The Complaint of Frederick Ransome against The Eastern Counties Railway Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 1860 |
| Date | 29 May 1860 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 1344
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 29 L. J. C. P. 329; 2 L. T. 376; 8 W. R. 527. See previous proceedings, 1 C. B. N. S. 437; 140 E. R. 179; 4 C. B. N. S. 135; 140 E. R. 1034; and the cases cited in the note at 140 E. R. 179.
in the matter of the complaint of frederick kansome against the eastern counties railway company. May 29th, 1860. [S, C. 29 L. J. C. P. 329 ; '2 L. T. 376 ; 8 W. R. 527. See previous proceedings, 1 C. B. N. fe. 437; 140 E. R. 179; 4 C. B. N. S. 135; 140 E. R. 1034; and the cases cited in the note at 140 E. R. 179.] By their sale or tariff, a railway company divided the places through which their lilies passed into districts, and charged at a reduced rate per ton for coals carried a given distance from Peterborough to Ipswich respectively, when consigned in full train-loads of 200 tons or 35 trucks. The advantage of this reduced rate was given to persons consigning coals from Peterborough to one of these districts in full train-loads, though on their arrival at Cambridge the company for their own convenience thought fit to break up the train, and carry about one third of it forward by the 8 C. B. (Jf. 8.) no. RANSOME V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CO. 1345 ordinary goods trains,-the whole consignment, however, ultimately finding its way into the district to which it was addressed by the consignor :-Held, that this was not giving any undue preference to the Peterborough coal-dealers, or imposing any undue prejudice on the Ipswich dealers; although the latter were unable to avail themselves of the lower rate of charge for coals consigned by them to the same district, by reason of the insufficiency of the demand for sea-borne coals at the places comprised therein. Power, Q, C., in Easter Term last, obtained a, rule calling upon the Eastern Counties Railway Company to shew cause why a writ of injunction should not issue against them pursuant to the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Viet, c. 31), injoining the said Eastern Counties Railway Company to desist from charging the Peterborough coal-dealers for the carriage of coals brought from Peterborough to or towards Needham Market, Stow-rnarkct, Elmswell, Thurston, Bury St. Edmunds, Hadleigh, Mellis, and Diss, in quantities of less than 200 tons or 35 trucks, according to the rates specified in the tariff for the carriage of coals in entire trains of 200 tons or 35 trucks, and not according to the rates in the said tariff for the carriage of coals in less quantities than 200 tons or 35 trucks ; and to desist from [710] giving an undue preference to the Peterborough coal-dealers in respect of the carriage of coals brought from Peterborough to or towards Ipswich, Needham-Market, Stowmarket, Elmswell, Thurston, Bury St. Edmunds, Hadleigh, Mellis, and Diss; and to desist from subjecting the said Frederick Ransome and the Ipswich dealers in sea-borne coals to undue disadvantage in respect of the carriage of coals from Ipswich to or towards Needham-Market, Stowmarket, Elmswell, Thurston, Bury St. Edmunds, Hadleigh, Mellis, and Diss,-with, costs. The motion was founded upon voluminous affidavits going through all the matters detailed on the former occasions (a). The material additional matter was that contained in the affidavits of Frederick Ransome, John Bradley (icard, and Alfred Staff Prior (6). The affidavit of Mr. Ransome, after going through the history of his dealings with the company, stated as follows :-That the said coals carried by the company for the inland coal-dealers start from Peterborough in special trains, but not consisting of 35 trucks or 200 [711] tons: That, when the train reaches Cambridge, which is distant from Peterborough forty-five miles, the said train no longer remains a special or full coal train, and such coals as are not left at Cambridge are taken on from that place to the aforesaid places and districts by different engines, and form part of the ordinary goods trains, and coals, merchandize, and cattle are mixed up together in the same trains, so as to keep up as nearly as may be a convenient load for the engine : That the carrying of coals from Peterborough and from Ipswich to the aforesaid places at which the complainant dealt in coals, and the coal traffic to those places, could not be conducted otherwise than by trains stopping successively at each station, dropping the trucks of [coals required there, and passing onwards