Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1901-09-12
RAILROAD WON.
Supreme Court Decision Regarding a
Rutland Railroad Mileage

Montpelier Sent. io.-The Supreme Court
has recently handed down a decision in the
Caledonia county case of u. +. Holden W.
the Rutland Railroad Co., affirming the
judgment of the County Court iN favor of
the defendant to recover its costs
The case grew out of a mistake made by
the ticket seller OF the railroad, who wrote
upon a mileage ticket purchased by the
plaintiff at the Burlington station in
November, 1897, the name of A r. Holden
instead of ID. T.. Holden as the person en-
titled to use of ticket. The plaintiff. who
resided in Hardwick, used the ticket once,
but upon second trip from Burlington
to Rutland the conductor refused to receive
the mileage in payment Of rare and caused
the arrest of the plaintin and a trial was
had before a justice of the peace in .tut-
land upon complaint charging the plain
tff with evlding payment of fare. liol-
den was adjudgcd guilty, was fined two
dollars and costs, but upon appeal to tho
Rutland County Court the complaint was
adjudged insufficient upon demurrer and
lie was discharged
He thercupon commenced suit against
the railroad through his attorney. f. II.
DeaVitt of Montpelier, claiming damages
ut &0M. The case went to the Supreme
Court on a demurrer being filed to the
declaration, but the Supreme Court de-
cidcd that tho declaration was insufficient
Court for trial on the merits.
The case was tried at county court at St.
JohnshurY. ina juno, 1909 when chief Judge
Taft directed verdict for the defendant.
it appearing that the mileage ticket was
purchased by the plaintiff with money oh
tanned from a ticket broker in Hardwick X,
for whom the plaintiff bought the ticket,
and it also appeared that the broker ha
written the name of Ros!a Holden, the
ploiuu6s daughter uron the ticket as a
member of the plaintiff family entitled TO
use the ticket.
Tho Supreme Court in affirming the iude-
ment hold that the action was properly
brought in the name Of the plaintiff. az it
could be brought either in the name of the
principal or agent, but that 1t was subject
to the same defenses VIII IN brought In the
name of the agent as when brought in the
name of the principal That the writing
of the name of the paint,ff's daughter up
on The ticket without the consent Of the
railroad was n material alteration Of the
contract and rendered it void and the tick
It became forfeited. Consequently the
plaintiff was not entitled to use It,
Judge Watson wrote the opinion which
has been concurred in by the ether mem
bers Of the court r II. Button and W. H.
Button of Middlebury were attorneys for
tho railroad and were assisted by Harry
Blodsott Of st. Johnsbury.
INJUNCTION AGAINST LIQUOR
AGENT.
ST Adams, Sept. 10--Chancellor John ".
Rowell of the Supreme Court. has on the
PRAYER Of the city attorney. issued an I'M
junction restraining Alderman c. =. Cum
mings from purchasing any more liquor
for the city liquor agency, restraining
Agent l.. A. Curtis from receiving any
Illegally purchased liquor and RESTRAINING
Sheriff +. f. Kelley from returning any OF
ftno LIQUOR rccnutly seized at the uduor