Case Name: Herman Berus, Appellant, v. The New York City Railway Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-12
Citations: 52 Misc. 181
Docket Number: 
Parties: Herman Berus, Appellant, v. The New York City Railway Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 52
Pages: 181–182

Head Matter:
Herman Berus, Appellant, v. The New York City Railway Company, Respondent.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
December, 1906.)
Street railway — Operation — Statutory regulations — Fares — Penalty for refusal to transfer.
Carriers — Statutory penalties enforceable against carrier — Liability to penalty for refusing transfer ticket.
Taking case from jury and nonsuit — Weight and sufficiency of evidence ' — Witness interested in result.
Where, in an action against a street railway company for refusal to give a transfer, the plaintiff testifies to such refusal and his testimony is corroborated and uncontradicted, his testimony cannot be disregarded because he also testifies he saw a stenographer drawing the complaint, and it appears the complaint was made out on a blank form prepared on a mimeograph, as he may have seen a stenographer filling out the blank form. The situation to which he testifies is so common that its mere narration convinces of its truth.
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Yew York, ninth district, borough of Manhattan.
Washburn & Sickels (Charles H. Herdt, of counsel), for appellant.
James L. Quackenbush, for respondent.

Opinion:
Fitzgerald, J.
On May 12, 1906, plaintiff boarded one of defendant's cars going north at Tenth street and Sixth avenue, paid his fare and immediately asked the conductor for a transfer to the Twenty-third street' crosstown line; a transfer was not given him, and he rode to Twenty-third street and again asked for a transfer and the conductor refused to give him one. He subsequently boarded a crosstown car at Twenty-third street and explained to the con ductor of that car the refusal of the conductor on the uptown Sixth avenue car to give him a transfer. This conductor demanded another fare which plaintiff paid. C. L. Rowe corroborates plaintiff's statement as to the refusal of the conductor to give the transfer and as to the payment to conductor on the Twenty-third street crosstown line. As regards plaintiff's statement that he was refused a transfer, it stands corroborated and absolutely uncontradicted. The only improbability suggested is claimed to be inferable from the fact that the complaint in the record is a mimeograph copy and tends to refute his statement that he saw a stenographer drawing up that complaint. A mimeograph complaint may be described' as a form of complaint applicable in a general way to a particular class of cases and is, therefore, nothing more than, a blank which, before it can be of service in a special instance, must be properly filled out. It is reasonably inferable and entirely reconcilable with plaintiff's evidence on this subject that he may have seen the stenographer filling out such blanks. Moreover, his examination in chief showed a situation, as was said in Lewis v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., 50 Misc. Rep. 535, " so common and so often before the courts that its mere narration carries with it an atmosphere of conviction of its truth." Applying, therefore, the rule in Lewis v. N. Y. City Ry. Co., supra, judgment must be reversed and new trial granted with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Gildersleeve and Davis, JL, concur.
Judgnent reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.