four wheels, if drawn by one horse or other beast, 18., and if drawn by two or more horses or other beasts, 9d. for each horse or other beast beyond the first"; "For every sheep, lamb, &c., 1d."; "For every passenger or person merely using the floor or deck of the said bridge, 1d." ; For every passenger or person entering or using the best room or cabin of the said bridge, 3d."; "For every portmanteau, trunk, carpet-bag, box, or other luggage belonging to any passenger, not exceeding one hundredweight, 1d., and for each and every hundredweight above the first hundredweight an additional 1d. for each and every hundredweight." Held, that the company were not thereby authorised to demand toll in respect of passengers, portmanteaus, parcels, &c. passing over the bridge in and upon any omnibus in respect of the horses drawing which the proper toll has been paid.— Portsmouth Floating Bridge Co. v. Nance, 6 Scott, N. R. 823; 6 Man. & G. 229. 1898 Toll-Prescriptive Right-Extinguishment of old Franchise by Statute. A municipal corporation had, up to the year 1734, a prescriptive right to take certain customary tolls for the passage over a bridge belonging to them. In 1734 they obtained an Act of Parliament which recited their right to take the customary tolls, and enumerated them, and provided that the said customary tolls should "be and remain vested in the said " mayor and corporation. In 1819 another Act was passed which repealed the Act of 1734, and made some alterations in the scale of tolls. The Act of 1819 was a temporary Act, and its provisions were allowed to lapse. The corporation claimed a right to continue to take the prescriptive tolls. Held (affirming the judgment of the Court below), that the prescriptive right to take tolls was, on the passing of the Act of 1734, merged in and extinguished by the statutory right, and could not be revived on the cessation of the statutory right.-Windsor Corporation v. Taylor, 79 L. T. 450; 68 L. J. Q. B. 87 (H. L., E.). Affirming 77 L. T. 585 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 96; [1898] 1 Q. B. 186; 62 J. P. 5 (C. A.). 1859 Taxed Cart.-A local Act provided that upon the W. turnpike road certain tolls should be chargeable, and, amongst others, "for every horse or other beast drawing any other chaise, chair, or calêche, or any taxed cart, a sum not exceeding the sum of 3d." Held, that a cart upon which a tax had been imposed and paid in the previous year was within the above enactment, and that no larger toll than 3d. could be charged for passing through the toll-gate.-Purdy v. Smith, 28 L. J. M. C. 150; 1 El. & El. 511; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 912; 7 W. R. 306. A local turnpike Act of the year 1852 allowed a higher toll upon a 66 "taxed cart" than upon a gig, or chair, or such like carriage with a single seat only, and with two wheels only." The appellant (the tollcollector) demanded and took the higher toll from the respondent for a butcher's cart, with one seat and two wheels, for which he had taken out an excise licence under 32 & 33 Vict. c. 14, and was convicted by justices under the local Act for so doing. Held, that the conviction was right; for the words "taxed cart" must refer to the particular kind of cart so called and defined in 43 Geo. 3, c. 161, and 48 Geo. 3, c. 55; and not to every cart upon which a tax had been paid as was decided in Purdy v. Smith, 28 L. J. M. C. 150.-Williams v. Lear (1872), 25 L. T. 906; 41 L. J. M. C. 76; L. R. 7 Q. B. 285. 1873 Locomotive Steam Plough.-A steam-engine was being taken along a turnpike road for the purpose of working a plough, for hire, and was on its way to take up the plough, which was to be used on a farm not occupied by the owner of the engine, and the gear for working the plough was being conveyed on the engine. It passed through a turnpike gate more than three miles distant from where the plough was. Held, that such engine was liable to toll under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 70, s. 1, and was not exempt by reason of sect. 12 of that Act and 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 32, inasmuch as it was not a horse or carriage conveying a plough nor a plough itself.-Skinner v. Visger, 43 L. J. M. C. 49; L. R. 9 Q. B. 199. 1880 Tolls on Carriages, &c.-Bicycle.