The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1903-04-29
HOW TWO WRONGS
SAVED MONEY
Railroad and Passenger Both
Violated the Law.
EDITOR M'NEILL'S PASS
Supreme Court Says He Can't Recover Verdict
OF 50, 900 for Injuries, and Statute of
Limitations Let's Out The
Railroad

The Durham and Charlotte Railroad
saves $4,000 by violating the law in CIV
ing a free pass to Editor Mcneil, and
gets out of an indictment for its offense
by the Statute of Limitations In other
words, the road pleads that it did wrong
and that the other fellow did wrong, but
it can't be punished because it was too
long ago. Heads I win, tails you lose
The Supreme Court yesterday rendered
a very important decision, affecting rail
roads and newspapers. Mr.. w. H. Me
Neill, editor of the Carthage Blade, re-
ceived serious injuries on the Durham
and Charlotte railroad. The jury gave
him a verdict for $4,000. The Supreme
Court sets aside the verdict upon the
ground that in accepting pass, or
transportation ticket on the road, Mr. Nc.
Neill was violating the law against dis
elimination by transportation companies,
and that both he and the railroad COM
pany were violators of the law. Under
the Corporation Commission law no rail
road can give free pass or make any
discrimination except to orphans, the
poor, and other like classes. The ey-
cepted class does not include editors.
Mr.. McNeill published the schedule for
a pass ut does not appear what was
the value of the advertising done, charg-
ing for the space at the same rates as
would be charged Others" says Chief
Justice Clark in rendering the opinion,
"but let it be what it may, it could not
amount exactly neither more nor less to
the value of a free rass to travel ad
Gbitum an unstipGl I'D number of miles
over defendants road Besides it was
an illegal discrimination to sell the
plaintiff transportation on credit and not
payable in money"
The railroad in the hearing made the
point that they were not liable to Mr.
McNeill for injuries done because the
railroad and Mr.. Mcneil were both VIC
lating the law against passes or discrim-
inations-that the doctrine of in pari
delicto applied The court upholds that
contention and Mr.. McNeill loses the $4,-
600 verdict given him by the Superior
Court
Chief Justice Clark quotes a ecisior
by Justice Douglas to the effect that the
number of free passes issued per year
was understood to be 100000, worth
against the people who pay for their
transportation. He goes on to saY that
the plaintiff knew that the contract to
publish schedules and take a pass was
unlawful, "and he cannot come into q
court of justice and ask that the court
shall give him compensation for damages
sustained by negligent breach of the con-
tract of safe carriage. That presumes
a lawful contract, and he knew that this
was an unlawful contract He and the
defendant are in pari delicto and the court
will leave the parties to settle their own
controversy over damages for breach Of
a contract forbidden by law"
"The Constitutions of nine States pro-
hibit the giving of free passes or giving
reduced rates to any member of III
Legislature or other offce-holder." Some
of them prohibit the Issuing of passes
or reduced rates to any one whatever.
The Constitutions of four States make
the acceptance by any office holder
of a free pass, or any other discrini-
nation in his favor, forfeiture of office
Concluding the decision the chief Jus
tce says;
''This is the first case in which the
illegal discrimination is set up by the
common carrier, but It so happens that
by the lapse of time it is now protected
from indictment by the Statute of Limi-
tations"
Justice Douglas makes this dubitant
dissent: Il am inclined to think the in
pari delicto is not a defense to a tort
arising from the negligence of the de-