HUDSON i;. KANSAS PAOIFIC BY. CO. 879!, �meLt. This is not such a case. AUhougii thp wifcness who tested the boiler claimed to have made an adequate and thorough test, when it appeared that this consisted simply in firing up the engine,; when the repaies on the boiler were naade, until the gauge indicated the steam pressure obtained in ordinary use, a fair inference arose adverse to the theory of a very careful experiment. The motion for a new trial is deriied. ���Htjdson ; . Kansas Pacific Ry. Co. �(Oireuit Court, D. Colorado. January, 1882.) �1. Railhoads— CoTjpoir Ticket»— Rights of Hoiuders. �Where a raiiroad company issues a ticket entitling the holder to a passage over its own and Connecting Unes to the place of destination mentioaed in tiie ticket, and there is no limitation in it upon the right of the holder to transfer it to another, Md, that upon the refusai of a Connecting line to accept the ticket, and of the contracting company to furnish a local ticket over that Une . or the amount of money necessary to procure ohe, the holder haa a right of action against the original contracting company for breaoh of contract ; and this right is assignable, under the laws of the state of Colorado, so as to give a right of action to the assignee. �2. VBBniCT— DbFECTB IN PlEADING CUHED BT. �It is too late after verdict to object that the. assignee allegcd that he pur- chased such ticket, when the proof shows that it was bought by others, or that he f ailed to allege a failure on the part of the contracting company to redeem the ticket. �.. On .Motion for a New Trial. �J. F. Welborn, for plaintiff. �Willard Teller and J. P. Usker, for defendant. �Hallett, D. j. Plaintiff allegeji that he purchased at St. Louis and at Kansas City, Missouri, in the year 1879, of defendant's agents, certain passenger tickets over the lines of the Denver & Rio Grande Railway, in this state, paying therefpr the priees named in the complaint, and that the tickets were, and are, worthless, as the Rio Grande Company refuse to recpguize them. At the trial it appeared that the tickets were issued by eastem companies having lines extending to Kansas City, not to the plaintiff, as alleged, but to travelers in the regular course of business. When issued, they pro- vided for passage over the line of the company by which they were issued to Kansas City, and from that place to Denver, over defend- ant's line, and from Denyej: to destination, over the lines of the Rio Grande Company. Coupons lyere attached applicable to the several ��� �
