New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-07-14

TRANSFER SUIT RULINGS.
II T5centy-third-st. Case in Com
pGny's FGTOS, HO.teCcr.


ruling as tLc decision Of tre Appellate Division.
Second Department. some two weeks ago against
re Brooklyh Heights Railroad Company. These
decisions sustain The doctrine that transfers
rruzt nc given O. den>and ~ tEe railway com
-arfes. and that ncl1.ies Tor failures 20 Go 50
can be accumulated.
In one isolated case that of Henry r. Top
ham, in which the complainant demanded trans
cera - Twenty hird-st. and Broadway. the de-
cision # the Appellate Term was reversed in
favor % the railway company. This particular
decision has given the impression TO many that
the general ;igh; 40 demand transfers is weak
ened. The railway company halls il as victory
II applies only tho TWENTY hird-St. intersec-
zion. however. ard was granted on the ground
among others. that the lease Of the Broadway
line was made PRIOR to May ]. 1891. when the
present Law first became operative. In opposi-
ton 10 this are three decisions against the com
pany.
The contention OF II. H. Vreeland. the presi-
dent, end the other officials Of The railway com
pany has been that the refusal Of transfers at
the contested points 20 avoid congestion -
traffic and consequent danger to life. The com
plainants IN these cases however, fail 10 see
wherein persons with transfers in their hands
tend to form a more 'congested" crowd tnan
those without or why such persons should be In
greater danger. It is pointed out that those
wishing TO cross the city Twenty-thiTd-st. will
90 so whether they can get transfers or not
Harcourt Bull a lawyer. Of No. 10 William-st'
said yesterday:
For two years have been engaged in prosec4ln1is
transfer claims against the New OK Oliy nSHi7
way Company. / the nrst one 10 ogsLLt
this agitation, and brought my FIRST claims aRalnS
obtained upward Of 100000 in judgments against the
company and have never lost cdse asatl,S r ne
company Opinions were handed doTn s by a 5re tbe
cases OF Topham. scudder, Griffin and Waller walker;
In the Topham case the aecsi9m 81 r9 chin and
Walker cases the decisions OF the Appellate Term
When these decisions were first ANNOUNCED It vas
supposed by some that the Appellate Ries;1n %
cid not have the right TO demand transfers and 20
insist on penalties II they were reIusee Gnwn
however showed that the right 20 demand tlahs-
Twenty-third-st and Broadway was concerned the
court was Of the opinion that transfers at 'hal
In the scudder and Griffin cases transfers weFe
aR6 at Tbe court holds ex
points The effects Of the scudder and Griffin cases
a sTe s fhe @ R s Company to
transfers at all points OF intersection bel@een oie
Third-ave. system and the Metropolitan system
On the other hand the Topham is decided
grounds It IS expected that from the roPham
case an appeal will be taken promptly 10 the Court
Of Appeals and in that court d it seems eY i
and the decision of the Appellate DIVISION OF ms
ion of the Second Department seems to hold an
opinion diametricay oppose, TO tnae o. TIE Ap-
IN the Topham case Justice Hatch handed down
an opinion IN which ne used the following Ian
guage:
This appeal comes before this court ~, upon FSG the
ptlate Term Justice freeman III a learned di t
exhaustive opinion. has traced The history or the
5hority conferred by The legislative upon street
surface railroads 20 construct, operate, lease and
inception
the right down TO the present time and reached
the conclusion that the lease entered into between
The defendant and the Metropolitan Street Ran
the provisions or the hallroad law as II row eE,
lists and that Section 104 Of that act is rot limited
OF lease well. With that conclusion We agree
The same question was considered by this court
tan Street Railway Company as App DIV 81
Il was also adyerted TO by the Appellate Division
Company COS App Div, 1872 Since that decision
the opinion delivered by the in O. Reilly
Brooklyn Heights Railroad Company. wherein
that court has decisively determined that the con-
struction OF the statute in this respect was the
FORMER decision and by the decisions OF this
Whatever difference Of view presently exists IN
necessary to re-examine this question the mat
court below and so decisiveIy determined in the
other cases adverted TO- that such question. far
rs The supFeme Spurt Is concerned ought 10 De
We also agree with the learned court below that
the statute in question authorizes the recovery of
cumulative penalties in action.
Justice Hatch however. agrees with Justice In
graham who wrote the prevailing opinion IA
holding that. inasmuch the lease OF the Broad
way line was made prior 10 May / 1881 transfers
are not required between that line and the Twenty
shird-st line. II for this alone appar-
emily. that the 1Nopham reversed.
The whole effect OF the decisions handed down
to-day IS 20 affirm the right TO transfers all
the city. except a. Twentythird-st. and Broadway.
Mr.. Vreeland made the following statement yes
terday:
The decision IN favor fl the transfer r3scs
rendered by the Appellate Division First De-
partment to-day is very gratifying. only
penalties in the main Instituted for private gain
but because IL sustains the position which this
OF the transfer question. While have not had az!
opportunity OF reading the opinions consulting
stand that il relieves the company from the obga-
tion OF transferring at number of consested
Twenty-third-st and Broadway and Fourteenth
e. are conspicuous examples. The company has
been anxious TO avoid free transfers such points
N order 10 reduce the congestion of traffic and the
that as the result of this decision the U ed
make any radical change in the policy which il has
propose 10 continue the policy which We vonntarIv
,naugurated many years ago Of maintaining am ex-
tensve free transfer system by which patrons
may make trips between the variols parts Of Man
haitian Island for single fare of five cents We
Simply desire 70 exercise the privilege of d.
recting and distributing the traffic under the
transfer system as 10 divert traffic FAR as
gosslele: from overcrowded lines like those on
broadway and Twenty thirl-st. lines on othey
streets where the traffic Is less consested. The
successful carrying OF this policy will hene6r
the public no less than the company.
In the Topham case, Justice Hatch writes an
opinion holding thar the Appellate Term should
be reversed and Justice Laughn concurs with
hin. Justice lngraham writes another opinion.
hue reaches The same conclusion. and Presdin.
Justice Van Brunt concurs with him. Justice