St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1892-01-16
OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

The district court of this county has
recently decided question of vital in
terest to st. Paul and. Minneapolis
which the learned judge expressed the
law as he was bound to declare it, fol-
lowing long line of decisions, is sub
stantially as follows:
Plaintiff in the action at bar boarded
car of defendants (the st. Paul City
Railway company in st. Paul. aud rode
thereon TO its connection with another
branch line, where he received trans
fer ticket from the conductor and
boarded another car. This ticket he
offered the conductor of the second car
as payment for transportation, who.
upon examining it, refused to accept it
and demanded another fare. This the
passenger refused to pay, declaring that
he had once paid his fare, and that he
relied upon the transfer check as being
correct IN form and valid as payment
for his second passage. Thereupon the
conductor stopped the car and COM
PEELED the passenger to alight.
For this alleged indignity and humili-
alton the passenger brought all action
in tort for tho recovery of 81, 600 dam
ages. On the trial of the case, Thursday
last, plaintiff proved substantially the
facts set out above. But defendant,
after introducing evidence of its rules
governing conductors and the minuti8
OF the transfer system, moved for nom
suit. Subsequent to Interesting and
earnest argument from both sides the
motion was granted and plaintiffs cause
defeated. An analysis of the technical
legal contention shows that the defend
ant company was sued for the COM
mission of a tort; that damages were
demanded for injuries to feelings and
person resultant from the tortious act
of the conductor, defendants agent, in
ejecting plaintiff from the car. Defend
ant cOntended that the transfer ticket
presented to the conductor of the second
train was invalid. This was true. as the
ticket was punched as of date Sept. s,
and delivered to the passenger and by
him used Sept. 9. Such is the
prima facie status of the case as
shown by evidence, and, under these
circumstances, the conductor of the
second train was pOwerless to receive it
as aud for the plaintiffs fare. 1t is
obvious to candid reasonerS that he
could not have done otherwise upon the
mere statement of the passenger re-
garding circumstances of which he, the
conductor, was necessarily ignorant.
In short, he could not at that time and
place rectify an alleged mistake of
another conductor OH another train.
By the conditions on the back of these
transfer checks the passenger is re-
quired to examine and note carefully
that he receives what he asks for. The
checks are issued for his benefit at his
request. and it becomes as much his
duty to see that he receives them in
proper condition as it is his duty to see
that he receives the right change for
dollar. The court virtually held in ac-
cord with numerous decisions in East
ern courts: That the second con-
ductor. in refusing the worthless
check and requiring the passenger to
leave the train, invited no breach of the
peace, or of his duty to the company or
. to its passenger, that if he used no
more force than was necessary to rem
der to his master the duty he was bound
to exercise III eXactlng the proper fare
from every passenger, then conductor
number two committed no tortious act,
nor did his master, the railway CON-
pany, become liable in damages for
tort. Therefore, where the action was
based on tort, where damages are
nd i'm oxxr ri
for torts and resultant injury, the case
at bar miscarried and could not be
maintained.
But there is remedy where these
facts constitute case against the rail-
way company. and the trial judge I'M
doubtedly stated it fairly when he said
the only remedy was for breach of con-
tract. That is, the first conductor did
the mischief, if mischief it was, for it
was through his sole error that the pas
senger was not carried to the end of his
journey. BY an ordinance of the city
of st. Paul. passed by the common
council and accepted by the city rail-
way company in 1889, all passengers
were to be- carried to their destinations
on the line of the railway and within
its route on payment of single fare.
To facilitate this plan transfer checks
were issued. By accepting the ordi-
nonce the railway company entered
into contract with the public. Every
passenger is entitled to the benefit
of this contract. So every purchaser
at store is entitled to his eX-
act change, and, unless an error is
committed by clerk, he will receive it.
1t is evident in this case that an error
was made by the conductor of the first
car, which the company was poweress
to prevent, and became liable therefore
only ON its contract with the public.
The case was not brought for breach of
contract, demanding the recovery of the
amount invested in the first ticket. The
GLOBE has entered into minute details
of this case for the express benefit of
the public, that in the future. as far as
possible, such unpleasant occurrences
may be avoided. 1t would ask every
citizen to, in sense. put himself In the
place Of conductor number two, and he
will, it is apprehended, readily see how
impossible it would have been for him
to have ignored the companys rules
annd accepted the invalid transfer
check. The system is comparatively
new, but time will show that patience
and consideration on both sides will be
mutually beneficial.
WHY THEY WE'RE OMITTED.
The president did not exercise the au-
thority given him in one Of the sections
of the MCKINLEY act, to impose duties
upon the chief products of countries