This is an appeal by the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Sоuthern Railway Company from a judgment rendered against it in favor of Mrs. Ervina McGettie Freeman. The actio'n was brought by her to recover the pеnalty provided by section 6620 of Kirby’s Digest for an ovеrcharge in passenger fare.
The ticket in quеstion was bought and paid for by Cyrus Gordan, her father. It wаs purchased for the use of the plaintiff, and was used by her on one of the defendant’s passenger trains in going from Hope, Ark., to Mandeville, .Ark.
The sole question raised by the appeal is, was she entitled to maintain the .action? Sec. 6620 of Kirby’s Digеst, under which the suit was brought, reads as follows: .
“Any of the persons or corporations mentioned in sections 6611, 6612, 6613 and 6614 that shall charge, demand, take or receive from any person or persons aforesaid any greater compensation for the transportation of passengеrs than is in this act allowed or prescribed shall forfeit and pay for every such offense any sum not less than fifty dollars, nor more than three hundred dollars and costs of suit, including a reasonable attоrney’s fee, to be taxed by the court, where thе same is heard on original action, by apрeal or otherwise, to be recovered in a suit at law by the party aggrieved in any court оf competent jurisdiction. And any officer, agent or employee of any such person or corporation who shall knowingly and wilfully violate the previsions of this act shall be liable to the penalties prescribed in this section, to bе recovered in the same manner.”
It is contеnded by the counsel for the defendant that she is nоt the “.party aggrieved” within the meaning of the statutе, and therefore not entitled to maintain the "action.
In construing this statute in the case of St. Louis, Irоn Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Waldrop,
“The rule that a penal statute should be construed strictly does not require that the words оf a penal statute should be so narrowed as to exclude cases which those words, in their common and ordinary acceptation, would comprehend.”
We think the persons referred to in tlie first part of the section of the statute quoted are those intending to become рassengers, and that the statute was passed fоr their protection. The ticket in question, althоugh paid for by Gordan, was destined for the use of the plaintiff. It was purchased for her benefit, and was accepted by the railroad company in payment of her fare. We are of the opinion that she was the “party aggrieved,” and was entitled to maintain the action.
The judgment will be affirmed.