The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1896-03-04
RAHILLY Us. THE RAILROAD.
SOME FARTHER COMMENTS,

SOME FARTHER COMMENTS.
In our issue of February 5, we ami
m adverted very severely upon Hon.
Seagrave Smith, one of the Judges of
the District Court of Hennepin coun-
ty, and charged that his rulings had
leaned to the side of the defendant,in
the suit of Hon. P. H. Rahilly versus
the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad
Company. for damages for the loss Of
an eye, at the hands of the employees
of the company. We felt that it was
SO hideous travesty upon justice, to
rob man of his eye-sight and deny
him even sixpence, that our profound
indignation was aroused, and we
broke out in denunciatio of. the
strongest kind.
Since our article appeared we have
received courteous letter from
Judge Smith, in which he claims that
we did him injustice, in our COM
ments on the case: and he refers us to
Mr.. f. O. Larrabee, of Larrabee and
Gammons, Mr. Rahilly's attorneys, to
sustain bis views. We replied that
we would not knowingly do wrong to
Judge Smith or any other man, and,
in compliance with his suggestion, we
wrote Mr.. Larrabee, for information.
We have just received his reply,
which we take pleasure in prin ting.
1t is as follows:
HON. IGNATIUs DONNELLY:
Dear Sir:-Your letter of February
18th, inclcsing clipping from your pa
per, relative to the Rahilly case, re-
ceived and would have been ans wered
sooner had not circumstances pre-
vented. You asked me in your letter
to inform you whether or not the arti-
Gle does injustice to Judge Smith, or
to the facts of the case. In answer
article does an injustice to Judge
Smith but not however, to the facts
in the case. l do not think that
there is anything to justify us in say
ing that Judge Smith was not per-
fectly honest in his construction of
the law, as given in his charge to the
jury. Judge Smith may be right in
his construction Of the law but [ be-
lieve him to be wrong in some re-
spects, and upon the trial took excep-
tiOnS to portions Of the charge and
am now prosecuting an appeal to the
Supreme Court.
From all that appeared in the evil
dence, l believe, as a matter of law,
| that, as between the Railroad Com
| pany and Mr.. Rahilly, Mr.. Rahilly was
| ticket which h; presented for his
| fare.
l believe further, that as between
Mr.. Rahilly and the Railroad Com
pany. the ticket was as much personal
property as the clothes upon his back,
and that he had right, before pay
| ing his fare, to demand the return of
| the ticket, as much as he would have
had had the Railroad employees
taken from Mr.. Rahiily the clothes
| upon his back and then nave demand
| ed that he leave the train; and l be-
lieve that had the Railroad Company
have taken the clothes from Mr..
Rahilly's back and then demand that
he pay his fare or leave the train that
| he would have had the right to have
demanded the return of his clothes
before cOnsenting to leave the train
or offering to pay other fare, and that
upon the failure of the Company to
return to him his clothes they would
have had no right to have expelled
him from the train.
My position, to review, is this: that
think Judge Smith erred as to the
law in charging the jury, but was hon.
est in his CONVICTIONS. Yours very re-
Spectfully, +. d. LARRABEE.
Minneapolis, MIMI, Feb. %.
The meaning of this letter, as we
understand it, is, that, in the opinion
of Mr.. Larrabee, Judge Smith may
have been perfectly honest in his
views, but he. Mr.. Larrabee, thinks
those views are grievously wrong. 1t
is not given us to enter into the opera
tions of mans intellect and heart,
and decide whether they were honest
or not: and, in spirit Of broad charity,
therefore we are willing to admit that
when Judge Smith stands at the bar
of eternal justice he may be acquitted
of intentional injustice in this mat
ter. But the fact remains that he in
structed that jury that they could not
find for the plaintiff, because he de-
manded back the railroad ticket he
had bought of ticket-agent in st.
Paul, before he would pay. his fare
twice over. Judge Smith told the jury
that the employees of the road had d
| perfect right to confiscate that ticket.
| for the railroad company; al
| though there was no allegation that
Mr.. Rahilly had obtained it by any
improper means, or that the ticket it,
self was not genuine and his property;
and he gave them to understand that
if Mr.. Rahilly had not submitted
quietly to this injustice the employees
of the company had perfect right to
kick him out of the car; and it Mr..