New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1907-02-13
MUST GIVE TRANSFERS.
OPINION ON APPEAL.
appellate Term Declares for Free
Return on Same Line.

The Appellate Term of the Supreme Court by
n vote OF two to one yesterday held that a pas
senger on the New York City Railway was en-
titled to a transfer carrying him to his destna-
ton, even though it were on car going in an
opposite direction.
The opinions handed down were IN the case
of Peter c. Kelly against the New York City
Railway Company to recover $50 penalty for the
alleged refusal OF the company to give him
second transfer north when ne had been raF-
cling south.
In the prevailing opinion Justices Glider
sleeve and Amend reverse the ruling Of the
lower court, which was In favor OF the railway
company and sustain the proposition that the
law requires the company 10 furnish to a pas
senger a continuous<rip between any two points
for one fare, but say that because Of the great
Importance Of the case they grant permission
to the railroad company to take an appeal from
their decision to the Appellate Division Of the
Supreme Court.
Justice MacLean, in a long dissenting opinion
holds that the New York City Railway Com
pany should not be compelled to carry passen-
ger IN opposite directions for one fare, as he be
leves this would be equivalent to giving round
trip Journey for one scent fare and might I'M
der some circumstances compel the company to
give what would really amount to a continuous
In affirming the ruling OF the municipal court
Justices Justice MacLean says:
Passing by the fact that the statute mentions
merely n transfer for q single fare and not the
succession Of transfers assumedly granted 1t re-
mains to note that the salient objection to the
extreme view of any two points If read in the
literal sense imputed to IT by the appellant and
consorts. It is commonplace to say that the
Legislature of this commercial state with It's
presumtiVe knowledge Of the incidents involved
and presumably purposing the consequence OF
its acts, hardly for the sake OF the relatively
rare person actually desiring for trade or pleas
ure, not for a penalty, to continue his or her
trip backward would intend to exempt aportion
OF the great business of transporting passengers
in its incorporated cities and villages from the
carriers control TO lay upon the carrier the
necessity Of carrying passengers over extended
towns with repeated stopovers at each inter-
secung point for the compensation OF single
fare: or, for the payment OF no fare at all, to
make compulsory conveyance Of passengers upon
transfers obtained by subterfuge, and so to pro-
mote the abuses of Illicit trading in transfers
and for the knocking down of fares, to expose
the surface railroads TO almost open cheating by
crooked passengers and traders and employees.
He goes on TO say that casual observation by
the unconcerned citizen, riding up and down
and waiting ct the points OF intersection, shows
sufficiently that such abuses now existing would
be multiplied indefinitely. No evidence to con-
tradict that offered by the railway company that
such abuses exist was introduced.
In conclusion. the justice says that If the
carrying companies are TO iOrego some OF their
legalized profits, these profits should go to the
benefit OF the public through taxation or per-
centage upon earnings, and not to pilfering pas
sengers or traitors or employees and sustains
the contention and law point presented by couu-
sci for the railway company.
A transfer was refused the appellant. accord
ing to his counsel. at Chambers street and West
Broadway. It would have enabled him to travel
north. He had got on a southbound car at
Bavard street and the BoWery.
The Municipal Court justices have announced
that they will abide by the decision until it is
reversed by a higher court.