The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-09 00:00:00

LGRD RANELAGH FIXED.

At the Clerkenwell Police-court Mr. Cooke heard a
charge preferred by the Metropolitan Railway against
Lord Ranelagh, " that he did unlawfully smoke tobacco
in a railway carriage on the Metropolitan Railway con-
trary to the bye-laws of the company."
His lordship at first pleaded guilty, but said that he
wanted to offer some observations, The magistrate
formed him that he could not do this unless he withdrew
the plea of guilty, in which case he (the magistrate) must
hear the evidence. -

Mr. TiLsley, who appeared for the company, then called
Frederick John Parsons, guard on the Metropolitan Rail-
way, who said: I was in charge of the 10.55 train on the even-
ing of the 20th December last. I saw his lordship
smoking at the Aldersgate-strect station ; the train was
just going off, and I spoke to him, and motioned that he
must not smoke. In the hurry, as the train was off, it is
very possible that he (Lord Ranelagh) may not have un-
derstood me, but I afterwards mentioned it to him at the
Farringdon station, and he said there was no one there to
annoy, and he would smoke and be - to me.
Cross-examined by Lord Ranelagh : I do not think there
were more than two first-class passengers on that night. I
told you that smoking was not allowed, and cautioned you
on the previous night.
Lord Ranelagh said that smoking in railway carriages
now was the rule, and not the exception, and representa-
tions had been made to the directors of the Metropolitan.
Railway which, it was hoped, they would in common jus-
tice adopt, as to smoking carriages.
Mr. Tilsley said the bye-laws prohibited all smoking,
and the directors had had the subject of smoking carriages
placed before them, but had found it utterly impracticable
on a line of railway carrying such an enormous number of
passengers as they did.
Lord Ranelagh (who was not represented by counsel,
put defended himself) said he. did not wish to appear as v.
breaker of the law ; but still what he had to say would,
he thought, acquit him of the charge of wilful law break-
ing. It was well known that at the time those bye-laws
were made smoking was the exception, and not the rule ;
now it was the rule, and not the exception. This was felt
by many railway companies, and they had very properly.
acceded to the requirements of the public ; but it appeared
that the Metropolitan Railway Company declined to grant
any convenience to their passengers. lie recollected a case
of " Chitty v. the London and Brighton Line," where the
company had presumed to detain a gentleman for smoking,
on the authority of their bye-laws, and that gentleman
brought an action against the company and obtained .£5OO
damages, and on the judgment being z-.ppcaled against it
was confirmed.
Mr. Cooke said that on looking into the bye-laws of the
..3ornpany he could sea nothing there which would authorise
him in setting them aside ; as they were before him ho.

would have Co decide by them.
Lord Rauelagh : I may also mention, sir, that I was
once fined 10s. for smoking on the Richmond lin?, and
within a week afterwards smoking carriages were phi, ,(l
on that line.
Mr. Cooke said that with respect to the Metropolitan
Railway it was aur:underground one, and, perhaps the
directors were right under the circumstances in prohibiting
smoking. He should in the present instance fine the.,
defendant 20s. and costs.
The amount was immediately paid.

LEEDS BOROUGH GAOL—The magistrates of the.
borough of Leeds have resolved to appoint a Ronan
Catholic chaplain for the gaol of that borough, at a Ealary
of £lOO Ds year,

/11IIE LATE EDITION of "THE SUN " at
J. SMITH'S, 39, Bow-street, Covent-garden.