The Sun.
London, England, 1845-05-28 00:00:00

WORSHIP-STREET.

Two gentlemen, named Laden., residing at Claremont-place,
Pentonville, attended before Mr. Bingham upon an adjourned sum-
mons, at the instance of the Eastern Counties Railway Company,
to show cause why they refused to pay the extra fare for travelling
from Ware to London in a first-class carriage, having taken tickets
for one of an inferior description.

Joseph Turton, one of the porters at the station at Ware, stated
that at half-past six o'clock on the evening of the 29th ult., the de-
fendants came upon the platform, just before the up-train started,
and presented two second-class tickets. Witness ojened the door
of a second-class carriage, in which there were four vacant places,
but the defendants refused to enter it, alleging that, it was already
full; and after examining some other carriages of the same de-
scription, and making a similar objection they ultimately entered a
first-class vehicle, in which they travelled to town, although they
were cautioned at the time that they would have to pay the extra
fare at the London terminus.

John Iliff, clerk at the same station, proved that when the de.
fendants entered the 6rst.class carriage, be distinctly apprised them
that the surplus fare would be exacted from them on reaching town;
to which they made no reply; but one of their friends, who was
standing by, made the observation that the defendants would cer-
tainly pay it.
Another servant of the company deposed to the refusal of the
defendants to pay the extra fare.
And three other witnesses proved that there was ample room
in the second• class carriages for the accommodation of several ad-
ditional passengers.

In answer to the charge, the elder defendant said, that he had
several witnesses in attendance who would be able completely to
rebut the evidence adduced in support of the charge. When they
reached the platform, the train was just upon the point of start-
ing, and on endeavouring to obtain seats in a second-class car-
riage, for which they possessed tickets, they were partly repelled
by the passengers inside, who simultaneously declared that the
vehicles were full, and that there nas not room for another per-
son. On seeking admission to several other carriages, they met
with a similar repulse, and on appealing to one of the por-
ters to procure them places, the man examined several of
the vehicles, and then, without making any observation,
went on to a first-class carriage, the door of which he opened
and invited them to enter, which they of course did. He
considered that as he had used the superior carriage for the express
accommodation of the complainants, and not at all fur his own con.
venience, the demand upon him for the extra fare was altogether
extortionate and unjust, and be was the more strongly induced to
resist it from information he had received, that it was the common
practice upon these lines to entice second-class passengers into the
higher-priced vehicles to secure the advantage of the additional
fare. The disputed amount was, of course, no consideration what-
ever, but he resi,ted its payment, because he considered himself
to have been unfairly dealt with.
The defendants then called three gentlemen, passengers by the
train, named Meredith, Cresswell, and Reeve, who proved having
seen the defendants make several abortive attempts to enter the se-
cond.class carriages, which they considered were full. The witness
Reeve also stated, that he heard the defendants request the
Company's porter to procure them places, and that the latter
opened the door of a first-class carriage, and invited them to
enter it. Another of the witnesses said, that the vehicle in which
he travelled was so densely packed that he was obliged to retain
a stooping position all the way to town, from insufficiency of ac-
commodation.

Mr. BINGIIAM said that, with the exception of the single fact
►hat the door of the first-class carriage had been opened by one of
the railway servants, and the defendants invited to enter it, he
saw nothing in the evidence offered in answer to the complaint at
all incompatible with the testimony adduced for the Company, in
whose favaur he thought the balance of probabilities rested ; and he,
therefore felt bound—entirely and freely acquitting the defendants
of any wish to practise unfairness—to make an order for the pay-
ment by them of the amount of the excess fare, together with the
costs of the summons.