The Sun.
London, England, 1852-12-03 00:00:00

THE RAILWAY CAB QUESTION.

Yesterday the important public question—whether
railway companies can have at their stations selected
cabs for the accommodation of their passengers and the
convenience and security of the property of the latter,
without subjecting themselves to fines and penalties,
was brought on before Mr. Long, of the Marylebone
Police Court.

Several magistrates' decisions have recently been
given on the question, but we are not aware that the
has been so fully gone into as it was yesterday ;
and as the interests involved in the right of railway
companies to call in cabs and marshal them at their ter-
mini are not those of railway companies merely, but of
the public, we give the case somewhat in detail.
The case came before the magistrate on a summons
granted to Mr. James Barringer, of Sussex-fields, Ber-
monckey, against John Charles Walmesley, the driver
of cab 2,125, for having, on the 16th of November last,
unlawfully plied for hire elsewhere than at some stand-
ing or place appointed for the purpose—to wit, in the
London and North-Western station-yard, Euston-square,
contrary to the statute.
Mr. Humphreys appeared for the company ; and Mr.
Bruyeres, the company's general superintendent of traffic,
and Mr. Dawson, one of whose duties is the superin-
tendence of the working of the cabs at the Euston-square
terminus, and to whose vigilance the present perfection
of the system is to be ascribed, were in attendance.
Mr. Long inquired whether the company admitted the
fact of the defendant plying for hire ?
Mr. Humphreys said they admitted that the defen-
dant was at the station and employed by the company—
that he was there for the purpose of conveying from the
terminus any of the officers of the company or any of the
company's customers—viz., passengers ; but not that he,
the defendant, was there for the purpose of being hired
by the public, because the terminus was the private pro-
perty of the company, and the public could not come into
the place and engage the defendant.
James Barringer was then sworn, and deposed that on
the 16th ult. he had been travelling by the railway, and
that the defendant, who was within the terminus, held
up his finger, and said "Do you want a cab ?" He
answered " Yes," and took the defendant and his cab to
Drummond-street, and paid him Is. as his fare. There
were twenty or thirty persons on the platform at the
time. When he paid the fare he asked the defendant
to drink. The defendant had something to drink at his
(plaintiff's) expense. He then told defendant that he
should summon him for illegally plying for hire on a
piece of ground not appointed as a cab-stand by the
commissioners of police. He told the defendant that he
did not think that it would make any difference to him
whether he was fined or not, as the only object he (plain-
tiff) had was to see if he could not get into the Euston-
square terminus with his cab as well as any other (i.e.
the privileged) cabs. He told the defendant he would
not be the sufferer by the summons, and that he (plaintiff)
was in a position to hold him harmless in the matter.
Mr. Humphreys.—Did you tell him that it was no
matter what he was fined, as the fine would be paid for
him ?

Witness.—l told him I was in a position to hold him
harmless. I did not say whether lor somebody else
would pay it.
Mr. Humphreys.—But that you could find somebody
that would ?
Witness.—l could do so.
Mr. Humphreys.—How many cabs have you
Witness.—Ten or twelve.
This was the plaintiffs case.
Mr. Humphreys then addressed the magistrate on be-
half of the London and North-Western Company. He
said this was not the first case that had come before Mr.
Long. He (Mr. Humphrey) had the honour about nine
years since to appear before him as the solicitor for a
defendant in a similar case.

Mr. Long.—The decision I then gave will not in•
fluence me on this occasion.

Mr. Humphreys was sure the decision would be most
impartially given, but he felt the worthy magistrate
would excuse him in directing attention to what took
place in 1843—the date to which he alluded. The case
then heard was similar to the one now under considera-
tion, and he (Mr. Humphreys) was fortified in the co-
gency of the arguments he used on that occasion by a
decision which had then been come to at Bow-street on
a like case. The summons heard by him (Mr. Long)
was founded on the allegation of unlawfully plying for
hire with a hackney carriage elsewhere than in a place
appointed—viz., the terminus of the London and Bir-
mingham Railway.
Mr. Long inquired the name of the magistrate before
whom the case was heard at Bow-street.

