Tbe jury found tbat defendant’s conductor did maliciously, willfully, wantonly, and rudely mistreat and humiliate plaintiff while a passenger on its train.
Tbe only exception necessary to consider relates to the issue as to damage.
Tbe plaintiff was a passenger on tbe defendant’s train, having her child over 9 years old with her, but no ticket for tbe child. Tbe conductor rightfully demanded payment of tbe child’s fare. As to what occurred then, there is a marked conflict of evidence. Plaintiff testifies tbat she reached down in her purse to get tbe child’s fare, when tbe conductor publicly and without cause wantonly insulted her by telling her tbat “she was nothing but a cheap, common scalawag of a woman, or otherwise she would have purchased a ticket for tbe child.”
Plaintiff says this “got her dander up,” and tbat she retaliated by calling tbe conductor a dirt dauber, and saying “she would whip him in twenty minutes but for tbe disgrace; tbat tbe conduct of tbe conductor and bis remarks made her sick; tbat she bad never bad her feelings hurt so bad; tbat she bad never been so insulted in her life; tbat there were a great many ladies and gentlemen on tbe train, and tbat they looked at her bard.”
Tbe conductor testified tbat be asked plaintiff for tbe child’s fare, and she emphatically refused to pay it; tbat be told her be bad no right to pass a 9-year-old child free; tbat plaintiff then said tbat she would pay it, but she knew why be was so persistent ; tbat be wanted to put it into bis pocket and put it to bis own use; tbat be then told her tbat she was a woman and a cheap-skate, and that be would not say anything more to her about it, and tbat she abused him all tbe way, calling him a rascal, scoundrel, and many other epithets.
Tbe contention tbat tbe defendant is not liable for tbe conductor’s conduct, whatever at tbe time it may have been, cannot *173be maintained. He was in charge of the train, collecting tickets, acting witbin the scope of his authority, and a vice-principal representing defendant. Under the facts of this case, ratification was not necessary to render defendant responsible for his act. Stewart v. Lumber Co., 146 N. C., 47; Sawyer v. R. R., 142 N. C., 1.
Upon the issue of damages, the judge stated the evidence and contentions of both sides fully and instructed the jury that in order to warrant the awarding of punitive ■ damages in their sound discretion, they must previously find that the conductor first maliciously, willfully, and wantonly insulted the plaintiff.
His Honor followed the well settled decisions of this Court. Holmes v. R. R., 94 N. C., 321, and cases cited in notes.
No error.