The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-19
LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAIL-

LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAIL-
 ROAD co. V. J. l. BlZZELL. Action against railroad company by pas
 senger for damages resulting from
 election from train-Appeal from the
 Circuit Court of Mobile.
 l. Action against railroad company by passenger for election from train; sui ficiency of plea-In an action against railroad company by a passenger 10 re- cover damages for the plaintiffs alleged wrongful election from train Of the defendant, where the complaint alleges that the plaintiff offered the conductor an unlimited ticket" which plaintiff had bought from the defendants agent that the conductor refused to receive saio ticket and then wrongfully and rudely elected plaintiff, pleas of the defendant which aver that at the time the ticket was purchased by the plaintin ana pre- sented to the conductor. the defenqaht had rule that such ticket should De good for a continuous passage beginning | on the day of sale, which rule was known | to plaintiff, and further that notlce ol such rule was endorsed upon said ticket but which did not negative the dlsuse | or waiver of the rule by the defendant In the sale of the ticket alleged in the com plaint to have been unlimited, present an insufficient answer to the complaIint, | and are subject to demurrer for failing ! to negative such disuse or waiver.
 | 2 Action against railroad company by passenger for wrongful election; when fact of ticket being unlimited not ques-
 
 railroad company by passenger to re. cover damages for the alleged wrongful election of the plaintiff from one or the defendants trains, where 1t IS aVefreu
 in the complaint, and the evidence intro duced on the part of the plaintin tends to show that he offered the conductor or
 the defendants train, upon whicn the
 plaintiff was riding ticket which
 plaintiff had bought from the defend-
 ants agent, and that the conductor re,
 fused to receive said ticket and e)ecteo
 the plaintiff but the evidence for the
 defendant tended to show that the ticket Ioffered by the plaintiff was endorsed
 good for continuous passage beginning
 on the day of sale" and that the ucket
 so endorsed was presented by the plain-
 tiff some months after sale. this connict | in the evidence makes a question TOT the
 determination of the jury, and, there fore. a charge is properly retuseo as . being evasive of the province Of the Jury' which instructs them that there IS noun ing whatever on the ticket limiting the
 time within which it might be used' nor , is there anything on it to show the pur- .. chaser that 1t was in his discretion tc : use the ticket when he was disposed tc
 do so. , : nitive damages.-Punitive damages arr {; lnot recoverable as matter or rlghtI, = but their imposition is discretionary WILT {; the jury Therefore, a charge is properly
 refused as being erroneous whlcn m . structs the jury that the pfalhtilI HI ai {: action against a railroad company 1ol . lhis wrongful election as a passenger ; would under given circumstances, De
 entitled to recover punitive damages.
 f. Action against railroad company b!
 passenger for wrongful election; admis
 sibility of evidence.-In an action agalns
 A railroad company by passenger U s recover damages for the alleged wrong
 full election of the plaintiff from one Q ', the defendants trains. where the cyl cyl y dence for the plaintiff tends to snoN
 thot the conductor of the train. wh |. elected s%@t T the plaintiff, was somewhat in " toxicated. rude and boisterous ana use 2. profane language, it is competent; o, upo HI efter having testified that he was nc Q rude and boisterous and did not use ,prS z; fame language, to ask him as to his hat its of drinking and swearing.
 ii Reversed and remanded.
 o. Opinion by Sharpe. J.