Barry v The Midland Great Western Railway Company

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 30 January 1867
• Date: 30 January 1867
• Court: Exchequer (Ireland)

Exch. Cham.

BARRY

and

THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway CompanyENR 16 M. & W. 212.

Dearden. v. TownsendELR L. R. 1 Q. B. 10.

Britton v. Ward 2 Roll. R. 127.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway CompanyENR 16 M. & W. 212.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway Company 16 M. ‡ w. 212.

The Queen v.Frere 24 L. J. M. 71.

Dearden v. TownsendELR L. R.1 Q. B. 10.

The Queen v. FrereENR 4 E. & B. 598.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway CompanyENR 16 M. & W. 212.

Chilton v. The London and Croydon Railway CompanyENR 16 M. & W. 212.

Dearden v. TownsendELR L. R. 1 Q. B. 10.

Roe v. Birkenhead Railway CompanyUNK 6 Railw. Cas. 795.

Eastern Counties Railway Company v. BroomENR 6 Ex. 314.

Armory v. DelamirieENR 1 Strange, 504.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway Co.ENR 16 M. & W. 212.

The Queen v. FrereUNK 24 L. J. M. C. 71.

Dearden v. TownsendELR L. R. 1 Q. B. 10.

Dearden v. TownsendELR L. R. 1 Q. B. 10.

Eastern Counties v. WoodwardUNK 9 W. R. 660; S. C. 30 L. J. M. C. 196.

Chilton v. London and Croydon Railway CompanyENR 16 M. & W. 212.

Kirk v. NowillUNK 1 Term Rep. 118.

Dearden v. TownsendELR L. R. 1 Q B. 10.

Railway Company — By-Law — Validity of — Arrest for Breach fo — St. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, ss. 109 and 154.

