The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1903-11-11
DICKEY CLAIMS THE RAPID
TRANSIT CAN CHARGE ONLY
FIVE CENTS FOR a FIVE CENTS
RIDE.

would be ten cents because after
changing cars at King street the pas
senger from Waikiki Road would be
on a return trip.
Surely the Legislature did not intend
to make the rate of fare thus depend
ant on the Companys own say so.
Plaintiffs ride speaks for itself. What
he might have done if he had made
another trip, getting on the first car
at Liliha street and staying on the Sec
ond should not affect the fare for the
trip he did take. The company should
not have charged hlm more than five
cents before he had finished a five cent
ride.
After the bringing of the first case
of Dickey VS.. Tramways 10 II. 373 above
referred to the Hawaiian Tramways
Co. discontinued carrying passengers
in a single car over the route involved
in that case and compelled them to
change cars at Fort street and Queen
street In the case of Dickey VS.. Ha-
waiian Tramways Co. 10 II. 3S7 it was
held that the statute did not give the
right to the company to treat any one
line as a single road.
The court says:
THE statute does not give the right
to the defendant to treat any one line
and not ambiguous, and shows that a
passenger travelling on the cars within
the limits stated by said Section 8
Chap. "a can only be charged a fare of
five cents. The company must reg
ulate it's business in accordance with
the terms of the statute granting it's
franchise, and it has power and right
to make reasonable regulations for the
government and carrying of its pas
sengers and the collection of fares and
the conduct of its business. But the
fact that it neglects or refuses to
make suitable regulations to protect
itself against fraud by passengers, does
not permit it to charge a fare in eX-
cess of that allowed by law. Il being
within it's power to carry passengers
| within the specified boundaries on
continuous trip, it cannot by a mere
division of this trip by causing a
change of cars at any particular point
| acquire the right to make a second
charge of fare for the same trip.
1t is clear that the company was en-
| titled to charge but one fare of five
cents in this case. BY a mere change
| of cars the company does not become
| entitled to an anditioned fare. A per-
son travelling on the cars of the de-
| PENDANT, however, must be a passen-
! ger and must make a continuous trip
so far as practicable and this from one
| point within the limits specified to an
| other point therein, and he is not en-
titled to a return upon the road for
the one fare for it would not be the
same trip"
In Hawaiian Tramways Co. VS..
Sturdevant 10 II. 597 the claim was
made by the Hawaiian Tramways Co.
that its limitation of fares did not APP
ply to lines crossing each other at
right angles where there was no
track connection enabling the COM
pany to run a single car from one
line to the other. The Court says: (p.
599)
The rate of fare does not depend up
on the way the Tramways Company
lays out its system of tracks, or runs
its cars, or on what connections ii
may see fit to make, but it is fixed by
the statute granting the franchise"
This last decision was rendered jan
uary 26, 1897. The franchise of the
Honolulu Rapid Transit and Land Co
was granted July 7, 1898. In it the
limits within which a five cent fare
must be charged are far more extensive
than in that of the Tramways Com
pany. From Moanalua to Diamond
Head is three times as far as from the
AS the old company had no right by
laying out its system of tracks in any
particular way to affect the rate OF
fare, the Legislature which reduced
fares should not be presumed to gram
that right to the new Tailway. The
result would be as shown by this cas-
to allow the company to charge ter
cents for a short ride around a corner
by arbitrarily making a rule of il!
own that the Punahou and King stree
lines are and are not connecting line!
at one and the same time in accord
ance with the direction in which pas
: senger on the King street line II
travelling.
Defendant urges that if a passenge
, Is allowed a trip such as plaintiffs TO
five cents that it would be impossible,
to prevent passengers by getting con
tinued transfers from riding round al
the time between Liliha and McCull!
street on the King and Punahou lines
A passenger would have no right t
do this. AS was said in Dickey V. Ha
waiian Tramways supra "A person
travelling on the cars ....must maxi
a...... trip. from one point within
the limits specified to another poin
therein" 1t might be prevented by
system Of slips given passengers t
show where they began their rides
But it is not necessary or helpful t.
speculate on practical results to tn
defendant, If the plaintiff was en-
titled to the particular ride he took 70
five cents and was over charged he i
entitled to judgment whether or no
the directors of defendant lack in
ganuity sufficient to obey the law AM
at the same time make regulation
that will prevent an occasional pas
senger from repeating part of a rid
without paying a second fare
There is no proof of any damage t
the company though the trial i'm tn
Circuit Court took place n month late
than the one before District Magistrat
Wilcox and according to the testimon
of Manager Ballentyne transcript /
81 the company had as a matter o
precautlon been giving transfers sine
the suit had been begun. There is n
presumption that there would be a los
70, ha INV rba .4a1I nj