Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-04-13
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
0f Special Interest to Railroad Men and the
Travelling Public.


against the Rockland, Thomastop and
Camden Street Railroad. Noyember 4
1893, the plaintiff, caIker, having Maid
his fare. was riding as passenger in one
of the defendants cars from Rocklapu To-
wards Thomaston. The car was filed
with passengers, about half OF whom were
ladies'. Among the number was drunk.
en- man, who had twice used profane Ian
guage for which he was each time re-.
proved by the conductor The Testimony
ON the part OF the defendant, from many
OF the passengers was, that i,nnediatelv
after the conductor last spoke to the
drunken man in relation to bis profanity
the pialntif said " BY God you didn't see
MN. The conductor stepped along to
the plaintiff and asked him to stop swear
ing. The plaintiff denied that he had
sworn. A conversation occurred between
inc conductor and the plaintiff in which
the plaintiff Used the word Damn. The
conductor asked the plaintiff IL he wash 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 off the car, and the plain
I'LL answered Il won't get off and I'll be
God damned If 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 testi-
fled to by the defendants witnesses, but
admitted shat he called the conductor a
damned liar. The plaintiff claimed that
he was put off in rude manner. that he
was pushed into ditch of mud and
water, two miles from home with no way
to reach it except by walking; that he
took cold and had rheumatism in conse-
quence and was Inundated and disgraced
in public. The verdict was for the plain
tiff for S11S727, 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, j. We think the verdict in
this case is clearly wrong. 1t is an action
to recover damages. for being removed
from q street railway car, and the plain
tiff has obtained verdict for $1lS7. 81
We think the removal was justitiable,
and that the verdict is clearly erroneous,
and must be set aside.
In this state, the use of indecent or pro-
fame language in a street railway car is
a breach of the peace. 1t is a crime for
which q person may be punished by fine
or imprisonment. Ard the conductor of
the car may immediately arrest any per-
son guilty of such breach of the peace
and hold him till q warrant can be OBJ
taincd or he can be placed in custody of
the proper officers of the law, Revised
Statutes, chap. 81, sect 73, as amended
by act 1889, chap 261. Or the conductor
may remove person guilty of such a
breach Of the peace from the car. The
cases which sustain this right of removal
are too numerous for citation. And in
the exercise of this right the conductor
acts as q 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 being used in his car
it is his duty to check it, and he will be
guilty of breach of duty if he fails to
do So And if, in car filled with pas
sengers nearly one-half of whom are ladies,
q man in earnest conversation undertakes
to emphasize this statements, as some
men are apt to do, by saying BY God
it is so or by God it is not so, the law
makes it the duty Of the conductor to
check him. and if the latter denies his
guilt and upon being assured by the con
ductor that he was guilty, flies into pas
sion and calls the conductor a damned
liar" it is the opinion of the court that
he may rightfully be removed from the
car. Not rs punishment for his insult
to the conductor rs an individual; but to
vindicatc the authority of the law, which
forbids the use of such language in n
ptb Nr ic Mace
women and children have q right to be
The fact, if it be fact, that the offender
was innocent OF the misconduct with
which no was at first charged can be no
excuse for his subsequent offense. A thief
cannot excuse his crime by showing that
before committing the theft in question
he had been falsely accused of similar
ofrepsc No more can u man excuse the
use of indecent or profane language i'll
street railway car by proof that he was
FIRST falsely charged with the use of SINH
lar language. TO be first falsely charged
with an oifcnse is not license to become
Immediately guilty of a similar offense.
And herein lies tho weakness OF the
plaintiffs case
He admits that he called the conduc-
tor of the car "a damned liar" and he
does not claim that he had any excuse for
so doing, except that the conductor had
first falsely accused him of swearing and
admonished him to desist. And he does
not claim that the conductor spoke to
him in a loud. harsh, or angry tone OF
voice. He admits that the car was filled
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 swearing;
and that, upon the conductor again
affirming that he had been swearing. and
that he must desist or he should he OBJ
liged to put him off the car he called the
conductor "a damned liar" And several
witnesses testify that he went further and
deiied the conductor, and said that he
"would be God damned if he would put
him off the car. and that he would swear
as much as he damned pleased and
that he used much other indecent and
profane language.
But. if it should be concededtthat the
plaintiffs account of the transaction is
strictly true and that all of the defend
ant s witnesses are mistaken, it would
still be the opinion of the court that the
plaiDtiff' & conduct justified his removal