§ MR. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR (Cornwall, Mid, St. Austell)asked the Postmaster General whether he will inquire into the circumstances attending various surcharges made upon Mr. William Lukes, of Saint Austell upon telegrams sent by him to the United States and Canada; whether he is aware that Mr. Lukes's telegrams were accepted on the 1st and 3rd of September 1888 at the rate of 6d. a word without demur; that later on in the day, the 3rd September, Mr. Lukes was informed that the rates had been raised, and that he must pay the further charge of £1 2s. 6d. upon his three telegrams; whether he is also aware that when Mr. Lukes paid this in the case of one telegram, but refused to pay on the other two, the Post Office authorities refused to return the money for the two telegrams for which Mr. Lukes declined to pay the extra amount levied, and issued an execution against him for the total amount of the extra charge for the three telegrams; and why the Post Office authorities, having been duly paid under their execution for the full amount of the three messages, refused to return Mr. Lukes the extra amount which he had already paid upon the first message.
§ MR. RAIKESIn reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that Mr. Lukes handed in at the St. Austell Office three telegrams, two addressed to Quebec and the other to Ohio. The charge for telegrams to Quebec had been raised by the companies concerned to 1s. per word, and the charge for telegrams to Ohio to 1s. 3d. per word, the rate in each case having previously been 6d. per word. The old rate of 6d. was charged in error at the St. Austell office, and Mr. Lukes, therefore, paid £1 instead of £2 2s. 6d. Application was made to him for the amount undercharged, and it was fully explained to him that by law he was responsible, a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a similar case being furnished for his information. Mr. Lukes declined to pay the amount due, and there was no alternative but to enforce the claim; the full charges, less the Department's share of 1s. 10d., having been credited to the Telegraph Company concerned. It is regretted that the telegraphist made an incorrect charge in the first instance; 720 and suitable notice has been taken of her carelessness. I do not find that Mr. Lukes had already paid the extra amount on the first message, or that he applied for the return of such payment.