Chilton v The London and Croydon Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 20 January 1847 |
| Date | 20 January 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 1164
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 5 Railw. Cas. 4; 16 L. J. Ex. 89; 11 Jur. 149. Discussed, Brown v. Great Eastern Railway Company, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 406; London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company v. Watson, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 434: affirmed 4 C. P. D. 118.
[212] rkportm of cases argued and determined in the courts of , exchequer and exchequer chamber, hilary term, 10 victoria;. chii/ton v. the london and croydon bailway company. Jan. 20, 1847.-By 5 Will 4, c. x., (local), the London and Croydon Railway Company was incorporated. By a. 106, they were authorized to make bye-laws for the good government of their aBkirs, for regulating their proceedings, and for the management of the (c) 6 Dowl. P. C. 296. See, on the same rule, Fis/ter v. Papanicolas, 2 C. & M. 215; 4 Tyr. 44. 1SM.&W.213. CHILTON V. THE LONDON AND CROYDON RLY. CO. 1165 undertaking, and of the officers and servants of the Company in all respects, "and to impose and inflict such reasonable fines tuid forfeitures upon all persons offending against the same as to the said Company shall seem meet, not exceeding the sum of 5 for each offence;" such bye-laws to be "binding upon and be observed by all parties," provided they were not repugnant to the laws of England, or the directions of the act. By s. 148, the Company were empowered to make orders for regulating the travelling upon and use of the railway, and for or relating to travellers passing thereon ; such orders and regulations to be binding upon such travellers, on pain of forfeiting and paying a sum not exceeding u, which the Company shall attach to a default. By s. 10,'J, penalties and forfeitures imposed by the act, or by any bye-law, order, or rule made in pursuance thereof, might be recovered in a summary way by adjudication of justices, one half the penalty to go to the informer, and the other half to the Company. By s. 165, any officer or agent of the Company may seize and detain any person whose name and residence should be unknown to such officer or agent who shall commit any offence against the act, and may convey him &c. before a justice without any warrant or other authority than that act. The Company made a bye-law, under their common seal, by which each passenger, not producing or delivering up his ticket on leaving the Company's premises, was required to pay the fares from the place whence the train originally started :-Held, that this was not a bye-law imposing a " penalty or forfeiture ;" so that the non-production of a ticket on leaving the Company's premises, and the refusal to pay the fare from the place from which the train originally started, did not authorize the arrest of the passenger. -Semble, the only power to apprehend given by sect. 105, is for an offence against the act itself.-Qiuere, whether the bye-law was reasonable. [S. C. 5 Eailw. Cas. 4 ; 16 L. ,1. Ex. 89; 11 Jnr. 149. Discussed, Hmvn v. Great Eastern Hailway Company, 1877, 2 Q. B. D. 406; London, Brighton and Smith (toast Railway Company v. Watson, 1878, 3 C. P. D. 434: affirmed 4 C. P. D. IL8.J Trespass, The declaration alleged, that the defendants assaulted the plaintiff1, gave him into custody of a [213] peace-officer, and caused him to be conveyed in the sftid custody along divers highways to a police-station, and then caused him to be imprisoned therein for twelve hours, &c. \ Plea. Tfhat before and at the time of the committing of the alleged trespass in the declaration mentioned, the said London and Croydon Railway Company had made and Constructed h, certain railway, with the appurtenances, for the carriage and conveyance, liy the said London &c. Company, of passengers from a certain place, to wit, Croydon, to a certain other place, to wit, London, under and by virtue of a certain act of Parliament made and passed in the fifth year of King William the Fourth (reciting the title of this act and of several other acts relating to the Company). And the saicl defendants further say, that, after the said making the said railway as aforesaid, and after the making and passing of a certain other act of Parliament made and passed in the fourth year of the reign of her now Majesty, intituled " An Act for regulating Railways" (:.'! & 4 Viet. c. 97), and long before the day of the committing of the alleged trespasses in tihe said declaration mentioned, to wit, on &c., the said London &a. Company, under and by virtue and in pursuance of the powers arid authorities in that behalf, given to them by the said acts of Parliament in that behalf, duly made and reduced into writing ijnder theiricommon seal, under and by virtue of those acts in that behalf, the following 4rdera and regulations for regulating the travelling upon and use of the said London nd Croydoii Railway, and the times when the same should be open for use, and for r relating to travellers passing upon the said railway, and for regulating the passing pon, using; or working the said London and Croydon Railway, and other works by IJhe said acts oE the said London and Croydon Railway Company in that behalf authorized, or in anywise relating thereto respectively, that is to say :-" No passenger will be allowed to take his seat in or upon any of the Company's carriages, or to travel [214] therein upon the said railway, without having first booked his place and paid his fare. Each passenger booking his place will be furnished with a ticket, which he is to shew when required by the guard in charge of the train, and to deliver up before leaving the Company's premises, upon demand, to the guard or other servant of the Company duly authorized to collect tickets. Each passenger not producing or delivering np his ticket will be required to pay the {are from the place whence the train originally CHTLTON V. THE LONDON AND CROYDON RLY. CO. 16 M. a W. 215. started." And the said defendants further say, that the said orders or regulations were, in pursuance of the said act of the fourth year of the reign of her now Majesty, to wit, ou &c., duly laid before the Lords of the Committee of her now Majesty's Privy Council, appointed for trade and foreign plantations, and that the said Lords, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, duly signified to the said London &c. Company their approbation of the said orders and regulations. And the said defendants further say, that before and on the day and at the time of tho committing of the said alleged trespasses, the said orders and regulations so approved as aforesaid were printed, published, and painted on boards, and fixed and continued ou the fronts and conspicuous parts of the London toll-houses or stations of the said London and Croydon Railway Company hereinafter mentioned, and the several other toll-houses of and belonging to the said London &c. Company, and on all other buildings or places at which any rates or tolls were, during all the time aforesaid, collected or paid under or by virtue of the said act of the said fifth year of the reign of his said Majesty King William the P'ourth. And the said defendants further say, that tho said orders and regulations were, before and during all the time in the said declaration in that behalf mentioned, and from thence hitherto have been, and still are, and continue to be, sanctioned and approved of by tho said Lords of the said Committee of her Majesty's Privy Council, and in full force and effect, arid unqualified and unrepealed. And the said defendants further say, that, under and by virtue [215] of the said acts of Parliament of tho said London &c. Company in that behalf, and before and on the day and at the time of the committing the said alleged trespass in the said declaration mentioned, an account or list of the several rates and tolls, and of the toll or fare of Is. 3d. hereinafter mentioned, which the said London &c. Company during that time directed and appointed to be taken, and which were payable by virtue of the said act of the fifth year of the reign of his Majesty King William the Fourth, was painted on boards, and affixed to and upon and continued upon the toll-house or station of the said Louden itc. Company, at London aforesaid, on a conspicuous place there, and in large and legible characters, and also upon every other toll-house and building at which the said rates and tolls by the said acts of the said London &c. Company in that behalf were and are authorized to hie collected and received, and on conspicuous parts thereof, and in large and legible characters; and the defendants further say, that, before and on the day and at the time of the committing &c., and from thence hitherto, the said fare or toll, to wit, of ib. .'3d., was and is the regular fare directed and appointed to be taken by the said London &c. Company, and payable under and within and by virtue of the said act of Parliament of the fifth year of the reign of his said Majesty, and a proper- and reasonable fare, for the conveyance of passengers then or now travelling, or for being conveyed, from the s;id toll-house or station at Croydon aforesaid to the said toll-house or station at London aforesaid, upon and along or by means of the said London &c. Railway, in and by first-class carriages of and belonging to the said London &c. Company ; and the said defendants further say, that the said London &c. Company, before and on the day and at the time of the committing &c., carried and conveyed on and upon and along and .by means of the said London &e. Railway, and in and by certain carriages and engines of and belonging to the said London &c. Company respectively, all such passengers as, [216] during...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Commissioner for Railways (Nsw) v Quinn
-
Green v The London General Omnibus Company Ltd
...by their servant authorized by them to do the act. [Crowder, ,f., referred to Chilian v. The London and Croydon Rail-ivay Company, 16 M. & W. 212, where an action was brought against the company for assault and false imprisonment, and it was held to be sustainable.] In The Queen v. The Birm......
-
Doe D. Roberton v Gardiner
...rules shall be subject to appeal in manner hereinafter (s. 215) mentioned." (a) See Chilton v. The London and Croydon Railway Company, 16 M, & W. 212. 928 DOE !'. GARDINER ,12 C.E. 320. the date of the deed, the premises were in the occupation of tenants, so that a reversion only could pass......
-
Stevens v The Midland Counties Railway Company and Lander
...314); although not criminahter, as was observed by Maule, J, on the argument of that case. Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway Company (16 M & W 212) was also an action of trespass against the company for an assault. And a cor poration aggregate may be indicted for a misfeasance Reg. v Gr......