New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-05-07
BULLOCK WINS HIS SUIT
A COMMUTERS RIGHT TO CARRY PAR
GELS INDICATED IN THE
SUM OF si.OOs.

THE JURY ASSESSES THE INSULT IN BEING DE-
PR1VED OF THE PACKAGES AT lCoo THE
SPOILED GROCERIES AT s. AND
THE TORN COAT AT 81
Morristown, May (SpcciaD-The iury in the
case OF Thomas o. Bullock. the belligerent COM
muter OF Succasunna. against the Delaware Lacka-
wanna and Western Railway returned verdict
for the plaintiff IN the sum OF 81 ,OO6 in the Morris
County Court this afternoon. Mr.. Bullock as tod
In The Tribune yesterday brought suit for damages
because of the enforcement Of a rule that recently
went into effect on the Lackawunna prohibiting
passengers from following the tme-h onored subur-
ban custom OF carrying packages. Mr. Bullock was
attacked by a conductor and detective when he
entered car at Hoooken with two bundles on
January 2S last and was ordered to place the bun
dies In the express car. He refused. but the bundles
were taken from him and sent by express In the
scrimmage to retain the packages Mr. Bullock's
coat was torn. When the parcels arrived at his
home two weeks later some Of the groceries were
spoiled
The railway company made stand In court on
the wording Of the the back OF the com
mutation ticket upon which Bullock was riding and
contended that by that the plaintiff had
right to bring the parcels into the car, and II he
did so the company's officers had a right to take
them from him by force II necessary. The
hinged the construction OF the wording of the
contract. and a ruling was given on the question
by Judge Magic this morning. He said that the
contract which read personal passage only did
not restrict the commuter TO the clothes he had on
but permitted him to carry with him such articles
as he might have for his own might have
reference 10 the purposes of his Journey This does
not allow the commuter. however. the Judge said
to carry with him articles for home consumption
that do not in any way relate TO the personal bus
ness of the commuter. Groceries. such as the par
ce,s question contained are not such personal be-
forh tic trim no nc
of the plaintiff not having the right under his con-
tract to carry such articles did not give the de-
PENDANTS the right to specify any particular place
where he shoud take them. The only remedy IN
such a case is that the commuter should hrst De
Informed that he Is violating some rule or the COM
many: next II he refused TO give up the packages
the officials have the right to refuse to carry him.
and ~ he should refuse leave the car then they
would be justified in using such force as Is actually
necessary to put him of the train. but under no
circumstances have they the right TO take from MIN
any Of his belongings without his consent
This ruling did not please the railroad company
but the case was given to the jury upon H. ana IN
his charge the Judge reiterated 1t, so that there
could be no mistakng his opinion IN the matter.
All The testimony In the case went 10 snow 'n"'
neither the conductor nor the DETECTIVE "iaue any
effor, 10 put Mr. Bullock of the train, but on,y
insisted on MS taking the packages into the ex
press car, and when he refused TO DO th's they
were taken from HIM by ya sOrG n strict conformity
with the charge to the jury: Judge Mage instructed
the jury, first that II tn, the RAJ rair0h IN dong
30 had torn Mr. Bulock's coat. then he should re- e,
ce,ve damages for It: second. that II by reason OIL
Contents cns had been ruined. then damages should
be awarded for that third II the pa nun haI
should also be awardsd him cover such injuries
The verdict was divided into three paris. as
second IS ;he spoiIins Of the groSer .a1 he
r. was brought out in the trial that the rue OF
the railroad company was made TO Pr9 bst t he
EXPRESS company had been finding fault be,
cause the commuters We're in the , hso ,bs oi
bought in Ncw-York instead OF having mem
sent home by express. Il Is also reported tnat
Thnmas G. Plat the president of the express COM
pany was on this very train on MS way from
Network 10 one Of the Oranges. and that may nave
hesn the reason for the enforcement OF the rule
in this particular INSTANCE the express ,v c0pab my
railroad company for the exclusive privilege Oh
carving express matter on rs trains