130 THE IRISH REPORTS. Exch. Cham. BARRY v. THE MIDLAND RAILWAY COMPANY. 1867. _Railway Company-By-Law-Validity of-Arrest for Breach of-St. 8 9 Vict. Jan. 19, 30. c. 20, ss. 109 and 154. A by-law of a Railway Company contained the following provision :-" Each passenger on paying his fare will be furnished with a ticket, which he is to show when required, and to deliver up before leaving the Company's premises, upon demand, to the guard or other servant of the Company duly authorized to collect tickets. Each passenger--not producing or delivering up his ticket will be reÂquired to pay his fare from the place from which the train originally started; or, in default thereof, shall forfeit or pay a sum not exceeding forty slitillings The Court (disssntiente CHRISTIAN, S .) held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, that a breach of this by-law did not authorize the ComÂpany to arrest and detain a passenger whose name and residence were unknown, as a " transient offender," under the 154th section of the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20. Held, by MoNArrusi, C CHRISTIAN, J., and O'll.koits, J., that the by law was not unreasonable. Tins case came on for argument on error from the Court of ExÂchequer. The Summons and Plaint complained that the Defendants asÂsaulted the Plaintiff, and gave him into custody to a policeman, and caused him to be imprisoned. The second plea was, " that before and at the time of commitÂting the several supposed trespasses, the Defendants were a railway company duly incorporated under the Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland Act, 1845, and the several Acts incorporated therewith, including the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845 ; and as such they made and published certain by-laws, including the by-law hereinafter more particularly mentioned, which by-laws, long before and at the said time when, and so forth, had been duly reduced into writing, and sealed with the seal of the Company, and duly approved by the proper authorities in that behalf, and had been duly printed on boards, and duly published and affixed on the Company's stations, and duly kept so affixed in pursuance of the statutory enactments in that behalf; and all conditions were performed, and all things happened, and all times elapsed, neces-' sary to render said by-laws valid, operative, and binding within the meaning of the Statutes aforesaid, and to render penalties COMMON LAW SERIES. 131 thereby provided duly enforceable at the said time when, and so Exch. Chain. forth. And the Defendants aver that the said by-laws contained, 1807. amongst others, the provision or by-law following That no BARRY passenger will be allowed to take his seat in or upon any of the Tyliz Company's carriages, or to travel therein upon the said railway, MIDLAND WA Co. Y CO without first having obtained a ticket and paid his fare at the re- R.UL spective offices or stations of the Company on the line. Each pasÂsenger, on paying his fare, will be furnished with a ticket, which he is to show when required by the guard in charge of the train, and to deliver up before leaving the Company's premises, upon demand, to the guard, or other servant of the Company duly authorized to collect tickets. Each passenger not producing or delivering up his ticket, will be required to pay the fare from the place from which the train originally started; or, in default of payÂment thereof, shall forfeit or pay a sum not exceeding forty shilÂlings.' And. the Defendants say that, under the express provisions of the Railways' Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, it was provided that by-laws confirmed, published, and affixed, in manner as said by-law had been and then was as aforesaid, should be observed by, and be binding upon, all parties to whom respectively the same was applicable ; and Defendants aver that the Plaintiff became and was a passenger within the meaning of said by-law, from a certain station on the Defendants' Railway to their terminus in Dublin, and was duly furnished by the Defendants with a ticket such as was provided by said by-law in that behalf ; and Defendants say that at the termination of the said journey, and when the train in which the Plaintiff then travelled had arrived at Dublin aforesaid, for the purpose of enabling the Plaintiff and the other passengers in said train to leave the Defendants' premises, the officers of the Company duly authorized to collect the tickets demanded of the Plaintiff and the other passengers to deliver up their tickets aforeÂsaid before leaving the Defendants' premises, which the Plaintiff then wilfully refused to do; and therefore said officers duly, and in pursuance of said by-law, demanded of the Plaintiff to pay his fare, as by said by-law provided, which he also refused to do ; and the Defendants aver that during all the time aforesaid, when refusing as aforesaid, the Plaintiff to his own knowledge had said ticket in his possession, and ready to be delivered up if he thought fit so to do. 132 THE IRISH REPORTS. Exch. Chaim. And the Defendants further aver that the name and residence of 1867. the Plaintiff were respectively unknown to the several officers of the BARRY Defendants ; and thereupon one Arthur Fleming, then being the v. Defendants' station master, agent, and officer, and the Plaintiff's TUE MIDLAND name and residence then being unknown to him, caused the Plain RAILWAY Co. tiff to be seized and detained for the purpose of being conveyed with all convenient despatch before a justice of the peace ; and the Plaintiff was then accordingly in fact conveyed with all conveÂnient despatch before a justice of the peace, on the charge of having committed an offence against the said provisions and by-law, and to be duly dealt with according to law, as he lawfully might be, for the causes aforesaid, which are the several supposed trespasses in the Plaint declared on." To this plea the Plaintiff demurred, and the Court of ExcheÂquer overruled the demurrer ; (see 17 Ir. C. L. R., 103.) The PlainÂtiff brought error on the judgment. The grounds of error alleged by the Plaintiff were, First. That no breach of a by-law justifies a seizure or deÂtention within the meaning or provision of the 8 & 9 Viet. 0. 20, s. 154, being the section under which said defence proposes to justify the seizure and detention of the Plaintiff. Second. That it was immaterial whether or not the name and residence of the Plaintiff were unk nown to the Defendants' officers.. Third. That seizure and detention of a party offending are only justified by a violation by such party of some provision of an Act of Parliament to which such penalty of seizure and detention is attached. Fourth. That the alleged refusal of the Plaintiff to deliver up his ticket, as mentioned in said defence, was not a violation of any of the provisions of the 8 & 9 Viet. c. 20, ss. 103 & 104 ; said sections being the only statutable provisions with regard to pasÂsengers upon railways offending against the traffic or other reguÂlations for the management of railways in said sections menÂtioned (1). (1) Defendants had also pleaded a defence justifying the seizure and deÂtention of the Plaintiff under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 97, s. 16, on the ground thathe had obstructed the officers of the Company in the execution of their duty. To this defence the Plaintiff also deÂmurred, and the demurrer was allowed COMMON LAW SERIES. 133 Heron, Q. C., and Yirenna, in support of demurrer. Exch. Chaco. The question is whether, for a violation of a by-law, the Com- . 1867 pany have a right, when the name of the person breaking the by- BARRY A. law is unknown to their officers, to arrest and detain him under the Tus 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, s. 154 ; a further question also arises, whether the MIDLAND RAILWAY CO. by-law relied on in Defendants' plea is reasonable and valid. We say that summary remedies are not given for the breach of any by-law, unless it be to prevent danger or inconvenience to the public. Under other Acts forming portion of the Railway Code, the power to make by-laws only enabled the companies to impose peÂnalties for the breach of by-laws by their own officers and servants : 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, ss. 124-125. The 8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, regulates the relations between railway companies and the public. Section 108 of that Statute enables railway companies to make regulaÂtions for certain matters specially mentioned, and " generally for regulating the travelling upon or using and working of the railÂway." Section 109, for the better enforcing of such regulations, empowers the company to enforce the observance of by-laws by penalties not exceeding 5. Section 110 directs that such by-laws shall be...