The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-05
EJECTNG DRUNKEN MEN FROM
CARS

The suit brought by the widow OF Isaac 7. Davis
against the Third Avenue Railroad Company, 10
recover damages on account OF the killing OF her
husband, who, while intoxicated was elected
from one car and run over by another, the full
particulars OF which have been published in the
HERALD, was concluded yesterday before Judge
Mcneil, Of the superior Court. Judge Mcneil took
tho case out OF the jury's hand and directed
verdict in iavor OF tho railroad company.
His reasons Tor arriving at such conclusion
were fully set FORTH and the question being an i'm,
nearly entire.
The foundation of the diniculty lies in
the time. There Is no real connict in the evil
dence That he was intoxicated at the time; that
ence and disturb the passengers There is no
dispute about that Three or tour OF the witnesses
agree that rom the time OF entering .he car his
conduct disturbed and interfered with the COM
Tort OF those In the car. Because OF his intoxt-
Gated condition the conductor was fully autho-
rized to take measures to expe him IRON the car.
In the case OF Putnam against the Broadway and
Seventh Avenue Railroad Company the Court OF
Appeals has established the principle that
conductor is authorized to use all necessary means
or force to expel passenger. They say:-"A
railroad company has the power OF refusing to re-
ceive as passenger or 10 eypel any one who Is
drunk ds0rdery or rio.ous and " ho 80 demeans
himself as TO endanger the safety or interfere
with the reasonable comfort and convenience OF
the other passengers. and may exert all necessary
power and means 10 eject rom the cars any one
this police power tue conductor or other servant
OF the company IN charge OF the car or tram IS
bound 10 exercise by all the means he can COM
mani whenever occasion requires" And uhen the
Court goes on and states what Is the RESPONSE
bility OF The company If the conductor does not
without good cause and passenger receives IN
juries when might have been reasona-
by a1 ons received
or permitted to continue as passenger,
the carrier is Responsible" SO that in this case,
car and ne had committed any injury upon one OF
the passengers, under the aut hOrlty OF the case
have cited the Third Avenue Railroad Company
would have been liable ,nere.o or. Therefore, say
the difculty. at the foundation of the plalntif's
claim, lies In the condition IN which Davis was at
the time. The conductor having the right to use
all reasonable and necessary force Tor the purpose
OF ejectlng him from the car when he got him on
tue back Platform. and Davis seized upon the
door. OF mich there is no doubt the conductor
had the right break his hold. The only possible
slipped on. on the lett hand side Of the Car and m
front OF the car that was coming down on
the other TRACK is p0 or is not OF Itself proo
now upon the weight OF evidence / am
satisfied that under the circumstances in which
remove MIN from the car there Is not SUFFICIENT
evidence to hold the company responsible Tor MS
the Step OF the car the injury sustained by his
fallpg against The horses and then under the car
was the result oil his own negligence, which would
prevent his recovering damages against the de-
Iendant. Now Win regard to the evidence,
which is without any conflict ana uncontradIcted,
he was not in the eye OF the law passenger in
the Car. He was trespasser. Not that he
mad not right TO get on the car, but
had a right to eject him; ana he not hav-
ing paid his fare there did not exist the
legal relation OF passenger ana carrier as between
him and the COMPANY He was not a passenger,
but a trespasser, and the company mad the rlgnt
to remove MIN from the car; therefore there are
two indrmtles In the plaintiffs case. place my
decision, gentlemen IN directing your verdict
upon the weight OF tue evidence am satisfied,
from the character Of The witnesses who have
testified and who are not employees such as are
usually relied upon by corporations in SUCH cases,
but are disint crested parties, passengers on the
Car, VINO have come forward, that II should let
TINS go 10 the jury and you should, by accident
or otherwlse-wnlch | cannot believe iOr a mo-
ment-1nd a verdict against the company In large
damages, 1t would be my duty TO set 1t aside.
Therefore. say. take the responsibility, and you
WILL under the direction OF the Court find YER.
dict in favor OF the DEFENDANT