Denver & R.G. Ry. Co. v. Glasscott

• Decision Date: 01 December 1878
• Citation: 4 Colo. 270
• Parties: DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RY. CO. v. GLASSCOTT.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

4 Colo. 270

DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RY. CO. v. GLASSCOTT.

Supreme Court of Colorado

December, 1878

Error to County Court of Arapahoe County.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Messrs WELLS, SMITH & MACON, for plaintiff in error.

Messrs PATTERSON & CAMPBELL, for defendant in error.

THATCHER C. J.

Robert A. Glasscott was a conductor of the defendant company. He brought suit against the company for the balance claimed to be due him for services as conductor rendered to the company laying his damages at five hundred dollars, for which sum a verdict was returned and judgment entered in the court below. Unless the defendant was entitled to an offset, no dispute arises as to the correctness of the judgment. The company by its pleas and proof offered to offset against the claim of the conductor, the sum of fifteen hundred dollars, which it is alleged that he, as conductor, had collected from passengers traveling on his train, and retained and converted to his own use. To support the allegations of conversion and the amount of the same, plaintiff in error called R. F Weitbrec, its treasurer, and proved by him that defendant in error had been conductor of passenger trains of plaintiff in error, running between Denver and El Moro, during eleven months next preceding May 1, 1877; that it was the duty of defendant in error, as such conductor, to collect fare of all passengers on his trains not provided with tickets; that a round trip of a train run by defendant in error was from Denver to El Moro and back to Denver, a distance of 220 miles each way; that at the conclusion of every such round trip, defendant in error was required to report to the auditor and treasurer of plaintiff in error the number of passengers carried each way, the points on the route to which and from which they were transported, with the number and kind of tickets on which they traveled, the number without tickets, and the amount of money collected from such passengers, which money it was his duty to turn over to the treasurer at the end of each round trip; that he, the witness, had in court every one of such reports made by defendant in error during said eleven months; that plaintiff in error had another conductor, named Cole Lydon, who conducted trains of plaintiff in error on alternate days with defendant in error; that Lydon made same number of trips as defendant in error in said eleven months; that said Lydon's trains generally, although not always, contained same number of cars as that of defendant in error; that number of cars was liable to be increased or diminished as necessities of travel required; the schedule of fares was same; that he, witness, also had all of Lydon's reports for said eleven months, and that they were the same as those made by defendant in error, but differed in the amount of money shown to have been received during said eleven months.

The only controversy in this case arises as to the manner in which the company proposed to prove that Glasscott was in default. The theory of the company seems to be that upon the above statement of facts Glasscott should be held liable for the difference between Lydon's receipt and the amount he Glasscott, paid to the treasurer. With a view to fix his liability and the amount thereof, the attorney of the company interrogated the witness as to the difference between the receipts of the two conductors. This...