Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-08-12

refuse to sell ticket to an applicant
for the same. furnished Cannon With
another ticket in the same form, at the
same time cautioning him that il he
printed" his name TO the contract
thereon he would have difficulty in
Identifying himself in Atlanta as the
original purchaser. Nevertheless Can
non 'printcd'' his name upon this sec
ond ticket. 1t was duly stamped by the
agent. and subsequently was accepted
Tor passage from Camilla to Atlanta.
Desiring to return TO Camilla. Cannon
went to the Validat ting agent i'll Allan
IA. who requested him 10 write his
name On IL blank line upon the ticket
reserved for this purpose. and there
upon Cannon printed" his sigma ture
upon this line. The validating agent re-
fused to accept this as sufficient proof
OF Cannon's Identity as the original pur-
chaser of the ticket. The latter then
produced two witnesses. who stated to
the validating agent that they knew
Cannon. and that he was the man he
represented himself to be- They were.
however. unable TO say that he was the
man who purchased the ticket in Ca
miila. No other proof being offered. the
validating agent declined to stamp and
sign the ticket. ana informed Cannon
that II would not be accepted for pas
sage. Nevertheless he boarded n train
of the defendant company, and was
elected thcrcfrOm by the conductor.
who refused to recognize the ticket as
valid. Cannon brought his action
against the company. recovered Il YER
dict of $3.50 and the defendant filed n
motion for new trial. which was over
ruled, and it excepted.
The Court says:
AS will have been seen. Cannon in
tentionally and deliberately adopted n
peculiar and unusual method of anix-
ing his name TO the contract upOn the
n nv,
sense ought to have known that when
he merely printed his name i'm the
manner stated. he could not identify
himself rs the man 10 whom the ticket
was issued by again printing his
name in u similar way. Moreover Cam
non was distinctly cautioned that sign
ing his numo 10 the contract in such n
manner would inevitably give him trou-
bic when he sought II have tho ticket
validated for his return passage. There
is in the record some evidence strongly
indicating that he had Il definite object
i'll acting as he did. one Of the wit
ncSscS introduced at the trial testified
that Cannon. Immediately after sign
ing the second ticket handed to him by
the agent at Camilla. said. in speaking
OF the exposition in Atlanta which he
was expecting 10 attend. that going
there would be dying high. ana hay-
ing q big time. and cost Il hean; ana
some of these Internal railroads will
nave To pay for it, and pay my oXpen-
Sos" In view Of all the facts and cir
cumstances Of this case. there is Ger
iainly no hardship done to tho plain
tin in holding that. as he had volun
,ariiy placed il out of his power IN
IDENTIFY himself "hv writing his name
In the presence of the VALIDATING. agent.
II was Incumbent upon the former Ia
iind other satisfactory means of iden-
trying himself ms the originai pur-
chaser Of the ticket. VIC do not think
That the refusal To accept - sufficient
10Y this purpose the statements Of tho
Witnesses produced bv the plaintiff.
showing merely that he was u. A.
cannon. was ut All unreasonable. ON
the whole. VIC are Of tho opinion that n
new trial should be ordered. judgment
reversed