The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-12-14
CONDUCTORS
MORO GOES
Supreme Cour. Affirms
Penalty on Rapid
Transit Co.

BY an oral decision of the Supreme
Court yesterday, the Rapid Transit Co
lost it's appeal from judgment by Judge
De Bolt against it and in favor of
Harold Jeffs, an aggrieved passenger,
for the statutory penalty of $500 and
costs. After D. L. Wilmington had
argued at length on defendants ex-
ceptions, the court stated that it did
not require to hear argument for the
plaintiff but was ready TO decide the
case. P. L. Weaver, appearing for
plaintiff, merely stated the case on
behalf of his client.
Chief Justice Frear rendered the
opinion of the court, which was tran
scribed later by the stenographer and
filed, overruling the exceptions from
the First Circuit Court
Judge De Bolt tried the case jury
waived, giving judgment for plaintiff
for the statutory 800 penalty against
the Rapid Transit Co, on account of
refusal to honor a transfer issued by
one of defendants conductors.
Plaintiff, travelling on a southwark
bound King street car, when near Ala
PAL street asked for a transfer to Bere-
tania street. "Beretania?" the con-
ductor queried. Yes the passenger
answered. Then the conductor punch
ed transfer check and handed it to
plaintiff.
Jeffs took the transfer and, walking
two short blocks, boarded a Beretania
street car. The conductor of this car
refused to accept the transfer and
elected Jeffs.
For the defendant the King street
car conductor testified that he told
plaintiff he could not give him trans
fer to the Beretania street line and
that the corner of King and Alapai
streets was not a transferring point,
but that Jeffs could continue on to the
McCully street junction, a mile and
a half distant, and transferring there
to the Punahou line ride back to the
corner of Alapai and Beretania streets,
where he could take the Beretania car
the point last mentioned being that
which Jeffs reached by walking the
two blocks. The transfer, however,
was not punched in the space in which
''Punahou" was printed. Defendants
attorney contended that plaintiff was
not entitled under the statute to a
transfer at that point from the King
to the Beretania line, and that the
conductor was without authority to
make a contract for such a transfer,
particularly as the transfer was not
requested when the fare was paid and
the evidence did not support the find
ing that the conductor represented that
the transfer was good at that point.
The Chief Justice says: 1T is I'M
necessary to say whether the plaintiff
was entitled under the statute to a
transfer from the King street line to
the Beretania street line at that point.
He was justified in relying upon the
representation of the conductor. It is
not necessary to hold even that there
was new contract made between the
conductor and the plaintiff after the
first contract, if it could be considered
contract, was entered into at the
time when the fare was paid. The
representation by the conductor was
sufficient. This view is in line with the
remarks of the court III the case of
Rhodes VS.. Rapid Transit Co and the
decision in Ashford VS.. Rapid Transit
Co..
The syllabus of decision in this case
is as follows:
A passenger may rely on a repre-
sentation of a street car conductor
that transfer was good at a particu-
lar point from one line to a parallel
line running in the same direction two
snort blocks distant, the transfer be-
ing punched in a blank space in the
column of lines to which transfers are
usually given but containing nothing
10 indicate that it was not good as
represented