The San Francisco call., 1896-03-22
Judge Hebbard Had " Small Sym
pathy With This Class Of
Cases"
PASSENGERS RIGHT TO RIDE.
Frank C. Colville Had a Ticket to
Redding, but Was Only Allowed
Passage to Red Bluff.

"I have small sympathy with this class
of cases. announced Judge Hebbard on
Friday prior to deciding railroad dam.
age suit involving the rights of passen-
! gers.
1t was an appealed case brought by
Frank G. Colville against the Southern Pa
cidc Company. Colvi1Ie bought ticket
| from Oakland to Redding, He rode to
Davisville and changed cars. After leav-
| ing Davisville the conductor took away the
ticket, substituting q hat check which he
took away on nearing the town of Red
Bluff. After leaving Red Bluff the con-
ductor asked Colville for ticket and re-
fusing to accept any explanation, collected
from the passenger 81 Is fare from Red
Bluff to Redding, paid under protest.
These facts were admitted, the ticket
reading Oakland to Redding," being
produced in court. On these facts Mr..
Colvllle sued for $299, being 500 exemplary
damages and $500 under section 400 of the
Civil Code.
Attorney Thomas r. Knox for Mr.. Col
vile proved the facts and cited the law of
the case. Section 490 says plainly:
Every railroad corporation must provide and
furnish to every person desiring passage on
their passenger-cars ticket which entities
the purchaser to ride from the depot or sta
tion where the same is purchased to any other
depot or station on the line of their road.
Every such ticket entities Its holder to ride on
their passenger-cars to the station or depot OF
destination. Any corporation failing so to pro-
vide and furnish tickets refusing the pas
sage which the case calls for when sold must
pay to the person so refused the sum OF $500.
This section Mr.. Knox explained further
as follows: "It says to defendant, If you
do not give the ride which you agreed to
give plaintiff you must DO something else
by way of penalty or satisfacti on. In the
words OF the law, you must pay $500: You
had plain choice; you agreed to do one
of two things-give plaintiff the ride paid
for or give him $500. You refused the
ride called for. and now the law says you
must pay him $500
The defense urged that the plaintiff had
suffered through an "honest mistake" of
its conductor. It was claimed that every
thing had been conducted in a peaceable
and gentlemanly way.
To this Attorney Knox replied: "In de-
hance of the strongest kind of proof, know
ingly. willfully and deliberately, the con-
ductor refused to look at the ticket, which
was in his own possession. Plaintiff fur
ther informed him that his baggage had
been checked on that ticket from Oakland
to Redding and showed him the check and
its number. Did the conductor attempt to
verify plaintiffs claim by looking for the
ticket or the baggage, both of which were
in his charge? No; but showed him a
single memorandum made by himself (the
coDductor), and that alone declared that
plaintiff was making false claim told
him that if he had his baggage checked to
Redding it was checked on some one else's
ticket, thereby declaring plaintiff to be an
intruder on defendants cars, attempting
to obtain a ride through fraud and misrep-
reSentatlOn.
gers on the car at that time matters not;
it was public place and plaintiff was ac-
cused of wrongdoing, declared to be an
impostor and petty larcenist. For this
indignity inflicted willfuIly on the plain
tiff he asks exemplary damages in the
sum of 500 under section 1924 of the Civil
Code"
that on the question of an "honest mis-
| take'' by the conductor the law does not
contemplate excusing wrongdoing on the
ground of a correct motive, and cited in
Vulnerable authorities showing that "good
faita is no excuse for violation of stat
utes. The legal wrong is in the injury
DONE"
Judge Hebbard stated at first that he
did not see the necessity for argument in
the case; that his sympathy for such cases
was small. He refused to transfer the case
when taxed with bias in uttering this
statement aud allowed briefs to be sub
mitted.
Finally the court rendered Judgment for
the defend railroad, the Southern Pa
cific, stating, among his reasons, that the
conductor did not attempt to eject the
passenger; that the dispute had been
conrteously settled; that the passenger
had only claimed 81 15, which had been
refunded him by the railroad, and that
the conductor. whose fitness was indi-
Gated by twentv-seven years service, had
only made an "honest mistake"
In regard to points in the decision not
touched on, Attorney Knox had explained
that the passenger had not resisted the
conductor under pain of committing a
Federal offense, and that he bad not "only
claimed 81 Is" in settlement, but had
simply written to the company succinct
statement of the unjust manner in which
he had been treated.