VOL. N.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 321 HENRY F. COOMBS. SUPPLIANT; 1895 ANI) Mar. 4. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT. Contract—Common carrier—Railway passenger's ticket—Condition printed on face—No stop over—Continuous journey. The suppliant, who was a manufacturers' agent and traveller, purchased au excursion ticket for passage over the Intercolonial Railway between certain points and return within a specified time. On the going half, printed in capitals, were the words, "good on date of issue only," and immediately thereunder, in full-faced type, "no stop over allowed." He knew there was printing on the ticket but put. it into his pocket without reading it. He began the joùrney on the same day he purchased the ticket, but stopped off for the night at a station about half-way from his destination on the going journey. The next morning he attempted to continue his journey to such destination by a regular passenger train. Being asked for his ticket he presented the one on which he bad travelled the evening before, and was told by the conductor that it was good for a continuous passage only. On his refusal to pay the prescribed fare for the rest of the going'journey, the conductor put him off the train at a proper place, using no unnecessary force. Held, that issuing to the suppliant a ticket with the conditions upon which it was issued plainly and distinctly printed upon the face of it was in itself reasonably sufficient notice of such conditions ; and if, under the circumstances, he saw fit to put the ticket into his pocket without reading it he had nothing to complain of except his own carelessness or indifference. PETITION OF RIGHT for • damages against the Crown as a common carrier. • The facts of the case are stated in the reasons for judgment. The case was tried at St. John, N.B. on 1st August, 1894. a C. N. Skinner, Q.C. (with whom was H. A. McKeown), for the suppliant. 21
322 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. IV. 1895 E. L. Newcombe, Q.C., Deputy Minister of Justice, Coo B S (with whom was J. A. Belyea) for the respondent, cited THE the following authorities :—Armstrong v. Grand Trunk QUEEN. Railway (1) ; Thompson's Carriage of Passengers (2) ; Statement Stone v. C. N. W. Railway Company (3) ; Craig v. G. of Fact. W. Railway Co. (4) ; Briggs v. Grand Trunk Railway (5) ; Beaver v. Grand Trunk Railway (6); The Government Railways Act (7) ; McNamara on Carriers (8) ; Beven on Negligence (9) ; Zunz v. The South Eastern Railway Company (10) ; Henderson v. Stevenson (11) ; Parker v. South Eastern Railway Company (12) ; Burke v. The South Eastern Railway Company (13) ; Richardson v. Rowntree (14) ; G. T. R. Co. v. Cunningham (15) ; Livingston v. Grand Trunk Railway Company (16) ; Drew v. Central Pacific Railway Company (17) ; Hut-chinson on Carriers (18). THE JUDGE OF THE EXCHEQUER COURT now (March 4th, 1895) delivered judgment : The suppliant is a manufacturers' agent and traveller. On Good Friday, March 31st, 1893, he was at Moncton, -and having business to transact at Chatham Junction • on the Intercolonial Railway, thought to take advantage of an issue of excursion return tickets which the Minister of Railways and Canals had authorized for the Easter holidays. He had seen the advertisement .of the General Manager of Government Railways, the material part of which, so far as concerns this case, was .as follows : (1) 2 P. & B. 458. (10) L.R. 4 Q.B. 539. (2) P. 69. (11) L.R. 2 H.L. (Sc.) 470. (3) 29 Am. Rep. 453. (12) L.R. 2 C.P.D. 416. (4) 24 U.C.Q.B. 504. (13) L.R. 5 C.P.D. 1. (5) 24 U.C.Q.B. 510. (14) [1894] A.C. 217. (6) 22 Can. S.C.R. 493. (15) 9 L.C. Jurist 57. (7) Sec. 80 [ed. 1881]. (16) 21 L.C. Jurist 13. (8) Pages 18, 447 and 448. (17) 51 Cal. 425. Cited in Lacey's .(9) Page 650 et seq. Digest Volume 2, p. 1206. (18) [ed. 1882] p. 462. mosi rir ~
VOL. IV.] EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 323 For the Public. 1895 (Local Issue,) Coont's Excursion return tickets will be issued on March 30th and 31st, and v. April 1st, inclusive, at first class single fare. Tickets are not good THE going after April 1st. Good for return up to and including April 4th, QUEEN. 1893. Reasons for About eight o'clock in the evening of the day men- andament. tioned, the suppliant went to the ticket office and asked for an excursion ticket to Chatham Junction, and having paid the single fare, $2.16, or throe cents per mile for 72 miles, was given a ticket, on the face of which on the " going half," printed in capitals, were the words " good on date of issue only," and immediately thereunder, in full-faced type, " No stop over allowed." The suppliant knew there was printing on the ticket but did not read it. The train by which he proposed to make the journey left Moncton on that evening between 8 and 9 o'clock, and by it he travelled as far as Harcourt Station, which is about half way between Moncton and Chatham Junction. At Harcourt he stopped for the night. He was not feeling well, he says, and he had business to do there. The next day, April 1st, having finished his business he proceeded on his journey by a regular passenger train. Being asked for his ticket, he presented the one on which he had travelled the evening before, and was told that it was not good ; that it was good for a continuous passage on the day of issue only. There is, as is usual in such cases, some difference between the suppliant's account and the conductor's of what took place. But assuming that the tendered ticket was not good for the journey, I see no reason to think that the conductor in any way exceeded his duty or his instructions. He demanded payment of the prescribed fare, and the suppliant persisting in his refusal to pay it, he removed the latter from the train at a proper place, using no unnecessary force (1). (1) R. S. C. c. 38, s. 37.
