Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd v Robertson

4 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

379

For these reasons their Lordships humbly advised His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed, and ordered the appellant

Privy0 U CIL#

ĝQg

to pay the costs of the appeal. ■—.—'

P erry

V.

Clissold.

[H IG H COURT OF AU.STRALIA.]

THE BALMAIN NEW FERRY COMPANY j

A p p e l l a n t s ;

LIMITED . .

. f

D e f e n d a n t s ,

ROBERd'SON .

R e s p o n d e n t .

P l a i n t i f f ,

ON A P P E A L FROM T H E S U P R E M E COURT

OF

N E W SO UTH

W A LES.

Action Jor assault and false, imprisonment — Passenger prevented fr o m leaving fe r r y

H. (L of A.

company's w harf without paym ent— jVoticf o f conditions o f contract o f carriage

1906.

--L eave and licence—Pleading—Amendment.

'— —̂ '

S ydney ,

.A ferry company placed over tlie entrance to their private wharf a notice Oct. 9, 10, 11.

stating th a t a fare of one penny must be paid by all persons entering or

Dec. 18.

leaving the wharf, wliether they had travelled by the company’s boats or

Giirfith C.J.,

Barton and O’Connor, JJ.

not. Tlie plaintiff, who was aware of these conditions, paid the fare of one penny and was admitted to the wharf th rough a turnstile. Having missed his boat, he a ttem pted to leave the wharf by another turnsti le which was the only means of e.xit e.xcept by water. As he refused to pay a second penny tlie company’s servants endeavoured to detain him, b u t he eventually suc­ ceeded in forcing his way through a small opening beside the turnsti le . He brought an action against the company for assault and false imprisonment, and the defendants pleaded not guilty.

Held, th a t as the plaintiff could have left the wharf by water, there was, under the circumstances, no im prisonm ent; and

T h a t the plaintiff, having entered the wharf with knowledge of the con­ ditions imposed by the defendants, must be taken to have impliedly agreed

380

[1906.

tUGH

COUKT

H. C. OF A. th a t lie woiikl no t ask for egress from the wharf by land w ithou t payment of

1906.another penny, and to have consented to the defendants preventing him from leaving in th a t way w ithout .such fur ther payment, and, therefore, th a t the

T h e B almaix

defendants’ .servants were justified in using such force as was reasonably

IS'ew

Kerk y

Co. I.TU.

necessary for th a t purpose.

.

c .

R obertso n .H tkU 'also, th a t even if this defence, being in the na tu re…