The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1871-06-27 00:00:00

THE MYSTERIES OF THE TOLIrRENTING

TRADE.

At Salisbury County Court, on Wednesday, before
T. R. P. Lefroy, Rs+, a cue illustrating the mysteries
of the toll-letting trade was heard. It was the plaint
of July v. Mason. The plaintiff lives at Radipole,
new Weymouth, and the defendant at Ditties Oak,
near Procne. Dm action was brought to reeover
IEIB 10s 91,
It; as • deposit on the letting of the
Sarum and turnplhe tolls in 1869. Mr. Whet.
man, aolioitor, Salisbury, appeared for the plaintiff,
and Mr. T. W. Saunders, of the Western Circuit, for
the defendant.
The plaintiff stated—l reside at Radipole, and am •
renter of toils. In May, 1869. I attended an &notion at
Salisbury, when the tolls of the Sarum and }Ding
Turnpike Trust were let to Mr. William Mason, jan.
I agreed to pay one-fifth of the deposit and one-fifth of
the expenses, and did so. I was to reoeive one-fifth of
the profits. Previously to the letting in 1869 I com-
plained to Mr. Mason that his agent Goodden bad not
made enough ot the tolls in 1869 by £6O; and in cones-
quenoe of this I made a stipulation with the defendant
that he should manage the tolls himself. At the ex-
piration of the proper time I wrote to Mr. Mason
asking for payment of the deposit and my proportion of
the profits. I received • letter from Mr. Mason, say-
ing, can't make it out ; I never received so little
for the tolls." Afterwards I received • letter from
Goodden enclosing a cheque for £3 las 91. I wrote a
' letter in reply, in which! stated that I returned the
cheque, and that I fdid not recognise Goodden at at all
In the matter of the Sarum and Ming tolls. Goodden
claimed £l5 for something in connection with the Bete
Regis tolls, with which I bad nothing whatever to do.
It was my father who had to do with the Here Regis
tolls.
Cross-examined : There was no agreement at the
letting for a "knock-out" Had nothing to do with
Goodden in the matter.
Mr. Saunders s iid competition had made these VALI
UlaVtiluuLia.a we, Y•CI auto aosoualneta it, 5,14 tot
them in 1868 agreed not to bid againat each other, so
the tolls were not let by action. Mr. Muon subse-
quently became the lessee for £915. The reserve price
being £l,OBO so there was • saving of £B5. I was agreed
to share the profits instead of haying a "knock-out;
The others pact their share of the deposit, and all
became jointly interested. As Goodden had the toll-
houses, it was agreed he should be manager. Goodden
rendered an account to each shareholder at the end of
the year, and the profits showed L'lB for each, besides
the deposit. A similar arrangement was made in 1869.
Goodden again rendered an account. When he sent
the account to lefty. Goodden deducted £l5 due to
him on another account. He (Kr. Saunders) contended
that it was • partnership concern, and that Mason had
no more interest in it than the other parties.
His Honour thought it was not a partnership' and
that if the tolls had brought a logs, Mason would have
been liable to July for deposit money.
The croes-examination of the plaintiff was then
resumed. He esti he did not remember meeting
Goodden at Bedminster, in October, 1870, and accusing
him of mismanagement in the trust. He met Mason at
the Junction Hotel, Dorchester, last October, but did
not offer to give him £5 if he would get the money
from Gooddeni He conriltod Mr. Howard, of Wey-
mouth, on the matter. He met Mum at Wareham in
November last. Masan wanted him to sue Goodies',
but he did not promise to do so.
Reexamined: He had held Mason responsible from
the first. He never agreed to Goodden's appointment
as manager. Mr. Mason distinctly said "I shall manage
the tolls myself."
This being the plaintiff'seue, Mr. Saunders addressed
the Oottri for the defines, the chief point being that
Mason had no individual responsibility.
Mr. Mason, the defendant, deposed to the arrange-
ment deseribed by Mr. Saunders, and said Joey did not
object to Goodden being manager.
His Honour : Is not this an Map] transaction? I
think a " kapok out" has been held to be an indictable
offense,

