a

of a market, but not quà sale in a market; for the expreffion fale in a market," imports that the goods fold, are brought into the market, and ready to be delivered to the purchafer. Now here the claim is of a toll in fpecie, which neceffarily implies that the commodity, in respect of which the toll arifes, is brought into the market. The precedents cited by the plaintiff's counfel, weigh ftronger with me than that mentioned on the other fide; for they must all have proceeded on a mistaken idea of the legal definition of a fale in a market, if the conftruction contended for by the plaintiff's counsel be wrong: whereas that cited by the defendant, only fhows that fome words, which were not abfolutely necessary, were inferted by the pleader. But the ground on which my opinion proceeds is, that on the facts disclosed in this declaration, I cannot confider it as a fale in a market, unless it be in the mode in which fales are generally made in markets, namely, by felling the goods which are brought into the market for that purpose. If the plaintiff's demand had arifen on contracts of fale by fample, he would have brought a different kind of action, namely, an action for the fraud in not bringing the goods into the market. It is not neceffary in this cafe to determine whether or not a right to take toll on goods fold by fample can be fupported: it is fufficient for the decifion of this cafe, in the prefent ftage of it, to fay that the evidence offered at the trial should have been received, and that a new trial ought to be granted.

ASHHURST, J.-I am not prepared to fay that this notfuit is wrong. This claim being a matter friðli juris, it fhould be laid in the declaration with great precifion; because it is to remain on record as evidence of the right to future ages; and if the plaintiff were to recover on this declaration, I think this record would be evidence of a claim of toll on contracts of fale of goods in the market by fample. With respect to the precedents which have been cited; non conftat but that in those cafes, the claim might have been of toll on all goods fold, though not brought into the market; and many fuch inftances have existed. Therefore I think that the plaintiff fhould have fhewn on the trial that fuch was the extent of his claim. But as he confeffed that his claim was of a more limited kind, he ought to have laid it as precifely as he intended to prove it.

GROSE, J.-As it appears that in point of fat the goods, in refpect of which the toll was claimed, were actually brought into the market, I fee no reason why the plaintiff

fhould

fhould not have stated his claim to arise on the fale of fuch goods: but still I do not think that the non-fuit can be fupported. Taking the whole of the declaration together, as this is a claim of toll in fpecie, I am of opinion that "goods fold in the market" must neceffarily mean "goods brought into the market and there fold;" otherwife he could not take the toll in fpecie; for the gravamen is, that the plaintiff was prevented taking his toll. The precedents alío cited by the plaintiff, are ftrong to fhew that "fold," as applied to a fale in a market, means a fale of goods which are in the market. Therefore I am of opinion that the motion to fet afide the non-fuit fhould be made absolute. And indeed if I doubted on this point, I should be inclined to fend this cafe to be tried again in order that, if the defendant perfifted in his objection, it might be put on the record either by tendering a bill of exceptions, or by a demurrer to evidence.

Rule abfolute.

WILLIAM S v.

PRITCHARD.

This was an action of Trover to recover goods diftrained for the Land-Tax (under the Land-Tax Act, 27 Geo. III.) of a dwelling-house fituate near Blackfriars Bridge, London, and built upon ground which was formerly part of the foil of the River Thames, embanked in purfuance of the Act of the 7th Geo. III. cap. 37. which enacts that "the ground and foil of the faid river fo to be inclofed and embanked in the front of every fuch refpective wharf or ground should veft, and the fame was thereby vefted, in the owner or owners, proprietor or proprietors, of fuch adjoining wharf or ground, according to his, her, or their refpective eftates, trufts, or interefts therein, free from all taxes and affeffments what foever."

It was contended on the part of the defendant that the Land-Tax Act was fubfequent to that which exempted these houses from taxes; and also that the plaintiff being tenant only of the house, and not proprietor of the ground whereon it flood, was not within the indemnification of the 7 Geo. III. LORD KENYON, Ch. J. delivered the opinion of the Court. This question depends on the expofition of the statute 7 Geo. III. cap. 37. " for completing the bridge across the

