Trivia: Prosecution for stopping short is nothing new!

[krus_aragon]

Here's a snippet I found in the North Wales Chronicle, dated January 18th 1868:

HOLYHEAD COUNTY COURT -Before R. Vaughan Williams, Esq., last Tuesday.
A Railway Ticket.
A "Dublin Ticket'' from Liverpool and Chester to North Wall [Dublin] per London and North Western Railway and Cattle Boat is now pretty well known from Aber to Holyhead. It appears that a Owen Williams availed himself of a five shilling ticket from Liverpool for Dublin, but went down at Gaerwen, when the station-master demanded, according to the terms on the back of the ticket, the dilference between value of the ticket and the regular fare from Liverpool to Gaerwen, viz., 1s 11d, which the defendant refused paying, leaving his address.
Mr Preston appeared for the London and North Western Railway Company, but the defendant did not appear. The case was proved, and tho verdict given for the plaintiff and cost of witnesses Mr Rolf, the Gaerwen station-master and son.

It seems there's nothing new under the sun. Still, at least he gave his name and address.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Interesting find, thanks.

I think the only solution is to nationalise the railways in 80 years...

 

[mikeg]

Isn't that a civil case? Maybe that could be a gentler solution... Railway companies suing their passengers, rather than prosecuting them.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Isn't that a civil case? Maybe that could be a gentler solution... Railway companies suing their passengers, rather than prosecuting them.

Or getting the guilty persona to do a week's community service for the railway company such as carriage cleaning, bogie/wheel cleaning (with a toothbrush), signal head cleaning or sweeping floors in carriage sheds etc...I mean, what sort of punishment is a simple PF or court fine...?

 

[6Gman]

Here's a snippet I found in the North Wales Chronicle, dated January 18th 1868:


It seems there's nothing new under the sun. Still, at least he gave his name and address.

Ah, Owen Williams the trainee solicitor.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Didn't someone post on here a couple of weeks ago, asking whether it was OK save money by stopping short in North Wales on a via Holyhead SailRail ticket? The OP was advised that isn't and the thread got deleted. Clearly not a new idea then!

 

[AlterEgo]

What a great find! Fascinating.

Not a *prosecution*, however - this was in the county court. As should most fare disputes be, a civil matter.

 

[krus_aragon]

What a great find! Fascinating.

Not a *prosecution*, however - this was in the county court. As should most fare disputes be, a civil matter.

Wouldn't "civil prosecution" be the correct term? Note that unlike Owen Williams, I do not claim to be a solicitor in training. (A historian, perhaps.)

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not a prosecution of any sort. It's a county court claim for balance owed.

A prosecution has to be for a criminal offence, and this wasn't - this was treated as a civil debt.

You can have a *private prosecution*, but those again are for criminal offences. They're fairly rare, though we see a lot of them on here, as every TOC prosecution in the magistrates' courts is a private prosecution.

 

[island]

It predated the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, so there may not have been any Offence committed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

At that time, it was very very common for Railway ticketing frauds to be prosecuted as civil debts and more so as frauds, whether under the specific Railway statutes or under the Common Law offences, including fraud and theft.

It predated the Regulation of Railways Act 1889, so there may not have been any Offence committed.

You're correct in that the incident pre-dated the 1889 Act, but the 1845 Regulation of Railways Act applied, and the relevant section would have been 103 :-

Penalty on Passengers practising Frauds on the Company.

CIII If any Person travel or attempt to travel in any Carriage of the Company, or of any other Company or Party using the Railway, without having previously paid his Fare, and with Intent to avoid Payment thereof, or if any Person having paid his Fare for a certain Distance, knowingly and wilfully proceed in any such Carriage beyond such Distance, without previously paying the additional Fare for the additional Distance, and with Intent to avoid Payment thereof, or if any Person knowingly and wilfully refuse or neglect, on arriving at the Point to which he has paid his Fare, to quit such Carriage, every such Person shall for every such Offence forfeit to the Company a Sum not exceeding Forty Shillings.

In the quoted case, it would be hazardous to attempt to claim that passenger Owen Williams had never intended to travel all the way through to Dublin without a confession or some persuasive evidence (and would therefore be captured by S.103), but I'll guess that there would have been adequate evidence obtained in questioning to secure a prosecution for a fraud in common law.

I think the significant difference between then and now is the perception of risks and benefits in deciding to bring an action. The role and moral standpoint of the local press and of the local grapevine was very unlike today's mainstream media and social media - the small cost of Mr O.Williams' order to pay would be much less significant than the social stigma of having a Court judgement against him for an act of dishonesty. There would be a real sense of anger that one of the local community would have been so dis-honest. It was a very different world back then [so I'm told].

 

[paddington]

The role and moral standpoint of the local press and of the local grapevine was very unlike today's mainstream media and social media - the small cost of Mr O.Williams' order to pay would be much less significant than the social stigma of having a Court judgement against him for an act of dishonesty. There would be a real sense of anger that one of the local community would have been so dis-honest. It was a very different world back then [so I'm told].

Yes, but I wonder if there would have been a sense of anger that the fare from Liverpool to Dublin (5s) was cheaper than the fare from Liverpool to Gaerwen (apparently 6s 11d)

 

[krus_aragon]

The role and moral standpoint of the local press and of the local grapevine was very unlike today's mainstream media and social media - the small cost of Mr O.Williams' order to pay would be much less significant than the social stigma of having a Court judgement against him for an act of dishonesty. There would be a real sense of anger that one of the local community would have been so dis-honest. It was a very different world back then [so I'm told].

Yes indeed. Let me relate a snippet from my family tree: In 1900, a Welsh newspaper by the name of the Cloriannydd (loosely "The Weigher of Scales") reported that Thomas Jones, Fferam Uchaf, was fined 5s and costs for being drunk in Llanerchymedd the previous week. Two weeks later they published thus:

A correction to the Cloriannydd for the 1st of this month where a report was published of one Thomas Jones, Fferam Uchaf, had been before the court in Llanerchymedd on a charge of drunkenness. May all the people of England and Wales know that it is not Thomas Jones, master of Fferam Uchaf, but Thomas Jones, the Fferam Uchaf labourer, that is the Thomas Jones in question. As Jones is so well known throughout the land, it is only fitting that he may correct the record on this matter.

I hasten to add that my relative was the master, not the labourer.