130 Ky. 738 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1908
Opinion of the Court by
Appellants, Louisville Eailway Company and Louisville & Interurban Eailroad Company, were separately indicted in tbe court below for violating Section 795, Ky. Stats., 1903, tbe specific charge against each being that it operated a railroad between tbe city of Louisville and O’Eell’s Station, in Jefferson county, a distance of 10 miles, without causing or having each separate coach for the transportation, of white and colored passengers on the line, or compartments thereof for each race, to bear in some con
It is contended by appellants that the indictments were insufficient and the demurrer to each should have been sustained. There is no force in this contention. The indictments substantially follow the language of the statute, and neither seems to lack any essential averment necessary to constitute an offense under the statute.
On the merits of the cases, we do not concur in so much of the judgment of the lower court as fastens guilt upon .the appellant Louisville & Interurban Bail-road Company, but do not think it necessary to decide, as did that court, the question of whether the appellant Louisville Railway Company was or not without authority under its charter to operate a railroad between the points indicated. As a street railway operating within the territory to which its charter confines it, the Louisville Railway Company is not required by law to provide separate cars, or separate compartments in its cars, for the transportation of white and colored passengers. But interurban railroads are by law required to do so, and they can not evade the performance of this duty by leasing or otherwise turning over the use of their lines to a street railway or other railroad. Commonwealth v. L. & N. R. R. Co., etc., 120 Ky. 91, 85 S. W. 712, 27 Ky. Law Rep. 497. It appears that the cars operated over the line in question were owned and operated by the appellant Louisville Railway Company, and whether
The attitude of the appellant Louisville & Interurban Railroad Company is, however, different. If it should be conceded that it was without authority to lease its roadbed to the Louisville Railway Company ■ — -which is not decided — it would nevertheless be civilly liable for any dereliction of duty upon the part of the latter resulting in public or private injury from operating its road, but it does not necessarily follow from these facts that it would be criminally liable for such wrongful acts of the Louisville Railway Company as are punishable under the criminal or penal laws of the State. It does not appear from the ad mitted facts in the cases that the Louisville & Interur
The judgment is affirmed as to the appellant Louisville Railway Company, and reversed as to the appellant Louisville & Interurban Railroad Company, with directions to the lower court to grant the latter a new trial.