194 Covtempovary Agricultural Law. 



and Fairs (Uanse8 Act, 1847, had adopted cei'tain tolls '"on 

 goods, provisions marketable commodities, and articles brought 

 into the Ijorough. market for sale or exposure for sale." These 

 tolls included a toll of ijd. " for every cart containing milk, 

 fish, or other goods, provisions, marketable commodities or 

 ai'ticles." A dairy farmer living outside the borough without 

 paying toll sold milk from a cai't at houses within the borough 

 of certain regular customers and was prosecuted for unlawfully 

 selling milk within the prescribed limits. It was held that 

 although the milk w^as sold within the prescribed limits the 

 farmer could not be convicted as the toll prescribed was not a 

 toll upon the sale of milk, but a toll in respect of space occupied 

 by the cart in the market. 



6. Miscellaneous. There have been several interesting cases 

 having a bearing upon agriculture Avhich may be referred to 

 under this head. 



In Cook V. HoUs (1911 K.B., 14 ; 80 L.J.K.B., 110) the 

 appellant was a farmer and rope-maker, and the question was 

 whether a two-wheeled cart belonging to him was exempt from 

 carriage licence duty being a " vehicle, which is constructed oi' 

 adapted for use, and is used, solely for the conveyance of any 

 goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry." (See 

 Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1883, Section 4, Sub-section 

 3). On the occasion in question he used it for the purpose of 

 driving his wife and son to market at Barnstaple in order that 

 they might serve at two stalls there at Avhich he sold ropes and 

 farm produce. At other times he used the cart to deliver ropes 

 to customers, to convey calves and sheep, and to take ropes and 

 farm produce to market at Barnstaple and South Molton. The 

 justices found that the cart had been constructed and used 

 solely for the conveyance of goods and burdens in the course 

 of trade or husbandry, and that the appellant's wife and son 

 were " burden " within the meaning of Section 4, Sub-section 3, 

 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, but that it was 

 capable of being used for other purposes such as the convey- 

 ance of persons only or of dogs or game for sport, and was 

 therefore not within the exemption. The Court of King's 

 Bench allowed the appeal, agreeing that the justices were 

 entitled to find that the wife and son were " burden," but 

 holding that the fact that the cart was capable of being used for 

 other purposes than trade or husbandry did not render it liable 

 for duty if it was constructed and used solely for the convey- 

 ance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry. 



Strutt V. Clift (1911, 1 K.B., 1; 80 L.J.K.B., 114) "was 

 another case relating to the carriage licence duty. The 

 appellants were convicted of keeping a carriage without a 

 licence. They were dairy farmers who owned and occupied 



