of the peace in and for the said county, an information preferred by George Eatwell, the owner and driver of a spring-van on four wheels which travels into Bath from Chippenham and back *three

*365] times a week (hereinafter called the appellant), against Andrew Richmond, the collector or keeper of the London turnpike-gate (hereinafter called the respondent), charging for that "he the said Andrew Richmond, on the 6th of June, 1864, at the parish of Swainswick, in the said county of Somerset, did demand and take greater toll for a horse and caravan passing through the said turnpike-gate than he was authorized to do," was heard and determined; and, upon such hearing, the information was dismissed by a majority of the justices then present.

The appellant, being dissatisfied with the determination, as being erroneous in point of law, demanded a case for the opinion of this Court, pursuant to the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, which was stated as follows:

Mr. Edward Francis Slack, solicitor, attended on the part of the complainant, and Mr. Joseph Kilvert Bartrum, solicitor, attended on the part of the defendant.

Mr. Slack, in opening the complainant's case, cited the following authorities in support of his argument, that whenever any doubt existed in a local Act of Parliament in reference to the imposition of tolls, the public, and not the trustees, whose Act it is, and who ought to have been particular as to its wording, were entitled to the benefit of such doubt, viz.: Gildart v. Gladstone, 11 East 675, The Stockton and Darlington Railway Company v. Barrett, 3 Scott N. R. 803, 2 M. & G. 134 (E. C. L. R. vol. 40), in error, 8 Scott N. R. 641, 3 M. & G. 956 (E. C. L. R. vol. 42), Higginbottom v. Perkins, 8 Taunt. 795 (E. C. L. R. vol. 4), and The Stourbridge Canal Company v. Wheeley, 2 B. & Ad. 792 (E. C. L. R. vol. 29).

Mr. Slack then stated that the appellant, who was a common carrier travelling with his van at a pace not exceeding four miles an hour from Chippenham to Bath, and back, for the conveyance of both goods and passengers, and who was not licensed, but paid a duty of *366] Act of Parliament 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, and which is as follows, -"For every carriage used by any common carrier principally and bonâ fide for and in the carrying of goods, wares, or merchandise, whereby he shall seek a livelihood, where such carriage shall be occasionally only used in conveying passengers for hire, and in such manner that the stage-carriage duty, or any composition for the same, shall not be payable under any license by the commissioners of inland revenue, where such last-mentioned carriage shall have four wheels, 27. 6s. 8d., and where the same shall have less than four wheels, 11. 6s. 8d.," complained, that, on the 6th of June instant, he was charged by the respondent with a toll of 6d. for his one-horse van on passing through the respondent's gate in the morning, and another toll of 63d. when returning with the same horse and van in the afternoon.

21. 6s. 8d. under a clause in the schedule D. annexed to the

The following are the toll-imposing clauses in the Local Turnpike Act of 10 G. 4, c. cx., under which the respondent acted, which Mr. Slack considered applicable to the present case:

Section 6. "And be it further enacted, that a sum or sums not exceeding the respective tolls following shall be demanded and taken at each and every turnpike, toll-gate, bar, or chain, now set up and continued, or which shall hereafter be set up, upon or across or by the side of the roads by this Act authorized or declared to be made, amended, widened, diverted, improved, and kept in repair, and the several branches thereof, or the said new line of road, by each and every such person or persons as the said trustees shall from time to time by virtue of this Act continue or appoint to receive the same, before any horse, beast, or cattle, or any carriage, shall be permitted to pass through the same, that is to say," amongst others,

For every horse or other beast drawing any coach, *ba[*367 rouche, sociable, berlin, chariot, landau, chaise, phaeton, curricle, gig, caravan, cart upon springs, hearse, litter, or other such light carriage (except stage-coaches), any sum not exceeding four pence:

"For every horse or beast drawing any stage-coach licensed to carry in the whole inside and outside not more than sixteen passengers, any sum not exceeding five pence; and licensed to carry more than sixteen passengers, any sum not exceeding six pence half-penny:

"For every horse or other beast drawing any van or other such carriage for the conveyance of goods for hire or pay, any sum not exceeding six pence half-penny:

For every horse or, other beast drawing any caravan, tilted wagon, tilted cart, or other such carriage (licensed to carry passengers for hire), at the same rate as stage-coaches carrying the same number of passengers."

After the toll-imposing clauses are some provisoes, and amongst them are the following:

Section 7. "Provided always, and be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful for the said trustees, or their collector or collectors, lessee or lessees, to demand or take more than the respective numbers of tolls in the whole hereinafter mentioned for and in respect of the same horses, cattle, and carriages, for passing and repassing in any one day, to be computed from twelve of the clock in one night to twelve of the clock in the next succeeding night, along the whole line or lines of the said several roads as hereinafter mentioned (except as hereinafter mentioned), that is to say, on the said road which is called the London Road (forming part of the aforesaid first district), not more than one full toll," &c. &c.

