The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-11-19 00:00:00

INTERESTING TO RAILWAY
TRAVELLERS.

'Me cue of "But kinaeter r. the Great Eaatern Railway
Company " was beard last week in London, before Mr.
Baron Malin, and was no action for breach of contract,
which involved a etion of great luternat to railway
travellers. Mr. Inieby seymour, QC., and Mr Nassnyth
api eared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Marriot for the defend.
ants.

The plaintiff was a miller at Framlingham, Suffolk,
and had a season ticket for travelling on the defen.
daub.' railway between that town and London, on the
o;th if September, lieD, lie went to the station at
Frandingham, for the purpose of proceeding by the
t: 45 a.m. train, which, according to the time table,
would anise at Shoreditch at 10.40, his object being
to attend the corn market in Mink-lane that morning.
The train of carriages was duly formed, but in conse-
quence of some negligence on the part of the fireman
the driver found that the steam was not up, and be
could not get the engine to move towards thecarriawea
Ere had either not been lighted in time or was ha.
properly lighted. tinder there circumstances the plain-
ill engaged & special train, for which he had to pay
£39 lii., a fresh engine having to be telegraphed fur
Nom Ipswich, and he arrived b. London between
twelse and tine o'clock. lie now sought by this ac-
tion to recover back that SUM, and also £lO, being the
amount he calculated be was out of pocket by luse of
market. . . . .

the company relied for their defense upon the con.
dition under wnich a sewn-ticket was iraued, to the
effect that they should not be liable in respect of any

alteration of trains, or any delay in the starting Or
arrival of trains arising from accident or other causes
during the term over which the ticket extended. They
also relied on this condition in the printed time-tables:
—"These tables show the time at which the trains
may be expected to arrive and depart from the several
stations. Every exertion will be made to ensure
punctuality, but the departure or arrival of the trains
at the times stated will not be guaranteed, nor will the
company hold themselves responsible for delay, or any
consequence /*Jibing therefrom." On the other hand,
the plaintiff said the delay was caused by the gross
negligence of the defendants and their servants, and
not by any accident or any other circumstance within
the meaning of the condition.

On the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
Mr. Marriott submitted that the plaintiff had not
made out a case to go to he jury. There was no
evidence of gross negligence on the part of the defend-
ante.

Mr Baron Martin: A train standing at the station
ready to start, and the engine not having its steam up
in consequence of the fireman neglecting his duty by
not properly lighting the fire— Is that not negligence?
Counsel having addressed the jury,
Mr. Baron Martin, in summing up, said it was
reasonable enough that the defendants should not be
liable for " any alteration of trains, or any delay in
the starting or arrival of trains arising from accident
or other causes." id eat, causes of a similer character ;
but if it arose from a clear neglect of duty, from the
fireman not rising early enough to get up the steam,
it was not the result of an accident, but of negligence,
for which the company was responsible. The company
said they would use every exertion to insure minctu•
ality, but had they done so in this case? No exertion
was usad at all. Then they said the departure
and arrival of trains at the times stated would not be
guaranteed, nor would they holdthemselves responsible
for any delay, or any consNuence arising from it. People
guilty of negligence always said, 'Mind, I won't be
responsible for it." That was nonsense. It was like
a man striking another on the head, and then telling
him he would not be responsible for the consequences.
The real question was whether there was gross negligence,
or an absence of reasonable exertions to ensure punc-
tuality. With regard to damages, his lordship ex
pressed the opinion that plaintiff was entitled to the
1:39 es,., and said it was astonishing that the company
had not returned the money. He alio saw no °Nee-
lion to the jury giving him the £lO for the loss of
market? but it was for them to say whether that loss
was a reasonable and natural consequence of the
breach of contract.

The jury almost immediately returned a verdict for
the plaintiff--damages £49 14s.