RAILWAY MARKET TICKETS.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1772, 4 August 1888, Page 2

RAILWAY MARKET TICKETS.

A case of great interest to the railway travelling public was decided in the Ashburton Magistrate’s Court on Thursday before MfrA. 0. Wray* BM. The New Zealand Railway Depart-, ment brought an action against Mr I. B; 0. C. Graham for the recovery of the sum of 5s Sd, the facts of the case being briefly , as follows :—On Thursday, March 15th last, which was a Washdyke market day, Mr Graham purchased at the Ashburton railway station a market ticket (first class) to cover the journey to and from Wash*, dyke. At Temuka he took a secondclass single for Timaru, and travelled the distance between these two : places in a second class carriage. On returning from Timarn to Ashburton he took out a first-class single ticket to the Washdyke, and travelled from the latter place to Ashburton on the market ticket. On the way from Ashburton in the morning Mr Graham told the guard of the train that he was going to Timaru, and would not want to be booked from the Washdyke. The guard informed him that the “market” tickets were issued

lor » special purpose, and were only available for the journey to and from the station named on the ticket. The guard also told Mr Graham that the regaUtions would not «l ow of a a passenger using a market ticket for the Washdyke to cover .part of the ioumey to a greater distance, and that if he (Graham) was going to Timaru he should have to trouble him for the ordinary fare from Ashburton. Mr Graham replied that he knew better, and that the railway regulations would allow of his trave ling as he intended doing. To comply with the regulations, as he thought, he lust stepped on to the Washdyke platform and hack on to the tram again immediatelr. The claim was virtually for the full first-class fare from Ashburton to Timaru and back, but , defendant was credited with the amount paid for the three tickets, and was new sued for the balance, amounting to the 5s 5d above mentioned, Mr Joynt, who appeared for the Kailway Department, said that the action was brought under sections 144 and 168 of the Puhlio Works Act. James Garstin (Traffic Manager), and Thos. Fowke (guard) gave evidence, during which it transpired that on the matter hein* reported. Mr Garstin had written to Mr Graham claiming the balance of the full fare, 5s sd. Mr Graham had replied to the effect that the Esilway Department could not dictate to him how far he should travel on any particular day, and he regarded the claim as one of simple extortion. Mr Graham, who conducted his own case, first wanted to . know on what principle the plaintiffs wished to charge him first- - dais fare from Temuka to Timaru when he had travelled in a secondclass carriage. Be then cross-ex-amined witnesses and made statements with a view of showing that Justices of the Peace and women continually travelled to Christchurch on market days with market tickets, and seme of them boasted that they never went near the Addington market, while others went as far as Christchurchf with the market ticket and re-booked for Lyttelton, and used the market ticket for the return journey from Christchurch. This, he contended, was precisely on all fours with what he had done. He further pointed out he had shown no desire to violate the rrilway regulations, but had openly told the guard how he was travelling. Defendant, however, admitted that he had started from Ashburton with the intention of going to Timaru, and that he did not intend to stop at the Washdyke. If the market tickets were only to he used for bona fide market purposes initructions to that effect should be printed sn them, so that travellers could-sot be misled. ■He had been -asked by a large number of people to alloitthfecase to go before the Court, and hud,.done so in the interest of the public The Magistrate took time to look up the law on the matter. In giving judgment he held that it had Mein clearly shown that defendant h«A knowingly violated- the regulations by taking out a special ticket’lor Washdyke when ,he knew his intended destination was beyond that point. The difference between a first clase and second., class fare from Tepinlti jo Timaru had been shown to he lOd, and he should give judgment for plaintiffs for 4s. 7d. Mr Joynt applied usuarsolicitor’s fee, to which Mr Graham raised strong ohjections. The Bench held with Mr Joynt, and allowed costs oneguinea. —Press. ■_