The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1869-06-15 00:00:00

LONDON MA R KIiTS.

BY SIPREBB e ELECTRIC TELBORAPH.

MARE LANE, MONDAY, JULIE 14.

English wheat realised prices of Last Monday.
Moderate demand for foreign at led week's rates, and
beans, and pear, met more inquiry, but pew
unaltered. Inferi.ir oats 64 °beeper is* qualities
Fluor trade quiet.

asaltared.

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET, Jolts 14.

There wss an improvement in the trade for English
beasts and best descriptions of foreign, to the extent of
24 to 4d per Bibs. Thera was a good demand and better
feeling in the sheep trade. Mutton and lamb steady at
advanced rate'. Choice veal same, and prices advanced
2d to 44. Pork maintains lets prices.

Beef, 34 61 to 64; mutton, 34.6 d to 5.104 ; veal, 346 d
to 54. 8d ; pork, 3s 8d to 6• 6d ; lamb, 4. to 6. 241.
Banat., 4,2J0; sheep and lamb., 268); onlyes, 165;
pip, 115. Scotch besets, 94; Irish, 213 ; English,
1,476.

THE GREAT EASTERN AT WEYMOUTH.
[BY TZLEGILIPII.I
_ . .

_
WIMOUTH. Monday Evsning.--Onot Eaatam nomad
Vantoor at noon, and vu seen off PorUand Roads at
15 P.M.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
On Tuesday the report on Lord Homelrs Peerages'
Bill um remised, bet it seems probable that a motion
will be nbade for its rejection on third readmit. On
Friday the Beerhouses Bill was read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,
On Tuesday and Friday the linokrepty Bill made
considerable progress in eommittee. On Thursday Lord
Niche moved • resolution declaring the establishment of
au sflicient and reliable army of reserve is an matter of
urgent necessity. He untended that the defects of our
present system were caused by want of organisation.
that the term of enlatment for the regular army should
be for 21 yeare—seven yeas in active memos in the
line, seven in the firtt reserve liable to foreign service
If called on. and seven in the second reerce, only liable
for home defence; if that, the militia, as the backbone
dour military system, should be balloted for annually,
while for the volunteers he ream:mended improve.
Bunt of organisation, the division of Eoglaed into
districts, and more frequent drill in large muses.
Colonel Akroyd secoeded the motion, and after some
remarks by Colonel C. H. Lindsay, Lord Bury, Colonel
North, Mr. H. R. Bread, arid Colonel Gilpin, Mr.
Ctudwell said that he could not concur in the adoption
of the ballot except in the very last re•ort and that
21 years would probably be to long • period for any
man to oommit himself to the military service. He
enumerated the earious changes new in progress, and
others which were contemplated connected with tie
sevens' staff establiahments, the division of the country
Into military districts, with • staff in each, applicable
to army, militia, and volunteers, the conversion of the
yeomanly into a mounted rifle force, the biliting system,
and other minor matters. After some further discusion.
Lord Elcho expressed blase f satisfied with Mr.
Cardwell's statement, and withdrew his motion. The
Bane then went into Committee of Supply, and agreed
to the votes for militia, yeomanry, volunteer., army
aleserve, Greenwich Hoepital, and • sum to complete
purchase f the Carey-street site. An attempt made by
Mir H. Hoare to 'kik' oat the Yeomanry vote were
defeated by 117 to 27. At the evening sitting, on
Priday,on goiog into Supply, Mr. Taylor brought forward
the ease in %bleb three children, of the teapective
ears of 14, 11, and 8 years old, were sentenced to a
month's imprisonment by the magistrates at Salisbury
cm an alleged charge of stealing greens, value one militias&
The hon. gentleman, who was very earnest, and exerted
all his powers of elocution, more than implied—for he
gave instames—tbat this was lAA a specimen of the
mode in which justices' justice wee systematically
edministered in the district in qv:NW.. In reply, Mr.
Bruce, fixing on some pathetic language used 17 Mr.
Taylor, set about to strip the matter of the sentiment
with which it had been surrounded, and detailed that
Ibis particular act was one of • continuous aeries of
committed by the parents of the children or with
tliittnnowledge, and the line was intended u • punish-
ment for the mature, and not for the juvenile, offenders.
It was added by Mr. &uvula that these vegetables
were systematically pilleved from gardens in the neigh-
bourhood for sale in open market; while the real object
was to transfer the children to • reformatory school.
with • view to saving them from the evil ',Muni* of
depraved parents. As to Lord Folkerame, who Lad
been specially singled out for animadversion, lie was ODO
of 'even, and was, ia fact, overruled by them in put
of the ease. There was farther more or lees animated
observation on the matter, in the course of which, Mr.
Antrobns, who may be supposed to be one of the
magistrates impugned, was understood to justify their
conduct; and then, somewhat abruptly, the theme
Shutter&
eleetrie

