The Northern Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1856-06-12 00:00:00

COUNTY COURT.-YESTE&DAY,

(BEFORE JOSEPH POLLOCK, ESQ JUDGE.)
THE EASt LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY V. BOWES.
—This was an action brought by the Railway Company
against Mr. Joseph Bowes, wholesale druggist. Henry_
street, Liverpool, to recover one shilling. The action
was brought for the purpose of deciding a point of
considerable importance both to railway companies and
to the public. Mr. Almond, who appeared for the
railway company, stated the circumstances under which
.

the action was brought. In February last, owing to a
competition between the Lancashire and Yorkshire
and East Lancashire Railway Companies, the passenger
fares were very much red ced between Liverpool and
Southport. The third class fare between Liverpool
and Southport was 6d by the Lancashire and
Yorkshire railway, on the one hand, and the
East Lancashire railway, via Ormskirk, on the other.
On the 12th of February Mr. Bowes applied for a ticket
issued as a government third-class ticket from Liverpool
to Southport, for which he paid Gd. The face of the
ticket stated that it was issued on the conditions men-
tioned in the company's time tattle, and on the
back of the ticket there appears a distinct
notice that it was only available for the
places named, and that any party alighting at, or
deparling from, an intermediate station, would have to
pay the full fare. Mr. Bowes alighted at Ormskirk, the
ordinary fare for which was is 6d. When he presented
the ticket at Ormskirk, the full fare was demanded,
which Mr. Bowes refused to pay. He gave his card, in
order that the company might know with whom they
had to deal, and the action was accordingly brought to
recover the difference in the fare, for the purpose of
deciding the question. Mr. Almond stated that a case of
a similar character had already been decided in that
court. The facts of the case being agreed on by all
parties, no evidence was called. Mr. Bowes stated as
his reason for defending the action, that lie did not
think the company had any tight to make him travel
further than he intended, or to charge him a larger rate
for the shorter distance. His Honcur said, upon a former
occasion, he gave this question a very careful considera-
tion, and since that period had had an opportunity of
consulting with others of a higher position than
himself, who expressed a distinct approval of the
decision at which he had arrived. He had
only hesitated at all in this case, because the former
decision was given before the passing of the last act of
parliament. The last act, supposing it to press against the
company to the extent to which it might possibly be held
to press, prevented a railway company from making any
condition which the court might think unreasonable. Be
therefore paused to consider 'whether if the construction
of the last act would prevent a company from making any
condition, even by special contract, which the court
should not consider reasonable, ought to affect the
present case. Ile did not think it ought, because
if he were aske3, in the capacity of a jury, whether
the conditions in this case were reasmablo or not, he
should say that they were reasonable, and that the company
charging for any intermediate distances, not more than by
the act of parliament they were entitled to do, might
reasonably say, as a matter of convenience to them, that
passengers might travel the whole way to Southport for a
less sum than they were entitled to charge, but that
passengers stopping at any intermediate station, must pay
• the _ ordinary fare. There were many reasons inde-

pendent of competition, which would render such a course
convenient. For instance, parties stopping in a certain train
at an intermediate station, at a certain given time might
be inconvenient to the general traffic, and the company
might, therefore, take then the whole distance for a lower
rate than they were entitled to charge. There were a great
many reasons why the company might think fit to forego
their legal fare, and charge a smaller amount for any given
distance. The mistake into which Mr. Bowes and many of
the public fell, was what Mr. Bowes himself stated, that
the company had no power to interfere with his individual
liberty, and make him travel to Southport when
he wished to get out at Ormskirk. It was perfectly
true that they could have no such power, but that was
not what they claimed. They said "we will take you to
Ormskirk by this train, on your paying what the law per,
mits us to charge, the ordinary fare, hut if you chocso to go
on to Southport, which we are desirous you should do, then
we will only charge you a smaller sum.
The
company
did not in fact charge any increased fare to Ormskirk, but
merely consented to forego a certain amount to which they
were entitled on the full Journey to Southport. They had,
therefore, a fair and reasonable right to charge the
ordinary fare to Ormskirk, while charging a reduced
fore to Southport. The general mistake was to suppose
that any increased rate was charged at all. His opinion,
therefore, was that the claim was well founded, and that
the company were entitled to a verdict with costs Re
trusted the time would sooa come when, in a ease like that
which really involved hundreds of pounds, nut merely one
shilling, he should be able to have the oplaioa of the court
abov‘:, upon his decision.

