National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-08-18
MISOELLANEO US.
"TICKETs. GENTLElrENp

The Rights of Travellers on Steam Rail-
roads.
The following extracts from an article in
the New York Times show the more recent at
titude of the courts respecting tho legal rights
of steam railroad travellers in tho matter Of
tickets:
A Mr.. Falkner sustained the inconvenience
of being put off the cars. The company had
found good deal of Inconvenience from pas
sengers riding on freight trains, and had made
a rule that no passenger should DO carried on
a freight train unless he first bought freight
train ticket. Falkner would not take the trouble
TO buy ticket but when the conductor came Of
fered to pay fare. Conductor said he was for
hidden TO take farc-must have ticket Pas
senger could not produce a ticket Conductor
stopped the train and put him of. Law suit.
Court said that railroad company has right
to require passengers to buy tickets. So Falk-
ner loses his law suit rs well as his trip.
A Mrs. Greenwood got upon the freight train
Just us Falkner did, without tho magic PASTE
board and the conductor refused her fare and
put her off. 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 company said
that the rule had been posted in all the wait
ing-rooms of the depot. The court said that
made no difference If Mrs. Greenwood did not
see the notice She recovered 1925 damages.
Moreover, u conductor cannot put ticketless
passenger of 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 buy ticket.
The conductor put Mr.. Flagg or when the
train stopped at water tank, quarter
of mile distant from any station. There was
u statute which said he might be put Off at
any usual stopping place" Aud the COM
pany's lawyer argued that the tank was usual
stopping place, for, said he, the trains usually
stop there for water" But the judge said that
was ridiculous
There was a commuter on a New Jersey rail-
road who lost his ticket. The gatckeeper
would not let him go in and take the train,
and he sued the company for damages. Tho
company proved that the ticket contained con-
ditions or notices: mo duplicate will be
issued" aud This ticket must be shown to
conductor each trip" The court said that
these were valid conditions, and when the
traveller lost his ticket it was his loss other
wise. every officer Of the company would have
to recognize each trip of every commuter who
might lose q ticket, which would be too much
to expect.
There was Portland man who bought at
Portland two tickets by the Boston and Maine
Railroad to Boston, thinking he could so on
one and return on the other. Returning he
offered his ticket reading Portland to Boston"
to the conductor running out of Boston, but
that conductor refused it and put him of.
Law suit. But the court said the company
could not be compelled to take the ticket ex-
cept rs it read, from Portland to Boston. The
traveller argued that lie had paid fairly for so
many miles travel, and 1t was lust as easy and
cheap to carry him one way as the other
Tho court said such rule would make great
confusion to railway business. Tho company
had right to know, if they desired, which
way travellers were going, so as to provide the
right number of cars and manage the trip con-
veniently to the public.
For q passenger to surrender his ticket when
it is asked is SO much matter of course that
there have been very few law suits arising
upon any ones refusal. III one case the cars
were crowded, and when the conductor came
the passenger was standing because he could
not find seat. He showed his ticket, but
would not give 1t up, and said: when YOU
get me seat will give you the ticket" The
court said this was lawful. A passenger Is not
| bound to pay fare if he is not furnished with
scat.
Another case occurred in England. The
races were approaching, and n man who wished
to carry three horses to the grounds bought
tickets thus: u frst-class for himself, three
third.class for three grooms, and one for three
horses. He took scat in the first. class car,
forward, and the grooms and horses had places
in their cars to the rear, but the employer
carried the tickets for the whole party. When
the moment for starting came the managers of
the train thought it would be too long, so they
started the forward cars with one locomotive,
and made the rear one up with another In
the rear train, when the conductor found that
the grooms and horses We're without tickets,
he refused to carry them. Meantime, the
employer was travelling onward with the
tickets for the whole party. The court held
that all this was the company's fault, aud the
| employer could recover damages. The COM
pany had no business to divide the train, after
the party were all seated, without giving them
| notice.