The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-21 00:00:00

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.--June 20.

WESTMINSTER.--John Gould, a toll-collector
at Vauxhall-bridge, was summoned by Mr. W.
Mayne, a retired officer from the army, on half-
pay, and adjutant of the Queen's Westminster Rifle
Volunteers, for unlawfully demanding and taking
of him the toll of a halfpenny' he being exempt from
the payment of the said toll, and having claimed
such exemption.
Mr. Mayne stated that on the 19th instant he
went to Raynham with his corps for target prac-
tice, and, returning in the evening to Fenchurch-
street, crossed London-bridge and dined with a
friend. At about midnight he went over Vaux-
hall-bridge on his way home to Upper Belgrave-
place, when defendant, who was at the gate, de-
manded toll. Complainant claimed exemption as a
rifle corps volunteer, when defendant replied he
knew nothing about volunteers and must have his
toll. Complainant's experience of the army sug-
gested to him to inquire of the toll-collector
whether soldiers would have to pay, when de-
fendant
(who is a pensioner from the army) replied,
" You don't call yourself a soldier !" Complainant
told him that he should certainly try the question
of exemption, and paid the toll under protest.
Complainant begged to assure the magistrate that
he had no feeling in bringing this matter forward
but that the question should be decided, as it was
one of public importance.
Mr. Jeffrey, secretary to the Vauxhall-bridge
Company, objected that complainant was not in
uniform nor wearing his arms at the time; and
Defendant said he was wearing a blouse.
Mr. Mayne replied that he was in undress uni-
form • he wore at the time the regulation trousers
and blouse, and his belt and pouch. It was contrary
to the Rifle Corps' regulations for the officers to
wear arms in undress uniform ; they were left in
the armoury.
Mr. Jeffrey urged that defendant could not be
said to be returning from duty on the day of exer-
cise, because he did not pass through the tollgate
until after 12 at night.
Mr. Dayman turned to the 49th of George
cap. 142, section 147, which, after enumerating
other exemptions from toll, said " or any volunteers
upon their march or on duty, or on going to or re-
turning from the place appointed for and on the
days of exercise." The worthy magistrate ex-
pressed his opinion very clearly upon this section ;
he thought that the fair construction to be put
upon it was that if it was a bona fide return from
exercise, as in the present case, the precise hour of
return was unimportant; he thought it would be a
very narrow view of the intention of the Act of
Parliament to limit the exemption as now sought.
Mr. Jeffrey thought it was returning from dinner
rather than exercise, and pointed out that some
hours had elapsed from the termination of the
exercise until the exemption was claimed.
Mr. Dayman considered that after four or five
hours' practice a man stood in need of a dinner, and
did not think that to be exempt from toll lie was
bound to get it at some particular place; he was
not the less returning from exercise because he
had had a dinner on the way. The circumstances
of the case were in no respect altered by that fact ;
the Act of Parliament intended to exempt him
from toll while out on duty and on going to and
returning from the place of exercise, and com-
plainant was clearly returning to his own home
from the exercise.

Mr. Jeffrey wished to know how the toll-collec-
tors were to be aware when a rifle volunteer was
returning from exercise ; they were not exempt
except as specified by Act of Parliament, and how
was' a toll-collector ' to know when they were
entitled to the exemption ? Any one might claim
it when not entitled. _ _

Mr. Dayman said that might be a very difficult
thing, but, if any one falsely represented the state
of things which entitled him to exemption, they
might find him out and prosecute him.
After some further remarks, in the course of
which Mr. Mayne expressed his opinion that many of
the Volunteer Rifle Corps were better soldiers than
the regular army, and thought the toll-collector
had not behaved very becomingly in making the
remark he had to a soldier, who had probably seen
more service than himself.

Mr. Dayman spoke in very complimentary terms
of the Volunteer Rifle Corps and their efficiency,
and Mr. Mayne, having:stated that he had no de-
sire to press the matter further than on public
grounds to obtain a decision, the worthy magistrate
said thaf complainant was clearly entitled to the
exemption, and defendant must pay the nominal
penalty of 6d. and costs, and refund the halfpenny
toll taken.