The Eastern Counties Railway Company and Richardson Broom
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1851 |
| Date | 05 February 1851 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 155 E.R. 562
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S C 6 Railw Cas 743, 20 L J Ex 196, Jur 297 Discussed, Whitfield v South Eastern Railway, 1858, El Bl & El 115 Adopted, Walker v South Eastern Railway, 1870, L R 5 C P 640 Not followed, Golf v Great Nothern Railway, 1861, 3 El & El 672 Distinguished, Bank of New South Wales v Owslon, 1879, 4 A C 270
[314] in iHu Exo'Hii^irrcL ceiamulei (Error from the Court of Exchequet ) the eastern CobNims railww company and richakdson c buooh (u) L'eb 5, IS/51 -Trespass lies against a corporation aggiegate foi an assault committed by then seivartt authorised by them to do the act-Such authoiity, although not given by an instrument under seal, is binding upon the corporation -An assault committed on behalf of and for the benefit of the corporation is capable of bomg ratified by them, and rf ratihed, renders them liable in tresjKiss for the act -The servant of a Railway Company took the plaintiff, a passenger upon the Company's line into custody, for an alleged breach of one of the Company's bye-laws, and carried farm before a magistrate The attorney of the Company attended before the magistrate to conduct the charge -Held, that this was no evidence that the Company ratihed the act of their servant [Si C 6 Railw Cas 74?, 20 L J Ex 19(5, 15 ,tm 297 Discussed, JYIiitJield v South, Eabtmi Railway, lr ,S, El Bl & El 11/5 Adopted, fPtilhei v tiouth Ktistem Railway, 170, L R * C f 640 Not followed, ft;// v Cneut Noitknn Mailwiiy, 1861, 3 El & El 672 Distinguished, Haul of New .SWA /Fa/?s v (h^lon, 1H79, 4 A C 270 J Error on a bill of exceptions This was an action of trespass brought by William Br'oom against the Eastern Counties Railway Company and Benjamin Richardson The declaration stated, that tho defendant, to wit, on the 29th ot February, 1848, with force and aims, iVc , assaulted the plaintiff, and compelled him to go in custody from a certain railway station to a ceitain police office, and there imprisoned him, &c , and compelled the plaintiff to go from thence to two other police offices, and there again imprisoned him, each of such seveial imprisonments being contrary to law and against the will of the plaintiff, i\ic ' The defendants below pleaded, first, not guilty, issue theteon secondly, as to so milch of the declaration as alleged the assault up to the time of taking the plaintiff to th$ second police office, that the plaintiff assaulted the defendant Ricbaidson, then being a servant of the Company, and that he was consequently taken into custody by a constable who had view of the assault, at the instance of the defendants, and necessarily w.is detanied to answer the charge before a magistrate Verification The third plea, to the same portron of the declaration, alleged, th.it the plaintiff, on &e , was a passenger in a railway tiain which ran from Colchester to London , that, on ai-[316J-rivmg at the Stratfoid station, the defendant Richaidson, then being a servant of the Company duly authorised to collect the tickets of passengers, requested th0 plaintiff to produce and deliver up his ticket That a bye-law of the Company provided, " that each passenger booking his place would be furnrshed with a ticket, which he was to shew when required by the guard rn charge of the train, and to deliver up before leaving the Company's premises., upon demand of the guaid ot other serjvant of the Company duly authorised to collect tickets, and that each passenger nolj producing'or delivering up his ticket, would be requiied to pay the fare from the place whence the tram originally started " Tire plea then alleged, that the plaintiff di J not deliver up his ticket, that thereupon Richardson requested the plaintiff* to pay the fare from the pla e fiom which the train had started, according to the bye- (a) Before Pattern, J, Wightman, J, Maule, J, Eile, J, Williams, J, and Talfourd, J 6 EX 316 THti EASTERN OOUNlItS LIULWA.Y COMPANY V BUOOM 5G3 law ; that the plaintiff lefused to do so , that Richardson then requested the plaintiff to quit the carnage, that the plaintiff refused, and thereupon, in order to remove the plamtitt fiom the carriage, Richardson used the necessary force only to do so, that, after the plaintiff had been removed fiom the carriage, but while on the premises of the Company, he in levenge assaulted Richaidson , and that thereupon he was given into custody Verification The fourth plea set out a bye-l,uv, which provided, that arry person in a state of intoxication in the carnages or stations of the Company, wilfully interfering with the comfort of the passengers, and every person obstructing the Company's officers in the discharge of then duty, should be subjected to a penalty not exceeding: 40s,, and at the first opportunity be loruovecl from the Company's premises, and forfeit his fare. It then averred, that the plaintiff was intoxicated, and wilfully interfered with the comfort of the other passengers, that, on the plum tiff's refusing to quit the carnage, the defendant Richardson, as servant of the Company, removed him It then alleged [316] an assault by the defendant, and air anest, as in the previous plea Verification The fifth plea, to the same causes of action as in the second plea, alleged as a justification, that the plaintiff wilfully impeded Richardson, an officer of the Company, in the execution of his duty, and that Richaidson detained him to answer for the offe rice Ven hcation Thesrxth plea, to the same cause of action, justified the removal, on the ground that the plaintiff was making a disturbance and doing damage in one of the Company's carriages Verification The plaintiff replied de injurra to the special pleas Issue thereon At the trial, before Pollock, C B...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sons of Gwalia Ltd v Margaretic
...Adams (ed), Essays for Clive Schmitthoff, (1983) 99 at 99. 33 (1922) 31 CLR 290 at 311. 34 The Eastern Counties Railway Company v Broom (1851) 6 Ex 314 at 320 [ 155 ER 562 at 564]. The Court of Exchequer Chamber disagreed ( (1851) 6 Ex 314 at 325 [ 155 ER 562 at 566–567]) but held that the ......
-
Finlay v The Bristol and Exeter Railway Company
...their servants, though unauthoiised by seal Ya/rbarough v The Bank of England (16 East, 6) The Eastern, Counties Hallway Company v Biuom (6 Exch 314), Maud v The Monnwuthshii e Canal Company (4 M & G 45'2), and even to an indictment Rex v Reg&nft, L'anal Company, cited in Jiegma v. TIi4 Bir......
-
Seymour v Greenwood
...If the guard used unnecessary Aiolence, the defendant, his master, (b) 7 Exch. 36. See also The Easbin Counties Bail-way Company v Broom, 6 Exch. 314. 6HIBN. 3fi6 BEHRENS V. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY 151 is responsible. There are many cases, of which Roe v. The BitJcenhead, Lancashire ......
-
Goff against The Great northern Railway Company
...persons actually imprisoning him, or some of them, had authority from the Company to do so. In Eastern Counties Railway Company v. Broom (6 Exch. 314) the Court oi Exchequer Chamber were of opinion that what was stated in the bill of exceptions in that case was not sufficient evidence for t......