St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Brown

• Citation: 35 S.W. 225
• Parties: ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. BROWN.
• Decision Date: 11 April 1896
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

Page 225

35 S.W. 225

ST. LOUIS & S. F. RY. CO. v. BROWN.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

April 11, 1896.

Appeal from circuit court, Sebastian county; Edgar E. Bryant, Judge.

Action by Drura Brown against the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Company for wrongful expulsion from a train. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

L. F. Parker and B. R. Davidson, for appellant. John J. Rogers and Jas. F. Reed, for appellee.

BUNN, C. J.

This suit was instituted in the Sebastian circuit court, Ft. Smith district, and, having progressed to a certain point, plaintiff, Drura Brown, suffered judgment of nonsuit, and subsequently renewed the suit against the defendant company, which resulted in judgment in her favor in the sum of $375, and the defendant company appealed to this court.

The plaintiff, Drura Brown, and her husband referred to in the record as Dr. Brown, resided at Vinita, in the Indian Territory, and only a short distance from the city of Ft. Smith; and on 22d December, 1892, each purchased at Ft. Smith, from defendant's agent, a round-trip ticket over its railroad and connecting lines to and from Memphis, Tenn. This ticket was conditional to the extent that it was stipulated thereon that the holder thereof, in order to make the return part good, should identify herself or himself, as the case might be, by signing her or his name, and having the ticket stamped by the agent of the company, at a point named, between the punch marks thereon made. Plaintiff and her husband were on there return, and, by the connecting railway, reached defendant's road at Nichols, in Green county, in the state of Missouri, without having her ticket signed as aforesaid, and stamped by an agent of the connecting road over which she had traveled on her said return. From Nichols Station defendant's road runs south to the Arkansas line, thence through the counties of Benton, Washington, Crawford, and Sebastian, in this state, and thence southerly, through the Indian Territory, to the city of Paris, in the state of Texas. Plaintiff and her husband boarded one of the coaches of defendant's passenger train going south, at Nichols station, some time before daylight on the 1st day of January, 1893; and, having gone a short distance (about which the evidence is conflicting), the conductor demanded, and was shown, plaintiff's said ticket, and, observing that the same had not been signed and stamped as required, informed plaintiff that it was worthless, and, after some conversation with her, the nature of which is in dispute, informed plaintiff that she must get off at once, and immediately stopped the train, and escorting her to the door and platform, followed by her husband, caused her to alight from the steps of the coach to the ground, in a manner which is also in dispute. At the time it was very cold and dark, and there is testimony showing that the ground was covered with snow or sleet, or both. There is testimony tending to show that the trainmen who assisted her to alight from the train did so in a rude and rough manner, jerking her down, so that she was hurt and bruised, and also that the place on which she was thus caused to alight was an embankment or "dump," and sloped outward, and was difficult to stand upon, under the circumstances. There was testimony just to the contrary of this, the plaintiff testifying the one way, and the trainmen the other, as to the place at which and the manner in which she was put off. There was evidence also pro and con as to the manner in which plaintiff was treated by the conductor from the time he examined the ticket until she was ejected from the coach, her evidence being to the effect that his manner, words, and actions towards her were rude, rough, and profane; and that, on the part of defendant, they were just to the contrary. The witnesses on the part of plaintiff testified that the train had gone a mile and a half, more or less, from the depot; and those on the part of the defendant, that it had gone but a short distance from the depot, and where its lights were still in plain view. There was evidence that by reason of the plaintiff's exposure to the inclemency of the weather, and by reason of her having to walk a long distance from the point where she was put off, to the first house near the road, there being no house observable at or near the place at which she was put off the train, she contracted a severe cold, producing pneumonia; so that she was confined to her bed for a long period after she arrived at her home, and also that she suffered much from rheumatism produced by such exposure.

The first contention we will notice is that which arose from the admission by the court of evidence to the effect that plaintiff had rheumatism some time before she was put off the train and some time afterwards. The testimony was not admissible, but the defendant contends that it was admitted, while the plaintiff contends that it was not admitted. The record shows that evidence to...