HC Deb 01 June 1897 vol 50 c28

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the trial of Smith v. London and South Western Railway Company, in the Queen's Bench Division last week, in which the plaintiff recovered £100 damages for having been detained at Totton Station by the station master some hours because he refused to give up his ticket, although he had previously tendered his card with his name and address; and, in view of the fact that the action of the station master, although illegal, was supported by the railway company as being in accordance with one of their bye-laws sanctioned by the Board of Trade, will he see that the bye-law is cancelled, not only so far as this Company is concerned, but also in the case of any other company which may have obtained the Board's approval of such bye-law?


The Board of Trade are aware of the supersession of the bye-law by Section 5 (2) of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889; there are, however, many points in the bye-laws which require consideration, and the Board propose to deal with them as a whole.