The herald., 1895-05-16
W. K. Dial Wins From the
Southern Cal. Ry. Co.
JUSTICE OWENS OPINION
An Interesting Document for Travellers
and Railway Men
II Reviews the Action and Awards the
Plaintiff the S2oo and Costs Prayed
For - Unusual Case

City Justice Madison T. Owens yester
day decided a suit of unusual importance
for Justices court, yet for an amount
within his Jurisdiction. The case pres
ents points of great interest TO lawyers
and railroad men. In passing Judgment
his honor rendered the following opinions
In city Justices court of Los Angeles
city, county of los Angeles, state OF Cal
ifornia. M. T. Owens, ESQ.,. city justice.
W. X. Dial. plaintiff; VS.. The Southern
California Railway company, defendant.
Stripped of some of its extra legal
phraseoogy, the opinion reads as fol-
lows:
This is an action brou ght for an al-
legged wrongful election from one OF its
passenger trains. The evidence shows
that on and prior to August 27, 1888. de-
fendant was common carrier OF passen-
gers from Lt S Angeles to Redondo Beach,
and at said time there was another line
of railway between the city of Los An
geles and Redondo Beach. known as the
Redondo Beach railway. That on Sun
day, the 9th day of August 1893, the
plaintiff purchased ticket from the
Redondo Beach Railway company for
return, and that by way of said Re-
dondo Beach railway plaintiff went to Re-
dondo Beach; on the same day for the pur-
pose OF returning to the city of Los An
geles, plaintiff. by mistake. bosrded one
of he passenger trans of the defendant
railway company; that the tickets OF the
Redondo Railway company were not is
sued by. nor were they good for passage
on the trains of the defendant railway
company; that after the train had passed
Wiscburn. about seven miles from Ke-
dondo. between Redondo and Los An
geles. and while between Wiseburn and
Inglewood the conductor in the course OF
his duties in collecting tickets or fares OF
passengers. approached the plaintiff and
demanded his ticket; that plaintiff pre-
sented his return ticket on the Redondo
Beach railway and was informed that the
ticket was not good on said train who
also demanded OF plaintiff GO cents tram
fare; thereupon plalntiff rendered 70
/ cents and stated that he did not think he
had any more money; the conductor
thereupon informed the plaintiff that he
| had already ridden out said amount ana
that he would have to get of the train,
saying this and some other language in
loud voice somewhat offensive and in an
| impatient manner and in the presence OF
a large number of passengers and imme-
diately thereafter and while plaintiff was
still feeling in his pockets for more
money the conductor went few feet to
the platform of the car and pulled the
air. as signal TO stop the tram and
while the train was slowing up the con-
ductor again approached the plaintiff who
| in the meantime had found 10 cents adj
ditional and who rendered the conductor
81 cents and asked to be allowed to ride
to the next station or as far as that amount
would carry him. which would have been
| to Inglewood. The conductor however
| A. Ia; hnf ho had al "
proceede1 to stop the train that he, the
plaintiff. had forfeited all his rights as q
| passenger and would have to get off and
directed the brakeman to see that he got
off when the train stopped; that when
the train stopped the plaintiff got Off at
point about one and one-iourth miles
from Wiseburn station, that no force
was used for the purpose OF compelling
plaintiff to leave the train; that plaintiff,
after leaving the traln walked back to
Wiseburn where he got person with a
vehicle to take him to Inglewood, where
he boarded the next train upon defend
ants railway and returned to the city
of Los Angeles. Defendant was not put
off at any usual stopping place. nor was
there any evidnece that it was near any
dwelling house.
This is very interesting and import
ant case to be tried before justice OF
the peace. 1t has been ably agrued by
|
cited, and. as is too often the case. the
authorities are found fighting upon both
sides OF the Qrestion-as to whether or
not the plaintiff having made his tender
of 50 cents after the conductor had sig
nailed to stop the train, and before it was
station Inglewood. l think that the bet
ter law is in favor of the plaintiff s theory
and that under the circumstances his
money should have been accepted by the
conductor and he permitted to continue
upon the train to lnglewood.
Defendant claims the right to eject the
plaintiff from its train under the provis
ion of the following sections of the civil
code:
Section 4S7. II any passenger refuses
to pay his fare, or to exhibit or surrender
his ticket when reasonably requested te
do so, the conductor or employees OF the
corporation may put him and his baggage
ont Of the cars. using no unnecessary
force, at any usual stopping place or neal
any dwelling house. on stopping the train
Section 21lS. A passenger who refuse!
to lay his fare or to conform to any law
full regulation of the carrier may be eject
ed from the vehicle by the carrier. Bu
this must BE- done with as little violence
as possible and at any usual stopping
place or near some dwelling house.
II the defendant relied upon the fore
going sections of the civil code for its au
thority to eject the paintiif land these
seem to contain the only statutory au
thority upon the subjecD then defendan
must comply with the terms and condi-
tions of the statute. and should only hav'
elected the plaintiff at n usual stopping
place or near some dwelling house. Tn,
evidence shows that the election tool
place about one and one-foprth mile
from usual stopping place. and does no
show that it was near some dwelling
house.
These limitations Of the statute are rea
sonable and humane. and are Intended Il
: prevent the election of persons from
, trains upon the desert or in the noun
tains miles away from any habitation.
} The direction of these sections OF tn
. code to conductors Of railroad trains i'm
poses on them positive duty.
The said provisions not having beel
complied with upon the part OF the EN-
+ ployees of the defendant it follows tina
: the election OF the plaintiff was wrong
There is no controversy as to the amour
3 of the damages, being the sum OF 5000.
, Therefore judgment will be entered Il
favor Of plaintiff and against defcndan