Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1879-08-21

The Rights Of travellers On Stsam
Railroads.

ne Rights Of Travellers On steam
RaElrOade.s t
The following extracts, from an arti-
lie in the New York Times, show the
more recent attitude of the courts, res
Deeting the legal rights of steam rail-
road travellers in the matter of tickets:
A Mr.. Falkner sustained the ineOn-
venience of being put of the cars. The
had found good deal of incon-
venience from passengers riding on
freight trains, and had made rule that
no person should be carried on freight /
train unless he first bought a freight |
train ticket. Falkner would not take the |
trouble to buy a ticket, but when the con-
ductor came offered to pay fare. Con-
ductor said he was forbidden to take fare;
must have ticket. Passenger could not
produce ticket. Conductor stopped the
train and put him off. Lawsuit. Court
said the railroad company had right to
require passengers to buy tickets. So
Falkner loses his lawsuit as well as his
trip.
A Mrs. Greenwood got upon the freight
luob as NAu1 SilC
magic pasteboard, and the conductor re-
fused her fare and put her of. She
proved that the company had previously
allowed passengers to pay fares on freight
trains, and she had often Travelled so, and
had never heard of any new rule. The
court said that under these circumstances
she was entitled to damages. The COM
pany said that the rule had been posted
In all the waiting-rooms of the depots.-
The court said that made no difference if
Mrs. Greenwood did not see the notice.
She recovered $125 damages. Moreover,
they cannot put a ticketless person off in
the wild woods, or wherever train may
happen to be when he is found, but must
run onward to the next station, to place
where passengers are usually taken and
left, and where one can buy a ticket.
The conductor put Mr.. Flag off when
the train stopped at water tank "a quarter
of mile distant from any station. There
was statnte which said he might be put
off at any "usual stopping place. And
the cOmpany's lawyer argued that the
tank was usual stopping place, for, said
he, ''the trains usually stop there fol
water" But the judge said that was
ridiculous.
There was commuter on a New Jer
sey railroad who lost his ticket. The gate
, keeper would not let him go in and tax,
the train, and he sued for damages. Tht
, company proved that the ticket contained
conditions or notices: s'No duplicate viii
, be issued, - and "this ticket must be showI
to conductor each trip" The court sal,
that these were valid conditions, an,
when the traveller lost his ticket it wa
his loss; otherwise every officer of tn
company would have to recognize eacl
: trip every commuter who might lose
ticket, which would be too much to ex
pect.
There was Portland man who bough
at Portland two tickets by the Boston an
= Maine railroad to Boston, thinking h
4 could go on one and return on the Other
t Returning he offered his ticket readin
e FtPortland to Boston, to the conducta
!, running out of Boston. bnt that conduc
or refused 1t and put him off. Lawsui
e But the court said the company could n,
q be compelled to take the ticket except
it read, from Portland to Boston. Th
traveller argued that he had paid fairl
for so many miles travel, and it was ju
as easy and cheap to carry him one wa
as another. The court said such ru
would made great confusion in railwa
business; the company had right
Is know, if they desired, which way ira
p elers were going so as to provide Il
right number of cars and manage the tri
conveniently to the public.
Of For passenger to surrender his tick
e when it is asked is so much a matter
2 course that there have been very few Law
4. suits arising out of any ones FaFs,sal.
le one ease the cars were crowded, and whe
IS the conductor came the passenger W;
= standing because he eoMld not find sea
He showed his ticket, but would not gi,
d it up, and said: ''When you get me a Sc
II [ will give you the ticket.'' The cou
m ame said he was lawful. passenger
"a not bound to pay fare if he is not fur
Of ished with seat.
n Another ease occurred in England. TT
~ races were approaching, and man WI
ne wished to carry three horses to the rae
ne grounds, bought tickets thus: A fir:
or class for HIMSELF; three thfrtl-class f
Cs os three grooms, and one for three horses.
Of He took Il seat in the f1rst-class car, fC
ed ward, and the grooms and horses h
it. places in their cars to the rear, but t
ne employer carried the tickets for the wht
be party. When the moment for startil
is came the managers of the train thoug
by it would be too long, so they started t
al ,IS forward cars with one locomotive, al
W. made the rear ones up with another.
n the rear train, when the conductor foul
al that the grooms and horses were witho
oi tickets, he refused to carry them. Mea
or time the employer was travelling onwa
ny with the tickets for the whole party. T
of court held that all this was the company
Of OF fault, and the employer could reeot
be damages. The company had no btlsine
ye to divide the. train, after the party we
" all seated, without giving them notice
is Take Care of Your Girls
~ ~ The indianapolis journal calls attenti,