Case Name: Chestney against Coon
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-05
Citations: 8 Johns. 150
Docket Number: 
Parties: Chestney against Coon.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Chestney against Coon.
Untler the act, 22d sess. c. SO. s. 11. and the act, 31st sess. c, 213. a person is exempt from paying toll, on the first great western turnpike^ when going to mill in a town different from that in which he resides, if it appears that he usually went to such mill, when there was no grinding in his own town, and that he went for iso other purpose than to have his corn ground.
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Go mi sued Chestne'y before the justice, in debt for 5 dollars, for exacting toll, as a toll-gatherer, at the toll-gate, on the first great western turnpike, when the plaintiff was going to and returning from a grist mill, for the purpose of having his grain ground.
It appeared that Chestney, though told that the plaintiff was going to Watson’s grist mill with grain to be ground, exacted the toll, and after the grain was ground, the defendant obliged the plaintiff to pay toll; though informed by the plaintiff, and the miller, that the plaintiff had gone" to the mill for no other purpose. It appeared that, the plaintiff resided in Carlisle, and Watson’s grist mill is in Schoharie, on or near the turnpike, and that the plaintiff and his neighbours generally went to Watson’s mill, when there was no grinding at the mill in Car-lisle.
The act (22d sess. c. 30. s. 11.) provides, that no toll shall be received “ from any person passing to or from public worship, or to or from his common business on his farm, or to or from any milland the act passed 11th April, 1808, (31st sess. c. 213.) explanatory of the former act, says, persons shall be exempt from toll, “ going to or returning from any grist mill to which such person usually resorts, for the sole purpose of grinding for the use of his family, or of those who may employ him, and no other ”
The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The evidence was sufficient to support the judgment. The plaintiff below went, as it appears, to Watson's grist mill to get his grain ground, and for no other purpose, and he generally went there when he could not have it ground in his own town. The j udgKtent must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed,