South London Observer - Saturday 17 June 1893
ACTION AGAINST A TRAMWAY COMPANY (Before Mr. Justice Grantham and a Common Jury.) RAY3ON v, SOUTH LONDON TRAMS COMPANY. The plaiatiff in this case, Miss Anaie Rayson, a milliner, employved at Chelsea, and living at Wandsworth Common, sued the defendant compa 1y to recover damages for malicious prose>ution. Tue defendaut denied that there was any malice or any want of rcasonable or probable cause. Mr. C. A. Russell appeared for tho plaiatiff, and Me. Crump, Q. 0., for the defendant. It appearcd that the plaintiff wasin the habit in the course of traveliing to and from her business of using the company’s cars batween Chelsea Bridge and Clapham Junction. For a long time the fare had beea a peuny, but in September 1892, it was increased to 134, The plaintifi's case was that being unawara of this charge she, on the 23rd of September, with auaother young lady, got into one of the defendants, trams. The plaintiff paid a peany, and received a ticket which did not specify the places between which it was available. The penny fare appliad ouly to the distance botween Chelsea Bridge and the Prince’'s Head, and on the arrival of the car at tho latter E‘hca one of the campx.ng's inspactors got on it. ae car started again, and ultimately the inspector asked the plaiatifi for her ticket. When he understood that she was going to Clapham Junction he said there was another penny to pay. She de‘clincd to pay this sum, but on being told that the fare was altered, and was now 13d., she offered id. In the result she left the car without paying anything extra, and was summoned at the Southl\VcsLem Polica-court, where the charge was dis|missed, She accordingly brought the present | action. The company contended that they had not acted maliciously, and that they were entitled to take the course they did in order that they might recover their fares. | ) The learned judge, in summing up, said the fare | demanded was not the proper fare, and in his opinion the company were not entitled to take the proceedings. It was not intended that persous should be taken bafors a magistrate and charged with unlawfully and wilfully refusing to pay the fare where they teadered the proper fare or even if they mais a mistake and Lcn({’ccred what they believed to be the proper fare. It had been contended that the company were entitled to this extra Id., bat the fare for the plaintifi's journey was I}d., and they had noright tocharge her 2d. The defendants also in tha correspondence demanded the fara of the plaintiff's friend. He never heard of such a proceading. The defendantswent on to the bitter end anld ezdeavourad to treat the plaintiff as a criminal when they koew that she was not on 2. I’l‘hc plaintiff had been asked why she did not pay the Id. rather than undergo the indignity of proceedings, but to taks a criminal proceeding for the purpose of enforcing a civil demand—which in this case was a 1 illegal one, but that made no difference —was blackmailing. The jury returaed a verdict for the plaintiff, with £l5O damagoes. Judgement acsordingly, and the learned judge declined to stay execution.
>>https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0004818/18930617/023/0003