some reluctance, partly from an unwillingness to interfere with parties in the management of their own affairs, for their own advantage; partly from a disposition to give Companies credit for acting on an enlightened view of their own interests, as identified with those of the public: yet if the court becomes clearly satisfied that a Company is seeking to promote its own advantage by establishing an inequality which was unreasonable under the circumstances, and operated unfairly upon particular individuals, or that it was affording to one person, or to persons, an advantage which it could not afford to another circumstances. under similar circumstances; this court will not hesitate to interfere to prevent such a result, although by so doing they might prevent the company from securing all the profit that it might otherwise have derived from the use of its property.

But such must be reasonable under the

Charges be

tween inter

mediate sta

tions should

be reasonable as compared

the entire,

line.

Thus upon complaint that the Railway Compa ny charged for carrying between two intermediate stations a higher rate than was due to the intermediate service, in proportion to the charge made on the entire line of railway, this court, if it were made to appear that the proportion with those for was not justified by the circumstances of the traffic-in other words, was an undue prejudice or unreasonable disadvantage to those using the part of the railway in question-would interfere to set aside such agreement. So again, if an arrangement were made by a Railway Company, whereby persons bringing a larger amount of traffic to the railway should have their goods carried on more favourable terms than those bringing a less quantity, although the court might uphold such an agreement as an ordinary incident of commercial economy, provided the Impartiality same advantage were extended to all persons under the like circumstances, yet it would assuredly insist on the latter condition. It would endeavour to do so in the case of any special agree

to individuals.

ment by which the company had secured to a particular individual, the benefit of such agreement to the exclusion of others; or even where an attempt had been made, by keeping the agree ment secret, to make it operate undoubtedly to the prejudice of third parties.

charges not

warranted merely because agrees to employ the the Company.

the person

other lines of

As in the case of the Cockermouth and Workington Railway it was held to be no sufficient excuse for preferential charges that Preference otherwise the party would make a new Railway and take his goods by that route; so also in the case of Baxendale v. Great Western R.C. (Law Times Rep. vol. 32, p. 160 preferential charges (as compared with other carriers) between London and Bristol were not allowed merely because the person engaged to employ other lines of the Company for the carriage of all his other goods where such lines were available; the court repeated that a difference in rates to and from the same places might be sustained between different persons, one of whom stipulated to carry large quantities every year and those who declined to do so, because the advantages thus secured by the Company related to the carriage of the goods upon the same line and directly affected the rate at which the Company could profitably carry them, similar to that of selling wholesale in large quantities and retail in small quantities; but, in the present case, the advantages stipulated for were wholly distinct from matters which could affect the outlay of the Company in carrying from London to Bristol. The quantity and quality of the goods, and the cost of the Company in carrying them from London to Bristol were the same, whether the articles belonged to Baxendale or the party preferred, and mere collateral benefits derived by the Company from the latter were held to afford no just ground for giving him preferential rates, S.C. 28 L.J. C.P. 69.

Altho' the court will consider the fair interests

Districts and

diminish the

natural ad

vantages of

parties.

of Companies in ascertaining when undue preference is given, and give weight to the question charges not to of large quantities and long distances, yet be arranged to perfect fairness and equality must be shewn even in reductions on these accounts-Hence, when a scale of distance charges for carriage from Peterboro' and Ipswich to various towns wasmade, the practical effect of which was to diminish the natural advantages which the dealers at the latter place enjoyed over the former, this was held an undue preference, and an injunction granted against the practice accordingly (Ransome and Peard v. Eastern Counties R. C., Law T. Rep. vol. 31, p. 73); and 27 Law J. C.P. 138. In the same case, however, the court declined to interfere where the Company had created districts in which they carried coals at lower ratio for quantities not less than full train loads of 200 tons, and so adjusted those districts that the places where the Ipswich dealers traded were distributed into three districts, in each of which the traffic was, in consequence of such division, insufficient to enable them to send the required quantity and avail themselves of the lower rates. In this case the complainants alleged that in order to take advantage of the reduced rate, they would necessarily (in consequence of the parts to which they traded having been put in three separate districts) have had to send three separate full train loads from Ipswich, whereas the districts were so arranged that dealers from Peterbro' had the places in which they dealt all in one district. The traffic manager dis. tinctly swore that these districts were arranged solely with a regard to consumption, and not with any view of preference, and the complainants case did not fully and clearly shew that the districts could otherwise have been arranged, nor clearly establish a case of undue preference. The court therefore thought the complainants had not sustained that part of their case.

Where a Company made a scale of charges for carrying coal, graduated according to the combined principle not merely of distance but of full loads, and quantity, it is no ground for disturbing this arrangement that another Company complains of not being able to send so large a quantity annually and thus obtain the benefit of the lowest rate, whilst a Company sending this large quantity and in full train loads, obtains the benefit of the arrangement. But if it can be shewn that a scale of rates with reference to distance or otherwise has been artfully contrived, with the view (whilst appearing plausible on the face of it) of favouring one Coal Company and prejudicing another, the court will interfere. The statute is not contravened by a Railway Company carrying at a lower rate, in consideration of a guarantee of large quantities and full train loads at regular periods (the same scale being offered to all parties impartially) provided the real object of the Railway Company be to obtain thereby a greater remunerative profit by the diminished cost of carriage, altho' the effect may be to exclude from the lower rate those persons, who from local position, or the extent of their operations, cannot send the coals so far, or in so large and regular quantities.

In the case in question, the Ruabon Coal Company engaged to send for 10 years along the Great Western Railway, beyond a distance of 100 miles, such a quantity of coal during each year, as would produce to the Company for freight, terminals, wagon hire, and break of gauge a yearly revenue of £40,000, in fully loaded trains, at the rate of seven per week, in consideration whereof a reduced rate of mileage and other privileges were conceded to them, end offered to the complainants. The court considered the agreement made advantageous to the Ruabon Company, but not "unduly or unreasonably," so, within the meaning of the statute, inasmuch

Scale of charges may

be graduated quantities,

according to full and regular train loads,

as well as disbut must not be artfully

tance merely;

done, for purposes of pre

ference.

as there was adequacy of consideration moving the company, the fact being that regard being had to the guarantee of large quantities, long distance, full trains, and regularity, there is a greater remuneration to the Railway Company per ton per mile for such carriage at the lower rate, than for carrying small quantities and short distances in irregular loads, and the court did not admit that the complainants had any right to insist upon a sale graduated according to distance merely, without regard to quantity, or full train loads.

In fact it must be quite evident to every one that the guarantee of a large traffic enables a Railway Company to work such traffic with greater economy by the arrangement of trains and times, and by special organization of service and constant use of plant adapted to such traffic, and most railway managers will not hesitate to corroborate the evidence of Mr, Saunders in the case in question, that there is a better profit to a Railway Company from a large, regular, and constant traffic carried at a less rate than from a small, irregular, and intermittent traffic, carried at a higher rate.

In this case of the Ruabon Coal Company it was strongly urged by counsel that the reason for fixing upon a particular distance of 100 miles, was because the Railway Company knew that the principal traffic of the complaining parties was not to London, which is beyond the 100 miles, but to intermediate places beyond that distance, the existence of which fact would have gone to shew that the special agreement made with the Ruabon Coal Company and offered ostensibly to all consignees, was only a cloak for concealing undue favor and partiality to the Ruabon Coal Company. But the complainant's evidence did not prove the fact, nor even that any large portion of the traffic lay within 100 miles.

It may happen, that a scale of charges and other terms and conditions are so arranged for