The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-07-29
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
WHITING. J.


The plaintiff brought his action
against defendant to recover a penalty
under Sec 9, Chap. 81, Session Laws
1884, under which Act the defendant
holds its franchise.
Sec. is as follows:
IF said railroad or any agent or en-
ployee thereof shall demand or charge
a greater sum of money for fare on the
cars of such railroad than that fixed
by this bill, said railroad or such agent
or such employee shall forfeit to the
person who is thus oVercharged the
sum of one hundred dollars TO be re-
covered in a civil action in any court
having jurisdiction thereof
The plaintiff was a passenger on one
of the cars of defendant on a cOntinu-
Gus trip from the terminus of tramway
on Nuuanu Avenue, in Honolulu, TO
Punahou street for which defendant
was entitled to demand and charge a
fare of five cents.
The point raised by the defendant
is that the plaintiff has failed to
prove that he was charged or paid
more than the fare of five cents for
himself and that the evidence given
at the trial did not support the judg-
ment."
1t was strongly urged by counsel
that excessive fare must have been paid
by plaintiff and not merely that plain
tiff was charged an excessive fare; and
also that even if it should be necessary
only to prove that plaintiff was "charg-
ed an excessive fare, the evidence did
not warrant such finding.
The words used in the statute are
demand or charge"
In Reese v. Penn. r. Co., 131 Pa. ST.,
435, the Court held: charge is a
word of very general and varied use.
Webster gives it thirteen different
meanings, none of which, however, ex-
press the exact sense in which 1t is
used in this charter. The great diction-
airy of the Pathological Society, now in
course of publication, gives it twenty
separate principal definitions, besides a
nearly equal number of subordinate
variations of meaning. Of these de-
finitions one 90 3D. is: The price re-
quired or demanded for services rem
dered, or Qess usually) for goods sup
piled, and this expresses accurately the
sense of the word in the present case.
The essence of the meaning is that it is
something required, eXacted or taken
the service rendered. The purpose OF
the restriction in the charter is the reg
uIation of the amount of fares, not the
mode of collection, the protection of the
traveller from excessive demands, not
interference with the time, place or
mode of payment"
The plaintiff testified: 81 boarded
the car on Nuaunu avenue and asked
hn 6riX EyUh hot &c To
hou? He said 80 cents, you know
(plaintiff stated in explanation that his
wife was with HIM. I then said to
him that there had been lawsuit about
this or words to that effect. He re-
piled No, no, 10 cents 1 then said
what are your orders, if I do not pay
that fare?' We rode in that car down
Nuuanu avenue to Beretania street, up
Beretania to Punahou street, we got
off where we stopped at the college;
the driver came into the car again and
changed his cash box, and I asked
him what is your name?' He said An
tone Antoine what?' Antoine Sou
"a He said, what for you want to
know?' I want to know whether ]
have to pay ten cents piece to come
out here He said, sure, sure You
cents. "
1t is not necessary that plaintiff
should have actually paid his fare
as the statute is express in its use
of the words demand or charge
and we are of opinion that there is
sufficient evidence to warrant the find
ing of the magistrate that the plaintiff
was charged an excessive fare Chat is &
greater sum of money for fare than that
fixed by the statute), by the servant Of
defendant within the meaning of the
statute.
The judgment appealed from is af-
firmed.
S. NJ. Ballou in person, L. A Dickey
with him.
P. Neumann and G. A. Davis for de-
fendant
Dated Honolulu. H. l., July %, 1896