St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-07-09

G. Kenyon, of the Chicago, Burlington
81 Northern, was next called. He said
he had been in the railroad business
since 1876. An unlimited ticket was
good until used. A limited ticket was
sold at reduced rate and is generally
understood to be limited as to date or
train on which it is to be used, and the
time is usually limited to one day. 1t is
not customary to limit them for as long
as year. His road had three classes of
tickets in March, to wit: S11.50, 81 and
"a. He defined the limited ticket as
being only for continuous trip. but
said in cross-examination that he could
stop off on limited ticket.
Judge Lusk-We are not talking
about whether you could play sneak.
change conductors or such lodging.
Don't you mean that limited ticket is
continuous trip ticket?
Mr.. Kenyon said the ticket was I'M
derstood to be such, but the limit was
usually for one day beyond that of sale.
One class of them provided that the
passenger must leave the initial point
on certain day. at certain hour and
by certain train. If the limited ticket
was dated in July and was good until
November, he regarded it as being I'M
necessarily extended.
District Attorney Hay announced at
this point that the government rested
its case.
G. ID. O'Bren asked Judge Thayer to
Instruct the jury to find for the defend
ants.
The court minated that it would be
better for the defense to introduce any
testimony it had.
Mr.. O'Brien replied that under the
practice they had right to dismissal
OF the case If the government had failed
III showing sufficient grounds for convlc-
ton. He said the schedules for $ll.50 and
81 tickets had been properly made and
had been approved by the interstate
commerce commission, and it had not
been shown that the terms of the
schedules had been violated. Said he,
IAN indictment that shows no unlawful
intent or discrimination, and when no
violation had been shown, should be
dismissed. A ticket is produced which
is shown by the evidence for the prose-
cution to belong to the limited class, and
that it does aot come under the sll. 80
class. Even Mr.. Hay claims it is not an un-
limited ticket, but is first-class limited
ticket. If Mr.. Petsch was shrewd
enough to know that a 81 rate would
not be maintained. and wanted to profit
by rise in price, that is to his credit.
There is. to my mind. nothing to show
a wrongful intent on the part of these
defendants, and the jury should be in
structed to acquit."
Judge Thayer said that the defense
might proceed with its evidence, as he
would for the present override the mo-
ton to dismiss, without deciding the
question as to the construction of law
as to limited OF unlimited tickets.
The defense called Francis G. Donald,
vice president of the Central Traffic as
ISOLATION. of Chicago, to the witness
stand. He defined limited ticket to be
one that requires
"A Continuous Trip
by the holder, and would entitle him to
ride Oh first-claSs coach. An unlim-
tied ticket is good during the life of the
corporation selling it, and entities the
holder to demand st op-off priviles. The
tickets are usually distinguished by IN
dicatiOns on their face.
John j. Byrne, of Chicago, assistant
passenger agent of the Topeka, Atchi-
son 4 Kansas City road, gave about the
same definitions of the two tickets.
TheI defense having concluded its
testimony, the jury was excused until
this morning and District Attorney Hay
proceeded to argue the construction to
be placed upon the two classes of first
class tickets. He claimed that the 81
ticket is All unlimited ticket, as it might
be used at any time within series of
years, provided the statute of limitation,
which is six years in Minnesota, does
not invalidate it.
The court stated that he understood
the district attorney to admit that the
government has no case unless this 81
ticket be construed to be an unlimited
ticket.
Mr.. O'Brien argued that whilst mis-
take in the law was no defense to an
action, yet it did not constitute crime,
and the construction of a law did not
make crime. The tickets were not
shown to be interchangeable. The dis
tinction was made between them before
the enactment of the Interstate COM
merce law, and in his view OF the law
and facts the court should instruct the
jury to acqult.
The court took the matter under ad-
visement until 10 o'clock this morning.
The opinion of several prominent at.
torneyS who heard the trial is that no
case has been made against Messrs.
Egan and Holdridge.