The San Francisco call., 1895-10-12
HELD To THE TIME LIMIT.
StreetCar Passengers Must
Make a Straight Trip on
Their Transfers.
After Accepting the Transfer the
Passenger Is Bound by the Regu-
latIons Printed Thereon.

A case of great interest to passengers on
the str:etcars has just been decided by
Justice of the Peace Carroll. The point
involved was the right of a passenger to
remain over on transfer till after the
time punched had expired. The court de-
cided that the passenger did not have the
right, and that he was bound by the regu-
lations printed on the transfer when he
consented to accept it. The case was that
OF William Cunningham against the Mar
ket-street Railway Company.
Cunningham boarded Market-street
car at the ferry one morning last May and
rode as far as Powell street. There he OBJ
tanned transfer, but instead of boarding
the Fowell-street car at once he sauntered
over to Fifth street and spent three or four
hours with friend. In the afternoon be
boarded Powell-street car and rendered
the transfer given him in the morning.
The conductor told him it was mo good !"
and he was put off the car at Bush street.
Cunningham sued for 1893 damages.
The three points he raised in the case were: !:
The Civil Code requires railroads to sell un-
limited tickets good for stop-over privileges, and
the railroad had no right TO impose time lim-
itation on its transfer, but was bound 10 fur
nish transfer good for six months, as in steam
passenger traffic.
Plaintiff was entitled to ride at any time dur
ing the day of May 20, 1895, for the . cents
fare which he had already paid on the Market
street line, the Powell-street line being ICON
nection' of the Market-street line within the
meaning of the statute.
The transfer on its face entitled the plaintiff
to ride on the Powell-street line at any time on
May 20, 1895, and he had been elected in yio-
lation OF the express terms OF the transfer.
The court said: "The first contention of
the plaintiff is not tenable by proper
reading of the statutes"
Touching the point that the Pow ell
street line is not connection" of the
Market-street line the court said:
1t is not necessary for the purposes of this
case 10 decide whether such is the fact or not.
Assuming that the Powell-street line is "con-
nection of the Market-street line, still, under
the statute, plaintiff was entitled to only one
trip over the Market-street line and such con-
nection. and plaintiff could not of right break
sueh trip at any place, even at point of trans
fer, and continue it when he pleased with
out the consent of the railroad company. In
other words the statute contemplates that the
trip made by passenger, for which he shall
be charged only cents, shall be continuous
one. The only thing which the railroad COM
pany did stipulate for in express terms on the
lace OF the transfer was that 1t should be used
by the passenger on or before IL o'clock A. NJ
on May 20, 1895. By accepting this transfer
the plaintiff evidently agreed othe conditions
printed thereon and he is bound thereby.
In conclusion the court said
Street railroads as we'll as other railroads
have the right to make and enforce reasonable
rules and regulations for the conduct of their
business, and in my opinion the above regula-
ton of the railroad company was a reasonable
regulation of its business. There is no evil
dence of any undue force exercised by the rail-
road company in enforcing its rights, and it
follows that judgment must pass for the COM
pany.
This decision does not finally settle the
case, as it can be appealed to the Superior
Court. AS Cunningham has not enough
at stake the chances are he will not make
the appeal. Till such an appeal is made
on test case the present decision will
govern action in such disputes.
Madge-I remember few years ago that