delivered it to his wife, on or about the 20th day of May, 1902. As soon as she received it the plaintiff noticed that it was made out to "Mr. H. M. Parish," and she explained it to the conductor to whom she first presented it, some time in May, that it was intended to be issued to her and not to Mr. Parish, and that she had signed her name at the bottom of it; and that conductor permitted her to ride upon it. Several times afterwards prior to August 6th, she also rode upon the book. On the last-mentioned date, however, she presented the book to the conductor of a train which she boarded at Hobart, and sought to ride thereon. The conductor declined to receive the book as fare, saying it was issued to Mr. Parish,' and his orders were to enforce the rules of the company; that she must pay fare or get off the train. The plaintiff refused to pay and got off. The next day she wrote to the company, explaining the situation, and on August 8th or 9th she received a letter in reply from the general superintendent, telling her that she should have "declined to receive" the book if it was not properly filled out; that conductors have strict instructions to see that passengers comply with the rules printed on the ticket, and that if she held a ticket issued in the name of "Mr." H. M. Parish the conductor had no right to honor it for passage, and also telling her that in order to avoid further trouble she should send the ticket to his office for correction. She never sent the book back for correction, nor made any attempt to do so, but on the 23rd of August she again took a train at Davenport Center, which was run by the same conductor that had previously declined to receive the book. He again declined to receive it, and told her that she must get off or pay her fare. She refused to get off and the conductor put her off. It is very clear from the evidence that he used no more force than was necessary to do so. Her own statement shows that. For being put off the train upon these two occasions, the plaintiff has brought an action against the defendant for an assault and battery on the part of its conductor. She recovered a verdict at the circuit of $1,000, and from the judgment entered thereon, and from an order denying a new trial, appeal is taken.

It was said by the court, unless the book which plaintiff then presented to the conductor was one, that, upon its face, authorized her to be carried upon such train, the conductor was justified in putting her off. It seems too clear for discussion that upon its face the

con

book did not authorize her to ride upon it. In the month of August it was good only to those to whom it was issued, and it was not issued to her. Being addressed to "Mr." H. M. Parish, it repels the idea that it was intended for her. And the conductor was not bound to hear her explanation, and to determine from it whether her money had paid for the book, and, through an error of the defendant's clerk it had been made out to the wrong party. In the case of Monnier vs. The New York Central R. Co., it is distinctly held that, even though the fare which the conductor demanded was, as between the traveler and the company, an unlawful exaction, yet it was not unlawfully exacted as between the traveler and the conductor, because he was not in a situation to determine that question. The conductor has the right to rely upon appearances, and, if the ticket or book on its face does not apply to the plaintiff or authorize him to ride upon it, then the conductor may enforce the reasonable rules of the company, even to the extent of ejecting the traveler from the train. It is hardly disputed that so far as appearances were cerned, this plaintiff had no ticket or other evidence of any right to ride upon the train in question. She squarely refused to pay the regular and usual fare, and therefore, within the clear authority of the above-cited case, the conductor was justified in putting her off. It makes no difference that the plaintiff had paid her money and was entitled to a book, proper in form to permit her to ride upon it. She did not have such a book and therefore she was not in a position to demand being carried without paying fare to the conductor. has any claim against the company for issuing the ticket in the wrong name, that question must be determined in a proper action; but it is very clear that she neither had a ticket which authorized the conductor to carry her, nor, as against the conductor, did she have the right to be carried because she had paid for a book that she had not as yet received. The situation was not substantially changed on August 23rd, when the plaintiff a second time attempted to ride with this same conductor upon the same book, except that the plaintiff was then assured that under the defendant's rule she could not ride upon that book until she had sent it in to the company's office to be corrected. Clearly the action of the conductor had as full a justification the second time as it had the first.

If she

Parish vs. Ulster &c. R. Co. 90 N. Y. Sup. 1000.

ট

TRAIN RULES

Relative to your decision in February CONDUCTOR to questions of Mr. T. H. Davis. Please explain more fully. You state No. 65 has right to proceed to Beaver Dam after 3:45, but has No. 65 right to proceed beyond Beaver Dam after 3:45 if 2d 66 has not arrived. Orders are good until fulfilled, superseded or annulled. The meet with 2d 66 is positive

and has not been fulfilled. I cannot see how No. 65 can go beyond Beaver Dam if 2d 66 has not arrived at 3:45. F. W. DICE.

Pocatello, Idaho,

ANSWER-No. 65 has no right to go beyond Beaver Dam until 2d 66 arrives. In giving answer in February issue thought had made that clear,but see we did not. Order No. 203 is in force regardless of whether 1st 66 makes Beaver Dam or not. The only cases in which a "meet" order may be disregarded is when the train to be met is 12 hours late as per rule 82 or loses right as per rule 4, or when the order is superseded by the words "instead of" or is annulled.

Given a railroad composed of six districts, district terminals indicated as A, B, C, D, E, F, G. "A" at the north end. Time table No. 92. First class train 17, south bound, and 18, north bound. North bound trains hold right of track. Train 17 due to leave "E" at 12:05 A. M. Time-table No. 93 takes effect 12:01 A. M. Jan. 8th and on new time table train 17 is due to leave "E" at 11:55 P. M. Foot note on new time-table gives train 17 absolute right of track over all trains between "A" and "F.