324 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. [VOL. IV. 1895 It will have been observed that by the General Mana- Coo s ger's advertisement the tickets were to be " issued on TH E March 30th and 31st, and on April 1st, inclusive " and QUEEN. that they were not to be " good going after April 1st." Reasons This notice was apparently construed by the suppliant for Judgment. to mean that a ticket issued on any one of the days mentioned would be good going on any day up to and including April 1st. But that is not the question with which I have at present to deal. Whether such a ticket as that in evidence issued pursuant to this advertisement on the 30th or 31st of March, would have been good for a continuous journey commenced, say on April 1st, is one question. That presented by the case, namely, whether the passenger having commenced. his journey on either of the three days, could break it, and stopping over continue it ou another day by another train, is a different question. Now it cannot, I think, be said that there is anything in the advertisement to prevent the issue of a ticket with the " no stop over " condition attached, or that such an issue in this case was unusual or improper. The only questions are : (1). Did the suppliant know there was printing on the ticket ? (2). Did he know or believe that this printing contained conditions relating to the terms of the contract of carriage ? (3). If not, was what was done reasonably sufficient to give him notice thereof? (1) He knew there was printing on the ticket, but had no reason, he says, to think there was anything special on it. He had not noticed anything unusual on it. He (1) See Parker v. South Eastern Western Ry. Co., L. ft. 1 Q.B.D. Railway Co., L.R.C.P.D. 416 ; and 515 ; Burke v. The South Eastern Richardson v. Rowntree, [1894] A.C. Ry. Co., L.R. 5 C.P.D. ] ; and 217 ; see also Zunz v. The South Watkins v. Rymill, 10 Q.B.D. 178, Eastern By. Co., L.R. 4 Q.B. 539 ; in which the earlier cases are dis -Henderson v. Stevenson L.R. 2 H.L. cussed and the principles to be (Sc.) 470 ; Harris v. The Great deduced from them stated.
} VOL. IV.1 EXCHEQUER COURT REPORTS. 325 had not in fact noticed anything, as he had not looked at 1895 the ticket. As a matter of fact it cannot, I suppose, be Co o n Bs said that for the class of ticket he was purchasing the T xE condition was unusual or special. It is one that every QUEEN. traveller of experience is familiar with, and he was an fte=ns intelligent man constantly travelling. At all events, J1 d gment. he does not pretend to say that he did not know the printing concerned him or related to the conditions on which he was to be carried ; and even if he did not know this, the issue to him of a ticket with the con- dition plainly and distinctly printed upon the face of it, was in itself reasonably sufficient to give him notice. If, under the circumstances, he saw fit to put the ticket in his pocket without reading it, he has now nothing to complain of except his own carelessness or indiffer- ence. The petition must be dismissed. Apart altogether from a " no stop over " condition printed on the face of the ticket, it has been held that the contract in such a case is to carry in one continuous journey (1). There• will be judgment for the respondent, with costs. Solicitor for suppliant : II. A. McKeown. Solicitor for respondent : J. A. _Belyea. (1) Craig v. The Great Western The Grand By. Co., 11 L.C.J. 107, By. Co., 24 U. C. Q. B. 504 ; Betts y. and The Grand Trunk By. Co. v. The Grand Trunk By. Co., 24 U.C. Cunningham, 21 L.C.J. 13. Q.B. 510 ; see also Cunningham r.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.