New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-06-25
MUST GIVE TRANSFERS.
BROOKLYN CASE DECIDED.
appellate Decision AppIies to Nan
haitian Lines, 1t Is asserted.


Beoond Department has decided that the railroad
law makes IL obligatory for street railway cor
porations TO give continuous passages over their
lines and their leased lines for a single fare. or
In other words must issue transfers between
their own lines and their leased lines The opiu-
Ion written by Justice woodward, was handed
down IN affirming 2, decision OF the First Dis
trict Municipal Court in inficting a line Of 3"
on the Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company for
refusing 20 give transfer TO Luke OReiily
from vanderbIt-ave. TO Crosstown car on
December s. 1909. The contention Of the COM
peny wac that the Vsnderbilt-ave. line. which is
q part Of the old Nassau systen was being
operated under 81 entirely different lease from
that under which the Crosstown line. part OF
the Brooklyn City Railroad system, was. and
thar therefore the law did not compel con-
tinuous passage over tie tho lines for single
fare.
1t would seem that the decision also affected
the Legality OF the double OF ter cent fare 10
Coney Island. which IS charged OF the ground
that the cars ore operated over TWO separate
fines although both are leased by the same cor
poration.
President Winter and Vice-Presdent Calder
wood of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company
against which the decision is directed were oN'
OF town yesterday. and in their absence none OF
the officials IN the Montague-st. offices would
talk about the decision
Justice Woodward. in his opinion. quotes the
law Of 1870 regarding leasing and leased lines
follows;
tract shall carry permit any other party jlete5o
carry between any TWO 2o;nls on [g ay
passenger desiring TO make one SohLll.-ES -, - ~
thSn the fare lawfully chargeabe by either OF suSE
corporations for an adult passeilgeT aI ,ti,o,,t
such corporation shall upon demand ana MrIi' ~
extra charge give to each PASSENGER paving one
ons continuous trip to any point portion OF any
railroad embraced in such contract. 10 me enc 5
nreration Of the railroads embraced in such con
trsc substantially as singe ,efieai 20 compy
with the requirements Of this secton the cortoIad
party.
Speaking OF the consolidation Of the systems
he opinion says:
As the privilege was granted only in connection
with the Obligation furnish transfers over an o.
yn ny a4iroaG 90 ipe 2rookIyn Heights Rail
road Compa.lys system. at the time that The Mas
sau Electric Railroad Company entered INTO Us
s5icuIt to understand Why the latter should be
relieved from responsibility in the present case:
company has received the benefits Of the privilege
conferred by the statute no g99c 5Ts9n m, 6b
faton imposed by the statute As conqtu2n OF tR,tl
ended to go with the privilege, ana this purP9e.se
oughL not 70 oe oe3eaIeo 49, - u 7letTric line "a
Be- completed upon the Brooklyn City line. instead
Spo upon one s or The other Of The lesser roads
This would permit the defendant to enjoy . me
advantage TO the public which was contemplated
by the transfer provisions Of the law
TIE EFFECT on MANHATTAN.
James S. Lehmaier. chairman Of the executive
committee Of the Transit Reform Committee Of
One Hundred. said yesterday:
This decision IS the most important ore which
ne The Fight of free tTarsfer for which the Transit
Reform Committee Of one Hundred las been hght-
,biigstorv a. fntersecri,g oin+s Of everv railroad
within the limits of every city or village in The
State provided. Of course these intersectng points
along the different lines which owned or
eased BY the same corporation
Eighteen judges. including the five judges Of the
Jon; and seventeen Of Them have upheld our CON
tide against us, but he unanimously reversed
BY the Appellate Term Of the supreme Court
hPon the question has decided in our favor.
T1;Tssioo ~ ne Sare15 TeTIsr- r. Ie5 if
decision refusal on the lines of the BfoOklyn
uniSersaiity Of the law So far as it applies to The
entire State Of New-Yorlf. The brooklyn Heights
alton 10 thai borough that the Hew-York City
Railroad Company, formerly the Interurban Rail-
haitian.
Company leased the Brooklyn City Railroad Com
pany and The Nassau Railroad Company in pre-
Company leased the Metropolitan ana the Third
Avenue Railroad Company, There can be no dis
tinction drawn between the LAW applicable 10 the
conditions existing with relation 20 the Brooklyn
heights Railroad Company and the New-York City
Railroad Company. unless IL be distinction in
favor Of the Brooklyn Heights company. The
court says that railroad companies cannot have the
priTLege OF completing monopoly OF entire
city system OF railroads by process Of leasing
rosds are operated as one road
While the Transit Reform Committee Of One
Hundred through its counsel. did not actually take
part in the argument in the O'Reilly case, the
DrieT which prepaTe0 in another III
mitted TO the Appellate Division in case pending
et the same time.
THE FREE TRANSFER FIGHT.
The nght for free transfers was begun by the
Transit Reform Committee Of One Hundred
In February. 1903. In that month the commit
tee brought suit in behalf Of Paul Blume
against the Interurben Railway Company. al
ieging four refusals 10 transfer at One-hundred-
and-twenty- hfth-st. and Eighth-ave. Twenty
third-st and Lexington-ave. Twenty third-st
and Broadway. and Twenty -third-st and Third
ave- and demanding penalty OF $50 for each
refusal or $500 In all. Judge Worcester decided
In favor OF the plaintiff and awarded the amount
OF penalties demanded. The Interurban com
pany appealed 20 the Appellate Term. and. after
oeiaylng the appeal as long as possible. on the
eve OF the argument withdrew the appeal and
pe1e me penalties and costs Of appeal.
me BirIne case followed by a number OF
other cases in the different municipal courts OF
the city. In all these cases there was Judgment
for the plaintiff for $50 for each refusal To Give
Transfers The defendant appealed I'm ali cases
but as the appeals came up for argument with
crew them. paying the judgments and costs
f.na5iy Judge Tierhey in the Municipal Court
OF Inc Bronx. decided a case in favor of the
company The plaintiff AT once appealed 10 the
appellate Term Of the Supreme Court and as
the palntir. not the company, was the appel-
liant, the appeal could not be withdrawn ny the
company Il argued last December in the
Appellate Term CT the Supreme Court and in
fffC=f