The Sun.
London, England, 1845-10-17 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY _EVENING, OCTOBER 17, 181;.

Mr. JEREMY—Can every passenger see these by-laws on
proceeding to the carriage? W itness—Yes, your Worship;
they, are painted with large letters on spacious boards and
fixed on the platforms.
Mr. Chilton contended that he had been taken into custody
illegally, and that the copy of the by-laws could not be re-
ceived in evidence.
Mr. JEREMY said that he had examined the by-laws pro-
duced ; they were a legal document and bore the authenti-
cated seal of the company; it had also been proved that they
were affixed at every station. The defendant was bound
either to produce his ticket or pay the fare. He had lost
his ticket, and how was the officer to know whether he
came from Croydon or Sydenham? He had much better
have paid the ls. 3d. than taken up the time of the Court.
Mr. Chilton (rather vehemently) said, that he was
dragged to the station-house like a felon, and would have
been locked ..p had not a friend residing near the Court
come and bailed him out. They had no right to lock him
up, as they knew his name, and the station that he held in
society. If what they had done was justifiable, any poor
man who was known to the guard of a train and to the pas-
sengers in the same carriage as having paid his fare, might
be locked up from his family many miles from home ; his
unfortunately losing his ticket would, it appeared, justify
the company in demanding from him an enormous sum; a
man could not be arrested for 100,000/.. but yet a gentleman
could be dragged to the station-house for 3d.; he considered
that the railway authorities were not empowered to detain
him.
Mr. JEREMY said that he certainly doubted whether the
railway authorities had the power of detaining him. This
was one of the difficulties of legislating by deputy, especially
when they had to deal with the by-laws of a public company.
The clause 183 which was affixed on the boards was not a
and that specified that if a person travelled on a
railway without a ticket he should pay the amount of the
fare from the Croydon terminus. Whether the officers had
power to detain a party for the money was the question. The
party's name and residence might be unknown to them.
Mr. Chilton—l gave my name and residence, and am well
known at the railway station, being in the constant habit of
travelling to Sydenham by that railway.
Mr. JEREMY—But the officers might not know you?
Mr. Chilton—l am well known to some of the superior offi-
cers, and if the witness had allowed me to go into the office I
should soon have been recognised. I want to know what
offence I have committed?
Mr. JEREMY—YOU have not paid the Is. 3d. when required
of you by the railway officer. Had you done so all this trouble
would have been avoided.
Mr. Chilton—lt is not for the sake of the money that I re-
fused to comply with the officer's request, but it was the prin-
ciple of the thing. I want to try the point whether the Act
of Parliament gives the railway company authority to detain
and lock persons up in my situation.
Mr. JEREMY inquired whether any of the superior officers
of the railway were in attendance? This was a question of
some importance to them.
Smith said that none of them were in attendance but him-
self and the ticket-collector.
Mr. Chilton—Some of the clerks ought to have attended,
especially when they knew my station in life.
Mr. JEREMY—There is no proof that the officer knew you.
I think it would have been better for you to have paid the
Is. 3d., and then you could have appealed to the laws.
Mr. Chilton—l cannot conceive the meaning of the Act
of Parliament. They might put new men at the station
every day, and take parties into custody who were well
known and had unfortunately lost their tickets. The Rail-
way Directors would have a tine power over the liberty of the
subject. There is one other thing. I doubt whether lam
liable to pay more than a shilling, which I tendered, as I can
prove that I got in at Sydenham. Under any circumstances,
they had no right to give me into custody, but to have sum-
moned me in the regular way.
Mr. JEREMY said that it was clearly an offence against the
by-laws. His friend, Mr. Traill, who had just entered the
Court, concurred in his opinion, that; the officer on the rail-
way had a right to detain him for the full fare.
Mr. Chilton—l have been locked up and in custody all
night. I want your decision on this point, as I shall cer-
tainly catry it further. The railways have power enough,
and I shall do all I can to divest them of such arbitrary
power.
Mr. TRAILL—The Act of Parliament says,—" That if any
person fraudulently attempts to leave the railway station
without paying his fare, the magistrate before whom such
party may be brought shall have power to inflict a penalty
of 405., and the full amount of the fare."
Mr. Chilton—But I had no intention of fraud. lam well
known to the railway authoritities as a gentleman.
Mr. JEREMY—The Act says "fraud," and does not relate
to persons; the third by-law gives the officers full power to
demand the ls. 3d. of you.
Mr. Chilton—The Railway Company certainly ought to
be guarded against fraudulent persons, and I will always
assist them. I, however, paid my fare at Sydenham, and
unfortunately lost the tick et which I had received. I also
offered to pay the fare again, but the officer demanded Is. 3d.
I considered that they were not justified in demanding it,
therefore I refused to pay it. It was not for the sake of the
money that I allowed the case to come here, but in justice
to the public, who have been robbed enough by some of the
railways.
Mr. JEREMY (to SMii h)—Have you ascertained whether
Mr. Chilton paid his fare at Sydenham on the previous
evening? Smith replied in the negative.
-Mr. Henry Charles Chilton was called and sworn. He
said that he saw his brother (the defendant) pay a shilling
at the station at Sydenham at half-past eight o'clock on the
previous evening.
Mr. JEREMY said that he had no doubt that the defendant
had paid his fare; that wasnot the question at issue. Tickets
were given at the station where the passengers paid, and, as
a check upon the company's servants, they were required to
be given up on the arrival of the passengers at their destina-
tion. He had not given up the ticket ; therefore he was
liable to pay the fare, and on that point he was bound to
adjudicate. He would not give any opinion as to the legality
of giving the defendant into custody, as that was a subject
for another tribunal.

