The Great Northern Great Western Railway Company v Rimell
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 June 1856 |
| Date | 10 June 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 139 E.R. 1495
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 201. The appellant were The Great Western Railway Company. Considered, Groves v. Cheltenham and East Gloucestershire Building Society, [1913] 2 K. B. 100.
[575] the great northern .[great western] eailway company, Appellants; kimell, Respondent. June 10, 1856. [S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 201. The appellants were Tlie Great Western Railway Company. Considered, Groves v. Cheltenham and East Gloucestershire Building Society, [1913] 2K.-B. 100.] A parcel was delivered to a porter of a railway company at the station, to be forwarded from Gloucester to London, after the way-bill and the guard's parcel-book had been made up. The parcel was placed by the porter in the usual receptacle, a locked box in the luggage van, and entered by him on the way-bill; but the fact of his having so placed it in the box was not communicated to the guard. After several intermediate stoppages, the train reached London, when the parcel was missed :- Held, no evidence for the jury of the parcel having been stolen by a servant of the company.-On a trial in the county-court, the plaintiff having closed his case, it was submitted by the advocate on the part of the defendants that there was no evidence to go to the jury. The judge deciding that there was, evidence was offered on the part of the defendants, and a verdict was ultimately found for the plaintiff :-Held, that the defendants did not by calling witnesses preclude themselves from appealing on the ground that the judge had ruled erroneously.-Where felony is set up as an answer to a defence under the carriers act, 11 G. 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 68, the question of negligence becomes immaterial.-The case of Butt v. The Cheat Western Railway Company, ante, vol. xi. p. 140, explained. This was an appeal from a decision of the judge of the Gloucestershire County Court. The plaintiff (Eimell) claimed 391. 9s. for the loss of a parcel containing watches of that value, which had been delivered to the Great Northern Railway Company by the plaintiff, to be carried by them from Gloucester to London, and which were alleged to have been lost through their carelessness and negligence. The case was stated by the judge for the opinion of this court as follows:- "The following evidence was given at the trial on the 7th of February, 1856 :- "Mr. Helps, for the defendants, pleaded not guilty, and referred to the land carriers act, 11 G. 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 68, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 8. " Samuel Eimell, brother to plaintiff. In his employment. Kecollected taking a parcel to the station at Gloucester for Mr. Lutiger, on the 18th of January, 1855. Delivered it to Bossom, a porter at the Great Western Eailway, who signed for it; compared the address on the parcel with the book produced. " Cross-examined. The book was filled up at the shop ready for signature. It was about 8 o'clock at night [576] when he delivered the parcel. Gave no notice of the contents, and nothing passed except the delivery of the parcel and the signing of the book. " Ee-examination. The direction was, ' J. H. Lutiger, Great St. Helen's, Bishops-gate-street, London.' " James H. Lutiger. I am agent for the Swiss Watch Manufactory, and live in London. I received a letter from the plaintiff, stating he had forwarded a parcel to me by the Great Western Eailway; and I have the letter. I never received that parcel. I went to the Great Western Eailway station at Paddington, and saw an entry of the parcel having been received in Gloucester; but I was told it was not received in London. "Cross-examined. I saw the clerk at the parcel-office. I did not see the chief 1496 THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY CO. V. RIMELL 18C. B.577- inspector of police. I do not know of a robbery having been advertised in the papers. They promised to make every inquiry. " Be-examined. They promised to inquire where it had been left, or if lost. I received the letter from Eimell on the 19th, and inquired at the station about two . days afterwards. " George Eimell, plaintiff. I am a silversmith. I received from Lutiger between the llth and 16th of January, 1855, a quantity of goods, in value about 1201. I selected about 801. worth, and returned the rest to him. They were packed in a small box, with partitions for each watch. The value of them was 391. 9s. The value of the box is about Is. 3d. " Mr. Carter here applied to introduce the box into the particulars. Mr. Helps objected. The judge ruled against it, as justice did not require him to substitute that which the parties did not come there to try, to save a verdict. He would not amend. "Examination continued. I wrote the same day to.Lutiger, and. received a letter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Payne v Harrison
...entitled to revert to the position which he voluntarily abandoned? 5 There is no authority which directly covers this case. In Great Western Railway Co. v. Rimell (18 Common Bench Reports at page 575) the defendant at the end of the plaintiffs' case submitted that there was no evidence to g......
-
MAGEE v MARK. [Exchequer.]
...Q. B. 870. Davy v. BakerENR 4 Burr. 2471. Williams v. The East India CompanyENR 3 East, 192. The Great Northern Railway Co. v. RimellENR 18 C. B. 575. Hall v. GreenENR 9 Exch. 247. Cooper v. Slade 6 H. of L. Cas. 746. M'Clory v. WrightIR 10 Ir. Com. Law Rep. 514. Cooper v. Slade 6 H of L. C......
-
Belfast & Ballymena Railway Company, in Error, v Keys. Londonderry & Coleraine Railway Company, in Error, v Same
...v. HartENR 4 Bing. 476. Langley v. BrownUNK 1 M. & P. 563, S. C.; 2 Bro. & Bing. 177. Great Northern Railway Company v. RimmellENR 18 C. B. 575. Butt v. Great Western Railway CompanyENR 11 C. B. 140. Finucane v. SmallENR 1 Esp. 315. Read v. GwillimENR 12 East, 62. Boson v. Sandford 1 Shower......
-
Keys v Belfast and Ballymena Railway Company, The Londonderry and Coleraine Railway Company and William M'
...54. Ansell v. WaterhouseENR 6 M/ & S. 365. Wilby v. West Cornwall Railway Co.ENR 2 H. & N. 703. Great Northern Railway Co. v. RimmellENR 18 C. B. 575. Finucane v. SmallENR 1 Esp. 315. Weall v. KingENR 12 East, 452. Richards v. London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Co.ENR 7 C. B. 839. But......