river Thames, &c." the 51ft fection of which (after enabling private perfons to enclofe and embank at their own expence, under the direction of the Mayor, &c. of London) enacts, that the ground and foil of the faid river fo to be inclosed and embanked in the front of every such respective wharf or ground should vest, and the fame was thereby vested, in the owner or owners, proprietor or proprietors, of fuch adjoining wharf or ground, according to his, her, or their refpective eftates, trufts, or interests therein, free from all taxes and affeffments whatfoever. And the question is, Whether this houfe, which has been built on foil recovered from the river, be liable to be affeffed to the Land-Tax, levied under an A&t paffed fince that time? It cannot be contended that a fubfequent Act of Parliament will not controul the provifions of a prior statute, if it were intended to have that operation; but there are feveral cafes in the books to fhew, that where the intention of the Legislature was apparent, that the fubfequent Act should not have fuch an operation there, even though the words of fuch ftatute, taken ftri&ly and grammatically, would repeal a former Act, the Courts of Law, judging for the benefit of the fubject, have held that they ought not to receive fuch a conftruction. In Bro. tit. "Parliament," 52. is this paffage: "Where a statute is that the merchant shall import bullion of two marks for every fack of wool exported, and then another ftatute was made that the merchant fhould not be charged unless for the ancient cuftom only, this does not repeal the first ftatute; Vi caufam, ib. Ed. 4 4. 12." And the reafon is that it clearly was not the intention of the Legislature that it should have that effect. So here, though (strictly speaking) the Land-Tax is an annual statute, and the words of the Land Tax A&, which was paffed in the 27th year of this reign, are general and fufficiently large to fubject thefe lands to the payment. of the tax in queftion, yet, as the Land-Tax is one of the ways and means for raifing the fupplies every year, and is now become part of the conftant refources of the country, the Legiflature, in paffing the 27 Geo. III. could not intend to repeal the provifions of the 7th Geo III. which exempted thefe lands from the Land-Tax. Confidering then that the Legiflature did not mean to repeal this part of the 7 Geo. III. confidering alfo that this precife queftion has been already determined, we think ourfelves warranted in faying that the plaintiff is not liable to be affeffed to the Land-Tax in refpe&

of his house.

Poftea to the Plaintiff.

VOL. II.

Ff.

EDDING

EDDINGTON V. BORMAN.

This was a Cafe fimilar to the former, referved at the Trial for the opinion of the Court on the following

The plaintiff is an inhabitant and occupier of a dwellinghoufe, fituate in the parish of St. Anne, Blackfriars, in the Ward of Farringdon Within, in the City of London, which ftands on the ground which was formerly part of the ground and foil of the river Thames, enclosed and embanked in purfuance of, and paying the quit-rent impofed by, the Act of the 7th Geo. III. cap. 37; which house was built thereon after the making of the faid embankment. The defendant regularly diftrained the plaintiff's goods for not paying a rate made under the 11th Geo. III. cap. 29. for paving, cleansing, and lighting the streets. The former occupier of the plaintiff's houfe, which was occupied only for a fhort time before the year 1788, was affeffed to and paid the Poor's-Rate, as alfo the House-Tax, Commutation - Tax, Confolidated - Rate, Church - Rate, Tythes, Watch, and Orphan's-Tax: and the prefent occupier has, in like manner, been affeffed to, but has refifted the payment of, all fuch rates, upon the ground of his being exempt therefrom by the 7 Geo. III. cap. 37. The plaintiff's house has been regularly affeffed to the Land-Tax, but the payment thereof has been refifted, and is now in li tigation. The street, place, or fquare, in which the plaintiff's houfe is fituate, has been regularly paved, cleanfed, and lighted by the Commiffioners under the authority of the Act of the Ii Geo. III.

LORD KENYON, Ch. J.-This queftion feems concluded by the laft cafe. In that the difficulty arofe from the circumftance of the Land-Tax being an annual A&t, and that the Act, under which the diftrefs was taken, was paffed fubfequent to the ftatute containing the exemption. But the present Act of Parliament, in defcribing the perfons who are liable to be rated, refers to the Poor-Rates, which have exifted ever fince Elizabeth's time, as well as to the Land

Tax. Nor is there any foundation for the argument, that the occupiers of houfes are liable, though the lands be exempted. The statute 7 Geo. III. cap. 37, enacts, that the lands to be enclosed and embanked, fhall veft in the owner, &c. "free from all taxes and affements whatsoever." If then the lands themfelves be exempted, fo muft alfo the houses built thereon.

Poftea to the Plaintiff.

ECKERS ALL V. BRIGGS.

This was a queftion, Whether the owner of stables in the parish of Marybone, rented by the Colonel of a Troop of Horse, by the authority of the King, for the ufe of the Troop, is liable to be affeffed for them to the Paving-Rate in that parish?

CAS, E.

By indenture of leafe, dated 22d of September, 1787, between the plaintiff of the one part, and the Marquis of Lothian, Captain and Colonel of his Majesty's First Regiment of Life-Guards, of the other part, (reciting that his Majefty, by his fign manual, had been pleased to direct and authorife the Marquis of Lothian, on his Majesty's behalf, to accept and take a lease of the ftables, riding-houfe, and premises thereinafter mentioned, for twenty-one years), the plaintiff demised all those stables and riding-house then and now occupied by his Majefty's First Regiment of HorseGuards, fituate on the East fide of Portman Street, Marybone, with the appurtenances, To hold to Lord Lothian and the Captain and Colonel of the Troop for the time being for twentyone years, at the yearly rent of £.273 11s. 9d. payable to the plaintiff quarterly, clear of all taxes, rates, charges, and affeffments, then charged, or at any time thereafter to be charged, on the faid ftables, or on the rent, or on the plaintiff in refpect thereof, or on Lord Lothian, or any other Colonel of the regiment for the time being, in refpect of the premises by authority of Parliament or otherwife howfoever: and the Marquis covenanted to pay all the faid

Ff2

taxe