The Great Northern Railway Company v Harrison
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 July 1854 |
| Date | 03 July 1854 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 489
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 C L R. 1136; 23 L J. Ex 308, 2 W R 626. Referred to, Grand Trunk Railway Canada v. Barnett, [1911] A. C 370
[376] the great northern eailavay company v. harrison. July 3, 1854. -The defendants, a railway company, were in the practice of allowing the reporters of a London newspaper, when going to country races on the defendants' line for the purpose of framing their reports, to travel on the defendants' line carriage free. The reporter was for such purpose supplied with a ticket by the company, tthreh had written upon it the name of a person in the reporting department. The ticket also purported on the face of it to be not transferable; and there was also a niemoianclum on it, to the effect, that any party, other than the person named in it, using the pass, would be liable to the penalty which a, Ex. Div. xil-16* 490 THE GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. HARRISON 10 EX. 377. passenger incurs by travelling without having paid his fare, or that he should he liable to pay the fare , but it did not distinctly appear which of these two liabilities was stated in the memorandum, and, if the foimer, it did not appear what the penalties were which were alluded to. The plaintiff, acting bona tide, and going on the business of the journal, and entitled by the usage to have the } enetit of a ticket with his name on it, went to the station with a ticket such as that described His name, however, was not upon it, but theie was that of another person, who, however, was a reporter and in the same department with himself. The plaintiff shewed this ticket to the poitet at the station, whose business it was to examine passengers' tickets, who said that it was all light, and placed the plaintiff in a caniage. There was no distinct e\ideucc, however, that the porter knew personally who the plaintiff was It appealed, that the plaintiff and other repoiters had, on se\eral occasions before, travelled with similar tickets not bearing the names on them of those who used them , and there was evidence, that the persons whose names were on the tickets were personally known to some of the officers and servants at the station - In an action by the plaintiff against the company for an injury received on their line whilst travelling m one of the company's carnages, in which the declaration alleged that "the plaintiff then lawfully was," and which allegation was denied by the plea , the question having been left to the jury, and a verdict having been found for the plaintiff' - Held, on error on a bill of exceptions, that theie was evidence for the jury in support of the issue, and that the question was rightly left to them. [S. C. 2 C L R. 11. 1C; 2--J L ,T. Ex ,508, '2 W. ti G-Jfi. Referred to, G-r.ind Tnink of Canada v. Bennett, [191 1] A. C :J.70 ] Error by the defendants below on a bill of exceptions The thud count of the declaration stated that the plaintiff, at the time of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coffee v McEvoy and Another
...(3) 16 Q. B. 984. (4) [1895] 1 Q. B. 199. (5) [1891] 1 Q. B. 730. (6) 10 L. R. Ir. 208. (1) [1909] A. C. 229. (2) [1911] A. C. 361. (3) 10 Ex. 376. (4) 9 Ex. (5) 46 J. P. 360. (1) [1911] A. C. 10. (2) [1891] 1 Q. B. 730. (1) [1891] 1 Q. B. 730. (2) [1911] A. C. 10. (1) 11 Q. B. D. 503. (1) ......
-
British Railways Board v Herrington
...of reconsidering the proposition of law accepted as well-established as long ago as the middle of the nineteenth century (see Great Northern Railway Co. v. Harrison (1854) 10 Exchequer 376) and re-stated in Addie's case. The doctrine that a trespasser, however innocent, enters land at his o......
-
Alton v The Midland Railway Company
...it is not because there is a collateral contract for remuneration that the duty is gone. In The (Ireat Northern Railway Company v. Hamsun, 10 Exch. 376, the defendants, a railway company, were in the practice of allowing the reporters of a London newspaper, when going to country races on th......
-
Goff against The Great northern Railway Company
...cases, however, in addition to those mentioned in the judgment were cited in argument; Great Northern Railway Company v. Harrison (10 Exch. 376), Maund v. Monmouthshire Canal Company (4 M. & G. 452), Cur. adv. vult. [674] Blackburn J. now delivered the judgment of the Court. This was an act......