Mr. Humphreys did not recollect. The summons was
granted on the 12th September, and the case was gone
into on the 16th of that month. The magistrate took
time to consider, and on the 20th gave his decision that
the employment of cabs within a railway station was not
plying for hire within the meaning of the act. There
was another case heard, he believed, before Mr. Bing-
ham, the particulars of which had just been put into his
hands. That was heard on the 28th of September, 1843
—the very same day on which he (Mr. Long) heard the
case already adverted to. Mr. Bingham gave judgment
in favour of the defendant: The judgment was a long
one, and was given in writing. He would now address
himself more immediately to the case before the court.
The 4th section of the last act enabled the Police Com-
missioners to appoint a cab stand in any street, tho-
roughfare, or place of public resort within the metropo-
litan district, and from time to time to make regulations
concerning the boundaries of the same, and the number
of carriages to be allowed at any standing, and the times
during which they might stand and apply for hire at such
places, and also authorised them from time to time to
make regulations &c.
Mr. Long.—That act has been passed since the de-
cisions referred to were given.
Mr. Humphreys.—Yes, as late as March, 1850. But
the offence was created by the 6th and 7th Vic., chap.
86, sec. 33. He would take the liberty of saying a few
words on the clause of the act referred to. The com-
missioners were, by it, to have the power of doing all
this in. any street, or thoroughfare, or place of public
resort ; but if the nature and extent of those powers
conferred were considered, it would be impossible to
conceive that the Legislature intended they should be ex-
ercised elsewhere than in some street, thoroughfare, or
place of public resort. But the terminus of the London
and North-Western Railway was not a place of public
resort.

Mr. Long.—lt would be rather difficult to maintain
that.
Mr. Humphreys would qualify his observation. The
London and North-Western terminus at Euston-
square was a place of accommodation to the public
—that was, to get into the trains which took them
into the country, and for their convenience when
they eame up from the country. The stations of
the railways were used for those purposes, and
those purposes only. Every person who went or came
there was a customer of the company—he was a custo-
mer of the company for the journey, and had no right
inside of the station, except as a traveller, unless by the
permission of the railway authorities. A railway ter-
minus could not, therefore, be a place of public resort,
which meant a spot to which all the public might go of
right. He, therefore, contended that a railway terminus
was a private place for the private accommodation of
that portion of the public who resorted to the railway
for special accommodation, and that it was not a place
of public resort within the broad meaning of the term.
A public-house, for instance, was a place of public resort,
because all the public had a right to go there ; the doors
could not be shut against any one of the public, except
during particular hours, and even during those hours
travellers could gain admission to it. But the gates of
the cab side of the Euston-square terminus were closed,
except when the up trains arrived, and it was only then
that any person was allowed to go into it. To show the
real nature of the advantages derived by the public at large
from the admirable cab regulations of the London and
North-Western Company, he would state two or three sim-
ple facts. He had in his hand a list of the property that had
been restored by the cabmen employed at the terminus.
The number of articles restored in 1842 was 314 ; in 1843
it was 250 ; in 1844 the number was 203 ; in 1845 it was
262 • in 1846 it was 359 ; in 1847 it was 386 ; in 1848 it
was 356 ; in 1849 it was 381 ; in 1850 it was 423 : and
in 1851 it was 423. There was an instance within the
last few days of a lady losing in a cab that she took from
the London and North-Western terminus, a purse con-
taining between 61. and 71., and while she was inquiring
at the office if the money had been found, the driver
came in with the purse in his hand, for the purpose of
delivering it over to the proper officer. He maintained
that the community at large would suffer severely if the
cab regulations laid down by railway companies were
done away with, and cab-drivers of all characters, and
with cabs of every description, were allowed to ply for
hire at railway stations. Supposing the police commis-
sioners to have the power, under the 4th section of
the act, of exercising control at the London and North-
Western terminus at Euston-square--were they to
go there, and from time to time make regulations con-
cerning the boundaries to which the cab stand there was
to be limited ? The commissioners might, if they had
the power, define the boundaries in a way most incon-
venient and injurious to the public and the proprietors.
No such thing as this could have been contemplated by
the act. How, again, could the police commissioners
know, if they were to have the power of lirniting the