Star.
London, England, 1824-11-16 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, NOV. IS.

HACKNEY COACHES V. STAGE COACHES—CLOUD V. —.
Mr. Serjeant PELL stated that the plaintiff was owner
of a stage coach for the conveyance of passengers be-
tween London and Hounslow, and the defendant was
one of the Commissioners for licensing hackney coaches.
On the 20th of April, the plaintiff took up a person of
the name of Lindsay, at St. Paul's Church-yard, who
took his place and paid his fare to Kensington ; but he
only went as far as Hyde-Park-Corner, where he was
put down, and it appeared he resided in Queen-street;
May-fair. He was also taken up by the driver, and put
down at the satne place on the following day. Infor-
mation wai laid against the plaintiff, and he was con-1
tinted; and bis coach and two horses were seized for
the penalties, via. 101. for two offences, and 11.25. costs. ,
Mr. Serjeant PELL proceeded to argue that this Was
•
a question. of no small importance,. aul between the
Board of Stamps and the Board for Licensing Hackney
Coaches. The plahniff's coach was duly licensed as a
stage-coach. to carry passengers from London to Ken.
sington, but the Ccimmisiioners of Hickney-Coaches
contended that the plaintiff was also amenable to them.
Justice Bonitotroo.—The queition is, whether there
is any critic! oixtrttitted ?
Mr. Serjeant PELL.--.lt will come to thik : if I or
my brother Vaughan take a place to go to Kensington,
may we; or not, get out before we arrive there, on any
case of necessity ?
Cuzav Juaricii.—l suppose brother Vaughan will
chew some law by which the driver will have a right-
to detain his passengers till they get to the place for
which they set out.
Mr. Serjeant PELL presumed that the Act on which
the conviction proceeded, was the 55th of George the
Third, for the information spoke of 0, paved streets,"
and there were no such words in the Act of the 9th of
Anne, which run thus : 64 That no person or persons shall
presume to drive, or let to hire by the hour, or the day,
or otherwise, any hackney-catch, or horses, within the
cities of London or Westminster, the suburbs thereof,
or the parishes belonging thereto, within the bills of
mortality, without such license, &c. under the penalty
of 51. for each offence."
CHIEr JusucE.—There is an allegation that this is a
hackney-coach.
Serjeant PELL.—No, my Lord. By the 55th of Geo.
111. stage-coaches shall not be deemed liable to takes
out a hackney-coach license. -The 48th of Geo. 111.
:provides that stage-coaches shall not take up any person
or persons fbr the purpose of setting them down on the
paved streets, the drivers well kno*ing the intention
of passengers to be set down on the scones, under a-
penalty not exceeding Si. nor less than 11. If this was
the Act upon which the conviction had been made, the
Commissioners had set out with a mistake, for they-
levied 51. when the Act gain only 31.
The COURT called on Mr. SerirAnr WiOGHAN-t0 reply.
The Learned, Serjeant argued that there was no
ground for the objections raised. This Gentleman lived
in May-fair, and was not in the habit of going to Ken-
sington, or farther than Hyde Park. On'the instate of
Anne, afterwards made perpetual, it was intended to
give hackney-coachmen a monopoly, for which they
paid a valuable consideration in weekly and other rents.
He contended that the case came within the terms'of

die Act Geo. I.
Jthtice PARK observed that there was a variation be-
tween the information and the Act. The Act spoke of
44 Hackney" coaches.
The COURT were of opinion that the plaintiff had
been improperly convicted and that this action wit
maintainable.