The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1910-06-06
ECHO OF THE
GAR RTNEY WRECK.

The supreme court Of Utah mas
handed down a decision OF consider
able Importance in the damage suit
of James A. Schuyler VS.. the South
ern Pacific Railroad company. The
Judgment rendered by a jury In the
second district court in favor of
irmed. 1t will be remembered that
Schuyler was assistant chief clerk
of the railway mall service and. as
such, held commission Issued to
him by the postmaster general, con
timing request that all railroads
In Utah Nevada, California. Oregon.
Idaho and Colorado give him free
transportation.
Early in January 1907, Schuyler
was called TO Oakland. California,
wherc his family resided. on account
Of the death of one of his children.
He started TO return ON January 18th
1907. on the fast mail train known as
No 10, which was wrecked near Cart
ney, Utah. and he and several others
were killed in the wreck. in going
to Oakland and returning To the place
of the accident, he used his commits
sion as a pass and the company rec
ognlzed this commission as emitting
him to transportation. His widow
and children brought suit to recover
damages for his death and obtained,
In Judge Howell's court, verdict and
judgment for $4,000 The con-
pany's main contention was that the
act of congress known as tho Hep
burn act. made 1t unlawful for rail
way company TO give, or railway
mail clerk to receive free trausporta-
tion except. when actually on duty.
and that Ia This instance Schuyler
was not on duty but had gone TO
California solely on account of the
death OF his child. The company in
sisted that It was unlawful for
Schuyler TO accept free transportation
and that he was trespasser and his
widow and children could not recover
damages from the railroad company
on account OF his death
The supreme court on the first
hearing held that all the evidence
showed that Schluyer was not on
duty and reversed the Judgment.
Thereupon Messrs. Agec & McCrack-
en- and Bert Schlesinger Esq, attor-
neys for the widow and children. filed
a petition for rchearing which was
granted and the case was again
argued before the supreme court,
where II was contendcd by the at
torneys for Mrs. Schuyler that 1t was
not unlawful for railways 10 furnish
free passes TO mail clerks, and. fur
ther, that il made no difference
whether Schuyler was on or off duty,
nor whether he was or was not rid
ing in violation OF the Hepburn act.
since the undisputed facts show that
he was riding with the knowledge and
consent of the company. and that In
either event he was a passenger and
entitled to protection as such. Both
these contentious are now sustained
by the supreme court. the former
opinion is sci aside and the judgment
OF the district court Is affirmed 1t
Is said 10 be the first time the court
has granted q rehearing and com
pletely reversed It's former decision.
and is therefore interesting to the
bench and bar OF the state. and is OF
great Importance to railway mail en-
ployes. since it is held that railways
may lawfully give free transportation
TO railway mail service employees, and
| that even were IL un,awful that fact
would be no defense in an action for
injuries received BY a person whom
the railway company had undertaken
TO carry, and who has been injured
through its negligence.