Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 17
1 impossible to say, that the man who has the sole
2 management of the station has not authority to
3 cause a person to be apprehended whom he has
4 reasonable ground to suspect has stolen a parcel
5 from the station. Therefore Podmore had
6 authority to cause inquiry to be made after
7 Haslam" -- that is the absconding
8 employee -- "and to cause him to be apprehended,
9 and if so, then it was within his duty and
10 authority to make communications to the police.
11 In other words, the effect of the particular
12 circumstances of this case was to make the
13 statement of Podmore to the police
14 superintendent, on the occasion in question, the
15 statement of a person having authority on the
16 part of the company to make it.
17
18 Quain J.:
19
20 "I entirely agree. Podmore had charge of the
21 station, and had authority from the company,
22 under the circumstances, to put the police
23 motion with a view to the inquiry as to who
24 stole the missing parcel. And therefore what he
25 says necessarily in order to put the police in
26 motion, as to what has been lost and who he
27 suspects has taken it, are statements made
28 within the scope of his authority and bind the
29 defendants. The case of Goff v. Great Northern
30 Railway Company shews that the person in
31 authority on the spot must be taken to have
32 authority to do what the exigency of the case
33 requires. It appears to me, therefore, that the
34 acts done and statements made at the time,
35 provided they were necessary to the matter in
36 hand, are binding on the company."
37
38 Archibald J.
39
40 "I am also of opinion that the evidence was
41 properly admitted. Was the station-master of
42 the company agent of the company to make the
43 statements in question so as to bind them in an
44 action? If this had been the case of a an
45 individual carrier instead of a company, the
46 statements which he made on setting on foot an
47 inquiry by the police would clearly have been
48 inadmissible; and similar statements by an agent
49 duly authorized to act in the matter must be
50 equally admissible. Was then the station-master
51 such an agent, so as to make statements binding
52 on the company? That depends on whether he had
53 authority to act in the matter. Being in charge
54 of the station, he must be taken to be the
55 person authorized by the company to take proper
56 steps when a parcel is supposed to have been
57 stolen from the station."
58
59 My Lord, I pause there to rewrite that in the form of a
60 question: must an Assistant Manager be a person or the
