Show I l F I Of IMPORTANCE TO RAilWAY MAil CLERKS JUDGMENT T IN FAVOR OF OP WIDOW AND CHILDREN OF POSTAL KILLED IN i RAILROAD WRECK I a In the case caBO of or Schuyler vs s South Southern ern Gm n company tile trie supreme court of ot tho the has bas just handed dom an m opinion affirming the Uie judg judgment mom ment of oC the tho district court of or this district dis district In iu favor fa or of or the plaintiffs in tho the thos sum stint s m of ot The case is a most interesting one especially to 10 railway mail clerks lawyers and Judges James A Schuyler was assistant chief chic clerk o of the the railway mall service ser service serice vice ice with headquarters h nt at Ogden Ogdon and 03 3 such held a commission Issued to him by b the postmaster general which contained a request to all nil railroads In to Utah Nevada California Orson Orgon Idaho Idilio and Colorado to accord him frog roe transportation Early E in January 1907 Schuyler I was wan called to Oakland California I his family resided on account of the tho death of or one of or his children I i Ho started to return on oa January 1007 1907 on the fast mail train known as asNo aso asNo No o 10 which was wrecked near Gart Gartney nay ney ne Utah and he and several others Zero were killed in fw the tb wreck In going to 10 Oakland and returning to tho the plat IlIac of the tho accident ho used his commis commission commission sion as aM a a pass and the company rec ed this commission as entitling him to transportation His widow I and children brought suit to recover damages for his hll death and obtained I lu fu Judge Rowells Howells court a n verdict and I judgment for The rho com corn comI I pany main was that the I act of congress known as the Hepburn Hepburn Hep Hepburn burn act made It unlawful for a n rail rall rallI railway I way company to give ghe or a n railway f mall mon clerk to receive free tree i tion except when hen actually on duty r and ond that In this Instance Schuyler was as not on duty but had gone to toi California solely on account of or the i 1 i death of his child The company in ini t n i that It was unlawful for cr to accept free transportation I II and his hili and that ho was a 11 trespasser widow Ido and children could not recover I damages from the railroad company I on account of his death The supreme court on tho the first hearing held that all the evidence showed that Schulyer er was not nol on duty and reversed tho the judgment I Thereupon Ogee McCracken eu en and aUll Bert Dint Esq attorneys nCR nays for the ilie widow and children filed Wed fileda Weda a petition for a rehearing which was wag granted and the th case was IS again argued arsue before the th supreme court where it was contended by the at fit attorneys attorneys for Mrs Schuyler Schuler that it was not unlawful for railways to furnish free passes to mall mail clerks s and further fur further further ther that it made mado no difference whether Schuylor Schuyler lor was on or off orr duty duly nor whether he was or was not rid riding ridIng ing lug in violation of or the Hepburn H act a t since the undisputed facts show that he was Tras riding with the knowledge and nd consent of tho the company and that in either event went he lie was a passenger and entitled to protection as such Both Doth these contentions are now sustained by tho the supreme court the former opinion is set aside and tho judgment of o the district court is affirmed It Itis ItIs Itis is said to bo be the first t time the court has lias granted RI a rehearing and com corn completely reversed its former decision and is therefore interesting to 10 tho the bench and bar of or the state stale and is of great importance to railway mall mail em employeR since it Is IR held that railways may lawfully give Gin free freo transportation mall service and that even were It that fact would be no defense in an action for I Injuries received by br a person whom the railway company hall hail undertaken I to carry carrr and who has been he en Injured through its negligence |