The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-04-24
BACK At THE RAILROAD
Answer to Be Filed To-Day in
the Famous "Stop-OVer"
Cases.
CONSPIRACY CHARGE DENIED.
Nearly Three Thousand Claims
Against the Road Under
the Code.

There IS big surprise IN store 1Or the
twenty-six attorneys employed by the
Southern Pacific in the famous DR.. Robin
son "stop-over' cases. The answer of over
800 pages will be filed by the attorneys fol-
DR.. Robinson and his co-litigants by their
attorneys, Thomas Y. Gator and C. NJ. Jen-
nings, in Judge SandeIson's department
to-day.
The chill of peace" filed in equity by
the Southern Pacific a little while ago
against Dr. w. II. Robinson, his son, L. S.
Robinson. Thomas D. Poole, G. w. Bas-
sett, ex-Assemblyman Aaron Bretz, DR.. c.
W. Loomis and DR.. Frederick Hitler, all OF
Alameda, and DR.. w. n. Griswold of this
city and twelve other persons who were
designated by fictitious court nomencla-
ture, asked the court, it will be remem-
bered, to omnibus all the "stop-over'
cases into one cause of action and to en-
Join the defendants from going on with
their cases separately. In that paper DR..
Robinson ct al. were accused by the rail-
road of conspiracy, and the company, ac-
cordingly, prayed for a perpetual in
junction from separate proceedings and
also for $4,000 damages, in toto.
The defendants answer will show the
court that the separate causes of action
based upon section 400 of the State Code
aggregate 1869 altogether, and that the
claims in all these actions, at $500 apiece,
foot up over 500, 900. The Southern Pa
cific attorneys thought there were only
474 such cases, so when they see the actual
figures it will be something like shock to
them.
The action of the Southern Pacific charg-
ing DR.. Robinson and the others with con-
spiracy was considered a very strange one
at the time, and it afforded the public
some amusement. 1t was the first "bill of
peace ever filed in this State Lawyers
saw that what the railroad was getting at
was to have the whole question of its re-
fusaI to recognize StOp-oVer rights consid-
cred in one general controversy, and thus
save itself from being made party de-
PENDANT to q suit every time it violated
section 400 of the code. 1t gained its point
so far as getting the question before the
courts, but has not obtained any adyan-
tage in a pecuniary sense, considering this
big counter-claim of the defendants.
The defendants in their answer natu-
rally deny the charge of conspiracy, and
aver that all the separate proceedings are
sustained by the law. Their attorneys will
follow it up with motion to dissolve the
temporary in junction against them which
the court issued pending hearing, and in
their argument upon the motion to dis
solve, they will take the ground that the
court cannot, under the law, consider all
the cases in one action. If, however, the
court should hold that it has such jurisdic-
ton, then there is the counterclaim of
$4,000 to be separately apportioned
among the defendants. They viii base
their contention upon section 400, and
Chief Justice Beatty's decision. The last
part of section 400 reads:
Every ticket entities the holder thereof to
do IN Oor t1nc 10
pot or destination, or any intermediate station,
and from any intermediate station to the depot
of deStinasion designated in the ticket at any
time within six months thereafter. ANY cor
poration failing to so provide and furnish
tickets, or refusing the passage which the same
calls for when sold, must pay to the person so
refused the sum of $500.
Chief Justice Beatty's decision, in which all
the other Supreme Court Justices concurred
except Justice Mcfarland, was plain enough
as to the stop-over rights of passengers des-
tined to Alameda and leaving the train at
Oakland, and naturally each passenger refused
the passage from Oakland to Alameda to
which he was entitled by the ticket and under
the law feels that he has q perfect individual
and separate right of action against the rail-
road for the 5000. Judge Beatty then said:
$50 far as the law fixes the terms of the con-
tract it cannot be varied by rules of the com
pany, known or unknown, unless assented to
by the passenger. We have held that under
the law OF California the ticket issued by a
railroad company, upon receipt of the regular
holder the right to stop over at an intermedi-
ate station and to resume his journey at any
time within six months"
Accordingly the answer of the defend
ants will embrace separate schedules for
each defendant, each giving a detailed
statement of the particular cause of action.
the date of stop-over ticket, the station
where the same was purchased, the depot
of destination, the station of stop-over, the
date of refusal to allow completion of ride
to depot of destination, the date of filing
complaint and the particular Justices
court in which action was brought
From the grand total of 1869 separate
causes of action it can be seen that each
litigant has brought distinct and separate
proceedings running well up into the hun
dreds.
Since Dr. Robinson brought his first suit,
in September, 1891, the points involved
have been heard successfully by Justices
Britain, Cook and Barry and Superior
Judges Hunt, Trout, Sewall and Murphy.
In Judge Green's court in Alameda Editor
Halstead was convicted offs criminal libel
for calling DR.. Robinson and other com
claimants blackmailers. Twice has the
controversy been decided by the State Su-
preme Court, Justice Mcfarland being the
only dissenter each time.
The railroad company attempted to knock
the law out entirely during the last Legis-
lature in a bill, No. S82, which Speaker
Lynch introduced in the House 'sby re-
quest" and which was killed by Senator
Biggy's expose.