Year: 1870

Some time ago gentleman purchased o
through railroad ticket from Boston to New
York, used it as far as New-Haven, where he
stopped, and then took the boat, retaining the
unused coupon. Subsequently, in returning to
Boston, he attempted to travel as far as New
Haven on this particular ticket. Upon other
roads he had been allowed to use coupons or
tickets either way, but upon this occasion the
conductor refused to take the ticket, and, after
stating his version of the affair to the Super
intendent of the road at Stamford, proceeded,
in accordance with the instructions of the lat
ter, forcibly to eject the passenger. Several
"Roughs," who may or may not have been
regular employees, were brought to accomplish
this, and owing to the unfortunate resistance
of the gentleman ION mistaken idea Of prin-
ciple, we believe) the scene was one of great
violence. He was, according to his own state
ment, struck savagely in the head several times,
rapidly dragged through the car and thrown
from the platform. He was thus severely
bruised, had his skin and flesh torn on arms
and legs, was ruptured by the treatment he re-
ceived, and his internal injuries are now after the
lapse of years, pronounced by his physicians
permanent. His fOrcible election from the train
was under the direct cOgnizance and sanction
of the Road Superintendent. The gentleman
brought suit against the Company, and, although
the Judges charge was adverse to him, the
jury gave verdict of $1,000 damages, which
was set aside by the Judge as excessive. A
new trial was held last January, and the jury
stood eleven to one in favor of the previous
verdict-the one dissenter being person then
or formerly connected with the railroad.


Al. 1n%I, l. =.
legally good either way between two places,
there may be doubt; but in equity there is not
the least. No possible loss could come upon
the N. Y. & N. II. r. r. by treating ticket good
one !way as good the other. The action of
Judge Brigham in the case involves appar-
emily the principle that a railroad company
may make what rules it pleases, without regard
to the interests of passengers, the only course
for the latter being to endure whatever the
company imposes, or to stop travelling on the
road. We seriously object to this view of the
subject. Yet, admitting that railroads have the
right to impose arbitrary rules upon passen-
gers, they should certainly not be allowed to
enforce them by violent means The gravest
abuses have arisen from the ordinary practice
which permits conductors and train men to
act first as judges to decide questions Of rail-
road law, then as juries to render the verdict,
and finally as cOnstables to carry it into exc
cution. Not long ago passenger on the New
Jersey Central Railroad lost his ticket and was
turned off n train while it stood on a bridge,
through which he fell and was drowned. The
man was known to be respectable citizen, as
ia tho gentleman whose story We have told.
Similar cases arc by no means of infrequent
occurrence. In truth, it generally happens that
in these difficulties between passengers and
conductors the better and more inOffensive
class of travellers are the subjects of out
rage, while rufians and rowdes are seldom
interfered with. No man who has travelled much
on railroads can hayo failed to notice the cdi-