The Portland daily press., 1895-04-10
. SWEARING ON STREET CARS.
1t Cons tituteS Sufficient Ground for
Election by the Conductor.

by a Man Removed from Street Can
Set Aside on the Ground that His Re
moval was Rightful.
The law court rendered a decision yes.
terday in case of more than usual in
terest to railway officials and the travel.
ling public. 1t is the case of Clarence L.
NRobinson against the Rockland. Thomas
ton & Camden Street Railroad. Novenl.
Der 4, 1898, the plaintiff, calker, having
paid his fare, was riding as a passenger
in one of the defendants cars from Rock
land towards Thomasuon. The car was
filled with passengers, about half OF
whom were ladies. Among the mum ber
was drunken man, who had twice used
profane language for which he was each
time reproved by the conductor. The
testimony on the part of the defendant,
from many of the passengers was, that
Immediately after the conductor last
spoke to the drunken man in relation to
his profanity the plaintiff said "By God,
you didn't see him." The conductor
stepped along to the plaintiff and asked
him to stop swearing. The plaintiff de-
MED that he had sworn. A conversation
occurred between the conductor and the
plaintiff in which the plaintiff used the
word damn" The conductor asked the
plaintiff if he wasn't swearing then, and
the plaintiff replied that he was, and he
would swear as much as he damned
pleased" The conductor then told him
he would have to stop swearing or get of
the car, and the plaintiff answered ~
won't get off and I'll be God damned ii
you can put me off," The conductor then
stopped the car and put him off. The
plaintiff denied at the trial that he used
the profane language testified to by the
defendants witnesses, but admitted that
he called the conductor a damned liar.
The plaintiff claimed that he was put off
in rude manner, that he was pushed
into a ditch of mud and water, two
miles from home with no way to reach
it except by walking; that be took cold
and had rheumatism in consequen ce
and was Inundated and disgraced in
pu bile. The verdict was for the plain
tiff for S11s7.27, which the defendant
moved the court to set aside as against
law and evidence.
The opinion of the court was drawn by
Judge Walton, and the full text is as
follows:
Walton, ]. We think the verdict in this
case is clearly wrong. 1t is an action to
recover damages for being removed from
street railway car, and the plaintiff has
obtained verdict for $11S7.27. We think
the removal was justiiable, and that the
verdict is clearly erroneous, and must be
set aside.
In this State, the use of indecent or
profane language in a street railway car
is breach OF the peace. 1t is a crime
for which .personsmay be hpunished by
or of the car may Immediately arrest any
person guilty of such breach Of the
peace and hold him till warrant can be
obtained, or he can he placed in custody
OF the proper officers of thu law. Revised
Statutes, chap. 81, sect. 70, as amended by
Act 1889. chap. pol. Or the conductor
mag remove person guilty of such a
breach of the peace from the car. The
cases which sustain this right of removal
the exercise of this right the conductor
acts as police officer. He is not to act
or refuse to act at the dictation of his
own will and pleasure. When indecent
or profane language is beiag used in his
car. it is his duty to check it, and be
will be guilty of breach of duty if he
fails to do SO. And if, in car filled
with passengers nearly one half of whom
are ladies, man in earnest conversation
undertakes to emphasize his statements,
as some men are apt to do, by saying
SPY God" it is so, or "By God" it is not
so, the law makes it the duty of the con-
ductor to check him; and if the latter
denies his guilt, and upon being assured
by the conductor that he was guilty,
flies into passion and calls the conduc-
tor damned liar" it is the opinion of
the court that he may righufully be re-
moved from the car. Not as a punish
ment for his insult to the conductor as
an individuals; but to vindicate the au-
thority of the law, which forbids toe use
OF such language in a street car, or apy
other public place, where women and
children have right to be- The fact,
ii it be a fact. that the offender was iu-
nocent OF the misconduct with which he
was at first charge can be no excuse for
excuse his crime by showing that before
committing the theft in question he had
been falsely accused of similar offense.
No more can man excuse the use of in
decent or profane language in a street
railway car by proof that he was first
falsely CHARGED with the use of similar
language. To be first falsely charged
with an offense is not license to he
come Immediately guilty of similar
offense.
And herein lies the weakness of the
plaintiffs case.
Fl admits that he called the conductor
of the car "a damned liar," aud he does
not claim that he had any excuse for so
doing, except that 1.-The conductor had
first falsely &C cused him of swearing and
admonished him to desist. And be does
not claim that the conductor spoke to
him in loud, harsh, or angry tone of
voice. He admits that the car was filed
with passengers. nearly half of whom
were ladies. He says that the conductor
approached him, and in an ordinary tone
of voice requested him to stop swearing;
that he denied that he had been swear
ing; and that, upon the conductors
again affirming that he had been swear
ing, and that he must desist or he should
be obliged to put him off the car, he
called the conductor "a damned liar.n
And several witnesses testify that he
went further and defied the conductor