« ForrigeFortsett »
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
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."
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
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:
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
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,
BENTLEY and Another
said, divers large quantities, to wit, five thousand hogs-
led from ald other
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