A CHOICE' STRUCK BY LIGRTBIJO. —Th. _
fluid fell upon tbe church at Anse, France. on Sunday,
during Divine service. A part of the root wan der
brayed. and about 30 persons more or LIM are seriously

Injured.
PRISIDINT GIANT arrived at New York on Friday ;
no public reception took place, and soon alter his arrival
hi proimeded to West Point.
A RAILWAY TRAM, in which the President and Ids
party were passengers, collided with • cattle train neer
Baltimore on Thursday, and ran off the rela. One
passeor r was killed, and twenty others were more or
Lie severely tojurerL Kr. Boutall had • narrow
Way&
TIM Irish Republican Association et Philadelphia boa
hewed en address strongly approving of Mr. Sumner'.
ron the Alabama dams. The address calla upon
trte Irishmen to joie the Republican petty in aiding
the atonement of Mr. Samner's views.
Tan Canadian House of Commoss has pima resolu-
tions admitting Newfoundland Into the Confederates.
The Attorney -O•seral of Nova Scotia declared in the
Legislature the other day that sootedonitioe was forced
apse that province, aod he advised an appeal to Rag-
land, or, if necessary, a more extreme MOUnro.
FATAL lixounios Taunt AOMDRWL -An excursion
Siam n of Wesleyan school ohildren from Crews rat, oesr
and killed tour boys ea the den•tion line at Crewe,
about 19 &sleek co Thuricky night. At the same asd
plate as agate drive named Seville bad • leg and
erm out off by the Nannaake mail tree.
Tin Don Or Manama's LIahMITML-41 sor-
est writes :—Tbe Duke owes Kr. Padwiak
=,°011)40 ;
he alto owes • Jewish anaemia C 123,000.
But if, for the neat three year; be is ermeat to live at
ta rat of £lO,OOO • jeer—his wife's inverse—all these
debts will have bees paid off, the sato= i=g In
£70,000 • yea. H. has, unfortusately,
&wily 'Daher nobleman, but the result of this pliant
Bet remains to be proved.
DEMOS= Smarm a yew married woman
named Bray eammitted Weide on Wednesday morning
by throwing bona Rada It. kat at the Brighter' rail-
ear
station. Deesseed was the wife of a
t
Two at lb. workman at the etnlatepherill
enied bad endeavoured to frustrate her design; but she
✓ushed on the rails ape, and the break passed over
Us upper part of has bay, ake died almost Imari-
OteAr.

THE DORSET COUNTY EXPRESS, TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1869.

WESTMINSTER HALL, Jaw 10.—I• Übe
EXCHEQUER COURT.
- •

Du Mayor, ec., of—D-ordiester, v. Bator and And Arr.

- -
JUDO BENT.
Mr. BARON CRAIN/SAL: This wee an cation tried
before me at Dorsbeetni at the last Bummer Arises.
A Trial* was entered for the plaintiffs for nominal
damages under my direction, the defendants having
leave to move to enter the verdict for them or either of
them. A rule eec obtained pursuant to that leave and
wee argued in Hilary Term before my Brothers Pigott
and Cleaeby and myself.
We took time to consider our judgment, and, having
doe' so, we are of opinion that the verdict entered for
the plaintiffs at the trial cannot stand, also that the
rule obtained by the defendants to enter • verdict for
them ought not to be made obsolete. but that for the
reasons hereafter stated, the defeedants, if they desire
it, eta entitled to • new trial. This would be sulkiest
for the disposal of the rule now pending. The rule to
enter the verdict for the defendants, did not, as II
ought to have dons, opacity the grounds on which the
verdict vu claimed, but on the rule being called on for
argument, it wee agreed that all points open to the
defendants, on my ewes, should be raised, an 4 the
rule was argued on that footing. At we have already
stated, we think there ought to be • new trial. Still, as
op the argument of the rule questions were discussed
which may arise again if • stoned trial takes piece, it
may be an assistance to the parties, and may possibly
precut the neceerity for • wooed trial, if we state the
opinion we have formed on the various point., although
in the result they do not affect our present judgment,
that there ought to be, if the defendants desire it, •
new trial. . .

