409

~ T N T E R ?., WRIGRT O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

10 M.& W.108.

o%ce. In the case o f ti dispute :tt)t.tut ;I pew, the co~itseis to try it by clue C ~ I I I W of law. Is a person to try such it tight lty iiisistirig u p t i sitting there ! Atid if tie titids another persoti there, and attcmpts to enter, ezlnttot tttectiuruh\vitrcletta iitterfere ? The p1:riotiff wonlrl be itr no way injured by heirig pievcntetl f r o m vesortirig tmo such uti asser~ioriof his title xs this, For he may hirig :ui action for n~oriey bud and tweived.] Although he might nt:rititairi such ari action, it rlnes not tiecessarily follow that he ntoy iiot assert his right in this iitiitiiier. H e holtls Iris s m t virtute offcii, which clistirigiiishes it frorii the ort1iri:tcy case of ii pew. Gesicles, eve11 supposing the defeiid:ttrts were jiistitierl in reniovitig hini from the pew, they h:d no right t o remove him from the chiircit. erh:tps they might liava beer1 jiihtiticd in t:tkirig h i m oiit of the church if the interruption h ~ t r ltnlten pluce tluririg the perforni: w e of divirie service : but this took place hefore tlivirie service iiarl conitnence(1 Unless he was creating a clisturltnrice during the service, they h:id 110 Tight to remove him. Ihesiger, $ti support of the ride, W:LS stopped hy the Court, but in the course of the argument referred to IleytiofiZ< v. dLonkfoii ( 2 M. CY; Roti, M4), \vhere it was held by Holfe, B., that c ~ L i r c ~ ~ v ~ r r l e r i s :I riiscr~tio~t:try have powel. to ~ ~ ) I ) r o ~ pewsi ~ ~ t ~ * iri ttie church araorigat the parishioners, a n d might reiiiove persoiix iritrurliiig on seats a1re:rtly a p p r o ~ r ~ : L ~ r ~ . LORDABIXCER, C. If. We think i t makes iio rlifkieriw whetlicr the service had act~itllybegun, or W;LR otily aboiit to hegiii, so lotit( its tho coritluct of the plxiritift \vas snch [lOS] as to leacl the e h L ~ ~ c h ~ ~ re~tsoritthly ~or isuppose tktt he would ofter ~~~r(l~t ~ interruption ta t h e service. The evitlerice shews that Ire wits likely to weate i i disturtirtnce. The ttuestictn is whetfier the r e t w v a l from the chiirctr ~ ~ t not at the t s time a fair exercise of jutlgmerit, that if they did riot remove hiin he would ere+,1 t e a distur1)auce. We thitik i t was, a r i d the jiiry seem to have heea of the same opiriiorr in awarding a farthing dameges. ALDERHION, In Hawkiriss 1le:ts nf the Urowii, hook I, c. 63, s. 29, i t is laid B. dowri that c h ~ i r c h ~ v ~ ~ r (axid p ,e r h q ~ ,priv:ita persons, r n : y whip b o p playing i n ~ens chwch, or pull of the 1i:rtu o those w h o ohstititrtely refuse to ttrke them otf theinselvas, f or geritly ley harids O H those who disturb the ~et.fortiiaiicc arty p t r t ttf clivirie of service, and turn them out of the chiirch. Ebr these positions he quotes 1 Siiuntl. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 13, Sid. Sol, 3 Kehle, 134,R t l d 1 &$od.16s. ~ 1 1 2 U fY. ~ ~ ~ ( t / %lIlftd. 13 ; f1 Sid. / 801. See also Rogers oti Ecclesitwtical Law, 393) is likewise an autliority to bhew that churchwarrlens may iiitertere to p w e r v e clecorum in the chiirch. Here the cotigre~rtiortwere assemhliitg for diviiie service, atitl the r l e f e t i ~ ~ ~otilys dirt rvh;rt ~it was necessrrry t o guard against interruption, and :I most tiriseenily exhihitioii cluririg i t s progress ; that they were fully erititletl to tlo. GURNEY, , arid I~ULFE, coricurretl. I3 B., Rote absolute. i c p... . f 334lS.+g7 al.t&c.s

