Year: 1866




PASSENGERS HAVE RIGHTS WHICH MUST BE RE


sPEcTED BY RAILROAD CoAPANIEs AND THEIR


CONDUCTORS.


sixth JUDICIAL DISTRICT. -


f Before Hon. George O. Barrett


Peter Macdonald %. The Harlem Railroad Company
Alfred r. Piyrow %. The Sdms.-These actions were
tried the 9Th instant The plaintiff Macdonald testified
that on the morning Of the aSd OF October last the rcgu
lar ticket once Of the railroad company at Fordham waz
closed and he could not obtain ticket to Now York.
On the train the conductor Patrick verden, demanded
his fare. whom he rendered him twenty cents in United
States currency This the conductor refused to accept
demanding thirty cents Mr. Macdonald remon.
strated against the payment of the extra ten cent
alleging that the company could take advantage Of
their own wrong In having their ONES closed thus
derins impossible for him TO purchase ticket The
Oh, on between fremont and Horrisanin NJ Pirson,
cept that he was put on the train about 117th street.
Mr.. John B. Haskin testified that be saw both the
the conductor informing him that the ticket once 1t
Fordham closed and they could not procure ticketa
he also saw and board the fagman Of the company as
Fordham inform the conductor that the Office was closed
and that the passengers could not purchase cke The
conductor treated both pIant In rude and ungente-
~ssy : % s%
pablo Esq., foF the deisndsnts and Judge Barrett yes
S~~oANS-~


The public notices and wel established custom Of the
defendants amount to contract with the public 70 con-
vey from Fordham to this city for the sum Of twenty
cents any purchasing proper ticket at the COM
pany's ONCE in the former place An attempt to pur-
chase such ticket fustra ed by the ticket ooe being
closed and the absence and negligence Of the defend
ants ticket agent places the traveller as much within
the rule and notice as though the purchase had been
effected It is true that the keeping Of ticket offices s
not obligatory upon the company, and the making OF
such contracts voluntary acts upon their part yet
while they continue TO exercise their option IN those re-
spects, they must be held to their engagement made
hereunder The company had not abrogated its rule In
the present case The closing OF the ticket ONCE was
not its act as body nor was refusal TO contract IN
Of the as
notify the public that all persons purchasing tickets ct
the Office Of the company "would be charged but the
fixed ticket rate" Clearly then the contract Is not 70
sum- the preliminary purchase OF the ticket being
condition to the latter contract going into effect
their rule and rate offer Of compliance with
the condition equivalent to compliance and upon such
offer the contract becomes complete. The defendants
conductor had right then to charge the plaintiffs thirty
This invasion OF the PLANTING righxs was aggravated
by the rudeness Of the conductor, who should have
obeyed his general instructions In civil and proper
manner Those instructions were to exact in all cases
ten cents than the ticket rate where the passenger
could not for any produce ticketeven where as
own servants that the ticket offices are closed Such
orders really go the length Of requiring the conductor TO
exact at times more than the company entitled to, and
Such instructions do not aid the defence they make the
matter As to the damages, think, after some
examination and reflection, that under the circum-
stances they should be something moro than merely
nominal There violation Of the plaintins' rights,
personal venience annoyance aud perhaps odium
The parties were somewhat delayed, too, In reaching
cuiary UNJUST and be should have Judgment twenty
five dOllars Prrson will have Judgment for ten dollars