-The respondent was riding a bicycle through the toll-gate at O., in the county of G., and the appellants demanded of him a sum of 58. as toll upon his bicycle; on his refusal to pay this they detained the bicycle until the sum was paid. The respondent thereupon laid an information against the appellants for a wrongful exaction of, toll, upon which they were convicted. It was held, that the conviction was right, and that a bicycle is not a carriage within sect. 6 of the local Act upon which a toll might be levied.—Williams v. Ellis, 42 L. T. 249; 49 L. J. M. C. 47; 5 Q. B. D. 175; 28 W. R. 416; 44 J. P. 394. 66 1900 Bicycle Tolls on Toll-Bridge.-An Act of Parliament gave power to charge tolls for passage over a certain bridge in respect of every coach, chariot, . . . cart, car, or other carriage whatsoever with four wheels the sum of 4d., and with less than four wheels the sum of 2d.," and a smaller toll in respect of horses, foot-passengers and beasts. Held, that, for the purposes of paying toll under the above Act, bicycles and tricycles are carriages within the meaning of the words "other carriage whatsoever," and that any person when riding on the same over the bridge is liable to the toll of 2d. as for carriages with less than four wheels, whether such bicycles or tricycles have any luggage, luggage-carrier, or goods or not.-Cannan v. Abingdon (Earl), 82 L. T. 382; 69 L. J. Q. B. 517; 2 Q. B. 66; 48 W. R. 470; 64 J. P. 504. 1775 Amount of Tolls according to Size of Wheels.--The additional toll to be paid by waggons over weight must be according to the progressive proportions named in the statute 14 Geo. 3, c. 82, s. 2, not a gross charge at the highest additional toll incurred upon the gross overweight.-Chamberlin v. Longhurst, Cowp. 365. Where a turnpike Act imposed a toll of 1s. 6d. on every fourwheeled waggon with wheels of a less breadth than six inches, and drawn by four horses; 18. on every such waggon drawn by three horses, 9d. by two, and 4d. by one, and so in like proportion on waggons with two wheels drawn by four, three, two, or one horse or horses :-Held, that only those respective sums could be demanded for toll, and that sect. 23 of 18 Geo. 3, c. 84, by which one-half more than the tolls payable for waggons with wheels of a less breadth than six inches might be taken, was virtually repealed by the other Act.— · Ridge v. Garlick (1818), 2 Moore, 481. By a turnpike Act the trustees were authorized to take at each and every of the several and respective turnpike gates erected on the road the following tolls:-"For every horse, mule, or other cattle drawing a carriage, 9d.; for every horse, mule, or ass not drawing, 2d.; for every drove of oxen, cows, &c., 18. 6d. per score; for every drove of hogs, sheep, &c., 18. 4. per score." By another section it was made lawful for the trustees, at a meeting to be holden for that purpose, whereof notice in writing was to be affixed on all the turnpike gates erected on the road, to lessen and reduce, and again to raise and advance, all or any of the tolls thereby granted, and such tolls so reduced or advanced were to be collected as the tolls thereby granted. Held, that under this Act the trustees were authorized to reduce or advance any one of the four descriptions of tolls at all the gates, but not to reduce or advance them at one gate and not at another.-Rex v. Bury and Stratton Roads (Trustees) (1825), 4 B. & C. 361; 6 D. & R. 369. Where a local turnpike Act directs a higher or lower rate of toll to be collected in respect of the greater or lesser breadth of wheels, and where, in addition to the tolls under such local Act, the additional tolls in respect of breadth of wheels authorized to be taken by 13 Geo. 3, c. 84, have been collected and imposed, although erroneously, parties are not relieved from such additional tolls by 4 Geo. 4, c. 95, s. 6.—Pickford v. Davis (1834), 1 Bing. N. C. 141; 4 M. & Scott, 683; 3 L. J. C. P. 263. Amount of tolls payable on breadth of fellies of wheels.-Beerling v. Terry (1862), 6 L. T. 186. The Tiverton Roads Act, 1861, comprises within the trusts eighteen several roads. Sect. 11 empowers the trustees to demand and take "at the several and respective toll-gates which shall be upon or on the sides of the said roads such tolls as the said trustees shall direct, not exceeding," amongst others, "for every horse drawing any cart, waggon, &c. with wheels of a less breadth than 4 inches the sum of 6d."; and "for every horse or mule, laden or unladen, and not drawing, the sum of 14d." Sect. 13 enacts that, for passing and repassing any number of times on the same day with the same horses, beasts, or carriages liable to toll through any of the toll-gates to be continued or erected by virtue of this