+ -

ji ii

[IO91

~ ~ ~ I N T L, WRIGHT. Exch. ~ ~ ~ ~ B ( ~ ~ o of Pleas. ,JIIIIC 6, 1843.--A. contr*ictul with the Postmaster (4ener:tl to provide :t mail-coach to convey the mail hags along a aertairi line of road ; arid H.anti others also coritt*:tcterl to horse the coach along the same line. B. atid his co-eoritmctors hired C. t o drive the coach :Held, that Cj. cotilcl ttot t i t ~ i ~ i ~ L i taction agiiiist A . for art itrjirry s i ~ ~ ~ ~byi i :tit ~ i him while drivirig the coach, hy its breaking clowii fwni laterit defects in its construction.

[S.

8 E. 8

Distinguished, Blnrkrnort! v. G~istol nrtd E d e r Ruihny, 1858, ~ l ~ R. 1035. Applied, Altm v. ~ ~ z ( ~ l a~T i i ~ ~1865, 19 U, B. (N.S.) 313 ; CglZis v. Sekdsw, 1868, L. H. 3 C , P. 495. I)iscnssed, flraueiz v. I c 7 i d ~ 1 , 1883, 11 C& 6. D. 503. Follower!, E d v. LuCubCork, [I9051 1 IC. B. 293.1
Case.

c. 11 L. J. Ex.415.

The declaratiori stated, that the deferidtint wBci B contractor for the supply iri that character cotitracted for hire :itid rew*rr.rlwith the Postmaster-Ceneral, to provide the mail-coach for the pirpose of conveying the mailbags from Hartford, iri the county of Chester, to 1Ioiyhead : That the rlefericlaiit, uitder and by virtue of the said contract, hiid ;Lgreed with the said Postnuster &xiera1 t h a t the said rnaikxxmh should, during the s&l coIitr:\ct, tie kept iri G: tit, proper, s:lfe, :&tin

of mail-coacheu, arid liar1

io

M.8c w. 118.

WINTERROTTOM 2. WRIGHT '

403

secure strtte arid coridit,iott for ttie s:riil purpose, nrid took u p o t i hinisclf, tu wit, iiricler :~nrlby virtue of the s:ti(l coritract, the sole ;tnd exclusive duty, ch;trge, c:tt'e, :tiit1 huideu of the repnirs, state, arid condition of the said m:til-coach ; a r i d it h;td t)ecorue and w:ts the sole and exclusive r1ut.y of thc defeiidatit, to wit, irricler ; i n t l hy virtiie of his said coriksct, to keep arid mairitaiii the s:titl nitiil-co;tch in a tit, proper, wfe, and secure st:tte arid contlitiori for the purpose tiforesaid : That Nathaniel Atkiiisoii aiirl other persons, havirig riotice of the saiil coritrxct, were tirider corit,r.ar.t with the PostmasterGerierd t.o convey the said rri;ril-coach from Hartfortl t o Holyhe:itl, an(l to supply horses arid coachmeti for th:it purpose, tirid also, iiot on any pretence whatever, to use o r cniploy any other catch or ctrriage whatever than siich :is shoiiltl I)e so provitletl, : That t<hepl:LiiititY, lieing a miildireeted, antl appoitited hy the Postn~axter-C~erie~al coachman, arid t,herehy obt;ririing his livelihood, and whilst the sxirl several coutr:tct,$ were i t i force, having notice thereof, a r i d trusting to antl confitlirig i r i the contract made between the defert(larit :~ndtlie Postmaster-Geiieral, atit1 helieviiig t1i:tt the said coach w:ts iri it tit, safe, secure, aiid proper st.:tte and coti(Iitiori for the purpose aforesaicl, ntitl riot krrowing :tiid liavirig no riie:tiis of ktiorvirig to t h e coiittxry thereof, hired h irnself to the sttic1 Nattittrriel Atkiirson and [110] his co-contractors ;is ~n:til~~:ottc:timnri, to tlrive a r i d take the con(luct of the said mail-coach, which but for tttie s:iiil contract of the defendant tie would riot have (lotie. The (1ecl:tratioti then ;tvcrretl, that the defentlant so improperly : t i i d tiegIigeiit,Iy cotirlucted tiiniself, a i i t l so iiLterly tlisregarcled his aforesaid coritrnct, :itid so wholly rieglected :wd failed to perfoim his duty i t i this behalf, that heretofore, to wit, oti the 8th of Aiigust, L8,10, whilst the piairitiff, :is such mail-couchtnari so hired, was tlrivitig the said rri:til-coach from Hartfoid to Holyhead, the same coach, lieiiig : ni:til-coac:ti fourid arid provided 1)y t.he clefeti(1arit under I his atid coutract, and the defendant t<heriacting ~tnderhis said coritr;tct, aud having the meittis of knowing and theti well knowing all the aforesaid premises, the said mail-coach heing ttieri in ;i ftxil, weak, :tiid infirm, a t i t l rlaiigerous st:rte :mrl corirlitiori, to wit, by arid through certain 1:Lterit defects iri the state and coiiditiori thereof, ant1 utisafe arid unfit fo r the w e a r i d purpose aforesaid, a r ~ lfrom tio ot,her caiise, circumstarice, m a t t e r o r thing whatsoever, gave way aritl 1)roke (lowii, wtietdiy tlie pltbintiff was throwri from his seat, arid iri consequence of irij tities theii received, liar1 hconie lanied for life. To this rlec1ar:ttiori the defenc1;tnt pleadecl several pleas, t o two of which them werq demurrers; but t~ the Court gave no opitiioir ;is t,o their validity, it is not necessary to state them. Pe:icock, who appeared i n support of the rleruurters, having argued agtIitist the su Kieiertcy of the pleas,Byles, for the rleferidaiit, objected that the declat~atiotiwas bad iri substance. This k a h action brought, not against At.kirisoti arid his eo-coiitractors, who mere the employers of the plaintiff, but against the persoti employed by the PostmasterGeneral, aud totally uiiconrtected with them or with the plaititill'. Now i t is a geriaral rule, that [Ill] wherever a wrong arises merely out of the 1)rench of a contract, which is the case on the face of this tleclar:Ltiori, whether t.he f o r m in which the nctiou is conceived be ex corttrmtti or ex delicto, the party who made the contract If the tule w e r e otherwise, and alone can m e : 7bllit v. ~Shwsfane M. C ! W. !&3). (5 privity of contract were riot recIuisit,e, there would be no limit to such actions. I f the plaiutiff rimy, as in this case, ruri through the length of three cotitracts, he may ruii ;through any number or series of them ; aocl t,he most darniirtg corisequences woidd follow tbe :tdoptioti of such i~ principle. For exaniple, every otie of the sufferers by such ;LII :tcciderit a-3 that, which recently happened ori the Versaillcs railway, might have his actiori against the niariufwtiirer of the defective axle. So, if the chniri-cable of an East Indianim were to break, arid the vessel went, agt~oitrtd, every persoti afected, either in person or property, by the accident,, might have an actiori against the niauufacturer, and perhaps against every seller also of the iron. Agairi, suppose il geritleman's coachman were irijurctl hy the hreakirig down of his carriage, if this X t i Q I l be maintainable, he might hriiig his action against t,he smith or the coachmaltet*, ttlthough he could riot m e his master, who is ttie party contrmtitig with him : Priestly v. Fowler (3 M. ~ 9 s W. 1). There is no precedent to he fourid of such a rleclsratioti, except one iri Y Wentwortb, 397, which has heeti deemed very questioiiahle. I ! U ~ . S O I L v. Qibitt (9 M. & W. 710) is ari authority to shew that the party injurer1 by the negligerice of mother cannot go beyond the party who did the injury, iiiiless he can

