The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-02-13
JUDD, CD, FREAR AND WHITING, j.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY WHITING. J.

OPINION OF THE COURT WHITING. j.
On August u, 1896 by c. v sturevant against
the plaintiff herein, the District rendered
Judgment for the plaintiff therein for 100000 The action
the of 800 being penalty pro
vded for by Sec Oh 81 Laws of 1884, for ovechage
OF fare on of street railway operated by the plaintiff
in in Honolulu.
The defendant in entered operated by the plaintiff
IN error on King Street at place westerly of the Rifle Range
near Punahou Street travelled thereon westerly
the junction of King and Nuuanu Streets and got off the
that place. and after waiting short
running up Nuuanu Street in norhery direction this
being the the he got off FROM his home
Nuuanu Street, the point of his destination.
The running King Street do make regular
necons with those running Nuuanu Street but the tracks
of the tramway each other right angles.
The assigned
l. "The plaintiff in said failed prove that he travel
ed within the points mentioned Sec ~ of the Laws of 1884
81 1t appeared in evidence in said that the plaintiff
knew when he boarded the that would the point
~he wished to travel.
3. That the said Tramways Company required by
law to transfer passengers from one line to
another line without payment of second fare.
f. appeared in evidence said that said company
at the time said plaintiff boarded its operating line
of which travelled the point which plaintiff wished
and that would have been just convenient for said
plaintiff have taken passage car running on said line"
The plaintiff in claims that defendant did travel
the within the points mentioned Sec. II of Chap
81 Laws of 1884 for which the prescribed fare five cents
This claim decided by the of Dicky Hacadn
Tamcays Company Nos 3770 and 3771 ante PIP BIB and
3S June Term 1896 and in the latter the of Fort
and Queen Streets held to be within the limits for which
fare of five only could be charged the
Ihe system of the street railway in Honolulu operated by
a
and in nearly ALL by means OF curves continuous track or
rail laid that continuous be made from point to
point within the limits of five cent fare The statute does
not give the ramways Company the right to treat any one line
as single road x = BY a change of cars, the
company does become entitled additional fare a
person travelling the of defendant make continu
trip far practicable and this from point within
the limits specified o another point therein"
This No decisive of the present The
of fare does depend upon the way the ramways Com
pany system of tracks, what
connections may fit make but it fixed by the statute
granting franchise. The plaintiff entitled
charge but fare of five cents in this
the other assignments of error, find 1t
mmaera that Mr. Surdevant knew when he boarded the
would the point he wished travel
there another line Bereania Street. blocks
away King Street line but parallel with it, operated by
the which in a continuous
of destination which Sturdevant wished reach
There is error; the writ is dismissed
A. G. h. Robertson, for plaintiff in
Kinney le BaIIOu for defendant in