| Show RAILWAY LAW DECISIONS abe deo leion of judge welborn of the United eStates circuit court made at los loe angeles Ange lei cale cal tuesday Tue aday in the case of the At atlantic lautic and pacific rail way va v the united state la is of for far reaching importance as aa declaring a principle heretofore invoked in this thia nation only in times or of war the railway wanted 2570 for carrying a trooper from albuquerque now new mexico to Pieto Ples dott ott juno tion arizona the government offered 18 23 the court decided that the railway was wai not entitled to wore more than the government said ad for the reason that the he latter had bad the right to fix the amount the effect of thiede this e S casion to Js to announce that govern government merit im supervision over railways to la in effect 1 in this country in its ito most moat pronounced form in governmental affairs just aa the citizen may be required to do ser ber vice in the militia at a rate or of pay which he may deem alto gether inadequate so ao must i po pora rations tiona submit to the same rule the full force of the be application in times of pence peace may not dawn upon this the public all at once but it represents a roost emphatic emp batio declaration of the supremacy of the government in all mat mattera where the ad administration ginistra min istra lion of public ainaire in concerned another railway decision of im import PO rt an ance ce to the public I 1 is the laying down of the rule by the new york court of appeals ap peale in the recent case of graham VB va the attao railway company that a railroad company by inviting a person to take passage on its oars cars la in bound to furnish him with a safe place 1 to ride and an omission to do so BO Is iberi evi dence of negligence on its part that oh alo regard of the statute iride the elevated railroad road to place g gatea tee lt 1 u upon pon every passenger car and nd keep them closed while the oar car la Is it in motion is ie evidence ot 0 negligence on olm the part of the company in an action 1 toi to recover for an injury resulting ire from its failure to observe such a regulation and that violent conduct of a servall of the the platform company upon of 6 a oar car causing the crowd to sway away and jostle a ODger and thus contribute ing to an accident resulting in h bis Is in f I 1 jury is negligence for which the s company will be hold held responsible it further holds that bat the exposure ai of a Daa to danger which the exer oise cise of a reasonable foresight would have anticipated and due care avoided 1 is negligence on the part of a carrini carri carrier oi I 1 11 1 and that whether the overcrowding overcrowd I 1 UK of cars care Is negligence is a question of A fact |
