'Fined 20s., and 22s. costs, for fraudulently travelling'

In my work I am always finding cases where people failed in their attempts to avoid paying for their travel. After all, it is only when they got caught that cases were recorded. This is from the London and South Western Railway's staff magazine, The South Western Gazette, from July 1901 (p.11):

'At the Westminster Police Court, in the 9th ultimo, E.G. Richmond, of 94 High Street, Tooting, was fined 20s., and 22s. costs, for fraudulently travelling, and 20s. and 2s. costs for giving a false name and address, or in default for one month's imprisonment. On the 6th of April defendant arrived at Vauxhall by train and attempted to pass the barrier by saying he had given his ticket up on the platform. He afterwards admitted travelling from Clapham Junction without a ticket, gave a false name and address, and eventually said he had travelled from Wimbeldon. It was ascertained he lived at 61, Effra Road, Wimbeldon. To avoid police court proceedings he left that address, but was traced to Tooting.'

I'd love to know how they traced him there...

Travelling By Railway Without a Ticket - 1851

It seems that ticket collectors encountered the same problems in 1851 as they do today...

'Joseph Haigh was charged with travelling from Swinton to Masbro' without a ticket. On the the 1st of March the defendant got out of the train shortly before it reached the platform at Masbro', and was making off when the porter saw him and brought him to the station. On being asked for his ticket, he pretended to have lost it, and when asked for the fare was exceedingly abusive. It appeared that this was the fourth time the defendant had attempted to impose on the railway by travelling without a ticket...Defendant said he took a ticket at Doncaster, but lost it on the way...In reply, it was stated that enquiries had been made at Doncaster, and it appears that only two tickets were issued by the train on that morning for Masbro' both of which came to hand, The Bench were of the opinion that the defendant had been guilty of wilful falsehood, and thought the case was one for the infliction of the full penalty of 40s and costs, or one month's imprisonment.'

From the The Sheffield & Rotherham Independent, Saturday, April 05, 1851, p.6