The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1870-11-26 00:00:00

ALLEN v. THE LONDON AND SOUTH-
WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

The following case has been heart In the Court of
liteen's tench, and was an action for assault and (also id-
prisomuebt nneer tlirs• clrcurottances

The plaintiff went to get &ticket at the Twickenham
station, and was offered a French coppercoin ieetead of
&penny in change, which he refused, and le (mired to be
exchanged fora penny. Thin the stationhlerk refused,
and the plaintiff then put hip hand out to take a penny,
on which the clerk charged him with putting bis hand
in the till, and had him taken into custody on the
charge of attempting to steal money from the till. On
this charge the plaintiff was locked up and brought
before the magistrate, who, cf course, dismissed it.
This action being bronght and tried before Mr. Justice
Blackbern, it appeared that neither the stationhiaster
nor inspector was at the station at the time, and that
the charge was made by the clerk in Mr own name,
and with his private address, and it did not appear
that any officer of the company, except the policeinan
who took the plaintiff on the charge, had anything to
do with the matter. The learned Judge left it to the
jury whether the clerk acted out of spite, or in further-
ance of what he supposed to be the interest of his em-
}doyen,. The jury found the latter, and rissemed the
damages at .£lOO, but the learned Ju ige reserved it as
a question of the law whether there was any evidence
on which the jimmy could find such a verdict.
The case was argued on the part of the plaintiff only
(the company's counsel not being called upon) entirely
on the grJund of authority—that is, of authority on
the pert of the company to give persons into custody
on false charges, and of course there was no proof of
any Ruch authority, and the Court were clear upon the
point that no such authority could be inferred or
inq lied. The Court, therefore, at the close of the
ergurrieut for the plaintiff, proceeded, after a brief
conmliation, to give judgment for the company. The
Ple'utiff, they Raid, had been very much Mused, but he
bad sued the wrong party. The police, in this, as in too
many othercriesahad been guilty of extreme misconduct
through a misappreheosion which he feared was too pre.
volht— that 19 tosay, a notion that they were bound to
take jr-lsors who were given into custody many charge.
They could only do so (except in special Cages) on a
rearonabls charge and reasonable suspicion of felony.
But here there was not only no reasonable ground of sm.
piclon of felony, but no such charge, for the charge was
only an attempt, which was a mere misdemeanour,
for which a person could not be taken into custody
without a magistrate's warrant. There was no justifi-
cstion, therefore, for the arrest ; and if the superintero
dent of police had been sued he would have had no
defence. The company, however, were not liable,
because they had given no authority to do such acts,

Triers might be an implied authority in some cases
to give persons into custody, as for the purposes
of preveution of felony, or protection of pro-
perty, or for the purpose of us cNtsary carrying
oat of the law. But here there was nothing of
tim lewd; the act, whatever it WAS, had been corm
matted. and at the utmost it was a more misdemeanour,
and entailed no necessity or even justification for an
arrest. Where the bye-Lbws gave power of arrest,
and the power was exercised by the officers of the com-
pany in the conic iof the discharge of their dutii s, the
company might be liable. But it was otherwise in
eush cases as the present, when there WWI not only no
duty to the company, but a viol thou of it; and the
act Iva iu no way for their interest, nor could be cup-
toed to be; and therefore there was no authority to
do the act, and the company were not liable.
Judgment for the company.