The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-11-20
Mr.. O|CKEY
WINS OUT
Gains the Penalty
Besides His
Point.

Lyle a. Dickey has won his suit
against the Honolulu Rapid Transit
! Company for recovery of the 500 PEN
atty on account of a conductors refus-
al to give him certain transfer.
Judge De Bolts decision in favor of
the defendant corporation is reversed
by the Supreme Court with directions
to the Circuit Court to render Judgment
for the plaintiff for the amount
claimed. 1t is unanimous opinion of
the appellate court. written by Justice
Perry. Mr.. Dickey appeared in per-
son, and Castle & wilmington for the
defendant
The syllabus of opinion giving the
law of the case is as follows
nolulu Rapid Transit 4 Land Company
may not lawfully be charged more than
five cents for continuous ride from
the corner of King and Keeaumoku
streets. along King, McCully, Beretania
and Alexander streets to Wilder ave-
nue.. Such passenger Is entitled,
without the payment of an extra far,
to transfer from the King street to the
transfer ticket therefor
THE CASE STATED.
At the outset the opinion states the
case. 1t is shown that the plaintiff
sued under Sec. of Act 60 Laws of
1898 Ohe Rapid Transit Cos franchise
statute), to recover of the defendant
the sum of one hundred dollars for an
oil
by the defendant on April 7, 1903, while
the plaintiff was n passenger on its
cars. After laying down the various
routes of defendants tracks, the opin-
ion says:
At the corner of McCully and King
streets, the overhead wires were not
connected. The plaintiff entered IN
east-bound car of the defendant on
King street at the corner of Keeaumo-
ku, paid five cents as his fare and
asked for transfer ticket to car
going mauka on McCully street. This
request was refused. At the corner ~
King and McCully streets the plaintiff |
left the King street car and entered |
the first car on McCully street going |
mauka and left the latter at the cor
ner of Wilder avenue and Alexander
street. While on the last mentioned I
car the plaintiff was charged and paid |
an additional sum of five cents as fare.
1t Is for this alleged overcharge that
the action is brought. The facts of
the case are undsputed and the only
question Is whether under the provs-
ions of Act 60 the defendant could law
fully refuse to give the transfer ticket /
demanded and charge an additional
fare on McCully street.
Then the governing section of the
law is quoted which provides a fare
not to exceed five cents "for contin-
uous ride anywhere between Diamond
Head and Moanalua, or makai of a
line drawn parallel to the sea coast
and one and n half miles distant there
from" with half fare to children going
to and from school; also for transfers
from one car to another on suCh con-
tinuous trip, upon connecting line
within the limits above mentioned"
also for regulations by the corporation
with the approval of the Governor.
and, finally, the penalty of 800 for an
overcharge.
NOT A RETURN TRIP.
The court makes 1t plain that a 70
turn trip is not in question in this case,
ds the plainrlff did not make nor at
tempt to make circuit of the entire
rapid transit system on transfers. The
opinion on this point reads:
The ground traversed by the plaintiff
In his ride was wholly between Moana- ,
lua on the west and Diamond Head on
the east and Is conceded to have been
wholly nnaltat nf .
to the sea-coast and one and half s
miles distant therefrom. 1t was entire
ly within the outer geographical limits
prescribed by the first subdivision of
the section. There is no requirement
that each five cent ride shall be in one {
general direction. A Limitation as to ,
direction may perhaps be inferred from
the use of the word "trip" In subdivis-
ion and the word ride" in subdivis- l
ion /, 1t may be that these words OF I
themselves should be held to indicate I
An intention on the part of the Legis-
lature to prevent the taking OF a re-
turn trip for the one fare (see Dickey q
v. HaW. Tramways Co., 10 Haw. 3S7,
39O: but 1t Is unnecessary to pass
upon that point In this case, for the
plaintiff did not attempt to take a re-
direction only, away from his starting a
point. as much so az II ne had con- -
inued to the Manoa valley terminus OF
he line. Nor need we say how much u
beyond the corner OF Wilder avenue :,
md Alexander street the plaintiff could Y
nave ridden before the company could ~
nave lawfully charged him an addl- Il
ional fare; 1t Is sufficient for the pur- al
POSES OF this case to say that the ride .,
which he did take was well within all ~
he limitations prescribed by the stat in
Ite a.
ROUND TRIPS NOT ENCOURAGED.
1t is further made evident. by the ts
GLOWING words of the opinion, that the
curt does not encourage any abuse of
he transfer privilege: T
The main argument for the defend r.
mt Is that to uphold the PLAINTIFF rc
ontention Is to enable a passenger to III
ide around and around" for a single II