San Francisco Call, Volume 78, Number 90, 29 August 1895 — MUST ASK FOR TRANSFERS [ARTICLE]

MUST ASK FOR TRANSFERS

Important Court Ruling for Ocean Beach Passengers. SUIT CF FRITHJOF BRONSON. Result of an Autocratic Rule Laid Down by the Market-Street Railway Company.

A case of great interest to streetcar passengers to the Cliff House was decided by Justice of the Peace Carroll yesterday. One day last March Mary L. Keller rode in from the ocean beach on the regular steamcar line to Haight and Stanyan streets. On the way she handed the conductor ten cents, from which to deduct her fare. Before he handed her the change he was called to one end of the car. On returning he handed her the nickel change, but no transfer to the cable-car at the end of the line.

When the cars stopped at Stanyan street Mrs. Keller hunted up the conductor and demanded her transfer. He refused to give her one on the ground that he did not know positively that she had paid a fare on his train. Of course Mrs. Keller had to pay another fare when she boarded the cable-car for home. She sued the Market-street Railway Cempany for $299 damages. Lots of people have been caught in her nx, so the outcome will interest them.

The case in court hinged on an old rule of the company which obliges a passenger to ask for a transfer when he pays his fare. If the passenger neglects to do this the passenger must suffer the consequence and pay the extra nickel according to the law as laid down by the autocratic company. Why passengers should be obliged to knuckle down to this castiron mandate of the corporation did not crop out in the hearing yesterday. Mrs. Keller testified that she was in the habit of riding to the ocean beach three or four times a week. She was thoroughly familiar with the rule laid down Dv the company. t; But when the conductor stepped" back before giving me my change the matter of the "transfer slipped my mind/ she explained. "Later onl thought of it and believed if I got it at the end of the run it would be all right. It never crossed m> mind that the conductor could disrate for a moment that I was a passenger on his train. When I asked him for a transfer at the depot I was dumfounded at his savins, 'How do I know you rode on this train?' " The conductor admitted that he had refused to give Mrs. Keller a transfer, and declared he had aced property, as she had refused to asK for it when she paid her fare. He said there were a lot of people standing around the depot, and he had no certain means of knowing that she had paid her fare on his train. Anybody, he claimed, could have come out of the crowd and told the same story and asked for a transler.

Justice of the Peace Carroll decided ttat Mrs. Keller should Have nsked for her transfer before the train reached the end of its run. In presenting her case her lawyer failed Co show that she had been forced to pay an extra nickel on the cablecar. Had he done so the court would have awarded her the return of the nickel. This would have carried costs aud made a Liv difference to Mr?'. Keller. It is not likely that tee case will be appealed, so the question has not yet been finally tested. The action of anotter conductor in the employ of the Market-street Railway Company has led to a suit for damages in the Justices 1 Court.

Frithjof Bronson, a collector, accompanied by his family, was riding on one of the cars on Howard street, and because he did not have any change less than a $5 piece with which" to pay his fare he had to tnbmit to abuse from the conductor, so he says. Not only did he have to submit to the alleged insultiug language before a carload of passengers, but the conductor pocketed his gold piece, with the remark that he'd make him travel down to the office of the company next day and get change enough if he wanted it. Bronson had his wife and infant with him, so he could not treat the fellow as he deserved. He took his number and complained to the company. Yesterday, through Attorney Clement, he filed a suit against the company asking for $299 damages. On account of the treatment and the insulting language Bionson has asked for $299 damages. He affirms he will push the case to a conclusion to see if the railway company cannot be made to pay.