Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-02-23
Condensed LeeaIs.

condemned L0caIs.
The fremen of Alexandris took a;Issaing pat
IN the celebration Of Washin gton's birth day In
that citv Yesterday.
Theodore Handy. member of the Governors
mounted Guard, was thrown from his horse
yesterday afternoon, at the corner Of 10th
and streets, and severely but not dangerously
wounded.
Last evening as q lad BY the name of VIM.
SStumph was getting off a car ut the corner of
3D. street and Pennsylvania avenue, he fell and
fractured the cap of his knee asite severely. He
.wastaken into the ONCE Of Or. JsL nstOn, and
properly cared for.
ARE STREET CAR TRAxsFKk TfeKETs Gos u
ONLY At THE Junction. Test Case ~
CoETt-Ihis morning, in the Circuit Court
Judge Macarthur, the case OF TheEas j. Davis
against the Washington and Georgetown Rail-
road Company was called. The plaintiff COM
plains ii at on the 3lst of October, 1870, he en-
tered one of the ears of The company, near the
Treasury, and paid his fare to the upper end or
9TH street. that at 9Th street he received che usual
transfer ticket and walked to near the Patent
once, where he got on another car and tsnderad
The transfer ticket. which was refused Mes>rs.
hedIe, Miter and Mussey appeared fer plain
tln anu clalH that having paid his fare he was
entitled 70 his ride.
Dir. Bradley, for the company, said that thus
was test case IN which the company, a. well o.
Ne public generally, were interested, and urged
Tat under the sets relating to the company they
had the right TO make the regulation tn at trans
fefs slould only be received at the junction to
prevent fraud on the company, and he called at
tentiOn to the fact that some days in the 5000
transfers iSssed the company was defrauded by
the swapping OF transfers, especially on market
days. and that II transfers were received at Any
point the company would be subject 20 great
The complainant Davis testified to tAe facts
as stated by his counsel, and to his having been
elected f<0m the car.
The defendant called Mr.. s. S. Riker, presi-
dent OF The road, who testified at considerable
length as 10 the rules and 2sages on the road,
ination.
The plaintiff being recalled. testified that he
vas not shown any rules IN regard to transfers
the junction"
Mr. MusSey, for the plaintiff. of,red a PRAYER
Tor Instructions that the bylaws regulations
In relation to transfers set up by the company,
not being authorized by law or their chsrter
are illegal and void, and the jury mux find for
plaintlf that said regulations, not being author
ILed by the municipal laws, they are void; that
The conductor did not comply with the rules in
not showing them when the controversy arose;
and that, having failed to comply with their
rules, they must find the defendant gdilty of a
trespasS; that the charter having conferred on
the company no authority 60 regulate passenger
uainc, any rules made by il ia that regard are
unlawful, unless reasonable, and that the rea-
condolences OF any such rules Is a question for
the jury; and that in discussing such questions
rules for the comfort Convenience xanG
safety Of the public.
Mr.: Bradley argued against these prayers. He
urged that the charter contemplated a coItinu-
Gus ride; that it did not provide for transfers;
and Offered prayers that the meaning of the act
was continuous ride for one fare.
Judge Macarthur said q continuous ride from
the main line was a physical impossibility Mr.
Bradley modified the PRAYER.
Mr.. Bradley submitted the rest of his PRAYERS,
Aat III pialntln took the ticket with knowledge
OF the terms, he cannot recover that il they f6d
non compliance with the rule (printed on the
uansfer) increases the risk Of being subjected
10 1rauduIent abuses, he cannot recover;lthat III
the rule prohibits the conductors from receiving
transfers at any point except the junction, he
esnIot recover, providing the rule Is reason
apIe, that 40 special damages can be recovered,
none being claimed.
After argument Judge Macarthur instructed
me jury that II they thought the rule in relation
. 70 uansfers,which made them good at the iunc-
,Ia 3ny, reasonable one, they should nd for
Tie defendant; otherwise they shOuId find for
P,aineE, with such damages a. they thought !