venieutly  on  one  train  as  another  and  on  one  day  as  another ;  still,
as  before  seen,  there  is  no  obligation  to  do  so.  But  it  does  not
follow  that  a  railroad  corporation  can  carry  passengers  as  well  for
itself  the  one  way  as  the  other.  Tliere  may  be  a  diiierence  arising
from  various  considerations.  There  may  be  more  travellers  and
more  freight  to  be  carried  one  way  than  the  other.  It  may  be  more
expensive.  There  may  be  more  risk  in  the  one  passage  than  the
other.  The  up  train  may  go  more  by  daylight  and  the  down  train
more  by  night.  That  such  considerations  as  these  might  arise  in  a
case,  whetlier  in  this  instance  they  exist  or  not,  helps  to  demon-
strate that  a  ticket  one  way  is  a  diii'erent  thing  from  a  ticket  the
other.  Practically,  the  doctrine  set  up  by  the  plaintiff,  if  allowed
to  prevail,  would  affect  the  defendants  injuriously.  It  is  well
known  that  through  tickets  are  cheaper  i^ro  rata  than  the  way  or
local  fares.  This  fact  has  led  to  a  practice  on  the  part  of  way
travellers  of  buying  through  tickets  and  using  them  over  a  part  of
the  route  and  selling  them  for  the  balance  of  the  distance,  so  as  to
make  a  saving  from  the  regular  prices  charged.  It  is  easily  seen
that,  if  a  passenger  is  permitted  to  ride  in  either  direction  on  a
ticket,  it  increases  tlie  chances  for  carrying  on  this  sort  of  specu-
lation against  the  interests  of  the  road.
