Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-10-14
Suit Against . Raflroad.
Rights of Passengers Holding Excursion
Tickets.

Suis Against . Railroad.
Rights of Passengers Holding Excursion
| Tickets.
AN INTERESTING CASE ON TRIAL.
Yesterday In the Court In General Term,
| the case OF p. II. Eaton against tue Balti-
more and Potomac Railroad Company, was
argued by Judge Paschal for plaintiff, and
| Messrs. Stanton and Worthingtou for de-
fendant. This is an interesting case, mas
tickets beyond the date OF their Limitation
THE PLAINTIFFS DECLARATION
| IL In three counts, and the FIRST alleges that
| he agreed in October, 1874, to purchase nfty
| tickets for the New YORK republican assocIS-
ton from Wilmington to New York and re-
days from and after the issus nce. October q.
and In law was good as long thereafter az
plaintiff should demand; that he purchased
November 9th he left New York on bis re.
turn, regularly delivered two coupons, and
on the morning Of November 7th defendant's
conductor demanded PLAINTIFF ticket, and
plaintiff handed him the last coupon, but he
refused to receive II, falsely alleging that the
time had expired, though II had not, and In
the conductor expelled plaintiff from the
cars. Another count alleges the purchase
OF the ticket, &c, and adds "that to evidence
P,ainan ssid right to travel the defendant
unGertooK TO issue proper ticket But, in
violation OF plaintiffs right, and without
p aintif's knowledge, defendant in serted in
SAID teket, ~ win be good for passage only
On such trains as stop at the stations named
Ia the ticket until November s, 1874" by
which plaintiff was not In any way bound
and defendant had no legal right to issue
the same; that plaintiff rode to New York,
and started back on the night OF Novemb. r
6tn, but on the morning of November eth,
without Just cause, defendant forcibly ex.
PEELED plaintiff from its cars"
PLEA OF THE COMPANY.
The defendant plead the general issue,
ard that II sold az reduced rate OF fare q
ton and by lis terms entitled the plaintiff
only to one trip from Washington TO New
York and return, and was good only until
said ticket upon said condition and agree.
ment thereto; that on November I, the
ticket being no longer good, plaintiff at
tempted to ride on defendants car. and
any other than said ticket, and without the
payment OF any fare, whereupon the proper
servant OF the defendant, as it was his right
ana duty 10 do, demanded of plaintiff either
TO furnish ticket emitting him to ride on
said road or to pay his proper railroad fare
or TO leave the defendants cars, but the
plaintiff refused to do either; and therein Don
defendants proper agents, having stopped
the train at or near certain station, gently
and withVDo unnecessary force, removed
him.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULINGS OF THE
LOWER COURT.
In the trial below, which resulted In q YER
dict for plaintiff for $500, exceptions were
ID.
defendant claims that the court below erred
In ruling that the correspondence es tablishes
an agreement by defendant to sell tickets
good Tor nfteen days after and not including the
date OF issuance. Also, in refusing to rule
that II the defendant agreed to issue tickets
which were TO be good within q continuous
which period October q was fixed, 50 as to
enable holders TO use the same on that day,
and II Defendant knew of and was privy to
the terms OF such agreement, and awaited
himself Of It, and purchased one of said tick.
cts At reduced rate, then the plaintiff had
10 right by virtue OF such ticket 70 travel on
November without payment of fare. And
were to be good for fifteen days from October
%, and were with plaintiffs knowledge and
at bis instance used on that day pursuant
70 said agreement, then the period for which
all the tickets were issued pursuant to said
agreement must be held TO be good only from
October % to November 6, Including both
right, without payment Of fare, and BY yir.
tue only OF the ticket purchased under said
agreement and at reduced rate, to travel
on defendants road on November It'll. In
plaintiff the right to return to Warrington
at any time on November 7tb; and in ruling,
In general terms, that the expulsion OF
award damages 70 the plaintiff:
A SINGULAR CAsE.-Considerabl inter
est was manifested in the results Of case
charge Of vagrancy preferred by respect.
white lady manned Mrs. N.
Larner) against her son, r. NJ. Larner, q
youth about Is years OF age, well dressed and
q promising looking looking man, employed
at the Capitol. From Statements made by
the police officers this would seem to be, in
their opinion, case OF persecution. 1t ap.
pears she has several times before endeay.
ored to get the police to arrest this boy on
the eame charge, but they would have moth.
ing to do with 1t, Last night she had him
pulled into the 5th precinct station, where
she appeared with long rigmarole against
her son, stating that he would not support
her that he took all from her and spent his
money with his reckless associates. The
young man At the station treated her In a
respectful manner, saying nothing which
would tend to trr1tate his mother, and let
her have 1t all her own way. A brother OF
the boy came forward and deposited $40 col.
lateral for his appearance this morning,
v hitch was returned to him by Mr.. Taggart;
and as he could see nothing to sustain the
charge, he entered MOLE pros.
FIRE THIS MCRNrNG.-A fire was discov-
ereo acout 5 o'clock this morning at the resi-
uence of Hon. Samuel +. Phillips (SoltcitOr
No. 1119 X street, corner of 18th.
Oficer Clawson turned In an alarm from
box 135, which called out the IRE depart
meDt very promptly. The hre was caused
by the woodwork near the CRATE In the back
room OF the second story catching, and 1t
must have been smouldering all night. The
bremen soon extipguished the flames with
trining loss, not exceeding e25.
BRACELETS, childrens, misses and ladies.
chased half and all rOund. and enamel0d.