The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-25 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE:

NORFOLK CIRCUIT.-HUNTINGDON, JULY 21.
IMPORTANT TO COACH PROPRIETORS.

Question of Whether the same_ Horses returning with another

Carriage arc liable to Doable Tolt.
FEARNLEY AND 15 OTHERS V. MORLEY, GENT. &C.
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the Plaintiffs
against the Defendants, to recover the surn of 771. 16s. 9d. who
had pleaded the general issue, and thereupon issue was joined.
Mr. Sergeant FRERE stated the case to the Jury.. Ile com-
menced by .stating that the case involved a question of law,
and though of great importance to the parties, would occupy
but little time. The plaintiffs, for whom he appeared, were
proprietors of a stage called the Rockingham, which ran from
London to Leeds; and the defendant, who is a respectable
attorney in that county, was a nominal defendant for a re-
spectable body of Gentlemen, trustees of the turnpike roads
between Alconbury and l%ransford.
The question the Jury bad to try was; whether the plaintiffs
were liable to pay double toll on horses which passed through
certain gates on that trust, more than once in 24 hours ?
It appeared that the horses belonging to the plaintiffs accom-,
panied the downward coach to Stilton, where they changed—
and in the course of the same day the same horses were em,
ployed one stage on the road towards London, returning through
the gates they had passed before the hour of twelve at night,
and the defendants had insisted on and had received double tell
to the amount sought.
The Learned Sergeant referred. to the Act passed 38th Geo.
111. which imposed a duty on the vehicle, and not on the
horses ; but that Act was materially altered and amended by
thelast Act; which passed in the 59th of his late Majesty.--
One of the alterations which bore on the case was, that the toil
was removed from the carriage and placed on the horses.
Therefore under the old Act, the trustees of roads might as well
have demanded -toll for the same carriage passing and repass-
ing on the same day, as they had claimed and exacted double
'toll for the horses of his client. _ _

Several authorities were cited, and acts referred to, and much
discussion took place between Mr. Sergeant Mr. SToaxs (for
the defendants), and the Learned Judge, who gave it as his
opinion that it would be the best way, as there appeared at
firSt some ambiguity in the meaning of the act, to let the plain-
tiffi have a verdict, subject to a nonspit.
Mr. Serjeant. FItERE• acceded to his Lordship's•proposition.
Mr. STonxs.--You mean,-.to take only nominal damages, I
presume, Mr. Serjeant?
Mr. Sergeant IHERE.-0, no ; we have paid 841., and we
can prove the payment of 771. 16s. 9d. by witnesses in Court.
Mr. ST o itss contended that ought not to be, and cited a casey
thnphrey v. Maclean, to be found in East's Reports.
The COURT thought if the money had been demanded, and
one of the horses distrainecl, the case would have been different,
—" What is your demand, brother Frere ?"
Mr. Serjeant FRERE.—My Lord, 771. 16s. 9d., out of which
we have paid 381. 6s. within six months.
CounT.—Let the verdict be for the whole sum, and I will
make a note of it. It must come before another Court for con-
sideration.
The Jury, under his Lordship's direction, found for the
plaintiff—damages, 771. 16s. 9d., costs, 40s.—subject to a non-
suit being entered.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—YORK, JULY 22, 1322.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. . .
KENDAL V. RUOKE.

Mr. BROUGHAM opened the case. This was an action of
damages for breach of promise of marriage, accompanied by
the aggravated circumstances of the seduction of an innocent
young woman, and the birth of a female child. The plaintiff,
Margaret Kendal, lined servant with a Mr. Cooper, in the
city of York. The defendant, Mark Roake' lodged in the.
same house ; and in the years 1816, 1817, and 1818, continued
to keep up an intimacy with the plaintiff; of the character of
honourable courtship, and ultimate promise of marriage.
^, The Learned Counsel trusted he should no/ hear a whisper
escape the Jury about the menial situation of his client. She
was the daughter of creditable parents, her father having fanned
his own land. The defendant was an innkeeper, in the city of
York, of somewhat libertine principles, but of good fortune;
and after repeated promises of marriage, he accomplished his
dishonourable purpose, of which the consequence was a female
child. The defendant *continued his system of deception, and
in conversation with the brother and sisters of the plaintiff;
after her delivery, still avowed his intention of marrying her,
averring he could never think of marrying another woman.
The promise of marriage, however, was not proved by the
evidence ; and the Jury in consequence found a verdict for the
defendant.
WESTERN CIRCUIT.—SALISBURY, JULY 23.