Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1540

But after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that both the decrees complained of should be reversed: and it was declared, that five quarters of wheat were yearly due and payable, and of right ought to be paid to the chaplain of Latimers out of the rectory of Chesham Leicester, in such manner as the same wore claimed by the appellant in his original bill; but inasmuch as he admitted that he had in fact received 40s. per ann. from the lord of Latimers in satisfaction of one quarter of wheat, parcel of the said five quarters, payable yearly as aforesaid; and as it appeared, that during the five years the appellant was paid his demand, before the stoppage complained of in the bill, he received 40s. a quarter in satisfaction of the said five quarters of wheat yearly, as well for the four quarters as for the one quarter: it was further ordered, that the appellant should be paid for the arrears of the remaining four quarters of wheat, after the rate of £8 per ann. from the time that the payment of [602] the said four quarters of wheat was stopped, till the filing of the appellant's original bill in the court of Exchequer, being fifteen years, which was the time for which the appellant demanded satisfaction by this suit; and that the same should be paid to him by the respondent Sir Francis Whichcote, he admitting that he was to indemnify the other respondent, and consenting to stand in his place, and the appellant being contented therewith and it was also ordered, that the respondent Sir Francis Whichcote, should likewise pay the appellant his costs of the suit in equity, to be taxed by the proper officer, deducting the costs of the trial at law, which the appellant was to pay or allow to the said respondent, to be taxed in like manner by the proper officer; and that the said court of Exchequer should cause this order and judgment to be put in due execution accordingly. (Jour. vol. 24. p. 87.)

The appellants have, time out of mind, been entitled unto, and received from all masters of ships bringing cheese of any persons whatever, eastward of London-Bridge, to the port of London, to be sold, a duty of 8d. per ton for all such cheese, in the name of weighage: and in order to collect such duty, the appellants have always appointed officers called yeomen of the waterside, to attend with weights and scales to weigh the cheese, and receive the duty.

But it is usual for the master of the ship, on his arrival in the port of London, to give notice to the officers of the customs, and procure them to transmit an account of the quantity of his cargo of cheese, to the lord mayor; who thereupon directs his warrant in writing to the yeomen of the waterside, to weigh and permit the cargo to be delivered, upon being paid the duty; which the yeomen are ready, and offer to do; yet as the quantity is expressed in such warrant, and that taken from the account given by the master to the officers of the customs, the duty has been usually paid according to the quantity mentioned in the warrant, and the actual weighing omitted, at the request, and for the conveniency of the master, unless the quantity is disputed.

[603] This duty, when paid, is applied to the use of the lord mayor for the time being, for supporting the dignity of his office.

Besides this duty, the appellants are likewise entitled to, and claim by several charters, the office of keeper of the great beam, or common balance, within the city, for the equal weighing of all merchandise between merchant and merchant, usually bought and sold by weight within the said city; the officers for this purpose are appointed by the mayor, aldermen, and commons in common council assembled; and the duties arising upon weighing the said merchandize are applied to the use of the city.

The respondents being great importers of cheese, and masters of ships, and having imported great quantities of cheese eastward of London Bridge, and refusing to pay the