The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1904-12-19

the same general direction as that taxi
en- by her upon the start. Did the leg
islature intend this? The argument in
support of this proposition is based
chiefly upon the contention that if the
right to a. transfer were not so limited
it would be in the power of a person to
board Hotel street car going north,
transfer at Palama junction to a King,
street car going south, transfer at Nc
Gully street to a Hotel street car go
ing north, and thus continue making
that circuit as long as he saw fit. That,
of course, would be making an unlaw-
full use of the defendants road and
would subject a person when detected
to removal from the car as a trespass-
err. The only force in the argument is
that of the convenience of the defend
ant company With the law construed
in the way it contends for, it would be
cas- err to prevent such fraudulent use
of it's road. On the other hand, many
cases may occur where it wuold be en-
tirely reasonable that a passenger
should be entitled to a transfer in or
der to complete a bona fide journey
though he might, to a certain extent,
double back on the course first taken
by him. This is what was decided in
Dickey V. H. r. T. & l.. Co., Is Haw.
1903. An argument based chiefly on the
convenience of the defendant in the
transaction of it's business should not
be given much weight if it involves
disregard of the reasonable demands
of the travelling public. In Dickey V.
H. r. T & L. Co. the plaintiff boarded
q L ctr pa 81
manded a transfer at McCully street
to the Hotel street line which, if he re-
manned on the car would have carried
him back in a north and westerly di-
recton to Palama junction, thence up
Liliha street. The decision in that case
was made to rest upon the cOnstruc-
ton given that the plaintiff was travel
ing in one general direction only away
from his starting point. The reason
ing in the case however, goes further
than that. 1t is pointed out that there
is no requirement in the statute
that each five Vent ride shall
be i'm one general direction and
it is further decided that the company
cannot by a mere rule make a line a
connecting one for some purposes and
a non connecting one for other pur-
poses We find no sound basis on
which to rest a distinction in the ruling
to be made respecting transfers at the
McCully street junction or at the Pa
lama junction. If at McCully street
transfer may be demanded which
would take a person who has come
from town on a King street car first
toward the mountain, and then back
toward the town on the Hotel street
line, an equal right should exist to a
transfer such as the plaintiff demand
ed. The plaintiff was proceeding upon
a continuous ride within the permitted
district. No meaning can be given to
the word continuous" which would
limit the right to a transfer to a car
going in one direction only. Contin
uous means unbroken, and primarily is
used in regard to time; but in the
statute controlling this case "continu-
Gus" is to be construed in connection
with the words within the limits
above mentioned" This eliminates any
idea of direction, and the only con-
struction which can be given to the
entire section is that the right is Civ
en- to go in an unbroken journey be-
tween any two points within the given
limits over any connecting line or
lines by whatever route it may be nee
essary to take to reach the point Of
destination. The passengers choice of
route is unlimited. AS it is not clear
that the Legislature intended that the
right to transfer at connecting points
should be limited, the court cannot add
such a material qualification to the
statute by construction. The Hotel
street line and the King street line in
fact becomes connecting lines at tn
point where the former enters King
street after crossing the Nuuanu
stream. They remain connecting lines
to Liliha street. We hold therefore
that the plaintiff was entitled at Pa
lama junction to a transfer which
would authorize her toe ride back in a
southerly direction toward Fort street,
and that as a consequence she would
be entitled to travel on such transfer
to the terminus in that direction of the
King street line. This the plaintiff
would have been entitled to under the
rule of the company in force at the
time. See plaintiffs exhibit No. l. We
base our decision, however, upon our
construction of the statute.
The plaintiff in this case was rep
resented by Judge Henry r. H!ghton.
whose principal contentious of law in
the case were sustained by the court.
In the oral argument i'm the Supreme
Court Thomas NJ. Harrison participant
ed on behalf of the plaintiff. Castle &
Wilmington represented the defendant.
tssS|s%+.t<'S4-S%.%%.%%.@%.S*.%..s-.AA