The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-01 00:00:00

WEIGHTS for the AINTREE PLATE of 60 SOTS, for all
ages ; extra weights for certain winners. Ons mile.
34 subs.

Age et lb
Snowdon Dunhill 4 8 7
Alonzo
Little Tom 4 7 12
The Deformed .. 4 7 10 '
Merry Bird
Young Hack 7 6
Hazlenut
Warwick
Speed the Plough 4 6 10
Little Mary.
Catherine Parr 4 6 8
Ulster
Sister Of Mercy 3 6 4
The Reaper
Cabin Boy 4 6 2
Maid of the Tees 3 6 2
Whitelock 3 6 2
WEIGHTS FOR THE LIVERPO,
extra weight for certain
ceive 20 sore, out of the i
17 subs.

Age et lb
Angelo
Boddicot (h b)
Gaslight 4 5 12
The Puddler 3 5 12
Roebuck
Effie Deane
Contentment 4 5 10
Seducer 3 5 10
Hopeless
Cassy
The Medal
Lady Ponsonby 3 5 2
The Gem
M eliora
Julius Agricola 3 4 10
Yeutick 2 4 8
Ilione 2 4 8
lOL AUTUMN STEEPLECHASE ;
winners ; the second to re-
stakes. About three miles.

Age st lbl
Miss Mowbray all 3
Needwood a 10 10
Forest Queen alo 6
Spring
British Yeoman a 10 3
Torn of Tuam 6 10 3
Thirkleby (h b)
Maurice Daley a 9 8
Star of England a 9 8
The above weights were
tober, at 10 a.m.

Age et lb.
Cervus
The Drag
Crabbs
Potter
Speculation
Rosa (h b)
Lincoln
Capt. Grant (Li b) 5 8 0

•üblished on the 30th of Oc-

IMPORTANT RAILWAY QURSTIOY AS TO IN-
TERMEDIATE STATION RETURN TICKETS.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT, OCT. 31.
(Before Mr. Russell Gurney, Q.C.)
THE LONDON AND SOUTH-WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY
VERSUS GUDE.
Mr. Ballantine, who appeared on the part of the com-
pany, said this was an action brought to recover merely
a nominal sum ; in the demand it was stated at 75., but
it was arranged that was immaterial, and the action was
brought against the defendent, a most respectable soli- •
citor, residing near Woking, to try a simple matter of
right, a, question having arisen in consequence of the
course pursued by the defendant, which was calculated
to be of serious importance to the company. It appeared
that the London and South-Western Railway Company
had been in the habit of issuing, what are technically called,
booking return tickets from the Waterloo and Vauxhall
stations to Guildford on the Saturday, to return on the
Monday, and the terms upon which the tickets are is-ued
are advertised in the books, stating that they were avail-
able to Guildford and Windsor, and all intermediate sta.
tiors below Woking. Mr. Gude, the defendant, living
near Woking, was in the habit of availing himself of
these tickets, and insisting upon getting out and return-
ing at the Woking station, by which he effected a saving
of in the fare. There was (the learned counsel said)
no dispute as to the facts.
The Judge—The defendant takes a ticket to go be-
yond Woking, and gets out at, Woking.
Mr. Ballantine continued —He apprehended that a
person travelling by a railway train was bound by the
advertisement, that being the contract upon which he
eeyiendc,idaenndtsthceornenbe
eeti
en
dg
with
ictohnittr;acatn,
dh he
ew apsubound
tbwhyaesacicolountri that he had no power to do-anything to alter
it. The contract here clearly expressed that the ticket
was available only to Guildford and Windsor, and sta-
tions below Woking, the intention being to exclude
Woking, there being no competition at that station. The
company had a perfect right to make these regulations
with regard to their fares, as it will be found by the
books they are much within the maximum. It was not
the first time the thing had occurred, as in the case of
the old steamers when persons were carried to Ramsgate
for a less fare than Margate, from competition, and the
same thing might occur on competing lines ; he there-
fore contended that the conduct of the defendant was a
direct invasion of the rules, and contrary to the con-
tract, as set forth in the advertisement, and the ticket
showed it was on the one half Waterloo to Guildford,
available from Saturday to Monday, the other half
being from Guildford to Waterloo. Under those cir-
cumstances, the company had felt bound to bring the
case before the Court, that the prii:ciple might be ascer-
tained, as it war one of importance to the company.
Mr. Gude, the defendant, said it would be as well
to set the Court right as to the Ramsgate steamers—
they did not call at Margate. The real question in
the present case was, whether the public were to receive
any benefit by these competing lines. It was true, that
he might have gone on to Guildford, but why should he do
so when the train stopped at Woking. He (defendant) con-
ceived that when he got into a railway train he did
not sell his liberty. After he had paid his money he
had a right to go on or get out. It was not so much a
saving that he objected, but he thought the public were
entitled to the benefit. The fare to Guildford and back
was 55., and Woking and back 6s. ; and why should he
be made to travel 10 miles when he might stop at Wok-
ing ? He submitted that under the Railway Oosolidated
Act (8 and 9 Vic., cap. 20) the -company were bound
to regulate their fares according to the act, and it
could not be said to be a reasonable fare to pay is.
more for going to Woking than Guildford ; it was
not an excursion train, but an ordinary train, and
he cited the cases of Parker and others, to show that
the Court had held every person must be charged
alike. The question of the shilling mattered not to him,
as he could travel from Staines, which would cost only
3s. 6d.; but he was desirous to know what was the law.
If he was travelling by a teach to Southampton he could
get down at Winchester, and he hoped the learned judge
in coming to his decision would look at the interests of
the public, particularly the public of Woking, and pro-
tect them by deciding in their favour against these great
monopolising companies.
The learned Judge asked how many journeys were
claimed ?
It was arranged that two only should be taken.
The learned Judge, after some consideration, said he
should take time to consider the matter, and reserve his
judgment.
Judgment reserved accordingly.