The declaration contained four counts, In two of which
the plaintiffs allege that they were panned of a market
in the borough of Dorehrster, awl that the defendants
disturbed that market by holding, es alleged in the first
oouot, • new market, alai by exposing goods, its., for
sale near the plainttffs' market as alleged in the second
count. . . . . .

Tbe other two °mints complained of similar disturb-
ances, of the right whicb the plaintiffs alleged they bad
of bolding four fairs in the year. The defendants
pleaded not guilty, end also traversed that the plaintiffs
were possessed of the market and entitled to bold the
fairs.

At the trial the plaintiffs put in evidence • writ
od gum" dementia of the date'of lith Edward 111., and
the thquisition returned by the Shenff to that writ by
which it appeared that the profits of the borough of
Dorchester, at that time, included three fairs on cereal)
named feast days, and also three markets every week on
Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays.
T:tere wee also put in • grant of Edward 111., founded
on that inquisition by which those franchises and
customs were granted and confirmed to the Mayor and
Burgesses of Dorchester, in fee farm for ever at a rent
of 410. It was proved that this rent was paid at the
proient time. There was also • charter M Charles the
1. put in confirming the privileges of the Corporation.
We think there was abundant evidence of the right
originally to three markets in the week, and to at least
three fairs in the year. As to the fourth fair, that
which the Corporation elaial to hold on the 14th Feb.,
evidence of the actual bolding of the fair for • consider.
able time was given, which was, we think, sufficient to
show the existence of the right to that also. Inasmuch,
however, as we think there was no evidence of dienarb-
nue of the fairs, it is not necessary to go further into
the question of the right to the fairs. •
As regards the holding of the markets, the evidence
showed that no market bwil been held in modern times
on Friday. On every Wednesday mid Saturday it
appeared that there was a small market held far the saki
of some articles., but the important question In tho cause
arises nitro the market for sheep, horses, and cattle, and
se to that it appear' that the praetioe for many years,
has been to hold for that purpaie what im called& "great
market" moss • fortnight.
For many yeses the cattle market has been held on
every alternate Saturday. The object of this appears
to be the convenience of persons frequenting the market,
and there was some evidence to show that the market
ground had actual,y been open every Saturday to persons
who shoos to bring cattle there for sale. It by no means
appears therefore that the Corporation have lost their
right to hold • cattle market every Saturday or indeed
every Wednesday if they shore to do so.
_ . . . . . .

BOt however that May be, the plaintiffs can only
recover in this action for disturbance of markets which
they actually held, and they only appear to have bald
satt'e markets on alternate Saturdays.
As however, that is one of the days on which the
markets granted or were originally held, and so far as
appears upon the evidence the cattle markets have
rionstently been held ant always on one of those days,
we are of opinion that they are rightfully held so far as
the day ia concerned.
,A fui-tber question was raised as
to the place in which the market was bold. It was
conceded on both aides that the market might be bold in
any part of the ancient borough. The market field,
however, in which the market has been held, since
shortly after the ceasing of the Munialpal Corporation
Aot, is without the ancient borough but within Ma limits
of the Parliamentary Borough, to which for some
purposes at all events the easiest borough was enlarged.
The qoe•tion is whether upon the passing of that Art
the Corporation beostie entitled to hold their ancient
inarketa any where within the limits of the borough
as enlarged, and that of souse depends upon the words
of the Act.