QUERIES-Can train 17, which was due to leave "E" at 12:05 A. M. on the old time-table, run on the second district between "E" and "F" on the morning on which time-table 93 takes effect? If not, why? and if not, could train pass over the district except under flag if wires were down?

If this train could proceed, on what date would the conductor register out of "E?"

Would the giving of absolute rights to train 17 in the new time-table cut any figure?

ANSWER-At 12:01 No. 17 would assume the schedule of No. 17 of the new time-table together with all special privileges and restrictions as outlined by the new time-table. We are aware that others claim under similar circumstances the train could not run until the next day. But such interpretation is not warranted by any ruling of the American Railway Association or by the Code Rule B 4 which plainly states that a train of the preceding time-table shall retain its train orders and take the schedule of the train of the same number on the new time-table. There is no question of date involved. At 12:01 A. M. No. 17 could leave E 6 minutes late registering out as a train of Jan. 7th. Rule 4 B was designed to allow one time-table to supersede another without special intervention on the part of the dispatcher. Under Rule 4 B there is only one kind of schedule that is not fully alive when the new timetable takes effect and that is the schedule of a train which has no corresponding number on the old card. The interpretation that regards a train which is not due on the road when the timetable takes effect as not being a train of the preceding time-table is defective and leaves this train without any provision made for its protection and besides it is not logical and does not conform to the wording or the spirit of the rule. Obviously, any train which was scheduled on the old time-table is "a train of the preceding time-table" and it is not necessary that they be due on the road at the time the new time

table takes effect, but in case there is not a corresponding number for them to assume, then they lose both right and class as the time-table which conferred their rights has been superseded. The Code does not say that the first day a new time-table takes effect its corresponding schedules are alive only from a point where the time of schedule and time the time-table takes effect correspond. The rule says that "each timetable from the moment it takes effect supersedes the preceding tine-table.” it supersedes, it certainly supersedes. completely with the exception that a train not having a corresponding number cannot run until it is due to start from its initial station on that division after the time-table takes effect. This is the only case in which the first day of the new time-table differs from other days under Standard Code Rules.

If

ANSWER-We think the extra should continue to C before turning back to A. The extra cannot fulfill the order unless he goes to C. Should anything occur to disable him so he could not go to C we are of the opinion that he would be justified in returning to A keeping clear of regular trains, as he holds an order to run extra in both directions and under the rules, if no other orders are involved, he would not be required to protect against other extras between the points named and judgment would tell him the dispatcher would not issue the return movement at "A" unless he expected to have a clear track for the return movement. We would not advise this course if it was at all possible to get through to C.

whom the order was issued to should fill out space, other conductors think the operator should do so. Will you kindly give your opinion. I can find nothing in Standard Code that says who shall do it. Will you kindly advise in the next issue of "CONDUCTOR. Axline, Ohio. KENT.

ANSWER-We are of the opinion that the operator should fill out all blank spaces on a train order, excepting, of course, the conductor's signature. Order blanks are only furnished to telegraph operators and the Rules recognize the operator as the proper person to fill out the blank. The Code only authorizes those to whom the order is addressed to sign for it except enginemen. We do not understand that persons addressed should or are permitted to fill in any blank space other than the place for signature.

EDITOR FORUM-I would like to hear your opinion of a question of train registration which came up a few days ago. It would be well to say as a matter of explanation that the party registering had been running train for ten years on the same road when this question came up and had registered the same. We have a double page register, one side arrivals, the other departure. The first column on arrival page is for "date" the next train No., then engine No., then time, then signals, then conductor and engineer and remarks. On top at the heading of the page is a space for station name and also dates. The question arising is this: I left the initial point at 9 P. M., Dec. 19, arriving at the terminal 2:10 A. M., Dec. 20, on a first-class train. A freight crew was called for 4 A. M. and in checking register found I had registered Dec. 19th in first column on the page for Dec. 20. The conductor refused to go on the ground that I should have registered Dec. 20th in first column and not the While date of train leaving initial point.

on

I hold that this column is set aside for "train date" which means the date the train leaves the initial point and not to be used for date of arrival as the date indicates that. heading of page This has been the custom ever since we adopted standard rules about 5 years. St. Louis, Mo. С. К. Т. ANSWER-Trains should register on the page the date of which corresponds with the date they are due to arrive. Where there is an extra column for date it should show the date of the train. Your registering was correct.

A. C. Ridgeway has been appointed general manager of the Denver & Rio Grande system.

S. W. Maxwell has resigned as trainmaster of the Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton at Indianapolis, Ind.

J. W. Leonard has been appointed manager of construction of the Canadian Pacific branch which is being built from Toronto to Sudbury, Ont. His headquarters will be at Toronto, Ont.

E. Stenger, heretofore assistant division superintendent of the Union Pacific at Grand Island, Neb., has been transferred to Cheyenne, Wyo., as assistant superintendent of the Wyoming division.

