Court Of Common Pleas, Mo...
( )4112193s ZII H,TnZCO. ) miis was an action arsing out of a conviction of the plaintiff, be- bore the Commissioners of' Hackney-coaches. The facts of the case were these :-The plaintiff is proprietor of a Kcnsington and Hammersmith coach. In the vear 1820. he was surpmoned before the Commissioners of Hackney.coaches (or a 1Magis$rate), for tak- ing a fare up on the paved street, to be set down also within the paved streets. It was proved that a gentleman named Lindsay asked to be takes, up at St. Paul's, and was set down in Picca- dilly. There was another informnation of *a lady having been taken up, and set down within the paved streets. Plaintiff (the then defendant) aontenided that the passengers in question took their places for Kensington, and eame down at Piccadillv without his knowledge that they had so initended. The de- fendant was, howeyer, convicted in eacih case in a penalty of 51. and costs. On those convictions a distress was levied upon his coaclh, and (in order to trv the question) he brought his action for a trespass against the present defendant who had levied the distress. On the trial,the jury found for the nlaintiff-damiiages 121. and costs. That verdict was afterwards turned into a special case, andl camc on this morning for argument. MIr. Sergeant PEL.L, for the plaintiff, contended that the convic- tion was invalid. it was not set forth in the information that the de- fendant knew ofthepassengers' intention of coming down short of the distance for which they had taken their places, and of course he could not prevent them from coming down where they pleased. Lord Chief Justice Brs-r.-I suppose that the learned Sergeant (Vaughan) on the other side will not be able to produce an act of Parliament which obaliges a man wheo has paid his fare to a parti- cular place to proceed the whole way whether he will or not. Mfr. Sergeant PELL said, he thought this would be the difficulty uipon his learned brother. The question was this-Did the plaintiff know that the passenger inten(led to come down at a particular place within the pavemeirt ? If he did not, there was an end of the information. TheActs of Geo. I. and III., amending the act of Anne, ha.d for their object to prevent stage-coaches from ply- ing in the pavedstreets forfares. The clausesintheactof Gco. III. madi it essential t'at the coachman should kinow of the intention of ths party to proceed to a shorter distance than that for wlicls lie had taken his place, and that within the paved streets. Now, it was no where stated that the plaintiff (the then defendant) knew of such intention on the part of his passenger, and in the absence of suoh proof there was anl end of the case. Alr. SergeantVAUI7IAN, on behalfeftlhedefendant, contended that the conviction was valid, and foally within the meaning of the act of Anne, and urged that thle only thing which the Court could do woeld( be to send the case to a new trial. The LouD CONHIEF JUSTICE said he was of opinioin that the in- formation was not within the words or spirit of the act of Parlia- ment. The clause of the act of Anne, which was relied upon, went merely to secure persons who paid hackney-coach-duty frem being encroached upon by persors who let coaches to hire withotit such payment. Bllt this did not apply to stage-coachlmen, who in pro- ceeding to their destination. took utp and set down passengers with- in the paved streets. If they had a place vacant, they could not refuse a passenger and, when once he was in their coach, lie had a right to be set down where lie pleased, within the original distance; and there was no law that his Lordship knew or which authorizedl the coachman to say to his passenger, ' I have taken you to prnceed to such a place, and I will .take you that far, whether you will or not." It was not proved that the coachman knew of the intention of his passen,ger to come down in Piccatlilly, and the infotrmation in that respect was improperly laid. lie sawno reason, therefore, for disturbing the verdict. The other Judges concurred. The verdic;, therefore, remains untouched. C{OURT OF COMMON PLUAS, BlONDAY, Nov. 15. CLOUD V. TUR1'ER.