The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-05-11
Decision BY . Southern Judge on
Tho Powers Of Railway Conduc-
tors When on Duty.
Tho Alton Boycott Is More Talk,
Say the Officials, Than Any
thing Elise.
f.,.hlIity or Roads for Their Connections
Pacific Short Line to BE Solicitation
Pacific Excursions.

One Of the most important decisions rem
dcred in some time on the power OF con-
ductors in regulating passengers on trains,
md the rights of railroad companies in en-
forcing their rules and regulations. has re-
aAntlv been decided in the court of common
pleas Of the county of Richland, South Car
olina. BY Judge Hudson. A passenger,
named Moore, brought suit against the
Richmond d Danvills road to recover dam
ages for having been forcibly elected from
train on his refusal to pay some extra
fare demanded by tho conductor. In his
charge to the jury which tried the case the
eonrt said: at is necessary that good order
should be maintained on trains; that the
passengers should be carried in comfort
and peace, and SC regardful issthe law Of
tie duties imposed on the captain of the
crew-the conductor-that our own law has
invested him with the right and duties of a
trial Justice in certain emergencies. He Is
an officer of the law, As we'll as an officer of
the company, the object of which is to give
him power to enforce order, to enforce dis
cipline, to have, peace, to have quiet, and
thus to protect passengers. = y
"a railroad trainis a sacred place in the
6y0 Oh Bu0 law i 0IbOlAS 1AOA ooSSae CO
veil as at home have to travel at all hours
of the day and night; ladies alone, ladies'
with children, unattended by any protector;
children without parents-all these are IN
der the protecting care of the conductor,
and the law invests him with the power to
protect and imposes upon him the duty to
protect them.
"Now, gentlemen, let's apply the law to
Mr.. Moore's (the plaintif's) testimony.
When Mr.. Moore refused to pay the con-
ductor his fare when called upon to do SO,
and his announcing his purpose not to leave
the train, he committed an error and was a
V~ronpdoer; for I instruct you that the con-
ductor not only had the right under the law
Of the state, but under the instructions
which he was acting under from the COM
pany it was his duty to demand
that, 30 that in demanding the extra
fare he did but obey the law, and
when Mr.. Moore refused to pay that
extra fare, announcing his purpose not to
leave the train until he was elected, he then
subjected himself to the right as we'll as the
duty Of the conductor to eject him, and the
conductor had a right under the law to use
just as much force to put him out of the car
~ was necessary.
s.Having once been put of the train it
N W0o eAO 0Nuy Va Az PAnAAsA AAa SAs
and he had no right to attempt to board
the train by violence again. and if he at
tempted to board the train by violence he
subiected himself to as much violence on
the part Of the conductor and his crew as
was necessary to prevent him from thus the
second time boarding the train. He had
the right to use force sufficient to prevent
him from making invasion or forcible
invasion of the train. II yen should
find from the preponderance of
the testimony that the plaintiff, Mr..
Moore, made a second attempt to board the
train, and that when the conductor ap-
peared upon the platform he committed an
assault and battery Upon the conductor,
the conductor had a right to protect his
own person rs we'll as to protect his train
from the unlawful invasion of the plaintiff.
He had the same right to resist personal
violence as any individual has. He who is
the agRressor and brings violence upon him
self has no right to resort to a court OF
Justice and to ask at the hands of a jury
compensation for damages which he
brought upon himself" q