City of Butte v. Roberts
| Decision Date | 16 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | 7081. |
| Parties | CITY OF BUTTE v. ROBERTS. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Silver Bow County; Jeremiah J. Lynch Judge.
Prosecution by the City of Butte against Joseph Roberts based on the violation of an ordinance. From a judgment of the District Court finding the defendant guilty, on appeal from the Justice Court, the defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Walker & Walker and Harlow Pease, all of Butte, for appellant.
Herbert M. Bingham and Edwin M. Lamb, both of Butte, for respondent.
Defendant was found guilty of violating a city ordinance of the city of Butte. The action in the district court was on appeal from the justice court and by agreement was tried to the court without a jury. From the judgment imposing a fine, defendant appealed.
The ordinance involved was passed in November, 1931, and provides:
The facts are that defendant was a taxicab driver employed by the Central Cab & Transfer Company, a domestic corporation engaged in operating a transfer and taxicab business in the city of Butte. That company had written contracts with four railroad companies having stations in Butte. The contracts are similar but not identical. All provide that the transfer company shall furnish an adequate number of vehicles and drivers to handle passenger traffic at the respective railway stations. At least one of the contracts provides that the transfer company shall accommodate and serve interline passengers possessing paid transportation from one Butte passenger station to another. The contracts give the agents of the transfer company the exclusive right to enter the depot, trains, and other property of the respective railway companies for the purpose of discharging the duties under the contracts. The contracts stipulate for the payment to the respective railway companies by the transfer company of a stated sum per month. One provides that the transfer company shall receive 50 cents per passenger for handling interline passengers and their baggage, the 50 cents being collected from the passenger by the railway company at the time of selling the transportation ticket. Other provisions of the contracts need not be pointed out in detail.
By stipulation it was shown that defendant solicited passengers while within the passenger depot of the Great Northern Railway Company at Butte, and that he did not, while so doing, keep a position by the side of his vehicle and along the curb line of the public street fronting the depot property where the vehicle was situated; that all of the acts done by him while soliciting passengers were in the course of his employment and by the direction of his employer, the transfer company.
There was evidence that four or five men are required to meet the passengers from incoming trains to determine which of them hold transfer coupons. It appears that when the railway company sells a ticket to a passenger passing through Butte necessitating a change from one depot to another, a transfer coupon is furnished to the passenger upon the payment of transfer charges to the agent selling the ticket. When the transfer company transports such an interline passenger, it receives from the passenger this coupon which is thereafter presented to the railway company for payment. If an interline passenger is not given attention by an agent of the transfer company, it sometimes happens that the passenger employs some other taxicab driver to carry him from one depot to another and is charged therefor. This results in the passenger being twice charged for the transfer service, while the transfer company must in such circumstances carry the passenger's baggage from one depot to another without charge, since, not having transported the passenger to whom the baggage belonged and obtained from him the coupon, it is unable to present it to the railway company for payment.
It is shown that if the ordinance is complied with, the transfer company will be obliged to employ a crew of four or five men other than drivers of the taxicabs, to solicit and handle the passengers; such a crew, under the circumstances, would be employed only ten or fifteen minutes during the arrival and departure of the trains, and for this period of time the drivers would be idle, and that compliance with the ordinance in this respect would...
To continue reading
Request your trial