Mr. Chilton—lf the Company will defend the witness
Smith, I will most certainly bring an action against him for
false imprisonment.
Mr. JEREMY had perused the Company's Act of Parlia-
ment with his learned friend Mr. Traill, and was of opinion
that the case in point was not a penalty, but a forfeiture of
the fare, Is. 3d. Under the 182 d section they had only
power to summon the defendant. Therefore, it was clear
that they hal no right to give him into custody. He must,
however, as the case had gone on, order the defendant to
pay the Is. 3d,
Mr. Chilton paid the fare, at the same time protesting
against the legality of the magistrate's decision.
Mr. JEREMY—It appears, on further perusal of the Act,
that all penalties are recoverable • by distraint on the goods
and chattels of the defendant. Therefore, if it was my case
and I wished to try the question, I should let the company
distrain.
Mr. Chilton (with great anxiety to the chief clerk)—Give
me back my money, then. I'll let them distraiu sooner than
pay the money. If they do so, I will then try the question
in a superior court.
Mr. Edwin handed the money back to the defendant, who
left the Court with his brother, declaring his intention of
following the matter up.

EXTRAORDINARY CASE of SHOP-
LIFTING BY A LADY.
Yesterday at the Brentwood Petty Sessions, Mrs. Margaret
Sarah Harding, a widow lady of respectable connexions. was
brought up in custody to the Town Hall, before Messrs. Hay
und Bousheld, the presiding magistrates, on a charge of pur-
loining from the shop of Mr. Radford, silk-mercer and haber-
dasher, of High-street, Brentwood, a quantity of lace and
other articles of value, his property.
On the apprehension of the accused, who was fashionably
attired, the sum of nearlylB,ooo/. in Bank of England notes
and India bonds, were found.
The prisoner, on being placed in the dock, was evidently
suffering from mental anguish. She was accommodated with
a chair during the whole of the proceedings.
Mr. Mayne, of the firm of Hardwick and Mayne, solicitors,
of Chelmsford, attended on the part of the accused lady.
Mr. James Radford, the prosecutor, deposed that about
half-past three o'clock on the afternoon of the preceding
day, a lady came to his shop and purchased a quantity of
articles, which were left on the shop counter with ,orders to
be sect home. Witness then went up stairs to his ware-
room, leaving only one of his apprentices in the shop. In
about half an lb ur the shop bell rang, and on witness going
down he found the prisoner in the shop. She inquired for
Mrs. Radford, who was engaged at the time, when the pri-
soner said she would wait to see her; she was accommo-
dated with a chair. Witness then commenced packing up
the goods on the counter, when he missed a quantity of
Brussels lace and other articles, of the value of 71. Witness
questioned the apprentice respecting the property, but the
lad said he had not seen any of the articles, and that no one
had been in the shop since he (witness) had been up stairs
but- the prisoner. Witness felt reluctant to question the
prisoner: whom he knew to be a highly respectable lady,
and had been in the habit of making large purchases at his
shop ; her excited manner, however, raised his suspicion, and
he asked her respecting the missing property, when she
denied all knowledge of it, and evinced great indignation
on being questioned upon the subject. Witness observed
that no one had been in the shop since the articles had been
placed on the counter but his apprentice, and, however un-
pleasant, he must insist upon her being searched. The pri-
soner, after expressing her astonishment at such a line of
conduct, consented that her person should be searched. lii
furtherance of this object, witness called Mrs. Radford,
accompanied the prisoner up stairs to a private room. In a
few minutes Mrs. Radford rang the bell, and on witness going '
to stairs, he was informed that the prisoner would not allow
herself to be searched. Witness then thraatenelrodaltouccsaeeldnledfdroraf bo ;
I
a constable, when the prisoner became greatly agitated.
NlVisitwniesfes, awghaeinn
hleeftfotuhnedrotohnait, athnedpsrhisoortnleyr
hadaft per v
her bosom and other parts of her person the whole of the ar-
ticles which had been taken from off the counter in the shop.
fOranntthiee discovery of
sohfethwe
oroubldbergyi4 athetryrimsoonneeryb,ectamhouesaalnmdsositf
required, to be allowed to go. Witness having sent out for
the police, the prisoner was given into custody. On the
officer's appearaace, the prisoner took out her purse full of
bank notes and sovereigns, and offered it to him if he would
allow her to go home, and not be exposed.
Mrs. Caroline Radford, the wife of the prosecutor, was
next examined ; she proved discovering the stolen articles
secreted about the person of the prisoner, who during the
time entreated for mercy, and expressed a hope that she
might not be prosecuted.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Radford were subjected to a severe
cross-examination by Mr. Mayne, the prisoner's legal ad-
viser, but did not shake their testimony.
Mr. Mayne said he should not say anything on the part
of his client at that time, but he could assure the magistrates
that the whole of the transaction would be satisfactorily ex-
plained on a more proper occasion.
The prisoner was then fully committed to take her trial
at the ensuing Chelmsford Assizes, and all the witnesses
were bound over to prosecute.
The prisoner was then removed from the dock in a faint-
ing condition, her unhappy situation being commiserated by
all in Court, amongst whom were many of her relations and
friends.
Before the magistrates left the bench. Mr. Mayne applied
to them to admit the prisoner to bail, which was refused.