A ROMANCE FROM THE DIGGINGS

Yesterday, at the morning sittings, before Mr. Mansfield
at the police court, the following bit of Ballarat romance
turned up. Police constable 387 put forward a young man
named Peter Larke, on a charge of having assaulted a
young woman named Mary Campbell. The prisoner was
well-dressed, and sported a brilliant moustache and imperial,
with glossy long black hair, a- d had a free-and-easy devil-
may-carish sort of swagger. The constable said the prisoner
was given in charge to him in Abercrombie Square, for
having assaulted the complainant, and as he saw the assault
committed, be took him into custody. The young woman,
whose manner and appearance was respectable, said the
prisoner and his wife (whom she pointed out standing by
her side) had only just come from Australia, and that the
prisoner had ahandoncd his wife and had gone to live with
another young lady. On Tuesday the complainant went
with Mrs. Larke and another lady to look for the
prisoner. They were in a cab, and on a:riving in
Abercrombie Squat e they saw the p:;soner walking
with the young lady with whom be had taken up.
The three females alighted from_ the cab, and the witness
went up to the prisoner and said, " Perhaps this young
lady is not aware that you are a married man," whereon he
struck her a blow in the face. Here the lady pointed out
as the wife of the prisoner stepped forward, but Mr.
Mansfield said as she was the wife of the prisoner be would
not now examine her. The prisoner said the lady pointed
out was not his wife at all ; she lived with him for about
sixteen months, as house-keeper, at Ballarat, and he paid
her the same as he paid any other woman for her services.
Mr. Mansfield asked the lady where she was married to the
prisoner ? She said at Ballarat, in April last, and her
marriage certificate was on board the ship, from which she
had not yet got out her luggage. The moment they came
on shore the prisoner left her, and took up company with the
other young lady. The prisoner said it was all a conspiracy
against him by three or four ladies. He would admit
the lady now before the court, did live with him
for some sixteer, months, although she was
keeper, but as her family and frien'
order to save her from shame '
was his wife, but she was
marry her. The 1

false man; thi,

The pris

WEST DERBY UNION

.atit
eiS wife

confirmed

~nly his house-
were respec'able, in
. , Lie allowed her to say she
slot, nor was it likely he would
4y burst into tears and said he was a
.y were married, and she had the certificate.
_.,,ter said, he would by no means adroit that he was
and to her, and she cried, and asked him why he would
'not admit it ? Ile replied that she was not a person of
good character, as she had been the mother of four children
in Liverpool before she went to Australia, and that a Mr.
Walker was the father, and it was not, therefore, likely he
would be so foolish as to marry her. She had continually
annoyed and teased him in Australia, where he had kept a
Restaurant, but so much did she annoy him, that he resolved
to come to England, and agreed to pay her passage in order to
get rid of her. This she had agreed to, and when he came
on shore he had nothing more to say to her. As for the
complainant, he alleged that she struck him twice across the
face with a parasol, and he merely
.pushed her out of his
way. The alleged wife told a very long story, which his
worship listened to with great patience. It was a perfect
romance, and consisted of the adventures of the pair in
Australia. If her story be correct, she had suffered a great
deal from the hands of the prisoner, whom, she stated, to
have followed her all over the Colony, persecuting her in
the most annoying manner, and getting money from her
by hook and crook, Mr. Mansfield asked her how it was
that she married him after such continued persecutions ?
She replied ha made her, and she did it to get rid of his
persecutions. The prisoner asked the police officer if he
did not see the complainant strike him i❑ the face with her
parasol, before he pushed her? The officer said he did
certainly. Mr. Mansfield therefore dismissed the charge of
assault, and the prisoner was set at liberty.

The usual weekly meeting. 0( this board was held
yesterday. Mr. J. Harrison in the chair. The other
guardians present were Messrs. H. Edwards, Al,raharns,
Wilson, Richmond, Siddeley. Leyland, Elias,
Lunt,
Baynes, Johns, W h itby cdetllf, Hayes, Pitts,
Canis, Shaw, Wensley,' Whalkiuson, bagar, and
Mawdeslv.

The Clerk read the minutes of the last meeting. There
was a balance due to the board iu the treasurer's hands
of upwards of £72. The Clerk reported that he had
examined all the books kept by the several officers con-
nected with the union, and found them all correct.

Cheques to the amount of £244 were voted for the
relief of the out-door poor, in the several districts within
the union.

The reports of the several committees Were read and

THE PARTS CATTLE SHOW.—A great many of the bulls
and cows in the Paris Universal Exhibition are ill, and
some have died. Notwithstanding the apparent excellence
of the arrangements, and although the stalls are roomy
and occupy but a small part of the whole arena of the
building, it is evident that the animals suffer for want of
air. Some of the owners feel very uneasy about their
property. ,