Barker v The Midland Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1856 |
| Date | 06 May 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1281
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 184. See In re Beadell, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 510. Approved Perth General Station Committee v. Ross, [1897] A. C. 493.
barker v. the midland railway company. May 6, 1856. [S. C. 25 L. J. C. P. 184. See. In re Beadell, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 510. Approved, Perth General Station Committee v. Boss, [1897] A. C. 493.] An omnibus proprietor who carries passengers and their luggage, for hire, to and from a railway station, cannot maintain an action against the company for refusing to allow him to drive his vehicle into the station yard.-Where there are cross-demurrers, the plaintiff's counsel begins. The first count of the declaration stated, that the defendants, being the Midland Railway Company mentioned in an act of parliament which was made and passed in the session of parliament hplden in the 8th and 9th years of the reign of the now Queen [c. Ivi.] intituled, "An Act to jinpower the Midland Eailway Company to make a branch from the saicl railway near Syston, in the county of Leicester, to the city of Peterborough," made, under the authority of the said act, the branch railway, with divers works and conveniences connected therewith, by the said act authorized, one of such works being a station called the Stamford Station, and maintained the same until and at the time of the committing the grievances hereafter mentioned : That, before and at the time of the, committing of the grievances hereafter mentioned, the defendants carried on the business of common carriers of passengers for hire, and of common carriers of [47] goods for hire, from the said Stamford Station to divers places, and from divers places to the said Stamford Station: That, before and at the time of the committing the grievances hereafter mentioned, the said Stamford Station communicated with a certain public carriage high-way, by gates forming part of the said station, and so constructed as when open to allow the passage of carriages through the same from the said highway into the said station, and back again : That, before and at the time of the committing the said grievances, the defendants maintained, and there was, a carriage-road leading from the said gates to certain buildings in the said station, the same being the only carriage:way to the said buildings from the said highway : That, before and at the time, of the committing the said grievances, the defendants, in so carrying on their said business, and as one of the modes by them pursued .for so carrying on the same, habitually and publicly received passengers at the said buildings in the station, and habitually; and publicly allowed such passengers respectively to enter the said station, either on foot or in a carriage or carriages drawn by one or more horses, and driven by such passengers respectively, or by some other person or persons, and habitually and publicly allowed such carriages respectively, with such passengers respectively, so to enter as aforesaid by the said gates, and to pass from the said gates along the said carriage-road to the said buildings, for the purpose of there, at the said buildings, contracting with the defendants for being carried as such passenger or passengers by the defendants : That, before and at the time of the committing the said grievances, the defendants, in so carrying on their said business, and as one of the modes by them pursued for carrying on the same, habitually and publicly received goods for carriage at the said buildings, and habitually and publicly allowed persons respectively bringing such [48] goods to them, the defendants, to be carried by the defendants as such common carriers, 'to bring, such goods in a carriage or carriages drawn by. .one or more horses, from the said highway, through the said gates, along the said carriage-road, to the said buildings, for the purpose of there delivering such goods to the defendants to be carried by the defendants as such common carriers: That, before and at the time of the committing of the said grievances, the defendants, in so carrying on their said business, and as one of the modes by them pursued for carrying on their said business, habitually and publicly allowed persons respectively to bring a carriage or carriages drawn by one or more horses from the said highway, through the said gates,- along the said carriage-road, to the said buildings, for the purpose of taking away from the said buildings any person or persons, when such last-mentioned person or persons expecting to be carried and deposited as a passenger or passengers by the defendants to and at the .said station C. P. xvii.-41 1282 BARKER V. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY 18C.B.49. had directed any such person or persons to meet such expected passenger or passengers with such carriage or carriages at the said station for the purpose of taking such passenger or passengers from the said station: That, before and at the time of the committing the said grievances, the plaintiff carried on the business of carrying persons, and of carrying goods, in a carriage called an omnibus, drawn by one horse, for reward to the plaintiff and for the obtaining of his livelihood : And that, on divers occasions after the passing of the Railway Traffic Act, 1854 [17.& 18 Viet, c. 31], the plaintiff, in the way of his said business, was desirous of entering, and was about to enter, the said station, from the said highway, by the said gates, with an omnibus drawn by one horse, and driven by him, for the purpose of carrying therein divers passengers, from the said gates, along the said carriage-road, to the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cinnamond v British Airports Authority
...their trade. For this proposition he relied on two cases about the railway companies in the last century. One was the case of Barker v. The Midland Railway Company (1856) 18 Common Bench Reports 46, where an omnibus proprietor wanted to carry passengers andtheir luggage for hire to and from......
-
Patricia Jones and Another v First Greater Western Ltd
...Station Committee v Ross [1897] AC 479, where it was held there was no right of access to the staion for hotel porters; and to Barker v Midland Railway Company (1856) 18 CB 46, where it was held there was no right of access to the station for bus drivers. 40 This, therefore, he submitted is......
-
Cinnamond v British Airports Authority
...their trade. For this proposition he relied on two cases about the railway companies in the last century. One was the case of Barker v. The Midland Railway Company (1856) 18 Common Bench Reports 46, where an omnibus proprietor wanted to carry passengers andtheir luggage for hire to and from......
-
Cinnamond v British Airports Authority
...their trade. For this proposition he relied on two cases about the railway companies in the last century. One was the case of Barker v. The Midland Railway Company (1856) 18 Common Bench Reports 46, where an omnibus proprietor wanted to carry passengers andtheir luggage for hire to and from......