Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

1805.

The King

versus the Inhabitants 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 nts township of Dalbury which is in the parish of Etxall;

the rate is made upon the appellant as occupier of the last mentioned lands, lying in the parish of Etwall as aforesaid. Dulbury is a parish, and includes the whole of the township of Balbury,except that part of Orme's farm, which is in the parish of Etwali 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 occule pation 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 Etxall, yet it is in the township of Dalbury, and by the stat. 13 and 14 Car. II, c. 19, 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."

CLARK6. " That is because they have hitherto maintained their poor jointly."

Talcu,

Le Blanc, J. " You pay church rates and tithes to 1805. Etxall, and you do not state any rate for the township ,

P The King of Dalbury, in which this part of the lands is rated," That would raise a different question upon the construc- tbe 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 RĄT

AFFIRMED,

vernis

Inhabitants of LTWALI,

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 plaintiff's 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

trade. Statutes the owners of such quays : and if to a certain or any extent, such 39 Geo. Hi. right of going on the quoys and the docks might arise ex necessi- c. 69; 42 Geo. tate, no such necessity was stated in the verdict : it omitting to Il. c. 11. state what'casks were there requiring necessary cooperage to be done upon the whørf. For it is clear the docks are not to be used

as the cooper's workshops, Vide 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 said 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.

BENTLIT ration as follows:

and Anotbes

versus London, to wit, Benjamin Bentley, and Stephen Ward, SMIT pursuant to the statute in that case made and provided, complain of George Smith, esquire, treagurer for the

NO. »xiv,

1895.

tine being of the West India dock company, being, - &c. for that, whereas, heretofore, and before, and BENILEY and Another at the several respective times of the coinmitting

versus the several grievances berein after mentioned; the SMITH.

directions for managing the concerns of the said com,
pany.called the Ilest 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, wharts, and
warehouses, adjoining and attached to the saine, 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, ba-
sons, quays, wharfs, and warehouses, before and at the
şeveral 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 un-
shipping of goods within the port of London, and the
said docks, quays, whạrfş, 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 afore-
said, 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 froin the post
of london aforesaid, in taking samples from coopering
and preparing for shipment sitch sugars as aforesaid,
for certain reasonable reward to be therefore paid and
payable to ihe said Benjamin and Stephen, as 'such su-
gar 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-

[ocr errors]

181

BENTLEY and Another

VETRUS SNITK

said, divers large quantities, to wit, five thousand hogs-
heads of sugar belonging to divers persons, the owners,
consignees, or purchasers thereof, were lying and
being in and upon the said quays,wharfs, andwarehouses,
attacbed to the said docks of the said company, for
the purpose of being exported thereupon, and the said
persons so being owners, consiggees, 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 Ste-
phen as such sugar coppers as aforesaid, (and in which
said capacity of sugar coopers it was lawfol 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 com-
pany, 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 coo-
. per and prepare the said sugars for shipment as afore-
said, to wit, at London aforesaid, in the parish and
ward aforesaid; yet the said company well knowing
the premises, bul 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
iajuriously hinder and prevent the said Benjamin land
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 shipinent, for exportation, the
said hogsheads of sugar, which they had been so em.

BENTLEY

SMITH,

led from ald other

the

1905. ployed as aforesaid, by the owners, 'consignees, or

purchasers thereof, to cooper and prepare for shipend Anothier ment as aforesaid, by reason whereof the said Benjamin versus

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 sugár, 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 aføresaid.

The special verdict found, that on and before the goih day of April, in the year of our Lord, 1804, the direct. ors 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 aud 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 certi. 'fied so to be by three or more of the lords commissionere of his majesty's treasury for the time being, by writiog under their hands, which certificate had been published 'et the times and in the manner by the said acts direct

« ForrigeFortsett »