New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-02-06
PROTECTS PASSENGERS
"Car ahead" Ordinance Upheld by
the appellate Term.

Justices Freedman, Gfdersleeve and Greenbauul.
in the Appellate OF the Supreme Court, yester-
day handed down a decision reversing ruling OF
Justice Murray. IN the Tenth District Municipal
Court dismissing the complaint IN an action
brought by the City OF NewYork against the Inter
urban Street Railway Company for the collection Of
the penalty OF 800 for violation Of the car ahead
ordinance adopted by the Mayor on July e. 1902.
requiring street surface railroad companies to carry
a Messenger 10 any regular stopping place desired
by him on such cars route without change of cars.
except for transfer to connecting line going in an
other direction. IN accident renders COM
pliance with the ordinance impossible.
Justice Murray held that the Board OF Aldermen
was not authorized TO pass such an ordinance. and
that the provisions OF the general Railroad Act
governed and controlled such regulation as is
provided for in the ordinance
William r Peters. ]. Arch McGovern and Alex
ander Sake in May, 1903. boarded northbound
car Of the defendant company about Fourteenth
ST which bore a sign Columbus Avenue" They
desired TO alight at Northumberland. Ninety
eighth-st and One-hundred-hnd-fourth-s and
Columbus-ave. respectively. They were carried to
Columbus-ave. and seventy-ninth-st.. where they
were told by the conductor to get out and take the
car ahead This they refused to do. and remained
in the car which was switched to the downtown
track and taken to South Ferry. where # remained
twenty minutes, and was then moved to Columbus
ave. and Fifty-ninth-st There It was run into the
barn. where It kept forty minutes. the three
passengers still remaining in It, but at last
taken out and proceeded up Columbus-ave.. carry
ing the three men to their destinations. SAKE paid
two fares. When the was at Columbus-ave-
the conductor said the lights were not working.
The defendant offered no evidence.
Upon our construction OF the ordinance. says
Justice Gidersleeve the fact Of its violation was
abundantly established at the trial. and the only
questions to be determined are. first whether the
Board Of Aldermen possessed the power TO pass
the ordinance and second. whether. IL It had the
Ina le raas Alb
ments"
Justice Gudersleeve holds that the matter Is not
confined TO the Jurisdiction Of tho Railroad Com
missioners. and continues:
Did the legislature intend by the enactment Of the
Railroad law TO take from the city OF New oTk
that degree Of autonomy which II has enjoyed IN
common with large municipalities througnout me
country for years, and replace II by creating snls
board Of commissioners and putting II into ONCE
its services OF any value to the pubic2 1 think
not. Every consideration of Justice and the public
convenience, which by common consent enters into
me sitT IF SeTYark The hight 81 selfgovernment
FAR. least. regards the use and users OF It's
system OF public highways TO the end that the
comfort and convenience OF the public may be cor
served and protected. This principle has been
recognized and acted upon by the legislature and
the courts OF this State FOR long period OF time
and under II a system OF local laws has grown up
Assuredy the legislature never intended by the APP
pontment OF the board Of commissioners to re-
upon which to his day it has almost invariably
acted IN dealing with the city Of New-York
reasonable IN its requirements. Indeed nothing
could more completely vincicate the reasOna BILE
and necessity than the circumstances which
attended its violation. shown upon the trial.
Besides the presumption Is that the ordinance -
reasonable. and IL the defendant 70 show
that Il was unreasonable. This - did not do.
There proof the trial OF any accident
which rendered compliance with the ordinance i'm
possible The judgment must be reversed, and a
trial ordered with costs e. tho appellant 10
abide the event
Justice Groenbaum, IN concurring. says:
The reasonableness Of the provisions OF a statute
or ordinance not only generally presumed IN tho
absence 81 proof TO the contrary. but I'm this
the reasouableness Of the ordinance under discus
sion must be apparent 10 every one accustomed
traverse the busy highways Of the city. Il r.
obvious that there exist perils and dangers TO lie
and limb the part o. those using the streets
as pedestrians which are increased by having
crowd OF passengers come upon the street from q
car which they compelled to leave by the act
OF the officials OF tho road. who for reasons OF
their own. force them 20 board 4 car ahead or
walt for behind
An ordinance which requires n surface railroad
car place sign placard showing rs dcstina-
tiOn Is well calculated 20 regulate the running OF
TO prevent the cUngrcgatlng upon tho
streets OF individuals. who would otherwise be
Unexpectedly required 10 leave the car whenever
the railroad officials decide not 70 permit the
car 20 proceed further. 10 IS not likely that
intending passenger would deliberately board
which Is not TO reach his destination when
he might avoid the necessity OF change by riding
upon one which will carry him to his destination.