404

WINTERBOTTOM 1'. WRIGHT

10

w. & w.112.

establish that the latter stood iti the relation of a servant t o the party sued. In Witte v. Hirynte (2 Uowl. & Ry. ;38), where tlie plaiiitiff suetl for ;tu injury pimducecl t)y the explosion of n ste,am-etigine boiler, the deferid:itit was persorially preseiit tuawgiiig the boiler at the tirile of the nc-[ll2]-cicletit. L s y v. 1,cingrirlga (4 M. & W. 337) will prohehly be referred to on the other side. But that cast! was expressly decided oti t h e ground that the defcriclatit~, who soli1 the gun by which thc plaintif was itijuretl, although he dit1 not persorially cotitract with the plitiiitif, who was a mitior, knew t h a t it was tiought to he iisetl by hirn. Here there is iio iillegatioti that the defendant knew that tlie coach was t,o he driveti by tlie plaiiiti8: There, moreover, fraud was :tlleged iti the declnratiou, atid found by t.he jury : :tml there, too, the muse : of injury was ;I weapon of L rlarigerous nature, m l t.he defeticlaiit was alleged tu have had notice of the defect in its construction. Nothing of that sort appears upon this cleelaratinn. Peacock, cootrh. This case is within t,he principle of the decisioti iri Le~yv. Lnngiidqe. Here t h o tlefendant etitered itit,o : coritract with : public o f i c e r to sripply I I itii article whicb, if imperfectly cotisttwted, was IiecessariljF tlaugerous, a i d which, from its riahime arid the use for which i t wits destinetl, wits tiecessarily to he driven by a coiLchmari. T h a t is sufficient. bo tiritig the case withiii the rule est;hliahed hy Levy Lanyridqe. Iii that case the contract niatle t)y the father of the pl:tiiitiff with the defentlrLrit W;LS ttiatle on tielialf of tiiniself a r i d his family gerier.:tlly, a t i t l there wm : s nothing to shew that t,he clefendittit ~ : t :tware eveti of the existeuce of the particular son who W;LS irijiirecl. Siippose a party ttiticle i t contract with goveriinietit for ;t supply of muskets, one of which, from its tiiiscoristructioii, tiiirst a r i d irijurccl ;I soltlier : there i t is cle:tr tlint the use of the weapon by a solcliei, would have bceii cotitetnplated, :ilthough iiot Ly t,he part,icular iiidividual who received the itijiiry, ntitl coulcl i t he said, since the decirrion it1 L w y v. Limgrzdqc, thttt he coultl riot. m;tintnin x i action against the coritr;tctor'! So, if :I cn:tchiii:iker, [113] etriployetl to piit on the wheels of a carriage, did i t BO riegligeritly that otic of t,hem flew oft; niirl :I chilcl of the owtier were therehy irijrired, the dnrriage heing the iinturitl atid iriimetliate cotisequence of his riegljgence, he would surely be i,espotisihle. So, it t i party etitered into a contract bo repair it church, L workhouse, or o t h e r pii1)Iic