Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

1805.

The KING

versus

of ETWALL.

ling-house and about one moiety of the lands are situate in the parish of Dalbury in the county of Derby, the other moiety of the lands lies in that part of the the Inhabitants township of Dalbury which is in the parish of Etwall; the rate is made upon the appellant as occupier of the last mentioned lands, lying in the parish of Etwall as aforesaid. Dalbury is a parish, and includes the whole of the township of Dalbury, except that part of Orme's farm, which is in the parish of Etwall as aforesaid. The whole farm always paid poor's rates, highway rates, and constable rates, in the parish of Dalbury. The land tax is paid to Dalbury, and the overseers of the poor and the constable act for the whole of the township of Dalbury, including the said lands in Etwall. The church rates for the lands in the occupation of Orme, in the parish of Etwall, were always paid to Etwall. All tithes due for the same lands were always paid to Etwall.

GARROW, in support of the order of sessions, contended that William Orme was rateable to the parish of Etwall for that part of his farm which lay in Etwall, although all the rest might be rated in Dalbury. He said no case could be made to apply to this.

CLARKE, N. G. "Although the land lies in the parish of Etwall, yet it is in the township of Dalbury, and by the stat. 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 13, townships may be rated separately, and this township keeps its own poor."

Lord ELLENBOROUGH, C. J. "It lies in Dalbury, except that part of the farm which is in the parish of Etwall."

LAWRENCE, J. "It does not appear that there is any rate for the township of Dalbury."

CLARKE. "That is because they have hitherto maintained their poor jointly."

1805.

The KING

LE BLANC, J. "You pay church rates and tithes to Etwall, and you do not state any rate for the township of Dalbury, in which this part of the lands is rated, That would raise a different question upon the construc- the Inhabitants tion of the statute of 18 and 14 Car. 11. c. 12, but here we cannot see but that the land is rateable to Etwall."

ORDER OF SESSIONS AFFIRMING THE RATE

AFFIRMED.

versus

of ETWALL,

BENTLEY and Another against SMITH.-Nov. 22. The sugar-coopers claimed a right to go upon the West India Docks, as they would have gone upon the old legal quays, to cooper sugars belonging to private merchants warehoused there ; and brought case against the proprietors, for excluding them from exercising their trade. Upon which a special verdict was found. Held, that no judgment could be given, pro defectu veredicti, in not stating precisely what legal right the plaintiffs had to go on the legal quays, in place of which, for certain purposes the docks were' erected ; West India it only stating that the plaintiffs were used to cooper sugars for Docks. Case. shipment for exportation there, which might be by contract with Obstruction of the owners of such quays: and if to a certain or any extent, such 39 Geo. MI. right of going on the quays and the docks might arise ex necessi- c. 69; 42 Geo, tate, no such necessity was stated in the verdict: it omitting to III. c. 118. state what casks were there requiring necessary cooperage to be done upon the wharf. For it is clear the docks are not to be used as the cooper's workshops, Fide Stat. 39 G. III, c. 69; 42 G. III. c. 113,

THIS was a special verdict upon an action brought

by the plaintiffs, who were sugar-coopers in the city of London, against the defendant, as treasurer of the West India Dock Company: for the aid company preventing them from exercising their trade and business on the docks and in their wharfs. The plaintiffs stated in the first court of their decla ration as follows:

London, to wit, Benjamin Bentley, and Stephen Ward, pursuant to the statute in that case made and provided, Complain of George Smith, esquire, treasurer for the

NO. XXIV.

D

trade. Statutes

BENTLEY and Another

VETSUS

SMITH

1805.

BENTLEY

versus

SMITH.