with a continually diminishing load of coals : That, in the districts in which the places at which the complainant dealt in coals as aforesaid were situate, there was a considerable traffic in corn, malt, lime, and other articles in the direction of and to Ipswich, for exportation, and there was therefore a profitable employment for trucks or waggons in which the complainant's coals were conveyed to such places returning in the direction of or to Ipswich from auch places as aforesaid, and such trucks or waggons were constantly profitably (a) Ante, vol. i,, p. 437, vol. iv., pp. 135, 159. (A) The rule was originally granted in Hilary Term last upon the affidavits of Ransome, Goard, and Robinson only. But, in Easter Term, in consequence of something which the complainant had learned siuce that rule was granted, Power applied for leave to file an additional affidavit, viz. that of Prior. But Krle, C. J., said : The rule was obtained on a specific ground, which the defendants are ready to shew cause against, i It would be setting a very pernicious precedent to allow this to be done* Possibly {you might be entitled when cause is shewn to file affidavits in reply, under the 45th; section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854; but that would depend upon the statements contained in the affidavits of the company. Perhaps the, better course will be, to allow you to abandon the former rule, and to come again upon the new materials for another rule, the costs of the abandoned rule to abide the event. C. P. xix.-43 1346 RANSOME V. THE EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY CO. 8 C. B. (N. S.)712. employed by the said railway company in such return journey to Ipswich ; but that the trucks or waggons forming train loads of coals from Peterborough were and had to be conveyed back to Peterborough empty : That the said railway company could not carry the complainant's coals from Ipswich to places where he dealt in coals as aforesaid in special trains of 35 trucks or 200 tons, as they had not sufficient engine power and rolling stock for that purpose : and that, upon the few occasions when the complainants had been able to send into one district from Ipswich a full train load of 35 trucks or 200 tons [712] of coals, and had tendered such quantity of coals to the company, the said company had not carried such 200 tons of coal in an entire train, but had carried the same by the ordinary goods trains. Mr. Geard's affidavit stated that, on the 7th of March, 1860, he went from Ipswich to Peterborough by the railways worked by the Eastern Counties Railway Company, and during his journey he observed that almost all the goods trains which he passed between Ipswich and Cambridge had trucks of inland coals attached to them: That, at about half past 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the said 7th of March, he saw at the Thurston station a goods train with trucks of the Norfolk and Eastern Counties Coal Company (which is the same company as was originally carried on under the name or firm of Messrs. E. & A. Prior & Co., laden with coals attached thereto, push in the direction from Bury St. Edmunds towards Ipswich ; and at about a quarter to 12 o'clock in the forenoon of the same day he saw at Thurston a special coal train drawn by a large engine, No. 305, and with twenty-five trucks of coals, pass the same station in the same direction, chiefly from Prentice & Co., of Stowmarket, and one for Morley, of Mellis . That he was at the station at Bury St. Edmunds at about a quarter past 1 o'clock in the afternoon of the said 7th of March, and whilst he was there he saw tlie goods train from Peterborough come up, and there were in the said train thirteen trucks of inland coals besides other goods, four of which trucks were directed to Prentice & Co., Stowmarket, and one to Morley, Mellis : That, on the 9th of March, 1860, he saw at the Cambridge station, in the siding of the railway from Cambridge to Bury St. Edmunds, nine trucks of inland coals directed for Sudbury, Witham, and Needham, and amongst which were four trucks numbered 891, 892, 893, and [713] 894, and directed to Bull, of Needham : That, on the 10th of March, I860, he saw at the Six Mile...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas Lloyd The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company v
...18 C. B. 805. Peek v. The North Staffordshire Railway CompanyENR 9 El. & Bl. 958. Ransome v. The Eastern Counties Railway CompanyENR 8 C. B., N. S., 709. M'Cance v. The London and North-Western Railway CompanyENR 7 Jur., N. S., 1304; S. C., 7 H. & N., 477. Bennet v. Filkins 1 Saund. Rep., b......