Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

and construe it; Coke upon Littleton (g), Crespigny v. Wittenoom (h), Mason v. Armitage (i), and Malton v. Cove (k). The application of the preamble, as the means of construing this enactment, is the more imperatively required here, as the section which gives the proprietors the right to levy the toll upon the exportation of coals, speaks of them as "shipped on board any vessel in the port of Stockton-upon-Tees aforesaid." This last word compels a reference to the preamble; and by so doing shows that the port here spoken of is that which has been before described, and which is the port of the town of Stockton, the port "at or near Stockton." The case of The Hull Dock Company v. Browne (1) is in favour of this construction.

As to the toll demanded in respect of passing the inclined plane at Brusselton, it is manifest that as the formation of that inclined plane was the subject of a special expense to the proprietors, the Legislature gave them a right to make a special charge in respect of the use of it; and whatever the general tolls may be, that that charge is to be made in addition to them.

Lord Brougham intimated that the Lords had agreed that the word "exportation" must be construed in its largest sense, and that the Counsel for Mr. Barrett need not trouble themselves on that point.

Sir Thomas Wilde (with whom were Mr. Faber and Mr. Fitzherbert), for the Defendant in Error:-The judgment of the Court below was right in declaring that the toll of one halfpenny per ton per mile was not cumulative. The toll is in the nature of a tax, and

(g) 79 a.

(h) 4 Term Rep. 790. (i) 13 Ves. 25.

(k) 1 Barn. & Ad. 538.
(2) 2 Barn. & Ald. 43.

1844.

STOCKTON
RAILWAY
COMPANY

V.

BARRETT.

1844.

STOCKTON

RAILWAY
COMPANY

v.

BARRETT.

the Act which confers the right to take it must be construed strictly against the parties in whose favour that right is created. No charge can be fixed on the public, except by the clear words of a statute; and this rule holds, notwithstanding what has been said on the subject of viewing this Act as a Parliamentary contract with the proprietors of the railway; Gildart v. Gladstone (m), Hull Dock Company v. Browne (n), Liverpool Canal Company v. Hustler (0), Brittain v. The Cromford Canal Company (p). This Act was obtained by the proprietors of the railway, and must for that reason also be construed against them, and not in their favour; Scales v. Pickering (g), and Niblett v. Poltow (r). The case of The Hull Dock Company v. Browne applies to both these considerations, and shows the principle of construction appliable to Acts of this sort to be, that particular words are to receive the narrower or the more extended meaning, according as such meaning will operate most beneficially for the public.

This line of argument applies to, and negatives, the claim of an additional toll in respect of the coals passing the inclined plane at Brusselton.

The only remaining question then is, whether Port Clarence is within the port of Stockton-uponTees. There can be no doubt that it is; there is no such ambiguity in the section imposing the tolls on coals exported, as to require any reference to the preamble for the purpose of explaining it. The whole of port Stockton is intended, and not that which is on the side

of the town and adjoins it.

(m) 11 East, 675.
(n) 2 Barn. & Ad. 43.

(0) 1 Barn. & Cres. 424; 2

Dowl. & Ryl. 556.

(p) 3 Barn. & Ald. 141.

In the enacting section

(q) 4 Bing. 448; 1 Moore & P. 195.

(r) 1 New Cas. 81; 4 Moore & S. 595.

the town is never spoken of; the expression is, "the port of Stockton ;" and that expression must receive its widest construction, according to the principles and the authorities already cited.

The Lord Chancellor:- My Lords, various points were argued at the bar in this case, as well in the Court below as before your Lordships. The first question relates to the meaning of the terms "shipped for exportation," in the Stockton and Darlington Railway Act; whether they were confined to exportation to foreign countries, or included shipments of coals to be carried coastwise to other parts of the kingdom. There is not, I think, any reason for adopting the narrower interpretation. The terms are large enough to comprehend both; and if it was a case of doubt, the rule is, in Acts of this nature, to adopt the construction most beneficial to the public. I may further observe, that from the nature of the article, the home market would probably have been at least as much in the contemplation of the Legislature as the foreign.

