Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page

Advertising

1 SOUTH WALES TIDE TABLE.

Family Notices

j TO CORRESPONDENTS.

SATURDAY, JULY 6, 1872.I

THE TICHBORNE CLAIMANT RECOGNISED…

THE VISIT OF THE PRINCE OF…

NEWPORT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION.

LOCAL LAW CASE.

News
Cite
Share

LOCAL LAW CASE. THE BRECON MARKETS COMPANY V. TIIE NEATH AND BRECON RAILWAY CO-.NIPANY.-Tiie Court of Common Pleas delivered judgment yesterday (Friday) in the above case, which was a special case argued on the 4th of June last, to try the question of the liability of the railway company to pay toll on cattle and goois which they carried through the borough of Brecon without leaving the railway. 1 Mr. Justice Willes, in delivering the judgment of the o Court, said that they bad taken time for consideration, owing to the great general importance of the case. It raised the question as to whether the carriage of goods by a railway company upon their owa land should be subject to a toll, thorough or traverse. The plaintiffs were invested with the right to collect certain tolls which had been granteil to the Brecon Corporation by ancient charter, but the Court was of opinion that no such toll as was here claimed could be imposed under their Act of Parliament upon the defen- dants. The Company bad a proprietary right to use their own land, without reserving any right to the seller. This toll must be either in the nature of a toll thorough or a toll traverse. It could not be a toll thorough, as the Corporation did nothing to repair the railway, or to assist the Company in any way. It was said that it might be a toll traverse; but there could be no tell traverse except as going over the land of that grantee. It would be enough if he granted the use of it to persons paying the toll. While the grantee had the land, he was entitled to toll for the use of it; and if he parted with it ho could still retain the right to collect the toll; bat the Corporation bad parted with this laud without reserv-, ing any such right to a toll traverse, and the plaintiffs could not, therefore, claim it. The railway company, being the owners, might make what use of their land they pleased, without being liable for toll therefor. The Court was not called upon to decide the question of whether when goods were taken from the station of the defendants through the streets of the borough, toll would be payable, and, therefore, upon that point they would express no opinion but that judgment as to tells upon goods which had not left the hands of the railway company must be for the defendants. Judgment for the defendants.

ART CRITICISM !

[No title]

.o-.:...:...-_--:':'-:---=--==---=:-:=::------'-------ANNUAL…

.::..:.---------------.--------\…

THE LONDON PRESS ON THE WJSLSH…

[No title]