l)iiilding, and did it so iiisufficieritly that : a persoti attetrrling the former, or k t pauper in the latter, mere iiijiired 1)y the falling of a stone, he coiild riot niniiitaiti ari act,ioti itgniiist ntiy other person tliaii the contraator; h u t agaiiist him he must nnrely have ;t remedy. It is like the case of it contractor who riegligeritly leaves opeti : sewer, wheixhy a p e i " ~ i p:issiiig along the I street is injured. It is clear that iio action could be mniiitaitierl against the PostmasterQetieral : Hidl v. S m i t h ('3 Bitig. 16C;), H,icrrq/h,,c,ys M ~ t z r s Man. & R. IN), f'r.iwi!ly v. (1 v. Fmolei. But here t.he r1ecl:tr:itioii dleges the x c i d e n t to have h:tppcnecl throiigh the defendant's iiegligerice itiirl wanit of care. The plaititiff h:td no opportunity of seeing that the carriage was souricl : ~ r i c l seciire. [Altlersoii, B. 'fhe decision iri Lszy v. Lcinyridge proceeds upon tlie gt.ouncl of the Itiiowledge ;tiit1 fraud of the deferidatit,.] Here also there was fraud : the clefeiidarit represetitcrl the cottch to be i t i a proper st:tte for use, xud whether he represetitetl that which \vas false within his ktiowledge, 01'p fact as true which he did t i o t know to be so, it was eqiially ; fraud in point of I law, for which he is respotisi1)le. LORDAGINGRK, E. I ani clearly of opitiioti that t h e defendant is erititled to C. o w judgmerit. We ought riot to permit a doubt to rest iipoti this subject, for our doing so might be the meatin of letting i n upon us :it1 iritiriity of actiotis. 'L'his is an action of the first impression, :ttitl i t has h e t i h o i i g h t i r i spite of the ptwutioiis which were taken, iii the judgmetit of this Court iti tlie case of L e y v. L m c y d q e , to uhviate any notion that such m i ac:tiori [I141 cotild he Iti:iirit,aitietl. \\re ought iiot t o attempt t o extend the priiiciple of that decision, which, :tlt,hough it has h e t i c.itcd in support of this ;tctioii, wholly fails as :in authority i t i its f:tvorir ; for there the gun w:is bought for t h e use of the son, the plaiiit,iff' i r i that :wtioti, who could not nuke the 1);irgain hiinself, hut WBS re:tlly aricl siihsCatitially the party cotitractiiig. Here tho action is hrotight simply because the r1efenrl:trit w'its a coiltractor with ;I thirtl person ; a i d it is qontended that t,hereupoti he Iiccame IiaIiIo to cvery hotly who might use the cartiage. If tilere had been any gi.outid for such ail :tctiori, there certainly would have been some preeecient of it ; but with the excepiori of actioris agtitist iririkeepers, and some few other persons, 110 case of a similar nature tias occurred it1 practice. That is a strong circutnst:ti1ce, and is of itself a great authority agtirist its mnintenarice. It is
17.

