Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-01-20
COURT DECISIONS.
Notes Of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are Of Interest to
Our People.
DIcESTEp BY w. q. MARTIN.
Exclusively for virginian-Pilot.)
STATE VS.. SOUTHERN r.. CO.
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
December 5, 1899.

STATE VS.. SOUTHERN r. CO.
Supreme Court of North Carolina,
December g. $780,
AN INDICTMENT AGAINST A RAIL-
ROAD COMPANY FOR UNLANN-
Full DISCRIMINATION IN THE
TRANSPORTATION OF PASsEN-
GERS. WHICH ALLEGES THAT A
PARTY HAD A FREE PASS. MUST
ALSO ALLEGE THAT HE RE
CEIVED FRED TRANSPORTS
TON.
1T NEED NOT STATE THAT HE DID
NOT BELONG TO ONE OF THE
EXCEPTED CLASSES, OR THAT
THERE WE'RE OTHER PASSEN-
GERS ON THE TRAIN PAYING
FARE.
The Southern Railway Company was
indicted for unlawfully discriminating
as to the transportation of passengers.
There was judgment quashing the in
dictment and the State appealed. The
facts appear from the opinion OF the
court.
The court says:
The first count alleges that the de-
1endant. common carrier unlawfully
and wilfully did give under and unrea-
sonable preference to one T. N. Hally-
burton by giving said It. N. Hallybur-
ton free pass over the reoad of the
defendant company. This is detective
in that 1t fails to allcge that by virtue
of such free pass said HALLIBURTON re-
ceivcd free transportation. which would
be an undue preference. forbidden by
the statute. equally whether 1t was
given upon n free pass from an Official
or by n verbal order, or upon n ticket
or mileage book not In truth paid for,
but donated by the company. 1t is the
fact of discrimination. and not the
method by which 1t is done, which con-
stitutes the offcnse. though the method
of violation may. and doubtless should,
be charged in the indictment, to the
end that the common carrier may be
more fully prepared to meet the charge.
There are determinations which re-
Quire more explicit alegation-aS. for
instance, Illegal rebates upon freight
charges, and the like; but, as. the com
mon carrier carries for hire, the allega-
ton that 1t gave n person named undue
preference by transporting him free eX
vi termini alleges discrimination. There
nrc sections OF the act creating this Of
Tense which authorize common carriers
cases, but not being within this section,
1t is not necessary in the Indictment to
make the negative nvcrment that Hal
lyburton did not belong to one of the
excepted classes. If he did, It would
be matter of defense. If the short form
set out in the first count had not been
defective in the particular indicated.
we are inclined to think Though we do
not now pass upon iD ii would have
been sufficient. IT would be no benefit
to the defendant to require the soil
citor to exhaust time and labor in
drafting the long and tedious instru-
ment which constitutes the second
count, If a shorter allegation can ex-
press "the charge against the defand-
ant In n plain, ineligible and explicit
manner" which is all the statute ex-
nets. The General Assembly has au-
thorized the English form of indict-
ment for murder. which can be sufici-
emily and fully set out in three lines;
and all other indictments nre greatly
simplified. Certainly information can
be conveyed to n common carrier en-
ploying intelligent servants and attor-
neys that is charged with violating the
law against undue preference and dis
elimination by carrying. a passenger
free without using the above prolix
form covering two and a half printed
pages-more than 1000 words.
Counsel argued to us that 1t must be
charged and proved that at the same
time. and on the same train. there were
other passengers paying fare. We do
not so understand the law (thoueh
this in fact is explicitly charged in the
second count, for. as the common car
rier carries for hire, it would have peen
equally n preference and discrimination
against the public If this had been a
special train carrying n solitary dead
head or n train composed entirely OF
that class, whirled away, possibly, to
some political convention. In fact,
either OF these cases would be an ag-
gravation of the offense, instead of an
excuse. AS the common carrier is de-
pendent for it's profits upon its receipts,
the carrying of those free who should
pay mot being in the class excepted by
law necessarily adds the cost of their
transportation to the charges exacted
OF those who pay, and such cost would
nc increased IL the train on n given oc-
casion carries all its passengers free.
whether 1t is one man only, in solitary
and lonely state, or n car or train load /:
and this would equally violate another
purpose of the law, which is to prohibit
the many evil results which must be
Inc necessary consequence of quasi
public corporations having the power
to discriminate in their charges. Re
Yersed.
HUDSON v.sT. P. PLow CO.
SuDrema Court of NEir,az.