The record-union., 1896-12-03
"STOP-OVER" PRIVILEGES.
Three Thousand Suits the Result OF
Conspiracy.


(From the San Francisco Chronicle.)
The Southern Pacific Company won in
Judge Sanderson's court yesterday
suit involving over half million dol
lars. Judgment was rendered for the
company in a suit brought against DR..
w. H. Robinson and other "commut-
ers," who have for years been battling
for stop-over privileges between Oak
land mole and Alameda
The railroad company sought an in
junction to restrain the defendants
from Htigating separately 5000 differ
ent suits for damages and to compel a
trial of all the suits in one action Upon
a demurrer to the bill Judge Sanderson
held that he had jurisdiction. He there
upon proceeded to trial Of all the suits
involved.
The different causes of action assert
ed by the defendants arose under Sec
tion 400 Of the Civil Code, which allows
person purchasing railroad ticket
for passage between given points to stop
at any intermediate point. In case of
failure to allow such stop-over privilege
the corporation must pay the aggrieved
passenger 5000.
The validity Of Section 400 was long
ago upheld by the Supreme Court in the
suit Of w. H. Robinson against the
Southern Pacific Company. In the view
Of Judge Sanderson, however, that case
differed essentially from the case at bar.
Two additional points were involved in
the latter case, namely, the bona fides or
good faith of the passengers and the
matter Of damages. In the Dr. Robin
son case it appeared that the plaintiff
While on a trip from San Francisco to
Alameda stopped at Oakland in good
faith and on a matter Of business. When
he attempted to resume his passage
without payment of another fare he was
denied the privilege, whereby he was
damaged in the sum Of S499.
Judge Sanderson considered the Su-
preme Courts approval of DR.. Robin
sons judgment as simply deciding that
stop-over privileges must be allowed
on these tickets by virtue of Section
49O of the Civil Code, and nothing more
the matter Of the statutory damages
or recovery being in no way considered
by the Court"
The railroad company's suit was
based on the theory that DIR. Robinson
and his co-defendants were not acting
in good faith, but that they had con-
| spired to make money by demanding
| stop-over privileges with the view of
being refused so that they could sue for
the penalty allowed by Section 400
Judge Sanderson found this contention
sustained by the testimony. He called
attention to the fact that no claimant
had been able to tell what had required
him to stop over" They simply testi-
fed that they must have stopped on
business" II Think said Judge San
derson, that it will be no injustice to
say that the business on hand was the
attempt to prepare the way for recov-
cry of $500 from the company in each
| instance
The defendants claimed that evidence
as to their motives was without force
Or effect They even went so far as to
claim a perfect right to engage in the
business OF securing "stop-over'' privi-
leges at will and in such manner as
| they should deem proper. Judge San
derson overruled this contention. The
defendants, he said, had sought to in
~NNS
OF the statute that thereby they might
obtain technical advantage under the
law. Equity, he added, would not per-
NIT the defendants to profit by such
conduct.
The conclusion Of Judge Sanderson
| was that the defendants combined to
| do q legal act in an Illegal manner. and
| their action amounted to a. fraudulent
confederation or combination which in
law Is tantamount to a conspiracy" ("
| The court added:
1.-The evidence shows plainly that the
defendants sought to work and did
work their procedure against the COM
pany in every conceivable way for the
apparent sole purpose of making money
out OF the railroad, and not because
they had any desire to secure a stop
over, or were in fact passengers in good
| faith The defendants methods and
| practices. as shown by the evidence,
| clearly disclosed their true characters as
spectators in these statutory recover
les, and their intentions and purposes in
this behalf cannot be the subject Of any
serious doubt or question.
"As was said in Norfolk VS.. Western
Railroad Company (Seventh S. E. Rep,
2oo3), these defendants were engaged in
an unjust and iniQuitous effort to make
IWnnnqn'C