
    10133
    SCHIRMER v. CHARLESTON & W. C. RY. CO.
    (98 S. E. 134.)
    Caeeiees — Passengebs—Refusal to Accept Mileage Book Coupon— Punitive Damages. — Where conductor refused to accept mileage book coupon ind required passenger to pay cash fare, but thereafter discovered mistake and on following day tendered passenger difference between cash . fare and .coupon, passenger, refusing such difference and suing railroad for refusal to accept coupon, was not entitled to punitive damages.
    . Before PeuriEoy, J., Hampton,-term,-.
    Appeal dismissed.
    Action originating in magistrate’s Court by T. B. Schirmer against the Charleston & Western Carolina Railway Company. Erom a judgment giving him insufficient relief, plaintiff appeals.
    
      
      Mr. J. W. Vincent, for appellant,
    submits : The magistrate and Circuit Judge should have allowed some amount in excess of three cents: 42 S. E. 598; 48 S. E. 252..
    
      Messrs. P. B. Grier and /. W. Manuel, for respondent,
    submit: A finding of fact in the Circuit Court, in an appeal from the magistrate’s Court, zvill not he disturbed by the Supreme Court, where there is any evidence to sustain such findings: 90 S. C. 79; 72 S. E. 637; 90 S. C. 366; 73 S. E. 637; 73 S. E. 772; 107 S. C. 503; 93 S. E. 191.
    January 25, 1919.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

.Mr. Justice Hydrick.

This is an action for damages for the refusal of defendant’s ticket collector to accept the coupons from a mileage book in payment of plaintiff’s fare from Brunson to Hampton, a distance of six miles. The collector thought the book was not good on defendant’s road, and. demanded cash fare — 15 cents — which was paid. Afterwards on the same day, he discovered that he was in error; and on the next day,-when plaintiff got aboard his train and tendered the same book, he accepted the coupon from it, told plaintiff that he had made a mistake, and tendered him 3 cents — the difference between the cash fare paid and the value of the coupons which he should have accepted the day before. Plaintiff declined the tender and sued for $100 damages. The magistrate found that plaintiff’s actual damage was 3 cents, that the circumstances did not warrant the finding of punitive damages, and gave judgment accordingly, which was affirmed on appeal to the Circuit Court.

There was no error. The case and this appeal are both without merit.

Appeal dismissed.  