The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-07-04 00:00:00

&TAT PS M ar

."?I,:oirtV

COURt OF MSG's BENCH, JULY 3.

lIIVLIT V. MELON. •
This was an talon against the Proprietors of '
the LaitilOot Docks, which was brought by the
Plaintiff, to recover a -compensation for damage
sustained• in consequence Of the Defendants having
refuse:oo allow him to. salad& certain wines at
their wharf. To this action the Defendants put in
a plea, stating their heaving published a schedule of
rates higher than • former rates, which increased
rates tho Plaintiff refused .to pay,, and therefore
they were justifiodin refusing to permit him to el_
lade his said wines .within the Micky. To this

plea the Plaintiff had put in a general demurrer ;.

and in support of *ilia
Mr. RICHARDSON was this day heard. He con.
tended, that the question fur the Court to decide
was, IVhether the Company could impose such
'rotes as they pleased for th.o warehousing of goods
in their warehouses ? lie maintained, that they
could nut ; they., were obliged to warehouse the
tooth, and that too at a reasonabbewatc. The
company had the monopoly of warehonses for,
wines, hut thelaw did nut allow theta to impose
any other mug than what cuuid.fairiy be deem*
reasonable. .T4iejendency of 'Abe Act 4bl' the Le.
gislature ivisiCh gave to the Company. tins moon..
poly .of warehousing wines and: brandies; was.
to encourage and. increase the facilities of iinport_.
nig foreign vitas:. It moat therefore meant to be a
public benefit, and of that the London Dock
Company were aware, And wider such condition
they accepted, the sole right of warehousing.
.No
one could suppose that the Legislature had it its
centempletion to suffer; the Compaity to demmid
inch rates is then' ettprice.or.evaricknieght dietetic
If such were the fact, it ivOuldssit 4irtualli tend,
to thi; encouragement of trade and ,conttiterce..,"-
Af4r the Company had get this,exclissive advans.
inge, the law would not permit them to turn round
upon the merchants and lay, " yOubstsra waXe•-.:
hook yOur wines with us, and you‘ Must pay -inch
rates as we please to demand.° It !iheirlitt?'s iletre
allowed. that would be Actidemiy:' :The
Company were snnipelled to au trilr 'thew -West.
*dam to. be aliprOptiated td fhnbtic 006 sea,. and I
as a remuneratititi. they could not legaffy•ilensaad
Moro' than a reasonable .rate. Fur the
,establisia..
the
'Plaintiff, of that principle,. be, -as -the. part of We
•
'Plaintiff, Contended.
ans.. Arlin. aT opposed the general demurrer
on the pisof ,theCompotty, and euutended, that
they, like any other priyate individual*, had a right.
make this WA use of Abele property, by re.
quiring such .reinuneration:,oe Lb!, itsito•
them should appear vemenable. cite:o4ollg Übe
Company as private Intli!ntlualsi s
'diets: het
maintained that they had a fight t 'fin so sgai.
rates fur the warehousing tirtoOkii ithele Wtirei.d
housesAas,tbey might doll kjuiit reinMuscat* fats
the used Abeie:property; • .• - •
•
Mr. ItteikAttesom reeetii:• .Th. Company
were not to be 04;114.4. 'tai exercisetheir treuttoptq'
in aaoppressivi i.rbiarAr; deusorrpri lirjr-Dwrits•
lug just such rates as they, ;devised:. They guild
wily have seasonable fates' Were not to
inot4otys without doing
it on the teems On which that monopoly h 0 been
granted.,
Lord Eiratrueottoutift conceived the.question to
;be; whether: the Company plight to warehouse
ltrine et,the weal, and rieVutonable rate, or
IWhether they bad a right to hippie jest such 'putt.
Os they pleases)... .The Coalmine had •
monopoly;
.pad if they were cried. with thehe.
nefits of a monopoly, it men be Mittir the 'condi-
lion that they exercise it in a reasonable manner.
They were not exerting themselves against any le-
gal competition„ therefore they were bound to
restrain and liMit their rates, so as to make them
come within.the meaning of just and reasonable ;
for: the Company could not have more than a lei.'
,sonablO hire and rate. It was. a monopoly sanc.
dotted by Legislature, and as such, according
to the principle laid down by Lord Chief Justice
Hate, they could not receive excessive duties is a
remuneration for the use made of • their property.
Those warehouses were no longer to be considered
as coining within the meaning of property juris
primal, for there were no other places Where wines
could be legally warehoused, therefore.. they Were
necessary to the public benefit. The Company
was invested with the right of the monopoly' of
warehouses fur certain purposes, and they most
not receive in return more than a reasonable' hire
and reinnueration. As long as they had the mond.
poly, as long as the private right was dressed 'to
the garb of public; dutiell" they could not have
more than a reasonable rate. That principle
..at-
tached to all legal mintopollep, :and the deduction
he had drawn, was consistent with Abe opinion of
Lord Hale, which opinion he thought embraced
much good sense, and was agreeable to the law of
the laud. The decision he deemed consistent-with
reasou and law. •
, The rest of the Court agreed with the senti-
ments of his Lordship, and give judgment for the
Plaintiff.
TitE KING V. TAYLOR ARO OTKLRI.
. The rule for trying the case respecting certain
election riots in Chester, its open county, was made
absolute, Kubota any cause having been shewu
against it. • .
INDIA. DOCKS. •
A special ease, reserved tor the consideration
of the Court, was argued to-day, on this point,
whether the Duck CumPanyi *fur the allowance of
65. &I. per ton fur mooring, intivooring, and ma.
Gaging Vessels coming into the bucks, were bound
to take the entire charge of the Vessel front the mo.
went of her arrival; and if she be a leaky state,
and requiring immediate meats to be used 'for, the
safety of the vessel and cargolllo that expenees are
incnrred in employing lighters- fui the accoresitoda,
tiou of the cargo;
,while the Tinsel is *ailing •for
admittance into the Docks,. the Company is bound
out of the 6s. Bd. per tau, to deftly, such ex.,
pence.
The Court way cicarfy of opinion in fa.votir of
the Company •on • this poinL The docks ,were
meant to be literally docks, not to be an hospital,
lend it was the implied meaning of the Act, that