The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-04-12
LIMIT OF CHANGE
is REASONABLE
So Rules Judge Ingram in
Street Car Damage
Case.
VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT
instructions Of Court Settle
Moot Point as to Change
Requirement.
VERDICT FOR DEFENDANT
on instructions from the court tina,

On instructions from the court thai
a rule OF the street car company re-
curing conductors to furnish change
In the sum Of 81 and no more, is
reasonable regulation. verdict and
Judgment for the defendant were en-
tercd yesterday in the Law and Equity
Court in the suit of A 4. Bradshaw
against the Virginia Railway and
Power Company.
Mr.. Bradshaw claimed to have been
a passenger on q Broad and Ninth
street car on May .. 1910 Having no
small coin he rendered the conductor
q 50 bin. The conductor refused TO
accept 1t. and insisted that he get off,
and on his refusal to get off, he was
charged with disordcrly conduct and
placed under arrcGt The whole case
turned on whether q rule Of the com
pany requiring conductors 10 furnish
change UP TO 81. was q reasonable
regulation" and the instruction OF the
court on that point practically settled
The whole matter. Claiming that lie
had been greatly mortified by his ars
rest and Police Court trial. Bradshaw
sued for damages IN tho sum OF $500
lie was represented By Wyndham L.
Meredith a 3. Gugon and Thomas
T.. Bryan appeared for the car com
pany
Instructions OF Court.
Judge ingram gave the jury but one
instruction. which follows In FULL and
which practically directed e verdict
20, the defendant:
The court inatructs the Jury tia.
liz they believe from the evidence that
the plaintin rendered q 50 bill TO the
conductor % the car on which he was
iidiEg, out OF which he demanded that
his fare be taken. that the conductor
declined or was unable 10 change he
bill! SO rendered and SO informed the
plniniiit: that, thereupon, the plaintir
made no further tender Of smaller de-
domination. but informed the coriuc
tor tina, that was tho smallest denNln-
inatton he had. or all the money he
had tiat then the conductor dcmandod
That no plaintiff pay his fare or leayc
tie cor and held tho car At Il stand
Sill so that the plnin,tt might safely
aiisht; that the pla!nt!r refused to pay
his farc or leave tho car. though warn
Cd ~ the conductor that he would 30
ejcctel If he persisted in his refusal
il!ll the conductor then undertook,
without undue or unnecessary force
or iiolcncc. TO eject the plaintiff; 'nat
tue Plaintiff pulled awey from the con
auctur and resisted the effort 10 eject
hlni, and that thcraupon the conductor
81 Their placed the plaintiff under arres,
o: caused his arrest for disordcrly con
duet. then they. must find for the j..
PENDANT; the court being OF opinion
tina, the rule Of the company requiring
the {. nductors OF the railway company
20 .siye change 10 the extent OF 50 and
no more is reasonable regula tion
within the city of Richmond, and when
rnfsorgar tenders q larger amount,
as III this case OF SIS bill. then by
tie refusal OF the passenger Of the
iepuc5i to pay his fare or leave tile
car when called upon hy the conductor,
the Messenger makes OF himself a tres
pisscr, and is guilty OF disorderly con
.dact fer which he may be arrested ~
tile conductor. and policeman may be
CALLED lron 70 take him in charge,