OCR Text |
Show NTOl'-OVEH TICKETS. A day or two sinco tbe tolegraph told tbe story that a Utah judge, the same whose judicial antics last year violated vio-lated all sense of propriety, had charged a jury strongly in favor of the railroad company on a point that has been decided de-cided over and over again by eastern courts, and directly the reverse of tho charge of the Utah apology for a judge. The case involved was that of a stopover stop-over ticket, and tho facta are thus, briefly stated: On tho 27th of last June James M. Page left Omaha for San Francisco by the Union Pacific railroad train, having previously, on the samo day, purchased a second class ticket over tho Union Pacific and Con tral Pacific railroads, from the first to the last named place. This ticket he purchased at Omaha of the ticket agent 01 the Union Pacifio railroad company, who, for that purposo, was also the agont of tho Uegtral Pacifio railroad oompany. for this ticket he paid eifibty dollars, tho difference in price between it and a first-olass ticket being, be-ing, as stated by Page's counsel in court, twenty dollars. Tho oonduotor on tho train on tho first division west of Omaha took up Pago's ticket, and, according to usage, gave him an ex chaniro ticket. On tbe 5th day of July last tho plaintiff entered a second class oar of the Central Pacific railroad company at Ogden.and started for San Francisco. To the conductor who collected or examined tho ticket Pago exhibited tho exchange ticket mentioned above. The conductor refused re-fused to receive it, saying it was behind time. Tho conductor told the plaintiff that he must pay his fare or get off the train. Tho plaintiff refused to pay his fare, and at Corinno, whero.tho train stopped, the conductor and other em iloyes of the railroad company put him off the train. In doing so Page's aokle was sprained to an extent worse than the breaking of a bone. He brought aotioo against the Central Pacifio Pa-cifio Kailroad company for $50,000 damages. The case was brought before be-fore judge McKean, and judge Sanderson, Sander-son, the attorney for the railroad, went out to Salt Lake to oonduot tbe case for tbe defense. Before the case was closed, the bias of the judge was seen. Sanderson moved a nonsuit on two points. Tbe judge, while denying the nonBuit, in doing eo took ocoasion to pronounce from the bench that tbe plaintiff was under a contract to make his trip within six days or forfeit his tickot. He assumed because it was printed on the ticket tbat the trip must be made in six days or the ticket would be canceled, tbat tbe railroad company had a right to make such a regulation and enforce it, when the point bas been decided in several of tho eastern States tbat no railroad company can place any such limitation limita-tion opon the traveler- not only tbat a oompaDy cannot do it in regard to time, but that it cannot limit its responsibility re-sponsibility by printing upon a ticket that it will not pay for baggage lost beyond a specified sum. In the case ofPage,he did not present hi ticket at Ogden for passage over tho Central Pacific Railroad till two days beyond tho limitation printed on the ticket, and for thus being behind time tbe railroad oompany claims that tbe pas sage money lor tho entire distance between be-tween Ogden and San Francisco is forfeited for-feited to tbe rich corporation. It I matters not what the reasons are. The man is probably poor, or he would not havo purchased a Beoond-olass ticket. lie may have been sick or detained by accident. No matter what the cause, tho mammoth corporation has confiscated confis-cated for its own benefit his ticket, and ! he is left perhaps without the means i to reach bis destination, to the mercy of strangers and Judge MoKean, who, the telegraph informs us, charged the jury against the plaintiff, and a verdict was rendered accordingly. A forfeited ticket, supposed by plaintiff good t" take him to San Francisco, and a lame leg with accompanying crutches are what Page gained by not obeying the illegal restrictions of the railroad company. We say "illegal restrictions" restric-tions" becauso by tbe best judicial I authority in States where it is supposed suppos-ed a man has qualifications and honesty for tbe bench when he Bits on it, it has been decided that no such restrictions restric-tions are legal. We clip the follow-, follow-, ing interesting decision from the New York " Commercial :" "A oaEe was decided lately by the 1 commission of appeal of considerable 1 interest to married women and railroad , companies. A married woman brought an action against the Pennsylvania 1 railroad comgan for $5,000 the value of lost baggage, and obtained judg-1 judg-1 ment in her favor. Tho case was I appealed and the judgemnt of the oourt below was confirmed lately by ' the court of last resort. The defense was that the ticket on which the plain-s plain-s tiff was riding limited tbe liability of the railroad company to $100; also, that tbe plaintiff's husband, and not she, was tbe proper person to sue for ' damages. The decision of the courts , thus maintained the rights of a married 3 woman to her own olothing and jewelry both against her husband and his ere ditors, even though they may be the gifts of the husband. The illegality of the clause on railroad tickets limiting the responsibility for lost baggage is also affirmed." And tho Plainfield (New Jersey) "Constitutionalist" makes this statement state-ment : "A lady travelioc on the Grand Trunk railroad in New York stopped over on the way. and when she proposed pro-posed to resume her journey was put off the earn upon her refusal to pay again, because her ticket read "good for this train and tho day received not good to stop over." She Bued the oompany and recovered costs and $600 damages. No matter what may be printed uport a railroad ticket, it is good in law for tbe whole distance paid for, on any day the purchaser elects to use it." If we remember correctly a similar decision was Hide at Albany less than a year ago. The New York "Advo-oato" "Advo-oato" uses tho following language in reference to thisBamo question : "Tbe courts have already decided tbat a man who buys a ticket, as it were between Boston and New York, has tho undoubted right to stop at aoy place on the road and to resume his journey at leisure, without buying another an-other ticket. The legend, "Good for this date only," has no value in the eyes of any eavo railway officials, and the law has deoided that any action taken by conductors with a view to enforcing the implied contract is illegal. il-legal. There the matter should be al-lowncd al-lowncd to rest. The public are satis-tied satis-tied so to leave it, and the railway companies ouirht not to complain. If a man buys a ticket to Boston, and tbe company receive the money for it, thero is no reason why they should refuse re-fuse to carry bim thither, or why they should wit-h to force bim to do it to suit their convenience instead of bis 1 own." It is evident from theso facts tbat judge McKean and the jury acting under un-der his instructions havo a different idea of law from that entertained in older States. A new country evolves new ideas, as was seen in the abominable abomin-able course pursued by tho Utah judge in tho Mormon trials, and is seen io tho verdict which leaves a pi 'ndcred and maimed passenger without redress. Perhaps that passenger, just from tbe abode of civilization, where newspapers newspa-pers are circulated and read, bad beard that tho railroad companies bad no legal right to enforce any restrictions upon bim. He has now loarned, to his sorrow, that they have a differont construction con-struction of law and a slidhtly different idea of justice in Utah. Certainly, the boundaries of his knowledge have becnonlarftcd, if hip pockets aro lighter, bis Icits nut fitted fur jumping fences, and ho does not feel liko niD(iing pcans to Utah justice or tho Ccn'ral Pacifio railroad company. "Sacramento Union." |