The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-05-24
ASTOTHESTREETC CAR BOUNCER
THE RIGHT TO PUT YOU OFF A
CAR rs SHARPLY DEFINED.
Company Liable CiNilly, Employee Grim
finally Also, for Illegal Assauit-Mo
man Must Not Hit Passenger with
Controller EXCEPT In Self.Defence.

Controller Except In Selt.Defence.
The experiences OF Samuel H Adams
and Philip l.. Miller, connected with the
=. s. Mcclure Publishing Company. on u
Ninth avenue car Of the NJ Metropolitan Street
Railway Company on Thursday evening
when they were assaulted and put OF tho
car by the conductor and motormnn. hava
led TO discussion as to just what a passen-
gers rights are and what u conductors
legal powers are IN the matter OF putting
persons Oh car.
Mrssrs. Adams and Miller. 1t will be re-
membered. boarded Ninth avenue through
car for a trip uptown, and OH the way the
motorman received from a down-bound
car a sign which he put on the front dash
board of his car. saying that the car was
going to Fifty-fourth street only. Al
Ffty.third street the passengers were
ordered out and the conductor refused To
give transfers at Mr.. Adamss request. say
Ing that they would not he Necessary When
Mr. Adams and Mr. Miller and the other
passengers boarded the next car the new
conductor called for fares. and when the
young men declined to pay again for ride
which they had already paid for, The con-
ductor and notorman, put them on the car.
Mr.. Adams on the head, and the assault
being continued on the street.
The questions people have been asking
each other have gone beyond u . mere
matter OF whether passenger 1t to, To
made 10 get out of a car which was marked
as a through car to get into another at
some point along the route, and have been
directed to the common personal right TO
Immunity from assault, and to the rights
OF a conductor in regard 10 ejecting pas
sengers.
A lawyer who has had considerable to
do with such cases said yesterday:
I'm the first place, when the passenger
pays his fare he enters into q contract with
the company whereby the company Is
company IL not obliged, as matter Of law.
TO Garry him there In the one car. for there
NAV be sons-derangement OF some
of the mechanism, for instance-for with
drawing that car from service Under the
nation for which 1t is marked, except for
sone such reason, and a penalty 10 pro-
vided II the company does not run the car
through.
But the company is obliged under its
contract, made with the passenger when
senrer to his destination in some car. So,
when II fails to do this, through the refusal
OF its servant the conductor to provide q
transfer, in the one instance, or the other
conductors reiusai 10 carry tiic PassenXor
who has already paid. II is liable in damages
for this failure to fulfil it's contract.
THE company is further liable in this
case, or any like it, for the assault oom-
mitted by its conductor IN ejecting the
passengers. who had a right 10 be on the
have been an assault just the same IL the
conductor had merely laid his hand upon
the mems shoulders and ordered them Oh.
They were properly on the car and he had
no right whatever to touch them or to eject
them.
Now as to the right OF a conductor to
elect a person. II the person has no right
upon the car-if, for instance, he has not
paid his fare and Is trying to beat his way
and refuses either to get on or to pay
nigh. properly be effected forcibly. But
1t Il forcible ejectment II the conductor
merely puts his hand on the man
and bids him 60. II need be, the man
r s ea noa aee fhs
10 trespasser and 1t is the right Of the other
parties TO eject him. But only 30 much
force may be used lawfully as is necessary
to accomplish his ejectrnent. II unneces-
sary force is used, the company is liable
in damages for the assault which Is COM
rnitted when the unnecessary force is used.
"A. 70 the treatment Mr.. Adams is re:
ported In the newspapers to nave received
at the hands Of the motorman: In such q
case the motorman. beating q person with
O metal bar, is liable to criminal prosecution
for assault aside from the
actions for damages against the company.
This would be true even had he no righs
on the car at all, for the motorman had no
right whatever to beat him.
.n is well that it should b, under
stood also that reasonable rules OF tho
must be obeyed and that
there are circumstances when a passenger
may properly he elected from a car.
The Appellate Division has decided in
two cases against the Brooklyn Heights
Railroad Company and the Third Avenue
Railroad Company that Il company IL
liable for an assault committed by con-
ductor upon a passenger On the other
lla nd, the same court has held, In oase in
Buffalo. that a conductor may properly
eject person who refuses TO obey COM
T'any's rule prohibiting passenger from
riding on a rear platform, even though this
be sick and in fear Of vomiting.
And In Albany the aame court ruled that
where a man had taken n valise and two
rifles, with bayonets. into closed car. the
court should charge that the conductor had
a right 10 eject him and that the only ques-
lion was whether hs used Unnecessary
Ioros IN doing So.