The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-02-03
slaT.1HTeseeRssasE iK4tsa1aa CeEss.s
Fnrsa or FSass aaattera.

The Supreme Court Of Wisconsin, Ia q
case recently brought before 1t affecting the
right Of railroad male passenger to force
his way into the ladies' car when he could
not obtain seat elsewhere, except In the
| smoking. ear, expressed 1t as follows:
con the trial In the court below there was
evidence tending to show that the respond.
cnt. being a passenger on the appellants
train, to which ladieS car was attached,
WAS, with other male passengers, left BY the
officers Of the train without a seat, there be,
ing no unoscupicd seats except In the ladies'
car that he had been In the smoking. car,
in which he was not bound to remain ;
and that he and others stood for some
time In one Of the ordinary passenger.
cars, without attention from the officers
of the train. II these were the facts,
without some special excuse for the neglect,
il is plain that the officers Of the train
were guilty OF breach Of duty to the passen.
gers so left standing. There was evidence
tending 10 show that the respondent then
went TO the ladies' car for seat; that he
found the door at first locked, but that upon
its being unlocked By brakeman he en-.
tered, or attempted to enter, the car.
Whether be entered the car peaceably. and
without being forbidden to enter 1t, or
whether be was forbidden and attempted to
enter the car forciby. were questions on
which the evidence was conflicting, and,
under the instructions given to the jury, the
verdict does not determine the fact. In
either case it docs appear that he was forci-
bly, driven upon the platform Of the car
while the train was crossing river, when
fail from the platform would probably have
proved fatal TO him. In the circumstances
stated, if such were the truth, we cannot
think that the respondent was bound to walt
tho slow pleasure Of the officials Of the train
to give him seat if the ladies' car was open
TO his pcaccable entrance. If SO open, we
think that be might well enter it for seat,
for, as we have said, the regulation for con.
venience should give way to the right OF
contract. And If the officers Of. the train
neither furnished him with seat nor for
bIde nor barred bis entrance into the ladies'
car we are inclined to regard it as equivalent
to their license to bin to enter n. But If
bis entrance were barred or forbidden we
cannot hold that he could Of right attempt
by force to enter the car. If, however, being
neither barred nor forbidden, he entered
he car peaceably, and was peaceably in it,
where there was seat for him, to which
he was entitled, and which he could not find
elsewhere, we hold that be was there right
fully. Being there rightfully, under his con-
tract of c,rrage, we cannot recognize any
right of any officer of the train TO remove
him By force, certainly not without protfer-
ing him scat elsewhere. And We deem 1t
our duty to say that no circumstances could
have justified the brakeman, if such were
the fact, in violently throwing the respond
emit. of the platform while the train was
moving over the bridge. Some discretion
and humanity are as essential to such per.
sons as zeal, due or undue"