The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-10 00:00:00

WES7'IIIINSTER.

Mr. W. F. Fenton, of 11, Beaufort-street, Chelsea,
traveller, attended to prefer a complaint against the
conductor of a Chelsea omnibus, for deceiving him es
to the route or destination of the carriage on the night
of the Ist inst.

The proprietor, as is usual in these cases, had been
summoned to produce the conductor, and .Henry
Baxter (badge 227) appeared, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Fenton stated that he hailed the omnibus in
question at a little before eleven on the night of the
Ist inst., in St. Paul's churchyard, and inquired of
the conductor whether it went to Battersea-bridge or
Beaufort-street, to which he replied" yes." In order
to make himself particularly safe in the matter, he
examined the omnibus, and discovered the words
"Battersea-bridge" upon the centre panel. He got
into the carriage, and upon reaching Church-street,
Chelsea, the conductor opened the door and said,
" Here you are, sir, this is it;" and immediately af-
terwards added, " Battersea- bridge, sir." Com-
plainant told him that he knew the locality too well
to be persuaded that that was Battersea-bridge, when
the conductor observed that he was close to it ; and
upon complainant's asking whether he was not going
to take him any further, the conductor replied, " No,
we stop here." Complainant then intimated that he
would summon him, as he had been tricked in this
manner several times before.
Mr. Taylor, the chief clerk—Then the deceiving
you as to the route was at the time you got in, at St.
Paul's Churchyard ? Complainant—Yes, that was
where I asked him.
Mr. BURRELL, having consulted with the clerk,
said—The deception appears to have been practised
in the City, which is out of my jurisdiction.
A respectable-looking man here stepped forward
and interrupted the magistrate, who was about to
make some observation, by stating that he was con-
nected with the establishment of the omnibus proprie-
tor, and that defendant could not possibly be the
offender, as he must have been at a considerable dis-
tance from the place at the time.
Mr. BURRELL (to complainant)—ls this the man?
Complainant--Certainly not; but this man wears the
badge the conductor wore that night. I saw the con-
ductor who deceived me, as I have stated, as to the
route of the omnibus, leave this court just now. A
friend of mine who has been tricked this way has
taken proceedings against the offenders two or three
times, but has never been able to get at them. It is
a common practice to shift their badges from one to
the other, which enables them to defeat the law with
impunity. I can swear most positively that the man
who left the court just now was the wearer of the
badge on the night in
question. These persons pre-
sume upon the travellers' excitement and flurry at
the time these 'deceptions are practised, which render
them unable to identify the offender, and they thus
escape punishment.
Mr. BURRELL—You must take the summons in
the City against the right man.
Complainant—l stated the case to you, sir, at the
time you granted the summons, as I do now.
Mr. Taylor here spoke to the magistrate in a low
tone, when the latter said to the complainant—You
are too late for a summons now; the week has gone
(the statute respiring that all complaints should be
laid within seven days).
Complainant—Perhaps you will excuse me, sir,
with respect to where the offence was committed.
How can I tell I am going to be deceived in the route
until I get to the end of the journey.
Mr. BURRELL—It is clear you were deceived in
the City. When you got to Chelsea you were un-
deceived.

Complainant—l took this matter up entirely on
public grounds, these deceptions being of common
occurrence. Then I cannot now proceed in any way
Mr. BuanELL—You are now too late.
Complainant's costs (25.), which he had paid for
the summons, were returned to him.