Act upon any road hereinafter particularly mentioned, no more than the number of tolls hereinafter limited with reference to such road shall be taken; that is to say, two full tolls, and no more, upon the road from A. to B.; two full tolls, and no more, upon the road from C. to D.; two full tolls, and no more, upon the road from E. to F.; one full toll, and no more, upon all the other roads comprised in this Act." And sect. 14 enacts, that "all horses, beasts, and cattle in respect whereof the tolls hereby authorized to be taken shall have been paid at any toll-gate on the said roads or on the sides thereof shall, upon a ticket being produced denoting such payment, be permitted, in returning through the same toll-gate, and in going and returning through such other toll-gate (if any) as the ticket for such payment shall free, to pass toll-free at all times on the same day. Held, that sect. 13 does not authorize the trustees to demand two full tolls from a traveller passing through only one gate on a line of road upon which two full tolls are chargeable. Held also, that, where a party has paid one full toll on passing through a gate, he is not chargeable with two full tolls on passing on the same day through another gate on another of the roads on which two full tolls are demandable, but that he is liable to a second single toll, there being nothing on the ticket to indicate that it frees any other gate. Held also, that a traveller who has paid one full toll on passing through a gate on one of the roads on which one full toll is payable is not entitled to pass toll-free on the same day through a gate on another of the roads upon which one full toll is payable, the one full toll being by sect. 13 payable upon "each" of the roads comprised in the Act. Held also, that sect. 11 of the local Act, specifically providing for progressive charges in respect of the diminished breadth of waggon wheels, virtually repeals sect. 7 of the General Turnpike Act (3 Geo. 4, c. 126), and consequently that the toll is limited to the sums mentioned in the local Act.-James v. Dickenson (1863), 14 C. B. (N. S.) 416. (6) Exemptions. 1859 Royal Prerogative-The Sovereign's Horses.-By the permission of the Queen, one of her carriages, drawn by her horses and driven by her coachman, was used by the wife of G., the Crown Equerry, and was driven through the toll-gate of W. G.'s wife was in the carriage, and was being driven for her own pleasure; but G. was not present, nor were the carriage and horses used on the particular occasion in the discharge of his duty as Crown Equerry. Held, that the carriage and horses were exempt from the payment of tolls.-Westover v. Perkins, 28 L. J. M. C. 227; 2 El. & El. 57; 5 Jur. (N. S.) 1352; 7 W. R. 582. 1866 Stores for the Use of Her Majesty.-Stores for the use of Her Majesty's troops are exempt from toll, whether conveyed in the carriages of the contractor who supplies them or in hired carriages.— L. & S. W. Rail. Co. v. Reeves, 14 L. T. 662; 1 H. & R. 845; 35 L. J. M. C. 239; L. R. 1 C. P. 580; 12 Jur. (N. S.) 786; 14 W. R. 967. Contractors for the supply of forage to the troops at Aldershot were bound to reside in the camp and to deliver the forage at their own expense. Held, that the contractor's waggons with hay for the purposes of their contract were exempt from toll at a gate outside the camp, "being employed in conveying any commissariat or other public stores of or belonging to Her Majesty, or for the use of Her Majesty's forces," under sect. 32 of 3 Geo. 4, c. 126.—Toomer v. Reeves (1867), 17 L. T. 149; 37 L. J. M. C. 49; L. R. 3 C. P. 62; 16 W. R. 83. 1865 Officers and Soldiers on Duty-Floating Bridge.-The Mutiny Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 3), s. 72, exempts Her Majesty's officers and soldiers on duty and on their march from payment of tolls "in passing along or over any turnpike or other roads or bridges, otherwise demandable by virtue of any Act already passed or hereafter to be passed." A company were authorized by Act of Parliament to purchase an ancient ferry over a river and to establish a floating bridge over it, with roads and approaches, and to take tolls for passing across the river by the bridge. The company owned 10 miles of road leading to the ferry, and one of the company's Acts provided that no toll should be taken at any toll-gate erected on it for soldiers on their march or on duty. The floating bridge is propelled from one side of the bridge to the other by steam power, and kept in its proper course |