The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-08-03
LAW FOR THE HAcKMAN.
Lucius w. DoIIey ArraIgned In the
Municipal Court.
Judge Gould Continues His Case for
Sentence.

Yesterday Lucius w. Doley, the hickman
who was arrested Thursday for not wearing
| his badge in the Union station, appeared be-
| fore Judge Gould In the Municipal Court
| for trial. He admitted that he removed his
badge. Judge Gould made very clear state
ment of the law bearing upon the case, and
| the hackmen will find his words of interest.
| He said that In not wearing his badge at the
| Union station Dolley was undoubtedly
guilty of technical violation of the CITY or
dinance. 1t was apparent that he had no
malicious intent, and the judge therefore
continued the case for sentence without i'm
posing any punishment at this time.
The Judge remarked that while it is safe
rule never to cross bridge until you come
10 II, the unfortunate misunderstanding be-
tween the hackmen and the Union station
authorities had reached such a point that an
expression of his ideas might tend to lessen
the friction. He did not wish to be abso-
lutely bound by these statements If an actual
case should arise. He understood the law to
be that the Union station authorities have
an absolute right to prohibit man from
coming into the station or upon the grounds
| to solicit passengers, but II they allow him
to come there, they can only make reasonable
| rules to govern his conduct while on the
premises. II they forbid his coming on their
| grounds, and he comes. he is trespasser
and liable to civil suit; also a loiterer and
liable to criminal action under the statute,
| similar to the two cases which have been be-
fore the Municipal Court. The rule reauir-
Ing hackmen to remove their badges in the
or l. fha- L.
In violation of the city ordinance, which re-
quires them to wear their badges at all times
in the performance of their duty. If this
rule could be sustained then the station au-
thorities could make rules multiplying any
city ordinance. They could require, for in
stance, that no haekman should come ON the
premises whose carriage had a number ct
tached to it; or unless fare of rs cents
should be charged, in violation of the CITY
ordinance.
While the Union station authorities have a
right to prohibit man coming on their
grounds to solicit passengers and to control
his conduct by reasonable and lawful rules,
they have no right to make illegal rules.
When the driver of a carriage takes check
he becomes the agent Of the passenger, and
the station authorities have no more right to
prohibit his going into the station to get
baggage than the passenger himself, unless
the hackman commits an open breach of the
peace. The contract with the passenger is
to deliver himself and his baggage safely at
the station, and the passenger appoints as
his agent the man to whom lie gives his
check. When the driver goes to the baggage
room with check to procure baggage, and
declines to violate the city ordinance by re-
moving his badge, If he is then ordered to
leave the station and does not until he has
procured his baggage, he does not violate
the statute relating to lettering about rail-
way station, and the company would not
have ground for a civil action again him for
trespass. But if the station authorities
should forbid him TO come on their premises
In future, and he does come, then he would
be loterer and trespasser.