INCIDENT ON TRAIN.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17104, 28 March 1921, Page 8

INCIDENT ON TRAIN.

•R. ATT.WAY OFPICIALS' EIGHTS.

An appeal from the decision of Mr Kenrick, S.M., in dismissing a case in which a schoolboy, W. Lowry, claimed from A. E. Barlow, a railway ticket inspector, damages for alleged assault, was heard by Mr Justice Hosking in the Supreme Court at Hamilton last week. .Mr Hampson appeared for tlhe appellant Lowry, and Mr Northeroft for respondent. . The facts were that the boy Lowry, in closing a railway carriage door with ins foot, unwittingly obstructed the inspector, who cuffed him and pulled his ear. In his judgment the Magistrate found tlhat the boy had no intention of injuring the inspector, hut held that the closing of the door with his foot by Lowry was an improper act. and was the cause of the correction ho received. Mr Hampson argued that Barlow had no right to assault Lowry, whatever might have been the provocation. Mr Northeroft submitted _ that there had been horseplay, in which boys > hacH been excluding a girl from the carriage, and Lowry. w'ho nad not been participating in tne horseplay, on the spur of the moment, entered into the fun by pushing back the door in the belief that it was the girl who was trying to enter. The inspector was passing through in the course of his duty, and for the safety; of the train it became necessary for him •to take immediate action.

The Judge eaid he knew of nothing that could justify an inspector in administering any chastisement. There were" proper methods of dealing with trouble on a train. ' "I. don't think! even the General Manager would have a right to box my ears, ' hie added.

Counsel said he did not argue that those in charge ef a train had a general right to administer chastisement, buti in the particular circumstances they had a right to quell what might have led to a serious disturbance by prompt action.

His Honour said the inspector pfobaHly lost his temper when ho boxed the boy's ears. And he added; "I would probably have done the same thing myself." His Honour said he did not fee! convinced by any legal principle that the inspector had any legal right to administer chastisement, but he "would consider his decision.