W. H. Newman, president of the New York Central & Hudson River, was on January 18 elected president of the Rutland and the St. Lawrence & Adirondack also, to succeed Dr. W. Seward Webb.

J. J. Kertin, heretofore trainmaster of the Mexican Central at Silao, Mex., has been appointed superintendent of the Cuervavaca division, with headquarters at Cuernavaca, Mex., to succeed R. E. Comfort, resigned.

B. Woodward, general yardmaster of the Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis at Columbus, O., has been appointed assistant trainmaster at that place. J. H. Bowers has also been appointed assistant trainmaster at Columbus.

R. P. Dalton, heretofore superintendent of the Missouri Pacific and St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern, at Aurora, Mo., has been appointed superintendent of the Chicago, Cincinnati & Louisville, with headquarters at Peru, Ind., succeed C. L. Nichols, resigned.

to

W. L. Mapother, Jr., who has been assistant to the President of the Louisville & Nashville, has been elected first vice president of that road, with headquarters at Louisville, Ky., which office has been vacant since the resignation of Mr. Walker D. Hines last July.

S. T. Hayt, Jr., heretofore general superintendent of the Susquehanna & New York, has been appointed chief engineer, and the former position has been abolished, general manager Newman assuming the duties of that office. H. H. Blair has been appointed trainmaster; headquarters, Williamsport, Pa.

W. J. Harahan, general manager of the Illinois Central, has been made fourth vice president of that road. I. G. Rawn, assistant general manager, has been promoted to general manager. F. B. Harriman has been appointed general superintendent of the lines north of the Ohio River. H. McCourt has been appointed general superintendent of lines south of the Ohio River.

F. L. Richards, heretofore passenger trainmaster of the Chicago & Alton at Chicago, has been transferred to Dwight, Ill., as freight trainmaster, and the former office, created for the St. Louis fair traffic, has been abolished. Mr. Richards succeeds Mr. J. J. Reardon, who has been transferred to Springfield, Ill., as trainmaster, in place of E. H. Junod, who resumes his former duties as passenger conductor.

A. L. Johnson, heretofore division superintendent of the Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg, at Rochester, N. Y., has been transferred to Dubois, Pa., as superintendent of the Middle and Pittsburg divisions. J. McGarvey, heretofore superintendent of the Middle division, has been appointed superintendent of the Rochester and Buffalo divisions, with headquarters at Rochester, N. Y., succeeding Mr. Johnson.

W. E. Morse, heretofore superintendent of the Northern Wisconsin division of the Chicago & Northwestern, has been transferred to the superintendency of the Madison division, with headquarters at Baraboo, Wis., succeeding R. A. Cowan, retired. P. J. O'Brien, assistant division superintendent at Chicago, has been appointed superintendent of the Northern Wisconsin division, with offices at Fond du Lac, Wis., in place of Mr. Morse.

Some months ago Brother M. E. Murray, 972 76 Place, Chicago, Ill., requested all tobacco users to send to him some tags and coupons, the object being to collect a number sufficient to enable him to furnish a reception and lounging room for inmates of Railroad Mens' Home at Highland, Park Ill. He advises us that he has, so far, been able to half furnish the room and desires to complete his task. Most all brands of tobacco have a premium tag or coupon which he can use for this purpose. Can you help him?

༦

Congress has recently enacted and the President has approved a law authorizing the President to bestow medals of honor upon persons who, by extreme daring, endanger their own lives in saving, or endeavoring to save, lives from wreck, disaster or grave accident upon any railroad in the United States which is engaged in interstate commerce. This measure gives the same public recognition to acts of heroism on railroads as has been before given to such acts at sea. Hon. E. A. Moseley, secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission, was interested in the preparation of this bill and influential in securing favorable consideration of it..

Remittance slips bearing changes of address for the M. B. D. will not apply to address for THE RAILWAY CONDUCTOR unless so specified by letter accompanying. Always give your Division Number when writing to THE RAILWAY CONDUCTOR.

ར

Brother G. W. Bowman, Thayer, Mo.. desires the address of Brother D. M. Tillard, last heard from Seattle, Wash.

at

The Erie management has notified employés that the "19" form of train orders, under which signatures of trainare not required, has been abol

men

ished.

༢༦

You think that an opportunity must necessarily be something great and unusual; but the fact is, the stepping-stone to the place above you is in the very thing you are doing, in the way you do it; it does not matter what it is.-Success Magazine.

༦

The Pennsylvania Railroad Company has decided hereafter to spell it "Pittsburgh." An official announcement has been sent to the various departments to the effect that the letter "h" is to be attached. There has been a difference of opinion as to whether the "h" should be attached or omitted from the name. Even the Pittsburg papers spell it differently.

The order will make a big difference in the company's correspondence, as many of the headings have the "h' off. The timetables also dispense with the letter. The change has been brought about by the fact that in the spelling of the name in the city's corporate seal the final "h" is retained. Besides this, in the execution of all contracts between the city and the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, in which the city's name appears, the "h" is retained.