Early in Queen Victoria’s reign, a fascinating civil case was heard at the Summer Assizes at Croydon. The lawsuit, Blake and Others v. Warren, was tried before an elite "Special Jury."
The defendant was John Warren, a wealthy London dental surgeon who practised at George Street, Hanover Square, specializing in children's teeth. The plaintiff was Mrs. Blake, the wife of the toll-keeper at Merstham. Her case was listed as Blake and Others because, under the 19th-century legal doctrine of coverture, a married woman was legally incapable of bringing an independent lawsuit without her husband.
Mr Warren was accused of wilfully driving his four wheeled carriage at Mrs Blake and she was seeking compensation for her injuries. The Sun and the Morning Advertiser reported the final verdict on 9 August 1839.
On the 25th October, the defendant was on his return from Brighton, in his phaeton, accompanied by his wife, two daughters, and another lady, and when they arrived at the Merstham-gate, the defendant was under the impression the toll which he had previously paid cleared it. The plaintiff, however, told him it did not, and insisted upon being paid the toll. An altercation took place, and, as was alleged by the plaintiff’s witness, the defendant struck his horses and attempted to drive away, but the plaintiff laid hold of the horse’s bridle to prevent him; and in so doing was thrown down, and the wheel over her knee, and one of the horses set his foot upon her chest. A surgeon was called, who stated that the plaintiff had suffered a great deal of pain, and spit blood for some time alter the occurrence took place. – the Sun
Mrs Blake and her husband lived in a modest cottage next to the tollgate at Merstham.
During this period, highways were not publicly funded. Instead, private Turnpike Trusts managed roads, blocking them with swinging wooden gates or spiked poles to collect maintenance fees from travellers. Gatehouses typically featured prominent front bay windows, enabling the keeper or his wife to scan the horizon for approaching traffic.
Turnpike Trusts operated on tariffs set by individual Acts of Parliament. Tariffs were set by reference to the physical damage a vehicle typically inflicted on the macadamized road surface, measured by wheel width and horse power. Charges ranged from pennies for droves of cattle or sheep to about sixpence for a multi-horse phaeton, (around £3.50 in today’s money).
Merstham-gate, was a heavily used toll bottleneck on the London-to-Brighton Road, a competing branch to the older Reigate route built in 1807, avoiding the steep gradient of Reigate Hill. Popularised by George IV, Brighton was the highly fashionable seaside resort for London’s elite. Wealthy citizens regularly dashed back and forth in fast owner-driven private carriages.
The long-demolished tollgate stood at the northern entrance of Merstham village on the Brighton Road (A23), roughly where the modern M25 motorway cutting passes under the A23.
Mr Warren was driving a phaeton – the 19th century equivalent of an open top sports car. Phaetons were light, fast but unstable vehicles that were generally used for recreational drives.
The sixpence charge for passing the Merstham tollgate would have been entirely trivial for a man of Mr Warren’s means. However, wealthier travellers resented being stopped by working class collectors. Mr Warren also seems to have been angered because he mistakenly thought no charge was due as ‘the toll which he had previously paid cleared it.’
These misunderstandings could arise because some turnpike trusts partnered with adjacent gates so that paying at "Gate A" got you a small paper ticket that let you pass through "Gate B" without additional charge within 24 hours.
However, this only worked if both gates belonged to the same turnpike trust. The London-to-Brighton Road was run by multiple independent trusts so any ticket Mr Warren may have paid further down the road to a different trust would have been worthless at Merstham.
Mrs Blake had suffered severe physical trauma as the result of Mr Warren’s actions, spitting blood for weeks. The family also faced a large medical bill of perhaps £2 to £5 (approx. £270–£670 today), amounting to nearly two months of a working man’s wages.
The Blake family sought compensation for her pain and financial loss but Mr Warren presumably refused to settle out of court. To fight back they needed allies, and they got them.
Corporate backing: It Is likely that the turnpike trust advanced the initial capital for the litigation to defend its legal right to collect fees and protect its vulnerable workforce.
A sympathetic judge: The case was overseen by Lord Denman, the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Crucially for Mrs. Blake, Denman had presided over Boss v. Litton (1832) - the landmark case establishing that pedestrians possess an absolute right to the road and deserve reasonable care from carriage drivers.
‘Mr. Petersdorff, on behalf of the defendant, submitted that it was not probable that a gentleman in the station of life occupied by the defendant should have attempted to defraud the plaintiff of the amount of toll due from him; and said that the fact was, that the plaintiff had accidentally received the injury in her attempt to seize and stop the horses. The Jury found for the plaintiff - damages, £40’
The courtroom battle line-up looked unequal:
The Defence: Mr Warren hired Charles Petersdorff, a legal scholar who went on to publish Petersdorff’s Abridgment (a definitive 15-volume compendium of English common law). Petersdorff relied on the argument that a gentleman of Warren's high station would never stoop to defrauding a toll-keeper.
The Plaintiff: Mrs. Blake was represented by Richard Ogle, a veteran London barrister who travelled the Home Circuit to pitch his services to local working-class clients at seasonal county courts. Ogle bypassed the character arguments. He kept the jury focused strictly on the facts, presenting graphic medical testimony on Mrs. Blake's internal injuries.
By finding for Mrs Blake and awarding her £40 in damages (roughly £5,400 today) the ‘Special Jury’ of property-owning men showed they would not tolerate upper-class recklessness on public roads. This massive sum was equivalent at the time to roughly a year of a working man’s wages.
Mr Warren was thoroughly ruined by his bad temper. He was forced to pay both the £40 judgment and all the court and barrister fees for both sides.
It was part of a pattern of financial recklessness, which led to his eventual financial ruin as the Sun reported only a year later on 17 October 1840.
IN RE JOHN WARREN. The bankrupt in this case was a surgeon-dentist, residing at No. 32, George-street, Hanover-square. In his examination by Mr. James he admitted that his liabilities were 3,000/., and his assets 92/. He attributed his bankruptcy to heavy expenses incurred by law suits. In one action against him, tried at Guildford, for compensation for having run over a lady named Blake, he incurred the sum of 450/. to his solicitors, Messrs. Beck and Flower.
The Sun and the Morning Advertiser, 9 August 1839
The Sun, 17 October 1840.
https://www.kingswoodvillage.org/archive-history/a217-milestone-uncovered-2019/