Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-05-30
Railway Travellers Rights.

FROM tho New York Times.
The courts have recently given the benefits Of
justice. in two notable cases. to railway passen-
gers These persons were travelling upon tick
cts which had been bought In the usual way,
and they were violently elected from railway
trains by the conductors of one Of the most DOW
erfui of our railway companies. The yerdicts
indicate once more that the traveller whose
rights have been ignored upon railways can
look with confidence to the courts tor fair
treatment. and may reasonably expect to re-
cover round sum Of money from the offending
company.
The case of W. J. Connell, of Omaha, against
the pennsylvania Railroad Company has been
tried twice, and at the end of each trial the
plaintiff has recovered $4,000, which was all
that he demanded. Mr. COnnell came to WASH
ingtOn in 1880. Having made an argument be-
fore the Supreme Court he undertook to come
to this city. He had come from the west upon
an unlimited. or stOp-over, ticket. which gave
| him transportation over the Baltimore and Ohio
road to Washington and over the Pennsylvania
road from washington to this city. Soon after
leaving Philadelphia conductor refused to
honor his ticket. upon the ground that conflict
between the Baltimore and Ohio Company and
the pennsylvania Company had led the last named
company to discontinue the sale of tickets al
lowing a passenger to travel part OF his way on
one road and the remainder Of his way on the
other. Mr. COnnel refused to paw any addi-
tional money. and was thrown from the train
by several employees of the road. 1t appeared
during the trials that the pooling arrangement
had not been broken until after Mr. Cornell had
bought his ticket, and that the PENNSYLVANIA
company had received its pro rata for the identi-
cal ticket which the conductor refused. The
defense was 80 weak that the only question for
the jury to consider was whether the passen-
gers rights had been affected because he stopped
over at Washington. although his ticket allowed
him to do so. The jury gave the plaintiff SIS boo
as has already been stated.
The other case was that Of Frank Spickner a
salesman, who was travelling In 1881, between
| Williamsport and Philadelphia, upon an excur-
| sion ticket, which one conductor accepted and
| another refused. Splcker was pushed from the
| train and left In the open country while It was
| raining heavily. The fact that the ticket had
been paid for was not denied. but 1t was shown
| that the company had by advertising tried to
call In tickets of that class. The jury gave the
plaintiff 5000.
1t appears from the published reports that the
| company's defense In each of these cases hardly
deserved consideration. The plaintiffs had both
the law and the facts on their side. Yet they
have been compelled to wait tyeo or three years
for justice. Many persons who are wronged by
railway companies are unwilling or unable to
| begin along and costly contest in the courts.
| Theeourfs, however, have almost uniformly pro-
| tected and indicated those who have chosen to
| appeal to them. and If every wronged and
| abused railway traveller could be induced to
place his case before a jury the companies would
| become less tyrannical, and travellers on every
railway In the country would have cause for
thanksgiving.