5?.0 RETURNS OF SALES OF CORN. 



John St. Aubyn was empowered to let the erections, buildings, &c., on 

 the ground whereon the market should be held, and to demand and 

 take certain tolls of and from any person or persons bringing any 

 goods or articles to the market. There was also a clause providing that 

 if the owner sliould demise or lease the market or the site thereof, the 

 lessee should be subject to such exceptions or restrictions as might be 

 expressly contained in the lease, and take and enjoy the rent and tolls 

 authorised to be taken by the act, as the owner would be entitled to do 

 if the lease had not been made. At the trial it was contended for 

 the defendant that the market, being an incorporeal hereditament, 

 could only be leased by deed ; and that the defendant had not been 

 guilty of any disturbance of the market for which he was liable in 

 tliis action, the right to toll l^eing only in respect of articles brought 

 to the market, Gurneij B. overruled these objections, and a verdict was 

 found for the plaintiff with nominal damages, leave being reserved to 

 the defendant to move to enter a nonsuit or a verdict in his favour. 

 The Court of Exchequer discharged the rule, and held that the lessee 

 of tlie market under a parol demise had a right to take tolls, and that 

 this was a ft-aud on the market, for which case would lie by the lessee 

 of the market. 



In Smith v. Hudson the defendant, a farmer in Norfolk, sold John 

 AYillden 48i qrs, barley to be delivered to Willden's order on the 

 Great Eastern Railway : the barley was duly delivered at Swaffham 

 Station on the 7th November, 1863. Willden became bankrupt on the 

 9th November, and on the 11th November, and before the bankrupt 

 had given any directions about the corn, the defendant gave a verbal 

 notice to the station master at Swaffham not to deliver the corn into 

 the possession of the bankrupt or his assignees or any other person 

 witliout defendant's consent in writing, but to deliver the same to him 

 or his order, and subsequently on the same day gave a written notice to 

 _ the station master to the same eflFect. At the time these notices were 

 given, the corn was still on the platform of the goods shed at the station. 

 The Ijankrupt had given no order respecting it, nor had he examined 

 the bulk to see whether it corresponded with the sample, nor had he 

 given notice to the defendant whether he declined or accepted tlie corn. 

 It was held by the court that the plaintiflPs, the assignees in bankruptcy, 

 were not entitled to the corn, 34 L. J. (N. S.) Q. B. 145. 



Returns of sales of corn, under 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 87, are not conclusive 

 evidence, if evidence at all, to show the parties to whom the corn was 

 delivered ; for it is no part of the duty of a corn-factor to mention this 

 in the vci\xrry'{WoodUy v. Brown). It was enacted by 22 Car. II. c. 8, 

 s. 2, that no one should sell corn excejjt hy the eiyht-gallon Winchester 