sections principally in question ere the 7th and
Bth. The 7th section says that the metes LIIA bounds of
ci,rtiin boroughs (amongst them Dorchester) for the
purpose of this Act shall be those of the Parliamentary
Boroughs. The Bth section says that every place and
precinct which shall be included within the lands of
any borough, as therein before provided end none other
shall be part of such borough. And in those boroughs
which are eounties in themselves shall be part of such
county and of tone other. In this Bth station the
words "For the nominee of this Act" are wit used. It
sppeers indeed from a note in Robinson's Municipal
Corporation Acts, and also in Cbitty's Statutes, that
some of the copies of the Act printed by the King's
printer, had the words in the Bth section also but that
they are not in the Pastimnentery Roll. Al the words
me not found in any of the posies printed since atten-
tion was draen to the point there am bei no doubt that
this latter rtakement is correct. Probably the words
were in the bill but struck out before it pease& That
of mune usenet affect the construction of the Act as
it stands, hut it increase the probability in feet tbal the
ornis.ion of the words was intentional end therefore
jastifies its in giving effect to the difference in language
in the two sections which otherwise might have been
thought so slight as to be immaterial.
Now what is the effect of the two sections taken
together? Section 7 says that for the purposes of the
Ass (within which section 8 would eppateatly be
inclu&d) the boundaries should be SO ia sp.
Then section 8 says that all plows within the
boundaries defined by eectiou 7 Isbell be parts of the
borough without any restriction as to their being so for
the purposes of the Piot only. There can be no doubt
that the main object of BeMion 8, was tether to seam
the legalities attached by the Act to tioroeghe or counties
to oases to form pert of these to which they had before
belonged, bat if the language by which this is effested
is inisot to &Mash them to the boroughs for peeral
Purposes, more extensive Mum throe se to whist,
Section? applied, there I. no reason why we should not
give effect to that I
It is true, that IMlLeworth e. Tooldngtee, let
Queen's Bench, page 782, it is said by the Court that
they find no provision in the AM meatiest to add them
places to the borough., for all intents end pompom. Bat
It must be remembered that teat mcie was • very
different one from the preseat.

Uit bad bee° held that the additional pariah bed
been attached to the heresies of Stamford for the
purpose of entitling the inhabitants within it to the
sights which the inhabithoto in the old borough had by
preecriptioe, the result would have clearly been to
diareprd the policy of the 2nd Section of the Act by
which ancient right. are resorted only to theme persons
who would be initialed to these, but for the passing a
the Act. That case is rather like what the present
would be if the market bad been moved before the
bouniariee were enlarged.
It appears to us that the Corporation being at the
Passing of the Municipal Corporation Act entitled to
hold • market at any plate within the jurisdiction of
their governing body, became upon the passing of that
Act entitled to hold it within any part of the diattict to
which that jurisdiction was enlarged. And that there
is nothing in the wording of the 7th Section which
obliges us to bold that the Corporation, by bolding the
market within the part added to the borough, have
forfeited their ancient right.
It must be remembered that no rights would be
affected by the jurisdictioa being enlarged for this pur-
pose. It would not canoe any act& to be disturbances
of the market, which would not have been so before,
for • market in • borough may be disturbed by holding
another market near, whether the new market so beld
be within or without the borough. The moving of the
market weld only be prompted as undoubtedly it was
in the present thee by considerations of convenience. It
was contended that if there had been • distuisnoe at
all, it was not a disturbance by both the defendants
jointly. Nov the evidence showed that the defendant
Ensor was an auctioneer...rho at one time had sold cattle
by auction under the authority of the Corporation, at
their market, but that latterly he had held at another
place close by • fortnightly sale of cattle by auction
which Lop, arid to have been regularly advertised.
There can be no question that this is substantially
another market, and that it differs very much from the
c.se of • man selling his own goods out of the market,
which may or may not be • wrongful disturbance
according to the circumstances. The cases therefore as
to the right of pereoos in some boroughs where there is
so ancient market, to sell marketable good. on their
own premiaes and the like, do not, WO think, apply,
because what is complained of is not that the defen-
dants sell their own goods, but that they provile •
means for others to mill their goods without bricring
i them to the mac bet. Then as to the part taken by the
I other defendant. _

It eppears that Ensar, who actually conducts the
sale, does so in • place which was called Mr. /amineld's
field. There wee no legal proof that the field belonged
to the defendant filanfield. It appears, however, that
be wes present on some ocesaions when the sale was
going on, and that he said the field was his private
field, and emoted his right to turn off • poliee-constahle
who was counting the shr:ego which were bring sold.
He also nerved • notice on the collector of tolls for the
borough not to trespass on any lend belonging to him,
the gams being in the joint occupation of himself and
finger."