Another question is, whether the duty upon coal shipped for exportation, is in addition to the duty payable for all coal carried along the railway? Whether it is cumulative. I think it is not, but, on the contrary, that coal so destined was meant to be excepted from the general rate, and subjected to a lower amount of duty. If it was intended that both duties should be payable, words should have been added, as is usual in such cases, to denote that intention. The argument is, that as all coals are liable to a toll not exceeding 4 d. a ton per mile, and as a duty is imposed on coals shipped for exportation, to satisfy these terms the latter duty must be cumulative. But it is sufficient for the purpose of meeting this

1844.

STOCKTON
RAILWAY
COMPANY

V.

BARRETT.

Sept. 4.

1844.

STOCKTON

RAILWAY COMPANY

v.

BARRETT.

reasoning to observe that the duty upon all coal shipped for exportation shall not exceed one halfpenny; which is inconsistent with the supposition of its being in addition to the former rate. In a case of doubt, the same rule would apply here as upon the former question.

The third question relates to the place of shipment. The reduced toll is payable for all coal conveyed along the railway and shipped on board any vessel or vessels in the port of Stockton-upon-Tees, for the purpose of exportation. Several quantities of coal were conveyed along the Stockton Railway, to its junction with the Clarence Railway, and thence along the latter railway to Port Clarence, where the coal was shipped for London. Port Clarence is within the limits of the port of Stockton-upon-Tees. It is contended by the defendants that they are not, under these circumstances, limited to the right of demanding the reduced duty; that such reduced duty is confined to cases where the coal is carried along the line to its terminus at or near Stockton; that the port of Stockton-uponTees, means the town and port of Stockton, and not the port of Stockton in its more extended sense, which includes Hartlepool, Seaham, and other places several miles distant from Stockton; that the words. of the Act are, the port of Stockton-on-Tees aforesaid, and have reference to the preamble, in which the port is always mentioned in connexion with the town, "the town and port of Stockton-on-Tees."

But the words of the clause by which the duty is imposed, make no mention of the town. The duty is upon coals" shipped on board of any vessel in the port of Stockton-on-Tees aforesaid;" and I think, therefore, the word of reference, "aforesaid," has not the effect contended for by the defendants. There is nothing in the Act that requires the coal to be carried

1844.

RAILWAY
COMPANY

V.

BARRETT.

along the whole line. The duty is payable by the mile; and the parties may, I think, leave the railway STOCKTON at any convenient point, paying only the reduced duty, provided the coals are shipped within the port for exportation. The case comes within the words of the Act, and there seems to be no reason for adopting a more restricted interpretation for the benefit of the Company by whom the Act was obtained.

The remaining question relates to the duty for passing the inclined plane, viz. whether it is payable in respect of coals exported. It is payable for "all the articles, matters, and things for which a tonnage is therein before directed to be paid." This, I think, is a cumulative duty, and is payable without reference to distance. But "all coals" are before mentioned: it would, therefore, apply to them. It is true that a lesser duty is afterwards assigned to coals shipped for exportation; but this I consider is merely a reduction under special circumstances, of the former duty, and does not prevent the charge for the inclined plane, attaching. I think, therefore, that the judgment of the Court below must be affirmed.

Lord Brougham:-My Lords, I am of the same opinion as that which has been expressed by my noble and learned friend. This was a writ of error from the Exchequer Chamber, affirming a judgment given by the Court of Common Pleas in favour of the plaintiff there (the Defendant in Error here), upon an action of assumpsit by him in the latter Court against the defendants (the Plaintiffs in Error), to recover back three sums of 705l. 8s. 4 d., 4041, and 207., exacted by and paid to them in respect of a toll of more than d. per ton per mile upon coal carried along the railway, and for the transit of coal

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »