Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth

• Decision Date: 13 May 1898
• Citation: 103 Ky. 605
• Parties: Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

Page 605

103 Ky. 605

Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. Commonwealth.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 13, 1898.

APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT.

BLANTON & BERRY FOR APPELLANT.

W. S. TAYLOR FOR APPELLEE.

EDWARD W. HINES IN PETITION FOR A REHEARING.

CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

Appellant was indicted and convicted for failing and refusing to obey that part of section 772, Kentucky Statutes, as follows: "That every company operating a railroad in this State shall provide a convenient and suitable waiting-room and water-closet at all cities and towns, and at such other stations as the Railroad Commission may require on its line, and keep and maintain the same in decent order and repair."

It is stated substantially in the indictment that defendant in February, 1897, and at least 150 days previously, kept a passenger depot at Berry, an incorporated town in Harrison county, and during all that period "failed, neglected and refused to provide any suitable water-closet and privy or either a water-closet or privy."

The statute requires "provided and maintained both a convenient and suitable waiting-room and water-closet." But failure to keep a waiting-room is not alleged, nor is it stated defendant failed to keep a convenient water closet the statement being it failed to keep a suitable one. That omission, however, does not render the indictment defective, nor release defendant from liability; because the statute requires the water-closet, in addition to the waiting-room, and that it be both convenient and suitable, and failure in either respect subjects the guilty party to the penalty prescribed.

There can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty about the character or purpose of the structure called water-closet, contemplated and required by the statute. It is intended for the private and often necessary use of women and children, as well as men and boys, who may be waiting at a depot to take passage on a train, or may get off a train at that place, and being patrons of a railroad company may reasonably demand the provision and maintenance at or accessible to the depot of such building.

The evidence in this case makes it plain defendant failed to provide and maintain a suitable water-closet at or accessible to the depot at Berry; the only place that could be used by even men or boys for that purpose being a coal-house.

Whether a water-closet has been provided and maintained, as also whether if so, it is convenient or...