Mr. Saunders said the simple answer was the trans-
action did not result in a "knock out."
His Honour: But all the osisehiel of • " knock out"
had been effected. Having conspired together for •
"knock out," the parties afterwards substituted
another arrangement. The trustees were clearly damni-
fied to the amount of £B5. I think you are precluded
from going into the arrangement, because you ire
proving an illegal act.
Mr. Saunders said no doubt Mason was Individually
liable to the trainees, but an arrangement Nish as bad
been spoken of was the commonest thing in life.
Mr Mason said at the second letting on the 20th May.
1869, not • word was said about Goodden. Jesty's
statement that he objected to Goodden was not true
His Honour: Did you not say that you had not got
so much money as you ought to have done?
Defendant I said that the 11 months had turned
out badly, and I complained to Goodden on the subject.
The first intimation I had that Jest, intended looking
to in. was when he said Goodden had deducted £l5.
When I met Jesty at the Junction Hotel,al Dorchester
be said, "It Ton MI get the money from Goodden 11l
give you SIM I suggested to Goodden to amid £lO,
and keep the 25 for -himself. The ne t I heard of it
was • very Insulting letter from Kr. Flower& of Wey-
mouth, I then told Jftty that he might do his beet,
or do his worst. Goodden said he would bear me
harmless.
His Honeur said the evidence of the defendant made
his opinion stronger that the tolls were taken in Meson's
name, and that he was entirely responsible for the
management.
Mr Gardiner, landlord of the Half Moon inn, Easter,
said he attended to bid for the tolls, and with the four
others agreed that Mason should take the toll 4 aild
then there should be • " knock out"
His Honour: Which you ought to know Is a dis-
creditable transaction. You admit that you were
a party to a fraud. I cannot describe • transaction of
this sort in any other we .
Witness: The pro 'knock out" fell through.
Bash person to take • share, and Goodden
was appointed manager. I did not look upon Mason
as being more responsible than the others in the matter.
I got an account from Goodden at the end of the year.
I reesived £3O, and wrote to Mason aoquisaing in •
similar arrangement for the next year.
Cross-examined : I don't know that I heard linty say
anything about Goodden being the manager. I heard

no objection.
Kr W. Meson, sear., said he was at one time • renter
of tolls to the &mount of £50,030 a year, and deposed
that he was lessee of the tolls in quettion for more
than 38 years, and would not allow any other person
to have them except at a loss. He spoke to the letting
of the tolls in 1.869 and 1870, and corroborated his son's
statement as to what posed on times 00011111i0111.
Cress.examined : He never said to Jeety that, as the
tolls had been minsmanaged, be was glad his son was
going to take the management of them hbaself. Scaly
mid at Dorchester, "I am do nothing with Goodden.
I can pt no settlement with him. El you will get the
money from him I'll give you 25."
Mr Goodden said that he kept the Miklos Hotel at
Andover, and had been • renter of tolls to a smeller-
able extent. In 1887-8 he was lessee of the Bar= and
Kling tolls at £1.026. Hs lost £7O or £BO by the truss-
mhos. They were again let on the 26th Jens, 1868.
The live present entered into an airwoman. to Mks
them in the sheared possible rammer. They worrier-
be takes in partnership. Kr Massa was requested
by Mr Jed, to pay the deposit, whisk he did- The
arrangement as to the partnership was made is the
" Nisus Pries" Coert--(langitter) it Gerdiser
tad eh for maaagement. sad wits's' sir atitsgaZr:
mike/ the tolls and pay the mak The bells were again lee
ia 1160 when the &mammonist was remind. It was
teeth 112111 to Shaw the trod. but be eel/ ktillsokil
s• us& • proilt ef 106 per seek the lout year,
sithough It wee seer said biewliaMPosoll we, had. H.
" Ms loft se the idles of Hue Regis