Hide Articles List

2 articles on this Page



CARNARVON TRADESMEN AND 1HEIB EXCURSION TICKST. I At the Carnarvon Rorou4:h Court, oil ) Monday, betore Ãe Mayor. M) Kdward Hughes and Mr Robert Roberts, the London and Nottb-Wes era R* Iw.ty Company, rcpres ntcd by Mr Fenna. summoned 0. D. Jones, draper, and Darid Williams. commercial traveller, both of Carnanon, for offences agllinst the bye-lawm. Jones was by Mr J, T. Roberts, and Mr Richard Roberts appeared ,or the other defendant. Mr FEUNA explained that Jones was c)¡ar;.icd with tratisferrmK the return b!df of an excursion ticket. On the 28th December the defendant booked a week end excursion ticket at Man- chester for Carnarvon, und upon his arriTit! the same eight a CarcarvM' the collector,stretton, for certain reasons took a note of the w)nch w-,ii num.rttH, and gave the pM-ttoa- br to .lklt, another ccUecto)'. 0)i the ¡")I,.win!! W. day the return half of the d to the coiteetor Uoberts hy David W il¡¡a 1;IS, By a mIstake the inf'orml'd W,ilianl>; nil, the ticket bad expired on the pret-)OUs'])tY.wh<'r.upt!i the defendant booked in the ordinary way to Jl.tnchester. The outward half of the ticket was kept for some time bnt had Kinee beef d¡'stroyed, It would be proved that J011"< transferred the retaru hatf to WitI 's, hf, in tact, having admitted Jon'- AKTHCR THIES, ft booking clerk at the Exchange Stati"I1, Manchester, said that on the Deceiiibei- lie isslled Il week end ticket to Carnarvon, ar n!ab!e till the following Wed- aesday. number 615. JoHN BEsiA.)ii-, STRHTTox, a collector at the Carnarvon Station, said that he waaon dllty on the of the 28tli The ciefendant pKssed him out of the gate and gave him an half or a week end tieket from Manchester, number 615. I'fitiiess took a note of the ticket and give all the particuhui) rcspectint! it to William Roberts, collector. wail the only ticl-et uf the kind from hhnchester th:1t day. WnLiAU RoBEhTS, another eollfctor eut- at the b the witncs8 him the ticket to with th'' explication that it had been tendered byO.D. Jones. 'Iheretntnhalfof the ticket handed to hiN by Mr IVil- on the folJowing IVeduesday. JAMM HENnYPEHKl';s.a dett'ctive in the service of the Korth. \V estel'll Company' statiun at Hoiyhead.saidtha.t he had made inquiries of the defendants in this case. He related a conversation which he had with Mr Jones, from which it appeared that he (the witness) had found Jlr W iIlialM travelling with the ticket in question Jones admitted ou the day in questiou at alld as he could 1Iot use the rdllrn half he gaTe it to Willi"ms. He also added 1 don't thtttk it is the right th!r.gto do,butitii!f;<quentlYdune." Cross examined by Mr J. T. rioberts. t))C WtTNEsa said that Mr Jones was quite strainbt- forward in his 111 an llf: r. r HOBEltl'S: I'id Ilt' say that it "'as only !L thinf; that was done every day ? WiTttEss: Yes. and I replied that that was ali t 'emorereasonwhytt'.huuldbeputa atop to. Mr J. '1', ROBERTS, addressin th;) court for the defence, uxplaine(I ttiett white the railway company wac by the Clauses Cou- solidation Act of'S46 to vM'y toU.s for carriage, such tolts must be charged equaitytoall persons; aud coming to the present case he maintuined that under sect on KJ of the Act in question the company were bound to Rive pas3engei-s the same facilitie from Carnarvon to as from Manchester to Carnarvon. There being cheap into of booking from ]Vancliester the availed himself of th' privilege, but beinR uuabic to use the return half of the ticket, he handed it overtop another person. Sech un action was no offence whatever. He also com- phuned that the company embodied in their time table month after month bye-iaws two of which hafibcotheid by the higher courts to be invalid. Thebye.litwswereconRrMedaiia whole by thoB.ard of Trade and Mtwo of them had been dedarcd to be invalid, he wished the pnbiic to know these things. Tllo lAYOP. Do you think it is of any bece&t to enl shteu the public juet now ? You will have ouportunities t. do that again. Mr ROBERTS I do no: think that the coiu- pany deserve to be treated w.th any consider.). tlOlI at ail. Mr FEXA: Wo are entitled to justice how- eTcr bad we are daughter). Ir contended tliat the bye-law nnder which these proceedings were taken was void on grouiidb. 1n the firllt pJac it was a perwm ought to be able to deal with the return halt tus ticket in fHiy way which woutd not be frau.d- \}lent, (lnd ill this case there was no fraud In the second place it was void bectuse it made a perfectly innocent act an offence to which a penalty was attached. Mr FEXXA. replying oil to the points of hw, submitted that the of two of the bye-laws did not invalidate the wnole and he was prepared to meet Mr Robwrts in the DiTiaional (otirt and out this phase of the case. The magistrates their decision in this case unti) they had heard the other. David WiUiiiniswas then charged with attempting to travel from Carnarvon to Man- cheater with the returuhatf of M. ticket trans- ferred to him by the other defendant. Mr FENNA said that when Williams pre- tented the ticket to the collector at Cainai-yon, the collector Baid that it was not available, as the date which it covered had expired en the previou* day. This however was a mistake on the part of the collector, as the ticket was avail- abieforth&tdtt'. Finding that he wouid not be allowed to go by that ticket the defendant booked to Manchester in the ordinary way. Subseqnently he wi-ott- to Neele, the district superintendent, demanding to have the retarDed. In this letter, said, t took a week. end ticket from Manchester to CarDat't'on, but it was untrue that the ticket was ever taken by him, and it was only out of consideration for Mr William* that he (Mr Fenna) did not prefer a rraTer oharge aainst the defendant. The same witneses as before wxre caHed. The Collector ROBERTS said that when Wil- IMUM. upon his return from Manchester, catted hie attention to the mietake made at to the ticket, he (Roberts) suggested to him that he fthoald apply to have the money refunded. Detect PKRKtNS related a conversation which he had had with the defendant, who informed h.<a that he was at .\)ancheatcr on the iMth December, and that the ticket was issued to him. Witness told him that that was not true but that the ticket was i.ssaed to Mr 0. D. Jonea, whereupon the dcfendAht remarked that he had nothiu, t. say and was wilting to forego his claim to what he had paid. Addressing the Court at some length for the defence, Mr Ric'HARD ROMRTS denied the allegation of fraud in this case and maintained that the decision of the coui-ts expressly that without fraud. no punishable offence WM committed. The ftitod, if there was aay, was all on the lIide of the company, who had two fare. for the Halle journciy, The Bech retired ,and were engagl-d for some timoeoni.idfrihgtheirrcrdict. In the result, the defendant was fined lOs including  and Williams was fiued 20a including co'tt A*app)icntion by MrJ. T. Hobeita to hafe a cue stltted was granted.