Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1541

said duty of 8d. per ton, the appellants, in Trinity term 1725, filed their bill in the court of Exchequer for recovery of the same, setting forth a prescriptive right to the sole weighing of cheese of all persons whatsoever, brought by water eastward of London-Bridge; and that time out of mind, the masters of all ships importing the same, ought to pay the said duty of 8d. per ton for the cheese in the name of weighage, the same being allowed to them by their respective owners, and that no ship ought to be unladen before obtaining such warrant from the lord mayor as aforesaid; that this was reasonable to be paid as a recompence for the officers attendance, providing weights and scales, and by reason of the advantage the importers received in and about the port of London, by the care of the appellants, who are conservators of the said port; that this duty had always been paid by the masters of ships, whether freemen or foreigners, or whether the goods imported were freemen's or foreigner's, until the year 1681, when one Richard Garret disputed the same; whereupon a special action on the case was brought by the appellants against him in the court of King's Bench for the said duty; where, on the general issue pleaded, and a full trial had at the King's Bench bar on the merits, a verdict and judgment was given for the plaintiffs; that in the year 1719, the appellants exhibited a bill in the court of Exchequer, against William Pallister, Rich, and others, for a discovery and account of the cheese imported, and to compel payment of the said duty, alledging therein the same prescription as in the present bill: in answer to which, the then defendants insisted, that the goods were freemen's goods, and, as such, not liable to the duty; but on hearing that cause, on the 26th of June 1721, it was decreed, unless cause, that the then defendants should account to the plaintiffs for the said duty; and in Michaelmas term following, the said decree, on hearing counsel on both sides, was made absolute; and the then defendants accounted for, and paid the duty; and in the same Michaelmas term, a like bill was exhibited by the appellants in the said court of Exchequer against Prickett and others, [604] setting forth the same prescription when the defendants by their answer insisted, that the goods were freemen's goods, and not liable to pay such duty; and, in February 1722, on full evidence, the like decree was made, and the duty accounted for and paid by the then defendants accordingly. Wherefore the appellants prayed, that the respondents might make a discovery of, and come to an account for the cheese so by them imported, and pay the duty for the same, and that the said duty might be confirmed and established.

The respondents by their answer admitted that they were masters of ships, and had imported from Chester large quantities of cheese into the port of London, and had not paid for the same; that the appellants had claimed a right of tronage of all foreigners' goods, but knew not how they were entitled thereto; they also admitted, that the appellants, by charter, were entrusted with the great beam, and with the weighing of foreigners' goods; but insisted, that they were freemen themselves, and that the cheese imported by them was the property of freemen, and therefore exempt from the said duty; and that the said prescriptive right did not extend to freemen masters of ships, importing freemen's goods; that the officers did not attend to weigh such goods, though they admitted they might attend to weigh such foreigners' goods as should be brought to the great beam; but the goods of freemen ought not to be brought to the great beam, nor were liable to pay any duty, but were excepted and excluded out of the several bye-laws and ordinances and acts of common council relating to the payment of such duty.

Issue being joined, and witnesses examined on both sides, the appellants, on the 1st of November 1732, gave the respondents notice, that they intended to move the said court of Exchequer, that they might have an order for liberty to read the depositions of John Green, Joseph Clements, Robert Hughes, and Francis Bancroft, taken in the said cause against Pallister and others; and also the several depositions of Robert Weston, Roger Dawson, Joseph Clements, Robert Hughes, and Francis Bancroft, taken in the said cause against Prickett and others; at the hearing of this cause on behalf of the appellants, all which witnesses were then dead; which motion the court, on the 8th of the same month, refused to grant, notwithstanding the like motion had been granted in the said cause of Prickett and others, the 1st of February 1722, for reading the deposition of the said John Green, then dead, taken in the said cause of Palister and others.

On the 8th of December 1732, this cause came on to be heard; when the appellants, by their counsel, offered to read the several depositions of the witnesses