BBOWR V. HEIIPms * 0. R. 00. 59 �except by this one; and that women known to be prostitutea had traveled in auch cars without objection, and that thia oonductor had been seen talking familiarly in the ladies' car with white women known in the town where plaintiff lived, and all along the road, as belonging to the denounced class. The conductor denied all knowledge of thia, and it may be that be did not know it ; bnt it is etrange that more exclu- sions, by himself or other conductora, were not shown, if it 'was the habit of the company to so claasify the passengers. It was proved that the car in which this plaintiff was ordered to ride was filled with "yirtuoua ladies, wivea, mothera, and daughters, and their buabanda and fathers;" and yet this woman, notwithstanding the pretended regulation, was to be placed "in contact" with them. It ia true, they were "emi- grants," but none the less entitled to protection at the hands of the carrier ; and while they might have sought protection in the "ladies' car," as suggested in the argument, they would . have had to pay lirst-class fare, as this plaintiff did, to be so «ntitled. The truth is, thia whole defence is based upon a strained construction of the word "ladies," as applied to "ladies' car," used in the parlance of railroad people. �In Bass v. Railroad Co. 36 Wis. 460, a maie passenger was forcibly ejected from a car, and the defence was "that the car into which the plaintiff entered was a 'ladies' car,' set apart by a regulation of the company for ladies and for gentlemen accompanying ladies, as plaintiff knew;" and the court, in justifying this regulation, does say that "even women, or men accompanying women of offensive character or habits, may be excluded, so as to group women of good character on the train together, sheltered as far as practicable from annoyance and insuit." This is the nearest approach td any judicial sanction for the argument uuder consideration I have found. Passing the fact that it is obiter, the languago quoted, like that of Jencks v. Coleman, must be understood to apply only to cases "where it can be satisfactorily proved [to use the words of the learned chief justice in Venton v. Railroad Co. 11 Allen, 304] that the condition or conduct of a porson was 8uch as to render it reasonably certain. th»t he would occa- ��� �
