Western Maryland Railroad v. Schaun

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an action to recover damages by reason of the plaintiff’s alleged unlawful ejection from one of the cars of the defendant railroad company. The plaintiff, Mrs. Schaun, resides in Baltimore City, but spends the summer at Pen Mar on Western Maryland railroad, and it appears from the testimony that she frequently uses the defendant’s road in travelling between these points. On the 18th July, 1901, she purchased at Hillen Station, Baltimore, a Pen Mar excursion ticket.

These tickets were issued by the defendant company at a greatly reduced price for use on the Pen Mar excursion train No. 13, and on that train only on the date stamped on the ticket. There were other conditions and among them that the excursion ticket must be presented to conductor on west-bound trip, who was required to issue in exchange a return ticket, Pen Mar to Baltimore, good only on excursion train No. 24, of date stamped on said return ticket and cancelled by conductor on margin thereof. This return ticket was not to be furnished by conductor unless he had personal knowledge that the individual by whom it was to be used was actually on west-bound excursion train on date stamped on said excursion ticket. It was further conditioned that this exchange ticket issued by the conductor, in exchange for excursion ticket from Baltimore to Pen Mar would be honored for passage only for the person as described on such exchange ticket.

On the exchange ticket itself is printed the following: “Description of Holder of Balt. Ticket No. 12108, who alone is entitled to use ⁵⁶⁹ this return ticket from Pen Mar to Walbrook as indicated by punch mark.” Following this are 12 small divisions on the ticket thus arranged : In order to prevent the transfer of these tickets, the railroad company required the conductor to punch a general description of the passenger to whom such exchange ticket was given. It appears according to her testimony that on the day named, Mrs. Schaun, the plaintiff, after purchasing her excursion ticket at Hillen Station got on the proper train gave up her Baltimore Pen Mar excursion ticket and received an exchange ticket which she said, believing it was correct, she put in her pocket without any inspection or examination. It is apparent that the slightest inspection of the ticket would have informed the plaintiff that she was not the person described as the holder thereof.

Naturally she was much surprised, therefore, when on returning the same evening on the proper train the same conductor who gave her the exchange ticket refused to accept it, because it did not describe her personal appearance. The ticket called for a woman, light, slight and young, and the plaintiff was dark, stout and middle aged. She refused to pay the fare of $2.20 from Pen Mar to Baltimore and the conductor put her off at Blue Ridge Summit without using any undue force or violence. It also appears from the testimony of the witness, Hoover, that he was the conductor in charge of the excursion train the morning of July 18th—that he had known the plaintiff for thre'e years and that he did not see her on the train that morning; that her daughter was, and that she was travelling on a Pen Mar excursion ticket.

He also testified that by the rules of the company he was authorized to call on the brakeman to assist him in collecting and punching the tickets ; that he had requested him to punch tickets that morn ⁵⁷⁰ ing owing to the number of people'that were on the train and the fact that he (the conductor), was liable at any moment to be called away to look out for signals or orders, and that he did not examine the ticket after he gave it to the brakeman to see whether it was punched correctly. The witness, Gelbach, the brakeman, testified that he assisted the conductor, punched the tickets and handed them to the passengers; that he knew the plaintiff; that she frequently rode on defendants trains; he did not see her, but did see one of her daughters oh the train on the morning of the 18th July. The witness, Miss Schaun, the daughter of the plaintiff who was referred to by the brakeman, testified she was not on the train at the time mentioned. While the foregoing is a brief statement of only a part of the facts, sufficient has been said to present the one question the solution of which in our opinion, will dispose of this case.

That question is presented by the defendant’s first prayer by which the Court was asked to instruct the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence to prove that the plaintiff was unlawfully ejected from the defendants cars. Starting with the concession that the plaintiff was in fact upon the