1805. BENTLEY versus SMITH. ed, more than ten days before the said 20th day of April, 1804, and which quays and wharfs were then and now are legal quays and wharfs, for the landing, and Another relanding, and discharging, lading, and shipping of goods within the port of London, according to the said statutes; and the said docks, quays, wharfs, and warehouses were, during all the said times, and now are in the possession of the said company, by virtue of the said statutes, and certain persons were thereof seised in their demesne, as of fee, in trust for the said company. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further say, that previous and up to the time of making and completing the said docks, basons, cuts, quays, wharfs, and warehouses, and to the same being so inclosed and certified, in manner aforesaid, to be fit for the reception of ships and goods, and up to the time of 'the commencement of this action, the said Benjamin and Stephen were sugar coopers, employed by divers Owners, consignees, or purchasers of sugar, in the port of London, in taking samples from and coopering the same sugars for shipment, for exportation for reasonable reward, to be therefore paid and payable to the said Benjamin and Stephen, and the said Benjamin and Stephen so being such sugar coopers as aforesaid, on the 19th day of April, 1804, 115 hogsheads of sugar, belonging to certain persons using trade and commerce, under the style and firm of Messrs. Perrin, Roctras, and Co. were lying and being in and upon the said premises of the said company, so inclosed as aforesaid, for the purpose of being exported therefrom, the said Messrs. Perrin, Roctras, and Co. intending to export the same therefrom, and which said persons so using trade and commerce as aforesaid, on the said 19th day of April, 1804, had retained the said Benjamin and Stephen, as such sugar coopers as aforesaid, to cooper and thereby prepare for shipment to be exported the said last mentioned 115 hogsheads of 1805. BENTLEY and Another versus SMITH. sugar, for a certain reasonable reward, to be therefore commencement of this action the said George Smith, Esq. was treasurer of the within mentioned company, 1805 BENTLEY and as such treasurer was sued in pursuance of the sta- and Another tute in that case made and provided; and the jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further say, that fourteen days notice was given to the said company of the said action, prior to the bringing thereof, as by the said statute in that case made and provided is required; and the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further say, that always before and up to and at the time of the making of a certain act of parliament, made and passed in the 39th year of the reign of his present majesty, entituled, an Act for reudering more commodious, and for better regulating the port of London,' sugar coopers had been used to cooper and thereby prepare sugars for shipment for expor tation upon the legal quays and wharfs within the port of London, but whether upon the whole matter aforesaid, by the jurors aforesaid, in form aforesaid, found, the said company might lawfully hinder the said Benjamin and Stephen from entering and going, and refuse to permit and suffer the said Benjamin and Stephen to enter and go into and upon the said inclosed quays and wharfs, to cooper and thereby prepare sugars for shipment, for exportation, and from there coopering sugars for shipment for exportation the jurors aforesaid are entirely ignorant, and pray the advice and judgment of this court of and upon the premises; and if it shall appear to the court of our said lord the king, before the king himself now here, that the said company could not lawfully hinder the said Benjamin and Stephen from entering and going, and refuse to permit and suffer the said Benjamin and Stephen to enter and go into and upon the said inclosed quays and wharfs to cooper and thereby prepare sugars for shipment for exportation, and from there coopering sugars for shipment for exportation, then the ju 1805. BENTLEY versus SMITH, rors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said company are guilty of the premises in the within and Another declaration mentioned, in manner and form as the said Benjamin and Stephen have within complained against them and they assess the damages of the said Benjamin and Stephen by them sustained, by occasion of the premises, over and besides their costs and charges by them laid out about their suit in this behalf, to 1s. and for those costs and charges to 40s. but if upon the whole matter aforesaid, by the jurors aforesaid, in form aforesaid, found, it shall appear to the court of our said lord the king, before the king himself now here, that it was lawful for the said company to hinder the said Benjamin and Stephen from entering and going, and to refuse to permit and suffer the said Benjamin and Stephen to enter and go into and upon the said inclosed quays and wharfs to cooper and thereby prepare sugars for shipment for exportation, and from there coopering and thereby preparing sugars for shipment for exportation, then the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, say that the said company are not guilty of the premises in the within declaration mentioned, in manner and form as the said Benjamin and Stephen have within complained against them; but because, &c. This case was very ably argued in the last term by Woon, for the plaintiffs, and by EAST, for the defendant; and again in this term by PARK, for the plaintiffs, and the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for the defendant. The case turned upon the construction of the acts of parliament for creating the West India Docks, the material clauses of which will be found abstracted in the notes below.* * Canal, new docks, &c. to be parts of the port of London, and vessels, &c. resorting thereto, to be subject to the For the plaintiffs. "To exclude the plaintiff's from their legal right of exercising their trade of coopers several present port regulations and duties. § 84. Goods, &c. landed or shipped upon or from the intended quays or wharfs, in the new docks, subject to the same regulations, &c. as if landed or shipped upon or from the present legal quays. § 85. And, for the greater accommodation of the shipping in the West India trade, belonging to or using the port of London, it is hereby further enacted and declared, that the quays and wharfs, which shall be built by the said directors as aforesaid, within or along the sides or banks of such of the said docks as shall be inclosed and defended on all sides by high walls, and strong and sufficient gates, shall at all times afterwards be deemed and taken, and are hereby declared to be, to all intents and purposes whatsoever, legal quays and wharfs for the landing, relanding, and discharging, lading and shipping, of any goods, wares, and merchandize whatsoever, within the port of London; any law or statute, or any usage or custom of the city of London, or elsewhere, to the contrary thereof in anywise notwithstanding. § 86. And whereas, by reason or in consequence of certain parts of the works, improvements, and regulations, intended by this act, some of the said present legal quays, and of the other quays or wharfs, commonly called Public Foreign Sufferance Wharfs and certain Warehouses, docks, and divers other tenements and hereditaments, now in or adjoining the said port, some of which warehouses are known by the name of Up-town Warehouses, and used for the reception of West India produce and other goods landed, may perhaps become less valuable, by means of the trade or business of the same respectively being in part diverted, than the same respectively are at present, and divers owners and occupiers of, and other persons interested in, or employed upon the business of such legal quays and sufferance wharfs, warehouses, docks, and other tenements and hereditaments, may thereby sustain loss or damage; and the yearly and other receipts of the governors of Christ's Hospital in the city of London, for or on account of car-rooms, or figures for using free carts within the said city and the liberties thereof, may also 1805. BENTLEY and Another versus SMITH, |