Section 9. "Provided always, and be it further enacted [*368 that, for or in respect of the horses or other cattle or beasts drawing any stage-coach, stage-wagon, van, caravan, cart, or other stage-carriage for the conveyance of passengers for payment, hire, or reward, for which toll shall have been paid, and which shall return on the same day through the same turnpike-gate or bar, the tolls hereby made payable shall be paid for every time of passing and repassing through every such gate or bar, in like manner as if no toll. had been before paid thereat."

Mr. Slack contended, first, that, as a second toll could only be charged under the proviso in which the word "stage" apparently governed all the other expressions, and as it was not clear that this was a stage-van or a stage-caravan, a second toll could not, upon the

principle he had contended for, be levied upon it,-secondly, that, as the van was not licensed, it did not come within the 4th clause of s. 6, which rendered licensed vehicles liable to the same rate as stagecoaches, and, thirdly, that, although the respondent might have elected to have charged the appellant 4d. under the first clause, or 6 d., as conveying goods for hire, under the 3d clause, yet, having elected to treat it as a goods-conveying van, and charged the higher toll, he had no power to demand such toll again, under the proviso, which extends only to conveyances carrying passengers, and not goods.

The following witness was called and examined by Mr. Slack:George Eatwell. "I am a common carrier, living at Chippenham, and travelling to Bath with a light caravan on four wheels, drawn by one horse. I do not travel over four miles an hour. I carry goods occasionally, and passengers occasionally,-sometimes one, and sometimes the other, and sometimes both: always for payment. I deposit passengers occasionally at their own doors, when they request it; and universally I deliver goods at their destination, as *directed. *369] I pay the 21. 6s. 8d. duty as a carrier's van: and I produce my

notice. That 21. 6s. 8d. is under the Assessed Duty Act, 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, schedule D. On the 6th of June, at the London gate, I was charged 6d. each way, which I paid; and I at the same time protested against the payment, and claimed exemption."

Cross-examined by Mr. Bartrum. 'The caravan has movable seats, which can be put up or down. On the 6th of June, I had one passenger coming into Bath, and no goods, except a bundle belonging to the passenger. On returning, I had the same passenger, and a packet of bacon going to Chippenham. I generally go to Bath on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Saturdays, and return the same day, leaving Chippenham at eight in the morning, and Bath at five in the afternoon. My name is in the carrier's list in the Bath directory."

Mr. Bartrum, citing the case of The Queen v. Ruscoe, 8 Ad. & E. 386, 3 N. & P. 428, contended, that, as this was a regular conveyance for goods and passengers between certain places, at certain times, on fixed days, it was distinctly a stage-vehicle, coming within the meaning of the proviso which imposed a toll each way; and that, as the appellant carried goods for hire in his van, it was the respondent's duty to charge him the higher toll of 61d., which toll he had also a right to redemand on the appellant's return.

The justices, by a majority, concurred in the view contended for by Mr. Bartrum.

The question for the opinion of the Court was, what toll was chargeable under the local Act on such conveyance as that described in the evidence of George Eatwell, and whether such toll was chargeable again upon the return on the same day of the same horse and vehicle through the same gate.

*370] Should the Court be of opinion that a toll of 6d. *could be demanded both on going and returning, the determination of the justices was to be affirmed; or, if not, to be reversed, and in the latter case such order made in relation to the matter as to the Court might seem fit.

The tolls which were so demanded and paid as aforesaid were each of thein demanded and paid as one full toll at the gate on the road

referred to in the said local Act as the London Road, and not as any part of the additional three-fourths of a full toll which by the said Act the trustees were entitled to charge at certain parts of the road therein referred to as the new line of road.

Kingdon, for the appellant.(a)-The question is, under which of the first four clauses of the 6th section *of the local Act of 10 G. [*371 4, c. cx., the appellant was chargeable. Clause 1 is, “For every horse or other beast drawing any coach, barouche, sociable, berlin, chariot, landau, chaise, phaeton, curricle, gig, caravan, cart upon springs, hearse, litter, or other such light carriage (except stagecoaches), any sum not exceeding 4d." Clause 2 is, "For every horse or beast drawing any stage-coach licensed to carry in the whole, inside or outside, not more than sixteen passengers, any sum not exceeding 5d., and licensed to carry more than sixteen passengers, any sum not exceeding 64d." Clause 3 is, "For every horse or other beast drawing any van or other such carriage for the conveyance of goods for hire or pay, any sum not exceeding 6d." And clause 4 is, "For every horse or other beast drawing any caravan, tilted wagon, tilted cart, or other such carriage (licensed to carry passengers for hire), at the same rate as stage-coaches carrying the same number of passengers." It is submitted that the appellant's vehicle is chargeable under either the first or the third clause, and not under the second or fourth,-he not being licensed to carry passengers for hire, but only under the clause in the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, sched. D., which imposes an annual duty of 21. 6s. 8d. "for every carriage used by any common carrier principally and bonâ fide for and in the carrying of goods, wares, or merchandise, whereby he shall seek a livelihood, where such carriage shall be occasionally only used in conveying passengers for hire, and in such manner that the stage-carriage duty, or any composition for the same, shall not be payable under any license by the commissioners of inland revenue." He is, therefore, within the 7th [*372 section of the local Act, which limits the charge to one full toll for going and returning on the same day, and is not chargeable with return toll under s. 9, which provides, that, "for or in respect of the horses or other cattle or beasts drawing any stage-coach, stage-wagon, van, caravan, cart, or other stage-carriage for the conveyance of passengers

