The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-07-26
PASS CASE AGAIN
Judge Walker Grants An.
other Petition to Rehear
McNeiII v. Railway.

The now famous case of Mcneil
VS.. the Durham and Charlotte Rail
road Company, after trial in the
Superior and two decisions of the SUI
preme Court, will be set for hearing
again at the August term of the SUI
preme Court.
This is the case in which Editor
Mcneil, of the Carthage Blade, sues
the railroad company for persona
injuries, the same occurring at time
when the editor was riding on Tree
pass which had expired by limitation
through the courtesy Of the conduc-
tor of the train.
When the case was heard at the
February term 1908, of the Supreme
Court, it was held that the plalntlll
could not recover, as he was rldlnS
on a pass which was given illegally
under the pass law chapter 5Zo
Laws of 1891, which makes unlawful
and Furnishes by fine the giving by
railroads, except in certain specified
instances, of any transportation at a
greater or less rate than furnished
to the general public.
From this decision Justice Douglass
dissented briefly on the ground that
the parties, being Gin pari delicter
the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
The attorneys for Editor MCNEIL
having petitioned for a rehearing, the
same was granted and the case
argued again at the February term
1904, the court reversing the former
opinion.
From the opinion rendered after
the re-hearing, Justices Clark and
Montgomery both dissented.
After the last decision, counsel for
the railroad petitioned to rehear, and
H.
er on Saturday last.
The case is one of the greatest In
terest, both to lawyers and to the
railroads. 1t has been repeatedly
held that when a person is illegally
on a train and an injury results, the
road is not liable-but there is a close
question when it comes to an opinion
rs to whether a man who Is riding on
a pass or is on the train by consent
of the agents of the road can be said
to be travelling 'illegally."
While the act of 1891 declares that
the giving of free transportation by
the railroads is illegal, it does not
prohibit the acceptance of a pass by
q private party.
And to further complicate the mat
ter, while the United States Supreme
Court has declared broadly that one
riding on q free pass may not recoer
1Of injuries received, lDe DstSS Ill uueS-
ton in the case decided by it was not
given as was the one held by Mr.. Nc
NELL, for a consideration, he having
advertised the road by printing its
schedules.
While still another perplexing ques-
ton lies in the fact that the pass held
by the editor had in reality expired at
the time the injury occurred, although
his passage over the road by consent
of the conductor was doubtless tanta~
mount to it's continuance.
AS no Constitutional question is in
Volved in the case. there is no appeal
beyond the State Supreme Court, the
United States decision above refer
red to being of use to the defendant
only as a high authority and would
not enable it to reverse the State
Court of it's final decision should be of
the contrary nature.
In the meantime the plaintiff has
had an order served upon him to ap-
pear before Judge Clark on August
Ind to show cause why a stay of
execution shall not be granted to the
defendant company.