Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/66

 54 FKDBBAL BBPO&TBB. �36 Wis. 450 ; Barray v. Steam-boat, 67 N. Y. 301 ; Jackson v. Hook, 5 Cow. 208; Jackson v. Crosby, 12 John. 354; Stephens V. Smi^A, 29 Vt. 153 ; Barker v. French, 18 Vt. 460 ; Briggs V. Oleason, 27 Vt. 116 ; Railroad Co. v. Vandyme, 57 Ind. 576 ; iiaiZroad Co. v. Anthony, 43 Ind. 188; Railroad Co. v. Blotcher, 27 Md. 286; Travers v. Railroad Co. 63 Mo. 423; LiWis v. Railroad Co. 64 Mo. 476; Railroad Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200; Railroad Co. v. CoZe, 29 Ohio. St. 126; Levitsky v. JoAn- «o«, 36 Cal. 43; Aldrich v. Howard, 7 E. I. 87; Heaton v. Fireins. Co. la. 508 ; Marfiw v. Ehrenfels, 24 111. 189 ; Pal- ace Car Co. 76 111. 126 ; ITaWa v. Johnston, 4 Texas, 319 ; Waller v. Graves, 20 Conn. 311; Snowman v. Wardwell, 32 Me. 276; Turnley y. Evana, 8 Humph. 223; SAorp v. Trecce, 1 Heisk. 447. �The plaintiff, a colored woman, recovered a judgment against the defendant corporation for $3,000 for a -wrongful exclusion from the "ladies* car" of one of the defendant's pas- senger trains. A statement of the defences set up, and the mlings of the court on the demarrer, will be found reported in 4 Fed. Bep. 37, and a synopsis of the charge of the court on the main question involved is reported in 5 Fed. Bep. 499. Besides the exception to the charge as there found, the defendant assigned four other grounds for a new trial, as follows : �(1) "That the court, in its charge, substantially said to the jury : That such a regulation was unreasonable ; for, that it makes the irresponsible conductors of passenger trains the censors of the virtue of the women of the country, as they would necessarily have to pass upon the chastity or unchas- tity of the mothers and wives and daughters of the country, and might exclude one and allow the other to pass, as it suited their caprices. �(2) "The court erred in refusing to give the fifth instruction asked by defendant, in the following language : 'If the jury fiud, from the proofs, that the conduotor, in excluding the plaintiff from the ladies' car, acted in good faith, in discharge of what'he regarded as his duty, and not maliciously, or wan- tonly, or with nnnecessary rudeness, although he may have ��� �