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

Prev Next Index