People v. . Wadhams

New York Court of Appeals

People v. . Wadhams

68 N.E. 65, 176 N.Y. 9, 14 Bedell 9, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 772

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 6, 1903

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 68 N.E. 65 (People v. . Wadhams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. . Wadhams, 68 N.E. 65, 176 N.Y. 9, 14 Bedell 9, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 772 (N.Y. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, Ch. J.

We held in People v. Rathbone (145 N. Y. 434) that a notary public is a public officer within the meaning of the provision of the State Constitution (Art. XIII, § 5) prohibiting a public officer or a person elected or appointed to public office under the laws of this state from receiving from any person or corporation, or making use of “ any free pass, free transportation,” etc. And necessarily, therefore, the conclusion was reached in that case that the defendant, having received and made use of a free pass over a railroad, the People could maintain an action against him to have his office adjudged to be forfeited.

*10 The difference between that case and this one is that the pass received by Bathbone entitled him to ride upon the lines of the corporation issuing the pass, while in this case the defendant paid his fare, but occupied a seat in a palace car belonging to another corporation, and did not pay for it, but instead presented to the conductor a pass issued by the Wagner Palace Oar Company in the name of defendant entitling him, without charge, to accommodations in the palace or sleeping ears of that company running over any railroad in Hew York state. Accommodations of this kind have come to be regarded as a necessity by a considerable ¡portion of the traveling public, and rather than not have the benefit of such accommodations a substantial percentage of the traveling population pay for the privilege of enjoying them.

We hold — and we think argument is not needed in support of the proposition — that a public officer who accepts the privilege of riding in a palace or sleeping car accorded to him by a pass such as was issued in this case, accepts a free pass and free transportation within the meaning of that portion of section 5 of article XIII of the Constitution which reads as follows: “Bo public officer, or person elected or apjwinted to a public office, under the laws of this state, shall directly or indirectly ask, demand, accept, receive or consent to receive, for his own use or benefit, or for the use or benefit of another any free pass, free transportation, franking privilege or discrimination in passenger, telegraph or telephone rates, from any person or corporation, or make use of the same himself or in conjunction with another.”

It follows that the judgment ousting defendant from his office as notary public should be affirmed, without costs.

Gbay, O’Bbien, Baetlett, Haight, Cullen and Weknee, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parker, Ch. J.

We held in People v. Rathbone (145 N. Y. 434) that a notary public is a public officer within the meaning of the provision of the State Constitution (Art. XIII, § 5) prohibiting a public officer or a person elected or appointed to public office under the laws of this state from receiving from any person or corporation, or making use of “ any free pass, free transportation,” etc. And necessarily, therefore, the conclusion was reached in that case that the defendant, having received and made use of a free pass over a railroad, the People could maintain an action against him to have his office adjudged to be forfeited.

*10 The difference between that case and this one is that the pass received by Bathbone entitled him to ride upon the lines of the corporation issuing the pass, while in this case the defendant paid his fare, but occupied a seat in a palace car belonging to another corporation, and did not pay for it, but instead presented to the conductor a pass issued by the Wagner Palace Oar Company in the name of defendant entitling him, without charge, to accommodations in the palace or sleeping ears of that company running over any railroad in Hew York state. Accommodations of this kind have come to be regarded as a necessity by a considerable ¡portion of the traveling public, and rather than not have the benefit of such accommodations a substantial percentage of the traveling population pay for the privilege of enjoying them.

We hold — and we think argument is not needed in support of the proposition — that a public officer who accepts the privilege of riding in a palace or sleeping car accorded to him by a pass such as was issued in this case, accepts a free pass and free transportation within the meaning of that portion of section 5 of article XIII of the Constitution which reads as follows: “Bo public officer, or person elected or apjwinted to a public office, under the laws of this state, shall directly or indirectly ask, demand, accept, receive or consent to receive, for his own use or benefit, or for the use or benefit of another any free pass, free transportation, franking privilege or discrimination in passenger, telegraph or telephone rates, from any person or corporation, or make use of the same himself or in conjunction with another.”

It follows that the judgment ousting defendant from his office as notary public should be affirmed, without costs.

Gbay, O’Bbien, Baetlett, Haight, Cullen and Weknee, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

68 N.E. 65, 176 N.Y. 9, 14 Bedell 9, 1903 N.Y. LEXIS 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wadhams-ny-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack