1822. Dowse V. GARETT. not, without distressing the regular team of horses drawing it, have arrived at Banbury within the limited time, without the assistance of the two additional horses up the hill. The question for the opinion of the Court was, whether, upon the construction of the several acts of parliament regulating the post-horse duties, the plaintiff was entitled to recover? If they should be of opinion that he was so entitled, then the verdict was to stand; otherwise, a nonsuit was to be entered. The case came on for argument on a former day in this Term, when Mr. Serjeant Lens, for the plaintiff, insisted that the contract between the defendant and Whyatt, amounted to a letting to hire by the stage, and fell within the fourth section of the 25 Geo. 3, c. 51 (a). No distinction is taken throughout the whole of that statute as to the (a) By which it is enacted, that "for and in respect of every horse hired by the mile or stage, to be used in travelling post in Great Britain, there should be charged a duty of one penny halfpenny for every mile such horse should be hired to travel post: and that for and in respect of every horse hired for a day, or any less period of time, for drawing on any public road any coach or other carriage used in travelling post, or otherwise, by whatsoever name such carriages then were, or thereafter might be called or known, for or in respect whereof any rates or duties, then or theretofore under the management of the Commissioners of Excise, were or had been made payable by any statute or statutes then in force, there should be charged, if the distance should be then ascertained, the sum of one penny halfpenny per mile : and if the distance should not then be ascertained, there should be charged the sum of one shilling and ninepence for and in respect of each horse so hired: such duty to be paid by the person or persons by whom such horse should be so hired :—That every person who should keep any coach, chaise, diligence, or other carriage with four wheels, by what name soever the same then was or thereafter should be called or known, to be employed as public stage coaches or carriages, for the purpose of conveying passengers for hire to and from different places in the kingdom of Great Britain, should yield and pay annually unto his Majesty the sum of five shillings for a licence for that purpose: and that every such coach, &c. should be, and the same was thereby charged with a duty of one penny for every mile such carriage should travel, to be paid by the owner or owners thereof respectively." meaning of the word stage. It is not, however, to be confined to a hiring by the mile, or receive a strict and technical construction; and it may be most properly defined to be, a hiring for a given space, where in the contract for the hire, a beginning and ending of the distance the horses have to travel in the performance of their labour, is specified. In White v. Beazley, Lord Ellenborough said (a), “if upon the letting to hire, there be a terminus a quo, and a terminus ad quem specified, it is a hiring for that space; and a hiring by the stage, is a hiring for a given space." Applying those terms to the facts of this case, it seems to be decisive of the question; for Edge Hill, where the additional horses were used, is stated to be three quarters of a mile long, and as the horses were employed in drawing the stage from the bottom to the top, it is clearly a hiring by the stage. However, if it be not within the 25 Geo. 3, the statute 44 Geo. 3, c. 98, schedule (B), imposing a duty on horses hired, whether the distance be ascertained or not, renders the defendant liable to the duties sought to be recovered by this action (b). There, too, a distinction is drawn (a) 1 Barn. & Ald. 171. (b) Which directs "that there shall be raised, levied, collected, and paid, unto and for the use of his Majesty, (among others) the several duties following; that is to say, for every horse, mare, or gelding, hired by the mile or stage to be used in travelling in Great Britain, for every mile such horse, &c. shall be hired to travel, the sum of one penny half-penny :-and for or in respect of every horse, &c. hired for a less period of time than twenty-eight successive days for drawing on any public road any coach or other carriage used in travelling post, or otherwise, by whatsoever name such carriage then was, or might be thereafter called or known (if the distance, at the time of hiring such horse, &c. should be ascertained,) the sum of one penny half-penny for every mile such horse, &c. should be hired to travel; and for or in respect of every horse, &c. so hired as last above mentioned, in any case where the distance should not, at the time of such hiring, be ascertained, the sum of one shilling and nine-pence for each day for which such horse, &c. should be so hired :for every carriage with two or more wheels, by what name soever any such carriage then was, or thereafter might be called or known, which should be employed as a public stage-coach or carriage for the purpose of conveying passengers for hire to or from different places in Great Britain, and which 1822. Dowse t'. GARETT. between a mile and a stage; and the latter must be taken to be an indefinite space of less than a mile, where the distance has not been ascertained. But, at all events, the 16th section of the 57 Geo. 3, c. 59, is expressly in point, and removes every difficulty on the subject (a); as the contract by the defendant as owner of the horses was, to let them for the purpose of drawing a stage coach for a certain distance, and for which he has charged the person hiring a specific sum for the whole stage or distance; he is, therefore, accountable for one fourth part of the sum so charged. So he is liable to a penalty if he charges one sum, and returns another to government. The precise sum he receives must be returned; and by the 17th section of the 25 Geo. 3 (b), no traveller should be licensed for carrying not more than four inside passengers, (children for every mile any such carriage should travel, three-pence half-penny; (a) By which, (for preventing frauds and evasions of the duties granted by the act of the 44 Geo. 2. c. 98.) it is enacted, that from and after the 31st January, 1818, where any person or persons so licensed as aforesaid should let to hire by the mile or stage any horse, mare, or gelding, to be used in travelling, and should charge the person or persons hiring the same a specific sum of money for the whole stage or distance which the same should be hired to go, and not after the usual rate per mile, the person or persons letting such horse, &c. should be accountable for one-fourth part of the sum of money so to be charged by him, her, or them, as and for the duty imposed by the said act of the 44 Geo. 3. in such case, and should deliver to the person or persons hiring such horse, &c. the like stamp-office ticket as if the same had been charged for per mile, and should add thereto the specific sum charged for the same; and the person or persons letting such horses, &c. should also enter in his, her, or their stamp-office weekly account, onefourth part of the sum so to be charged as aforesaid, as and for the duty payable in respect of such horse, &c. and should pay the same accordingly to the collector or collectors who should be authorized to receive the said duties; and if any such licensed person or persons should refuse or neglect so to do, he, she, or they should, for every such offence, forfeit and pay the sum of ten pounds." (6) By which it is enacted, "that no traveller shall be compelled to pay is to pay for more miles than should be expressed upon his ticket. In Coke Littleton (a) it is laid down, that "if tenements be let to a man for the term of half a year, or for a quarter of a year, if the lessee commit waste, the lessor shall have a writ of waste against him; and the writ must state quod tenet ad terminum annorum.” So here, a letting for less than a mile may, according to the construction of the statutes regulating the post duties, be considered as a letting for the mile. The case of Fuge v. Cockram (b) bears some resemblance to the present, where it was determined, that a coach, licensed under a local act, to be used as a stage, is not protected by such licence from the post-horse duties, if hired wholly by an individual to perform a journey; and the proprietor is liable to account to the farmer of those duties, for one-fourth of the hire, if let by him to carry out and bring back, notwithstanding such hiring may be to go to and return from some place within the distance, and on the road to the place specified in his license; and although he receive no greater sum than his fare would have been had he proceeded fully on the usual journey as a stage. That case therefore decided, that if horses be let to convey a passenger by stage for an intermediate space, without performing the whole of the distance, the party by whom they are furnished is not protected by his license from the payment of the duty. Although it may be contended that the duty does not attach in this case, as the horses were let to hire for the purpose of assisting a stage coach, which was already subject to duty; still the defendant for a greater number of miles than shall be expressed upon the ticket by that act directed to be issued to such traveller; and that if any post-master, innkeeper, or other person so licensed, should insert in such ticket the name of any other town or place than that to which the horses should be hired to go, or should fill up a less number of miles than the number charged to such traveller, every post-master, &c. so offending, should forfeit and pay the sum of 101," (a) Sec. 67. See also id, 54, (b).– -(6) 1 Price, 317. 1822. DOWSE v. GARETT. had no concern or interest in the coach, nor were the horses furnished by him to draw it, as one of the contracting parties or a co-proprietor. The statute 3 Geo. 4, c. 95, does not appear to bear on this question; as it was intended to apply to the duties payable on the bodies of stage-coaches only, and not to the horses drawing them; and as the defendant was to receive the sum of one guinea per week for furnishing his horses to Whyatt, it is immaterial whether they were let for the purpose of going the ascertained distance of a mile, or not, as they were let for a stage within the meaning of all the statutes; and more particularly so under the 57 Geo. 3, c. 59. Mr. Serjeant Lawes, for the defendant, submitted, first, that the horses in question were not let to hire for travelling, within the meaning of the different statutes. Secondly, that the post-horse duty did not attach on the letting of them to hire, inasmuch as they were hired to be used in assisting a stage-coach, which was already subject to a duty applicable to that mode of travelling. Thirdly, that no duty was payable, the horses not being hired to go a mile, but a less distance. And lastly, that the letting was not a letting to hire within the statute 57 Geo. 3, c. 59, s. 16, no specific sun being charged for the particular stage or distance of the three-quarters of a mile, for which the horses were hired to go. First. In order to constitute a letting to hire, so as to make a party liable to the duties imposed by the posthorse acts, there must be a hiring and letting for the purpose of travelling; for in the case of Rex v. Tooley (a), it was decided that the words "travelling post," in the statute 25 Geo. 3, c. 51, must be construed and taken in their popular sense; and that therefore the letting of a horse to hire for the purpose of going upon business from one town to (a) 3 Term Rep. 69. |