[ocr errors]

tine being of the West India dock company, being, &c. for that, whereas, heretofore, and before, and and Another at the several respective times of the committing the several grievances herein after mentioned, the directions for managing the concerns of the said company called the West India dock company, by virtue of the statutes in that case made and provided, had designed, laid out, made, and completed, certain navi gable docks, basons, and cuts, and quays, wharfs, and warehouses, adjoining and attached to the same, in and upon a certain tract of land called the isle of dogs, for the reception, discharge, and loading of ships and vessels in the West India trade, which said docks, basons, quays, wharfs, and warehouses, before and at the several and respective times aforesaid had become and were fit for the reception of ships and goods, and were, and from thence hitherto have been and still are legal quays, and wharfs, for the shipping and unshipping of goods within the port of London, and the said docks, quays, wharfs, and warehouses, were in the possession of the said company by virtue of the said statutes, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish of St. Mary la bonne, in the ward of Cheap. And whereas, before, and at the several and respective times aforesaid, the said Benjamin and Stephen were and for divers, to wit, ten years before that time had been sugar coopers employed by divers owners, consignees, or purchasers of sugars, to be exported from the port of London aforesaid, in taking samples from coopering and preparing for shipment sich sugars as aforesaid, for certain reasonable reward to be therefore paid and payable to the said Benjamin and Stephen, as such sugar coopers, to the comfortable support of the said Benjamin Stephen, and their families, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid.And whereas before and at the several times afore

, said, divers large quantities, to wit, five thousand hogsheads of sugar belonging to divers persons, the owners, consignees, or purchasers thereof, were lying and being in and upon the said quays,wharfs, and warehouses, attached to the said docks of the said company, for the purpose of being exported thereupon, and the said persons so being owners, consignees, or purchasers of the said sugars, on the same day and year aforesaid, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid, had employed the said Benjamin and Stephen as such sugar coopers as aforesaid, (and in which said capacity of sugar coopers it was lawful for them the said Benjamin and Stephen to act) to cooper and prepare for shipping for exportation the same sugars for a certain reasonable reward, to be therefore paid to the said Benjamin and Stephen, whereof the said company, before and at the said several times aforesaid, had notice, and were requested by the said Benjamin and Stephen to permit them to enter and go into and upon the said quays, wharfs, and warehouses, to cooper and prepare the said sugars for shipment as aforesaid, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid; yet the said company well knowing the premises, but contriving and unlawfully intending to injure and prejudice the said Benjamin and Stephen in this respect, and to prevent and hinder them from coopering and preparing for shipment the said hogs. heads of sugar heretofore, to wit, on the said first day of March, in the year aforesaid, and on divers other days and times between that day and the sixteenth day of May, in the year aforesaid, did wrongfully and injuriously hinder and prevent the said Benjamin fand Stephen from entering, and did refuse to permit and suffer the said Benjamin and Stephen to enter, and go into and upon the same quays, wharfs, and warehouses, to cooper and prepare for shipment, for exportation, the said hogsheads of sugar, which they had been so em

1805.

BENTLEY and Another

versus

SMITH.

1805.

ployed as aforesaid, by the owners, consignees, br purchasers thereof, to cooper and prepare for shipand Another ment as aforesaid, by reason whereof the said Benjamin

BENTLEY

versus

SMITH,

[ocr errors]

and Stephen were on the said first day of March in the year aforesaid, and on the said other days and times, hindered and prevented from coopering and preparing for shipment the said last mentioned hogsheads of sugar, and have lost and been deprived of divers gains and profits, which would have accrued and arisen to the said Benjamin and Stephen as such sugar coopers as aforesaid, if they had been permitted to have coopered and prepared for shipment the said last mentioned hogsheads of sugar; and the said Benjamin and Stephen have been and are in various other respects injured and damnified in the exercising and carrying on the said business of sugar coopers, as aforesaid, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and ward aforesaid.

The special verdict found, that on and before the 20th day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1804, the directors for managing the concerns of the company in the said declaration mentioned, called the West India dock company, by virtue of the statutes in that case made and provided, had designed, laid out, made, and completed certain navigable docks, basons, and cutts, with quays, wharfs, and warehouses adjoining, and attached to the 'same, in and upon a certain tract of land called the Isle of Dogs, for the reception, discharge, and loading of ships and vessels in the West India trade, and which said docks, quays, wharfs, and warehouses were inclosed with the walls, gates, and ditches in the manner by the said acts directed, and the same were fit for the reception of ships and goods, and had been certified so to be by three or more of the lords commissionere of his majesty's treasury for the time being, by writing under their hands, which certificate had been published at the times and in the manner by the said acts direct

« ForrigeFortsett »