Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 16
1 delivered and on the same day H, a porter in the
2 defendants' service at U station, disappeared.
3 A superintendent of police at U gave, after
4 objection by defendants, the following
5 evidence:- 'I know P, the station-master at
6 defendants' railway station at U. In
7 consequence of a communication, I went to him on
8 Saturday, the 30th of July. He told me that H,
9 a parcel porter, had absconded from the service;
10 that a money parcel was missing, and he, P
11 suspected H of taking it; would I (the
12 witness) make inquiries after him?' A verdict
13 having passed for plaintiffs:-
14 Held, that the evidence was rightly
15 admitted: for that it must be taken that the
16 station-master, being the person in charge
17 there" -- and I emphasise those words as
18 well -- "had authority from the defendants to
19 set the police in motion, and that what he said
20 pertinent to the occasion, when acting within
21 the scope of his authority, was evidence against
22 the defendants."
23
24 My Lord, the judgment Cockburn C.J. begins on page 470.
25 The judgments are quite short, so it may be best if I read
26 the whole of them. At the bottom of page 470:
27
28 "I am of the opinion that the rule must be
29 discharged on the ground that the evidence was
30 admissible under the particular circumstances of
31 the case. A man, a railway porter at the
32 station to which the parcel is addressed, is
33 believed to have absconded with a parcel of
34 money, which must be taken to have been the
35 plaintiffs' money. The parcel and man disappear
36 simultaneously, and the man was the person to
37 whom, in due course, the parcel would have been
38 delivered; there was, therefore, reasonable and
39 probably cause for arresting him on the charge
40 of taking the parcel. Suppose the principal in
41 this case had been an individual, and had gone
42 to a policeman and said, 'A parcel has been
43 taken from my premises, and I cannot doubt it
44 has been taken animo furandi, for the person to
45 whom it was delivered has absconded just at the
46 time the parcel was missed, I therefore believe
47 him to be the thief; I ask you to make inquiries
48 and to apprehend him if you find him under
49 suspicious circumstances.' There is no principle
50 on which that would not be admissible evidence.
51 Then, if Podmore was the agent of the
52 defendants...."
53
54 He, my Lord, I think is the station master.
55
56 ".... and if it was within the scope of his duty
57 and authority as agent to do what the principal,
58 if on the spot, would have done, what he says
59 while he is so acting is equally admissible as
60 if said by the principal himself. Now, it is
