1819. The King against The Canal Comp. introduced, to obviate a doubt which might exist, whether, by placing the different parts of the canal under one system of management, it did not follow, that the company could only charge one rate through BIRMINGHAM the whole the other objects of this exception I do not so clearly see. In every act of parliament, however, there are many words introduced by the legislature pro majori cautelâ, and to prevent doubts. However, it is quite clear, that an exception, though it may restrain, can never enlarge the words of a grant, and here the words are so plain as in my opinion not to admit of any reasonable doubt. We should be doing great injustice to the legislature, to suppose that they intended to take away a benefit vested, without expressing such intention in clear and unequivocal language. One single word, the word "rated," would have removed all doubt. But, in the absence of that, I do not consider myself justified, in giving the effect contended for to the general words used in this clause. BAYLEY J. I am of the same opinion; and I think this a very plain case, and that it falls neither within the mischief intended to be provided against, nor within. the words of the enacting clause of the 58 G. 3. By the 8 G. 3. there was created, what, for the purposes of this case, it may be convenient to call the Bilston Canal Company. By the 23 G. 3. the Fazeley canal company was created: and these two companies remained distinct till the 24 G. 3., by which they were incorporated by the name of The Birmingham Canal Navigation, and there never was any doubt that that was a valid and complete incorporation. Now between the 24 G. 3. and the 58 G. 3. many works were done, and in my opinion both the preamble and the enacting clause 1819. The KING against The BIRMINGHAM clause shew that it is to these works alone, that the clause in the 58 G. 3. applies. The preamble recites that doubts had been entertained. Now there are no doubts as to the works done under the 8th, but there Canal Comp. might be doubts as to those subsequent to the 24th G. 3. The preamble then goes on to state that it is expedient to extend one system of management to the whole: now no ingenuity can suggest that this question, as to the rating, falls within the mischief there assigned. For the rating has no relation to the system of management there stated. There the enacting clause applies only to canals, collateral cuts, and navigable communications, made by the Birmingham canal navigations: now no canals had been made by the Birmingham canal navigations, till after the 24 G. 3. The clause, therefore, can only apply to works subsequent to that period; for how could it be necessary to enact that those made under the 8th or 23d G. 3. should be deemed to be part of the Birmingham canal navigation, inasmuch as no one could doubt that. Then the subsequent part of the clause states that the said canals, &c., (meaning, as I apprehend, those made after the 24 G. 3.,) should be included in, comprehended, and governed by the 23d and 24th G. 3. It seems to me, therefore, that the 58 G. 3. does not apply to the present question, which is, as to the rateability of the canal, made under the 8 G. 3. By that act the parish had a vested right which could not be taken away from them without words clearly and unequivocally shewing such an intention in the legislature. I think, therefore, that the order of sessions was right. HOLROYD J. I am also clearly of opinion, that the order of sessions ought to be affirmed. The statute 1819. The KING against The Canal Comp. statute 58 G. 3. recites the purposes for which it was made. Now one rule for the construction of an act of parliament, where general words are used, is laid down by Lord Coke; and it is this: "Acts of parlia- BIRMINGHAM ment are to be so construed, as no man that is innocent or free from injury or wrong, be by a literal construction punished or endamaged." (a) Here, if we were to construc the 58 G. 3. according to the letter, (sup-' posing the argument to be well founded, that the clause refers to the whole navigation, which is doubtful,) we should in that case deprive the different parishes of their vested rights, and so punish or endamage innocent persons, who were not within the contemplation of the act. And as to the exception, I fully agree with my Lord C. J. for the reasons which he has given, that it makes `no difference. I think, therefore, that we ought not to adopt a literal construction of this clause, in the 58 G. 3., and that the sessions have, in this case, come to the right conclusion. BEST J. If we were to decide in this case against the order of sessions, we should be taking away a vested right without authority of law. The company of proprietors in this case after having made considerable profits for many years, now seek an exemption from those charges which the law has hitherto imposed upon them; but it is impossible to suppose that the legislature could have intended to grant them this exemption, without having distinctly stated such to have been their intention. Upon looking at the preamble and the enacting clause of the 58 G. 3., it appears to me, VOL. II. (a) 1 Inst. 360. a. Q q that 1819. The KING BIRMINGHAM that they have only reference to matters of internal regulation, and are not intended to affect the rights of third persons. The exception cannot extend the words of the enacting clause, and as those do not (as it seems to me) include the present case, the exception cannot affect it. I think, therefore, that this canal still remains, as far as its rateability is concerned, under the 8 G. 3., and therefore, that the order of sessions is right, and ought to be affirmed. Order of Sessions affirmed. Saturday, was bound ap The KING against The Inhabitants of HUGGATE. Where a pauper TWO justices, by their order, removed Mary, Elizabeth, and Jane, the children of Thomas Lazenby, prentice to a certificated man, and dur ing his apprenticeship, he being of the from the parish of Nunburnholme to the parish of Huggate. The sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, age of 18, his subject to the opinion of this Court, on the following father gained case: The paupers removed were the legitimate children of Thomas Lazenby, and had gained no settlement in their own right. Thomas Lazenby, the father of the pauper, was originally settled in Huggate, where his father rented a farm. During the time that William Lazenby, the father of Thomas Lazenby, so rented the farm at Huggate, the latter was bound out apprentice till the period of his coming of age. The master, during the whole of the apprenticeship, resided at Spaldington, under a certificate, at which place the apprentice served him until the expiration of the term. About the middle of the apprenticeship, William Lazenby took 4 another another farm of 801. a-year, at Storthwaite, where he went to reside, and continued there during the remainder of his son's apprenticeship, and after it expired. He found his son, the apprentice, with clothes, except shoes and aprons, during the apprenticeship. Thomas Lazenby occasionally visited his father during that time; and, on one occasion, when he was ill, went to reside with him there for a fortnight, during his illness. At the time when William Lazenby went to reside at Storthwaite, Thomas Lazenby was between eighteen and nineteen years of age, and when the apprenticeship expired, he went home for one night, and a supper was provided by his father at Storthwaite for him that night. The next day he went away, and went to work at various places for himself, but never gained any settlement by so doing. Coltman, in support of the order of sessions, contended, that Thomas Lazenby was emancipated, and did not follow his father's settlement in Storthwaite. Here the pauper had contracted an obligation to serve the master, inconsistent with his remaining part of his father's family; and this is distinguishable from Rex v. Edgeworth (a), for there the indenture was void, and the master had, consequently, no controul over the pauper. But here the controul of the master is perfect, and the only thing is, that no settlement is gained. This is like Rex v. Walpole, St. Peter's. (b) There the soldier contracted an inconsistent relation, but acquired thereby no settlement. Besides, here, Thomas Lazenby never returned to his father's family till after twenty (a) 3 T. R. 353. (b) Burr. S. C. 658., and 2 Bott. 35. 1819. The KING against The Inhabit ants of HUGGATE. |