IMPORTANT TO RAILWAY. PASSENGERS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 294, 29 August 1888, Page 2

IMPORTANT TO RAIL WAY . PASSENGERS.

Who is there that travels frequently hy train that has not at one time or another, by some mischance, lost his railway ticket? The position of a man or a woman under such circumstances is do- | cidedly awkward, to say the least of it. The guard may be not; only inexorable, but positively rude. The passenger feels humiliated, and fancies that all the passengers in the same oar will look upon, him as an individual who has been dexterously endeavouring to (jifcomplish a swindle of a very mean atffl paltry character. However, even the most cautious travellers may find themselves in a fix of this kind, and therefore ifc should be interesting to read some information concerning the law in regard to lost railway tickets. A case in point occurred in England recently. A wholesale confectioner took an excursion ticket by the Manchester-Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway, for which ho paid 2a Gd, the ordinary fare from Sheffield to Manchester being 3s sd. At Manchester he gave up one-half of his ticket, keeping the other for the return journey. This latter he mislaid in some way, and when the guard demanded it, he was unable to produce it. He offeied to pay the 2s 6d, the price of the excursion ticket, half of which he had already used. The guard refused to accept this, and demanded 3s sd, the ordinary fare. He refused to pay, and was thereupon summarily ejected and detained at the station for fortyfive minutes, until he handed over the 3s sd, Ho then brought an action against the company for assault, and Mr Justice Manisty gave judgement for the defendants, holding that the company were within their rights in ejecting him. The confectioner was, however, a man of pluck, and also a man of means. He carried his case before the Appeal Court, and the latter decided in his favour. This court hold that the only consequence of his not producing his ticket was that the company might sue him for his fare There was no by-law providing for his ejectment j and some of the judges expressed doubt as to the validity of such a by-law had there been one. General remark was made at the trial that such a case had never before been tested. But the reason is not far to seek, Most men Avoold have preferred to pay the 3s sd, rather than have ran. the risk of a heavy law action and fho i^nomony attached to a defeat should they prove unsuccessful. However, now that the matter has been tested in the highest court in the Empire, peopl 3 who may happen to have lost their tickets will not stand in such dread of that awesome personage, the railway guard.