence of the defendant was that tie
rules and regulations of the company re-
| quired passengers to purchase tickets and de-
| liver them when requested; that it was the
| invaliable rule of the company to collect the
tickets on the trip from Norfolk to Baltimore
as soon as practicable after leaving Fortress
Monroe; that this regulation had been
adopted Us the one which best protected the
interests OF the company from fraud and at
the same time caused the passengers least in
terruption and annoyance: thit at about the
usual time the officers Of tic company went
through the boat TO collect the tickets that
| I'LL the passengers in statcroomS and those
sitting in the saloons gave up iheir tickets,
but that the plaintiff refused to give up bis
or to open his statcroom door; that applic.l.
ton was made at the door by three different
officers or employees Of the company, and that
the plaintiff pcrsistcntly refused either 10
give up his ticket or open his door, though
he stated that lie had ticket, and voice from
within the stltcroom threatened to shoot il
the persons outside did not go away; that
the officers of the boat then reported the con
dition Of affairs to the captain, who came
| down to the door Of the stateroom and stated
TO the occupants that he WIS the captain Of
Tic boat that their tickets had been repeat
cdly demanded by his officers, and that il
they We're not delivered he would force open
the door; that the reply from within was thai
ne might break and he damned whereupou
ne burst open the door, and tbs plaintiff then
delivered up his ticket, remarking at the same
time that he would have been justified III
shooting the captain, and that if it were tc
80 over again he would shoot him.
The court instructed the Jury that the regu
lation for the collecting Of the tickets and the
time at which they were collected was rca
sonablc one, and that the demand of the
officers Of this defendant was one which they
had right to enforce, and that if the jury
found that the captain used no more force tc
compel the production of the ticket than wa:
necessary under the circumstances Of the
case, their verdict must De for the defendant