The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-19 00:00:00

JUNE 19, 1847.

Mr. Ewen—And my object was to vindicate the public;
I disclaim selfish feeling altogether.
Andrew Smith, a checktaker on the South-Western
Railway, was then called, and deposed that on collecting
the tickets of the train that leaves Richmond at half-
past nine on the night before, he found the prisoner, a
lady, and a child in a second-class carriage, while the
two tickets, which had been issued at Barnes, were for
the third-class. He (witness) in consequence demanded
Bd.; namely, 4d. each for the two tickets, which was the
difference of fare; but the defendant refused to pay a
farthing, and witness ultimately gave him in charge to
the guard of the train.
Mr. NORTON—Did he state the reason why he ob-
jected to pay the difference of fare? Witness—Yes, Sir.
He said he had been put into the second-class carriage by
one of the company's officers at the Barnes station,
though he (the officer) was perfectly well aware at the
time that his ticket was for the third-class; but I knew
this was impossible, and I told him I could not take his
assertion as an excuse.

Mr. Ewen—How can you say it is impossible, when I
asserted, and am prepared to verify the fact on oath,
that they have frequently—ay, times out of number, as
well as on the present occasion—done so to me? I now
wish you would explain te his Worship the difference be-
tween the second and third class carriages.
Witness—On the third-class carriages the words,
" Third-class carriages," are written in large yellow let-
ters, while there is no writing on the second-class.
Mr. Ewen—Has it ever, or rather has it not fre-
quently, occurred, that third-class passengers are put
into the second-class? Witness—Yes,, it has, but that
is only when the third-class are full, and an intimation
is given to the geard of the fact when such a circum-
stance takes place.
Mr. Ewen—How was I to know whether the third-
class carriages were full or;not? I only told you what
was the fact, that the company's officers had shown my-
self and Mrs. Ewen into the second-class, knowing at the
time that we had only third-class tickets.
James Lewis said he was guard to the train by which
the prisoner had bees a passenger on the night before,
and heard the collector of the tickets tell him that he
would be at liberty to go on the payment of Bd., the dif-
*num of fare, but he 'eased to pay anything, upon
which the collectori gave 'in into his charge.
In reply to a question = Mr. Nowrow, the witness
said there were two third-clais Carriages belonging to
the train, each capable of holding twenty-four passengers,
while the passengers in them amounted only to twelve
in number, so that there was plenty of room left for the
other passengers.
Richard Rose deposed that he was on duty at the
Barnes station on the night before, and recollected
giving out one first and two third-class tickets. The latter
two were issued to the prisoner for himself, a lady' and
child. Witness recollected opening a second-class car-
riage to let some passengers out, but could not say that
he observed what class carriage the prisoner got into.
He would swear, however, that he did not show him into
the second-class, and the only person on duty there at
the time besides himself was Clerk, one of the railway
police.
George Clerk, the policeman alluded to, deposed to
having seen a gentleman get into a first-class carriage,
and a gentleman and lady, the latter with a child, get
into a second-class. He (witness) did not let the par-
ties in, nor was he aware at the time of the sort of tickets
they had.
Mr. Ewen—Now, if this case is not proved against
me, will you not lose your situation for carelessness or
neglect of duty?
Witness—No; I don't think I shall.
Mr. Ewen—Well, that is all I shall ask you.
Mr. Ewen, in reply to the charge, said that he had
been in the habit of frequently travelling by the Rich-
mond Railway as far as Barnes, since it had been opened,
and his invariable practice was to go in the third-class
carriages, as there was not in his opinion a shade of
difference between them and those of the second-
class; but, as he had before stated, he had frequently,
as on the night before, been shown into the second
instead of the third without his ever observing
it. Having heard many of his friends—indeed his
own mother had been played the same trick—complain
of being shown into the second-class carriages instead
of the third, and then compelled to pay.the highest rate
for the journey, he had made up his mind that the very
first time such a trick was attempted to be practised on
him he should, upon public grounds, resist it. This
attempt was made on the night before, and he had, as it
was his determination, resisted it, and refused the addi-
tional charge. He had no desire to make use of fine
phrases, but he must say that the power possessed by
this and other companies of giving persons into custody,
locking them up, and depriving them of their liberty,
for the negligence, or it might be wilful misconduct of
their servants, or for a few paltry pence, was quite un-
constitutional, and such as should not be permitted.
His Worship heard the gentleman who attended against
him say that this sort of practice was of frequent oc-
currence on the company's line of road. This he (Mr.
Ewen) thought an awkward admission, as it was calcu•
lated to lead to the inference that the company's servants
or officers acted wilfully in showing the passengers into
a second-class instead of a third-class carriage, so that
they should have to pay . the difference of fare, and a
great many fourpences might be an object to the com-
pany, which, like all others, was not very partial to
third-class passengers. In conclusion, he had only to
express a hope that his Worship, taking the whole of
the circumstances into consideration, would not consider
this a case in which he had wilfully, knowingly and in-
tentionally travelled by a different class carriage than
that for which he had paid, for the purpose of cheating
the company.
Mr. NORTON observed, that from Mr. Ewen's own ad-
mission of his determination to try the question with the
company, he had intentionally gone into a second-class
train for that purpose. The defendant's own excuse
was, that he had been let into a second-class carriage by
a servant of the company, the latter being perfectly cog-
nizant of the fact that his ticket was for the third class.
Had he shown this, he (Mr. Norton) certainly should
have dismissed the case; but he was, he confessed, some-
what surprised at finding, that while the two witnesses,
who alone could be guilty of such an act, were under ex-
amination, he did not venture to put a single question to
them likely to bring out the fact.
Mr. Ewen—l could not expect that they would crimi-
nate themselves or risk their situations, and therefore I
did not see the use of questioning them on the subject.
The solicitor on the other side here said, that so averse
were the officers of the company to detaining the pri-
soner, that they offered, upon his paying the Bd., to let
him at large, and have the question settled by his
Worship.
Mr. NORTON ultimately convicted Mr. Ewen in the
penalty of 10s., but subsequently reduced that sum to
s., which the defendant paid and was discharged.