Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1893-10-07
1T is KILLED
AND SCALPED,
Is the Anti-Ticket ScaIping
Law of Texas.
THE CONSTITUTION RATCHET
In the Hands Of Judge Brashear
Lifted Its Hair.
The Act is Null and Void, and
Broker Mercer H.v ug Commit
No offence is Told TO Go Henc,
,, without Day-Courrs Opinion in
b Full.

HOUSTON. Tex. Oct. G,-(SpcciaL)-
On Saturday last the habcas corpus pro
eecdings in the case Of NJ. Mercer, the
ticket scslper, were heard before Judge
Brashear of the district court. Mercer
was prosecuted by Baker, Bolts, Baker
& I.oyett. assisted by Il. b. Parker and
]. X. p. Gillespie, while the defense was
represented by Mr.. Charles Belden.
The argument was made at length,
Mr.. Belden's efforts being universally
pronounced an able exposition OF the
law involved and showing that he had
given the case close attention and much
study. lie was warmly complimented by
the large number of spectators present
many of whom said he proved too much
for the great array of talent and legal
acumen on the other side. Judge Bra
shear took the matter under ADJUSTMENT
and today rendered his decision In favor
of Mr.. Mercer, dischargng him,
This WIS what might be termed
test case Of the anti-scalpers' law, passed
by the Twenty-third legislature, and the
proceedings were watched with unusual
interest The following is Judge
Brashcar's opinion;
The inalienable right Of property ana
the proteclion of that right by the dec
laration in the state constitution that
"all men have equal rights and no man
or Sc. of men are entitled to exclusive
separate public cmoluncnts or privilege
but in consideration Of public services
are so much of the same nature anu to
the same end as affecting this case, that
they may be considered jointly instead
of as two divided rights or guarantees
In effect. the act Of the Legislature, under
which applicant stands accused, makes
it unlawful for any person TO sell
railroad ticket without possessing Ger
tifcate from some railway company per
hitting him to sell such tickets, and 1t
seems that person having such permit
from a railway company may sell tick
cts over any other railway. The act
certainly effects the right of property
The transfer of a railway ticket GER
tainly conveys something whether 1t be
the right to travel; whether 1t be the
ticket itself as voucher showing the
aa,.n,.nt ~ fire. (Which might be a
subject of larceny or whether it be the
mere pasteboard. The enforcement OF the
act would punish not only the broker
Int the original purchaser who might
dispose of his property.
| shall not discuss the rights of a sec
l b,var tnirht have but only the
ohu puse, IN I, ,,.m lao
right OF the holuer 10 s'''
observed that this is not an act prohihit-
- ,ho holder from riding on anothers
- -, 40, r,,,ishiny any owner
ticket but Is a'' "o' pu" ISL 49, IL.
(original purchaser OF olherl ior p"'uH
with his property. If the act aims at
,,,rnrossin0 forgery of tickets swindling
supp .,...1o1 TO- ,tat mr.
etc, IT Is strangely Mo'uuu i'' 'uAt F'i
nose. when its principal denunclalon Is
no soia of tickets by any except certain
W. nil, ,rl f,r,,nrv sfntutes
ones. Our sWlhulins "''u
already cover such cases
There is no appearance Of any intent
IN 40, "a nroteet Individual liberty
Vi tn'o ~ ,..,. ,,.,,,,,,,,-
against authorizations dangerous oeSup'
lions. risk of health, etc. hestraint OF
,.,da .lo,id not b., allowed except for
'r"'e ~ -. A., i,farrr,.-
purposes "l Nh's ""'''i'
tation Of the act makes II uhlawlul 70
sell mo matter how fairly a ticket mo
-. ,,r,,. l.onn unless the seller have
matter NOW ieh"'l - -.
certificate from the railway eoinPah!
licensing him to do so. Does this pro
hbit a mischieviOus actf II 50, TO whom
does IL saw. injury! Certainly not the
railr,,ad company: for II received com