The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1904-12-19
MUST GLVE TRANSFERS At
ALL CONNECTING POINTS
SUPREME COURT A UNANIMOUS UNDER
IT'S CHARTER THE HONOLULU TRANsITv& CONF
MAKE A JUNCTION A CONNECTING POINT FOR
ONE PURPOSES.


decision handed down today in the
case of Mary a. Rhodes VS.. Honolulu
Rapid Transit & Land Company de-
cided an important point in regard to
the duty of issuing transfers at con-
Meeting points, by the transit company,
under it's charter
The opinion is by Justice Hatch. He
sets out the facts of the case substan-
TALLY as follows: The plaintiff in COM
pany with her husband had attended
services at st. Clements church on
Wilder avenue on Sunday, May 81, 1903.
In company with her husband she took
a Wilder avenue street car going to-
ward town. At Fort street her hus-
band got off the car to go to his office
on Fort street, having arranged with
his wife that she should remain on the
car till it reached the junction with
King street, where she was to take a
transfer to the King street car going
toward their residence on Young
street, and he would meet her at the
corner of King and Fort and proceed
with her to their home. The conductor
of the Wilder avenue car refused a
transfer at the junction of Hotel and
King, though repeatedly asked for it.
She boarded the King street car, the
weather being rainy at the time and
explained to the conductor the circum-
stances. He threatened to put her off
If she did not pay her fare, which she
could not do, as, having been out with
her husband had not carried her purse.
The car was thereupon stopped and un-
der compulsion she got off and was
obliged to walk in the rain to the cor
ner of King and Fort street. On the
trial of the case before Judge Gear the
jury rendered verdict for the plaintiff
of $500 damages. The transit company
appealed to the Supreme Court. The
court decided, first, that the plaintiff
in this case, a married woman, could
maintain the action in her own name;
that the street car conductor was not
obliged to permit the plaintiff to ride
unless she paid her fare or presened a
transfer; but that the plaintiff had a
right to the transfer and was there
fore entitled to damages for the conse-
quences that followed. The court, how
ever holds, that the plaintiff was not
entitled to damages for being removed
from the King street car, and as it says
the jury evidently based their verdict
partly upon this, and as it may be as
sumed that the jury gave as much
weight to that branch Of the plaintiff
case as to the wrongful refusal to g
transfer 1--WE consider that the dam,
ages should be reduced one-half."
Upon the question of the right of the
plaintiff to a transfer at Palama juno
! ton the court says:
The provisions of the statute, Act SO
Laws of 1898, under which defendant
/ obtained it's franchise, bearing on thi.
subject are:
Section 8. LIST. Any person riding
upon the cars of said railway shall be
liable to pay for such transportation
/ the following rates: For a cOntinuou!
ride anywhere between Diamond Heat
and Moanalua, or makai of a lin
drawn parallel to the sea coast, anC
one and a half miles distant therefrom
not to exceed &C., provided that children
under seventeen years of age in goinl
to and from school, shall not be requir
ed to pay over half fares, for whicl
purpose tickets shall be issued.
"3rd. Upon a continuous trip, per
sons riding upon the cars and transfer
ring from one car to another, upon
connecting line within the limits abov
mentioned, shall be entitled to a trans
fer ticket without the payment of al
extra fare upon the lines of this rail
way.
18th. The said association and 9th
ers shall make reasonable and just reg
ulations with the consent and approva
of the Governor regarding the main
tenance and operation of said railwa
on and through said streets and roads
and the said association and other
failing to make such rules and regula
tons, the superintendent of publ
works with the approval of the Gov
ernor may make them. All rules an
regulations may be changed from tim
to time as the public interests ma
demand at the discretion of the Gov
ernor. e"
The defendant contends that tn
plaintiff was not entitled to a retur
trip on the one fare. This is certainl
correct. The plaintiff, however, di
not seek a return trip. A return tri
would mean retracing ones steps owe
the same route taken in going. On tn
contrary the plaintiff desired to pro
coed over a connecting line to her des
tination which was not her point of de
parture, nor was il on the line take
by her when she first boarded the cal
The defendant further contends tina
admitting that at Palama junction tn
King street line becomes a connectin
] ha