Sutton, one of the guards npin the railway, proved that
on the previous day he was struck on the face very severely
by a stone, near the same spot; he picked up the stone (pro-
duced) from the tarpauling of the carriage on which he was
seated.

The prisoner offered no defence to the charge, and the
Learned Chairman having pointed out the chief points for
the consideration of the jury, they found the prisoner Guilty.
The CHAIRMAN inquired if the Counsel for the prosecution
had anything to state on behalf of his clients?
Mr. Mama i-aid he was not instructed to press for a heavy
punishment.
The GITAIRMAN said, only for the sake of example, and to
prevent the possibility of injury in any shape, the prisoner
was sentenced to fourteen days' imprisonment.

RELATIVE CLOSING PRICES OF-
Rr SHARES
IN Tipt
PRINCIPAL CITIES AND TOWNS IN ENGLAisii)
SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND.

NAMES or RAILWAYS.

Aberdeen •• •• •- ••••• ••
Airdrie and Coatbridge ••
Arbroath and Forfar • • ••
Ditto Half Shares •• ••
A cm agh, Coln, R, Portrush
Bandon and Bantry .....
Belfast and Ballymena ••
Belfast and County Down
Ches.Jne.
Birmingham and Gloster
Do. Now (las. at 7 34 dis.)

Ditto Half Shares • • • •
Enninghni &Oxfrd.Junc.
lekbuni, and Preston • •
lekburn, Darwn,& Bolin
olton, W igan, & Liverpl.
_ _

oston, Stamfrd and Birm
righton, Lewes, & Ilast.
Iristol and Exeter • • • • • •

Ditto New .... • • • • • • • •
Bristol and Gloucester • •
Bristol and S. Wales Junc.
British and Irish Union • •
Caledon. and Ayrsh. Julie
Caledon. & Dumbar. Junc
C algid niatt . • • • • • • . • •

Ditto Extension •• • • ••
Cambridge and Lineoln• •
Chester and Birkenhead..

Ditto New Shares • • • •

Ditto Half Shares • • ••
Chester and llolyhead • •
Cheltenham and Oxford..
Chichester and Brighton..
Churnet Valley ..... • •

litheroe Junction •• • • ••

Clydesdale Junction • • • •
Cork, lilackrck & Passage
Cork and Bandon .• • • • • •
Cork and Killarney . • • • •
Cork and Waterford • • • •
Cork and Youghal • • • • • •
Canterbury and Dover. • •
Coventry and Leicester ••
Cornwall . • • • • • • .. •• • • • •

Derby and Crewe . • • • • • •
Direct Lon. and Manchstr
Diss, Beecles, & Yarmoth
Direcal an.(Remlngton's)
Direct Northern • • • • . • • •
Direct Norwich .•• • • • • • •
Dublin and Belfast June.
Dublin, Belfast, & (blue
Dublin and Drogheda • ...
Dublin and Galway . • • • •
Dundalk and Enniskillen

ntndee and Arbroath ..

Dundee and Perth
Durham and Sunderland
East Lancashire (No. 1)
Ditto (No. 2) ........
Eastern Counties
Do. New .............

23%
9% P
-P
P

131-6a3!

12.- pl

099
70
3%
16.
4%

I4oi p

line), % p.—Ditto Head's). is. 6d. p —North Devons,
p.—Taw Vale Extension, % p.—Devon and Central
Cornwall, 3 p.—Exeter and Crediton, 6—EaQtern Counties,
251. p.—Ditto, New, 93A p.-13risol, New, 14.

SIIEFFIELD, Ocr. 16.

STOCK EXCITANCE.—The sales are—Boston, Newark. and
Sheffield, 63/—Midland, Sheffield, and Rotherham, 361/1—
East and West of England, 2%—Grimsby and Sheffield,
26,V;—Ditto, Quarter Shares, VA—Grimsby Railway and
Dock Exionsion, 12%—Liverpool and Leeds Direct, 6
Manchester, Midland, and Great Grimsby, 51, 18s. 6d.—
Wakefield and Harrogate, 51. lls. 6d.—Wilts, Somerset, and
Southampton, 2%.