Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-04-19

left. He had no place to go where he
could be comfortable. The night was
cold. He was thinly clad and suffered
very much from this exposure. and took
violent cold therefrom, which ran into
spell OF sickness, from which his
health has been permanently injured.
Inc rules of defendant company re-
CURED the waiting room to be closed
after the departure of defendants train.
and to remain closed until thirty min
utes before the departure of it's next
train. Under this rule of the defendant
1t was time to close the waiting room
when the plaintiff was ordered to leave
the room, and he was informed that ii
would not be opened again until thirty
minutes before the departure of defen-
dants next train, at 1:20 Of the next
morning.
There was a Judgment for plaintiff in
the lower court and defendant appealed
The court says:
me court, among other things
charged the jury that, il the plaintiff
bought ticket to take passage on the
next train, he had Il right TO remain in
tne waiting room until that train left.
ana mat If the jury found from the owl
dence That plaintiff had bought ticket,
ana exhibited 1t. as he alleges he did.
ne Is entitled to recover actual dam
ages, but not punitive damages To
that part of the charge referring to the
purchase OF the ticket. and plaintiffs
rlSht TO remain in the waiting room the
defendant excepted. We are of the on
lnion that both these exceptions aro well
taken. but 1t is not necessary that we
should discuss them both. If cilh one
OF them Is sustained 1t is substantially
an end to the plaintiffs case In fact.
the discussion of the one involves tho
other a party coming to Sailroad
station with the intention of taking tho
defendants next train becomes. in con-
temptation of law. II passenger on de-
PENDANTS road. provided that his com
ing is within n reasonable time before
the time for departure of said train.
TO constitute him such passenger. il is
not necessary that he should have pur-
chased his ticket, as seems to have been
considered by his honor. But the pur-
chase Of the ticket would probably be
considered the highest evidence of his
Intention But still. it is his coming to
the station within n reasonable time be-
fore. with the intention 10 take tho
next train. that creates the relation NJ
passenger and carrier. There is no dis
putc but what the plaintiff intended to
take the defendants next train to Hot
Springs, and we must infer from the
charge of the court and the verdict of
,he Jury that they found that plaintiff
had purchased his ticket
SO, tho only question that remains is
as TO whether the defendant had the
right to establish the rule for closing
the waiting room, and was the rule n
reasonable one? And we are OF the
opinion that the defendant had the
rlsht 10 establish the rule. and that it
was reasonable one. The rule would
probably be different in the case of
through passengers. and in the case of
deiayed trains: but. If so, these would
be exceptions. and not the rule. Wait
ing rooms arc not part of the ordi-
nary duties pertaining to the rights of
passengers and common carriers: but
they are established by carriers as an
cillaries to the business of carriers. and
for the accommodation Of passengers
ana not as place Of lodging ana oc
communication for those who are not pas
sengers. This being so, it must he that
me carrier should have Il reasonable
control over the same or IL could no,
protect its passengers in said rooms.
There is error. New trial