(a) The points marked for argument on the part of the appellant were as follows:"1. That the appellant's caravan is not a stage-carriage within the meaning of the 6th and 9th sections of the local Act, 10 G. 4, c ex., and was therefore not liable to a second toll on its return journey:

"2. That the 6th section of the local Act only makes stage-carriages liable to toll when they are licensed to carry passengers, and that the appellant's caravan is not so licensed, but only pays a duty as a carriage used by a common carrier under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, Schedule D., and is therefore not liable to pay toll on its return journey, under the 9th section of the local Act:

"3. That the toll imposed by the 6th section of the local Act on stage-carriages varies in proportion to the number of passengers the carriages are licensed to carry, and that the appellant's caravan, not being licensed, cannot be liable to any such toll:

"4. That the appellant's caravan is only liable to a single toll on each journey, either of 4d. under the 1st clause of the 6th section of the local Act, or of 64d. under the 3d clause of the same section:

"5. That the respondent, by claiming a toll of 64d. on the first journey, which could only be claimed under the 3d clause of the 6th section of the local Act, has estopped himself from claiming a toll on the appellant's caravan on the return journey, as a stage-carriage, under the 2d clause of the same section, and under the 9th section of the same Act."

for payment, hire, or reward, for which toll shall have been paid, and which shall return on the same day through the same turnpike-gate or bar, the tolls hereby made payable shall be paid for every time of passing and repassing through every such gate or bar, in like manner as if no toll had been before paid thereat." This last provision is confined to "stage-carriages" only, the definition of which is to be found in the second and fourth clauses of s. 6, which vary the toll according to the number of passengers which the vehicle is licensed to carry. At all events, there was no pretence for the charge of 63d., as if the appellant's van was licensed to carry more than sixteen passengers.

Karslake, Q. C., for the respondent.(a)-Upon the evidence given *373] by the appellant himself before the *justices, it is plain that he was regularly plying for passengers between Bath and Chippenham. He is the proprietor of a stage-van or carriage for the conveyance of passengers for hire, and not a mere carrier, though licensed under the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 90, sched. D. [KEATING, J.-Is every tollgate keeper to canvass the propriety of the duty charged for licenses?] The appellant is clearly within the 4th clause of the 6th section of the Local Act, and liable to the return-toll imposed by s. 9, as the proprietor of a stage-carriage for the conveyance of passengers for payment. The meaning of "stage-carriage" is well defined in The Queen v. Ruscoe, 8 Ad. & E. 386 (E. C. L. R. vol. 35), 3 N. & P. 428. There, a Turnpike Act contained a clause giving certain exemptions from toll, but excepted from it by a proviso all horses drawing any stagecoach, diligence, van, caravan, or stage-wagon, or other stage-carriage conveying passengers or goods for pay, R. was a wharfinger and agent to a Company who were carriers of goods by canal. R. kept wagons and horses, which he employed in carrying out goods brought by the Company to his wharf situate at Stoke-upon-Trent, for persons in the neighbourhood, and bringing goods from the neighbourhood to his wharf, for transit by the canal. For such his conveyance of goods he made charges on each parcel. His wagons were so employed in *374] carrying goods to and from persons residing at or near a place called Lane End, or places intermediate between that and Stoke-upon-Trent, almost every day except Sundays. The wagons went out and returned at different hours, according to cir

(a) The points marked for argument on the part of the respondent were as follows:

"1. That the van in question was a van or carriage for the conveyance of goods for hire or pay, within the meaning of the local Act, and was therefore liable to pay as and by way of toll a sum not exceeding 64d.:

"2. That the van in question was a 'stage-van, caravan, cart, or other stage-carriage for the conveyance of passengers for payment, hire, and reward,' within the meaning of the local Act, and therefore liable to pay a second or return toll:

"3. That it does not appear to have been proved before the justices, or that the fact was, that the appellant took or received any ticket denoting payment of any toll, which enabled the said horse and van to repass through the gate during the day without paying a second or return toll, or toll-free:

"4. That it does not appear to have been proved before the justices, or that the fact was, that the appellant produced any such ticket as aforesaid, so as to entitle the said horse and van to repass through the gate during the day without paying a return toll, or toll-free:

"5. That the fact of its not having been licensed did not prevent its being a van or carriage for the conveyance of goods for hire or pay, or stage-van, caravan, cart, or other stage-carriage for the conveyance of passengers for payment, hire, and reward."