It was contended that elthough the particular place
was not specified, yet as there was no 'other lands
which there was any pretence for saying was in the
joint occupation of the two defendanta, this note
amounted to an admission that kfanfield wea responsible
for what was done on his field. Now it is not neon-
miry, is order to fix • defendant with disturbing •
market, that he should have actually sold.
It would almost appeer, from what was said in
Mosley v. Chadwick, 7th Barnwell and Creswell, page
47, that merely receiving rest of the land used for the
new market front the persona using it. would be suffi-
cient, and at any rate rewiring rent in the nature of
sedinge, or any inoreased rent 4 weesquense of the use
to which the land is put, above that which otherwise
would be obtainable, would be sufficient.

We think that the inference proved on the part of
hfanaeld, amounted to evidenee to go to the jury, that
both these defendants were taking part in carrying on
the fortnightly sales.
It remains only to consider the further fact that the
Wee were not held on the same Saturday u plaintiffs
held their tattle market.

The defendente on the arcument a the role contended
that
.on this.troand there was no disturbanoe.

At the trill it appeared to in. that the points which
Mr. Cole desired to raise oa behalf of the defendants
were enflioiently open to him upon the plaintiffs' cam,
and it was rather at my suggestion that the is.. pro-
ceeded no further. I gars leave to more upon these
points, and expressed my desire so to reserve them that
everything should be before the aunt. I end, how-
ever, from my note, that the form in which I tvserve
the question was "leave to more to enter a verdict for
the defendants on the counts slaiming a right to hold
the market., if no evidenee to go to the jury in support
of them counts, and like leave as to the counts claiming
a right to hold the fairs.”.
. . . . . .

'"Also to enter a verdict for the defendants, if no
eridenos to go to • juey of a disturbance of the fair or
market, or for the defendant, against •bom there was
no evidence of a disturbanee. I however ruled as a
point of law that the defendants, if otherwise guilty of
a distathanes, would be so guilty though the disturbance
was not on the day on which the plaintiffs were entitled
to hold and held their market, but on a day shortly
after. According to the view which upon • more care-
ful consideration of theca's, than I could give at wiri
print, my direction, although not incorrect u far as it
gee. is not sufficient for the decision of this clue.
We think the law to be Laid down in the Notes to
Yards,. Buller, 2nd William's Saunders, page 174, that
is, that where a new market is held on the same day
as the, old, Saban be intended to be • nuisance; that
where ills on • different day it shall be put in Mem
whether it be a neisence or not. It was not, however,
suggested to me that the true view in such a cue was
that it was a question of fact to be left to the jury
whether the old market ins injuriously affeoted or
not. The contention was that the defendants were not
liable unitise the disturbance wss on the same day. If
my attention had been drawn to it. I think that what
was the object of all partite, namely, to bring the mat-
ter fully before the Court, would have been oarried out
by expressly reeerviog to the Court a Neu to draw
inference. If that bad been done we should have been
prepared to draw the inference that some of the very
large number of sheep and cattle sold at the defendant's
WO would, if thou *ales bad not been held, have been
sold at the plaintiffs' market. This would, upon the
authorities, clearly support the verdict for the plaintiffs;
but the power to draw inference was not, however,
expressly given to the Court.
Leave was given to enter a verdict, if there was no
evidence to go to the jury. We are of opinion not
only that there was evidence to go to the jury, bat
sufficient evidence to supporta verdict forth. plaintiffs,
and upon which that afflict ought to have been found.
The rule to eater the verdict, therefore, cannot be
made absolute; but as say direction appears not to
ham Moe accurate, the defendants are entitled to a
new trial. It is to be hoped, however, that after the
opinion we have expressed, the parties may come to an
arraegeneent, which may avoid the necessity of farther
litigatioa. Of sourer the opinion we have formed, so
far as questioss of fact are concerned, might be altered
by iridium at • esecond trial ; yet in order to prevent
usisappprebension, we think we ought to say that unless
the facts are substantially altered, • verdict for the
defendant would be wrong. We cannot, however, see
that wears authorised to drew such inferenses as a jury
might draw, end ca that ground we are obliged to
direek a new trial.

AT mooting of the Church Association held at Icing
ton on Tuesday, it was announced that prootedinen
against the Ban. Mr. Purchne, of Brighton, would shortly
be eceueseed.