Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1905-10-10
JEFFs WINS DAMAGE SUIT
(contInued from Pace ~

Continued from PAGE ~
10 get OFF the carr There were other
passengers aboard and the plaintiff, in
his testimony says: 4 felt very much
Inundated and ashamed to be put OF
the car like that, and felt much NOR.
titled, and | still feel very sore about
It. | think 1t was shame to put
man off the car like that, after had
explained everything to him as near as
/ could and I told him how 1t was.
and he insisted that ! get off,
THE transfer, as shown by the con.
ductor's punch marks. correctly indl.
Gated the date and time of day; and.
presumably, the destination Of the
plaintiff. The punch mark in the blank
space on that part of the transfer
ticket where the names OF other desti-
nations or transfer points were printed
could have been made. as 1t seems to
me. for no other purpose than to In
dictate the destination Of the passenger.
If such wds not the purpose, why then
was this blank space punched and none
Of the others? II We only consider this
for moment and read the transfer
ticket In the light Of all the surround.
ing facts and circumstances, particu-
larly the facts that the Beretania street
line was only opened the day before,
that plaintiff asked for a transfer to
Beretania street. and that the conduc'
tor answering said 'Beretania| and i'm.
riediately punched the ticket, tore 1t
off and gave 1t to him. the conclusion
above suggested would seem to neces'
sarily follow. The face of a passen.
gers ticket is not the sole criterion Of
his right of passage (i6 /. r. A..
GID.
The names of the points Of transfer
as then existing by direct order of
the defendant corporation were printed
at the bottom of the transfer ticket In
the following order, the last space, as
already mentioned being left blank.
namely: Liliha St., Fort St. N, Fort
st. s., Alakea st. s., Punahou, Wal.
alae. None of the names Of the print
ed points of transfer were punched;
but the blank space. as already stated
was punched by the conductor. Moth.
ing, as 1t seems to me. could have been
more reasonable or natural than for the
plaintiff to have accepted this trans.
fer and present It as he did. in the full
belief that II was genuine and what 1t
purported to be. There was no reason
why passengers should not be trays.
ferred at this point. The transfer ticket
gave plaintiff, 10 notice of any error
or commission, or of the failure Of any
duty on the part of the conductor. II
was apparently correct, and to all in
tents and purposes, just what plaintiff
asked for. The terminus of the Bereta-
MIA street line was near by on Alapai
street, in. plain view of a passenger
alighting from a King street car, Just
where one would naturally expect a
transfer point to be, and where the
convenience Of the public requires 1t.
The line was new and only the defend
ant corporation know whether It was
to be made connecting line or not,
with King street, and transfers to be
issued from one me to the other. II,
as matter of fact, the company had
expressly declared this to be transfer
point, the ticket In question would
have answered the purpose. The plain.
tin acted in good faith. and he was free
from any fault or negligence. And. as
1t appears to me, there can be no ques.
tion but that the plaintiff was upon
continuous trip. and transfer.
ring from one car to another, upon .
connecting line within the limits pre-
scribed by the statute, end that. under