The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1898-10-27
MUST PAY Thu AMOUNT
STREET. RAILWAY COMPANY
LOSES THE SUIT OF WILL
lam JACKSON
SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE BOY
MOtOrman Should Have Warned
Him of the Danger of Sitting
On the Steps of the Car
Case That Revives the RAN
dOlph Street Line-Other Cases
Decided Yesterday.

The supreme court yesterday, through
Justice Buck, filed a decision in the
appeal of William Jackson, guardian,
against the st. Paul City Railway
company affirming the Judgment of
the lower court
The accident out Of which the pro,
ceedings grew happened Sept Z, 1896.
William Jackson, eight years old, son
OF the plaintiff, and his brother, Louis,
two years his senior, got aboard a Ran,
dolph street car, Instead of taking a
seat inside the car, the boys sat on the
rear platform. resting their feet on the
car step, there being no gate, as is
the custom now. The plaintiff aIlege1
that gates were, however, in use ON
cars ON other lines of the company,
There was no regular conductor, the
motornpan performing both his own du.
ties and that Of conductor.
The boys remained seated until they
reached point nearly opposite where
they lived, when the younger fell off,
or was thrown from the car, receiving
| severe injuries Dana ges in the amount
OF $4,000 were asked for. The Jury re-
turned a verdict in favor of the plain
tiff for $3.50.
The defendant moved for q new trial
largely on the ground of contributors
negligence, which Judge Bum. the
trial court, denied.
The defendant attempted to show
that the boys tried to get off while
the car was in motion.
In his decision Judge Buck statea
tnat ne cannot say, as a question OF
law, that the boy was a trespasser
The latter testified that he was not
stealing q ride but intended Davina
his fare when asked. Merely gettina
on a. car and sitting inside or out was
not Of itself prirna facie evidence that
the person SO doing was a trespasser.
Judges Mitchell and Canty concur in
the views OF Judge Buck. Judge
Mitchell says;
l consider the case a close one but have
concluded, although with some hesitation, 10
concur In the conclusions, In view Of the
tender age OF the boy, that the evidence makes
a case for the Jury. The trial court NAV
have erred in favor Of the defendant in
ductors negligence to question whether he
ought to have reasonably anticipated than
me me boy might fall off by reason of becoming
aside verdict for the plaintiff, II it was
justified by the evidence
Judge Canty takes the mothers to
task for failing In a proper restraint
over and supervision of their children
He says
concur with Mr.. Justice Mitchell Tn
these days when parents exercise so little con-
troll over their children, and the conductor
is not allowed to exercise any efficient control
and the children have no wholesome fear Of
anythlng, and no respect for constituted
authority, it is exceedingly difficult for the
conductors Of street cars and drivers of other
vehicles to keep children from riding in
all sorts OF dangerous pl-c2s upon and beneath
the vehicles. 1t Is with much reluctance that
l concur
The syllabus of the decision follows:
VIM Jackson, by Louis Jackson, his guardian
"a Item. respondent VS.. st. Paul City
Railway Comapny. appellant
l. A boy eight years and four months old
got upon the rear platform Of a street car,
intending to ride thereon to his home sew
eral blocks distant. While sitting upon this
platform with his feet upon the car STEP
where there was no gate the car started and
while 1t was running fast the boy become
dizzy, fell off and WIS injured The moter-
man (who was also conductor) knew that
the boy was on the car.
Held, that merely getting upon the car and
sitting down on the platform with his feet
on the steps was not prtma facie evidenS-
that the boy was trespasser and whether SS
error for the trial court to submit to the
jury the question whether it was negligence on
the part OF the acting conductor to permit
him to ride, sitting in that position, while the
car was running fast
2. It was within the province of the act.
Ing conductor to compel this boy to go in
side the car, or stop 1t, and put him off and
If he did not do so the jury had a right