10

ne & W.115.

WI&TELU3OTTOM U . WtelGHT

405

however contended, that this coiitrxt being made oti the Le1i:aIf of the public by the Postniaster-Geiieral, no actio11 could be tii:aititained agaiiist h i , arid therefore the plaintiff must have a remedy agrirrst tlie defeiiclarit. But that is hy 1 1 0 nieaiis a tiecessary consequence-he may I)c remediless altogether. There is tio privity of contract betwaert these parties ; atirl if the phititiff ciati sue, ever,y p~sseiiger, even or :my person p:tssitig ialotig the road, who was injured by tlie upsettiug of the cowti, might bring a similar action. Unless me cotifiue the operatioii of such contracts as thia to the parties who entered into theni, the most ahsuid arid outrageous COILsequences, to which I can see t i 0 litnit, would errsue. \\:here :L party becomes responsible to the public, hy iindertakitig :t public duty, h e iu liatde, though the injury may h w c arisen from the riegligerice of his servarit or agent. So, iri cases of public uuisances, whether the nct w:is doiic by the party as :t servarit, or i r t any other capacity, you :are liable to an actioii at tho suit of ariy persoii who s u h r s . Those, however., are cases where the real grouritl o the liability is the pu1)lic duty, or the f cornmis-[115]-siori of the puhlic riuisilrice. There is it150 a cl;tss of cases iri which t h e law perrnitv a coiitmct to be turned into it tort ; hiit uuless there has 1Jeeii some puldic cluty undertaken, or public riuisance committed, they are :ill cases i n which MI actioii might have been m:Lirit:ained upoii the contract. Thus, a car1 ier niay be sued either iii assumpsit or case ; but there is no itistarice iii which :r party, who was riot privy to the contract entered into with hiin, c:an maintiti atiy sucti xtioti. The phititiff' in this case could iiot have brought :ai1 :totioil 011 tlie coritriact ; if lie could Iiave t h e so, what would trave beeri tiis situation, supposing tlie Postni~ister-Ur,rieriilhad released the defeiidatit '? that woul(l, at dl events, 1i:ire defe:ttr,d his claim idtogether. By permitting this action, we should he workiug this injustice, that after the defendant had dorie everything to the s:atisftictiort of his employer, atid ;&er all matters 1)etween them had been adjusted, arid all ticcounts settlecl on the footiiig of their cnritract, we should subject them to Ire ripped open Iiy this actioti of tort being hrought against him. ALDERSOW, I am of thc s m e opinion. The cotitract in this case was n i d e E. with the Postmaster Getierral dotie ; atid the case is just the same as if lie hurl come to the defendmt arid ordered t carriage, and h i d e d it at once over to Atkirisori. If : we were to hold that the pbiritiff could sue iii such a case, there is no poirit a t which such actions would stop. The orily safe tule is to coiifitie the right to recover to those who enter iirto the contract: if we go one step be~olid that, there is 110 re;isoti why we should uot go fifty. The only real argunieiit iii fiavoiir of the :actLou is, that this is ;I case of hardship; hut that might have been obviated, if the plaintiff' had made himself :t party to the contract Theti i t is urged that i t falls withiti the pririciple of the case of Leuy v. k ~ ~ ~ g r d yUiLt . the principle of that case w:bs simply ~' this, that the father hiavirig bought the gut1 for [116] the very purpose of being used by the plaintif, the deferidtrnt ni:itle representations by which he was iriduced to use it- There a distinct fraud \vias comniittecl on the phiiitiff; the falsehood of the representation W D S also alleged to have been within the ktiowleclge of the clefeiidant who made it, atid he was properly held lioble for the coiisequeitces. How are the facta of t h a t case applicable to those of the present? Where is the ta1leg:ttioii of ruiur e p r e s e t i t d h or fraud i t i this decluration ? I t shews iiothitig of the kitid. Our judgment must therefore be for the defeIiclant. GURNEY, concurred. B., RCJLFE, The b r e d of the defendatit's duty, stated iu this tleclaration, in his B. oniissiori to keep the carriage iii :I safe cotitlition ; :aud wheii we examine tlie mode iri which that duty is alleged to have :irisen, we tiritl a shatemeiit that the defeiidatit took upon himself, to wit, uutler arid by virtue o the said contract, the sole mtl E exclusive duty, charge, care, aiid t)urtleri of t h e repairs, state : ~ r i t l cortditioti of the $;rid wail-coach, arid, during :ill the t i n e aforesaid, it had become atid was the sole arid eXclusive c l u g of the deferidatit, to wit, under a i d b,y virtue of his said contract, to keep and ttxLintain the said trluil-coach in ;i fit, proper, safe, awl secure state atid corrditiori. The duty, therefore, is shewti tu have arisen solely from the coiitract; aid the f&\cy corisists in the use of that word "duty." If it duty to the PostmagterGeneral be meant, that is true; but if a duty to t h e plaintiff be intended (and iti that sense the word is evidently usecl), there was iiotie. This is one of those uufortunate cases in which there certaiiily has heeii d m i i i i i i i i , Imt i t is t h i i i i r i i : t h ( [ i i e iiijurict ; it is, un cloubt, il hardship uport the plrtiiitiff to be wittiout a reiiiedy, b u t by that

406

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 2. DONALDBON

IO M.&? w. UT.
I.xeii

c~)risider~tioti ought not to lte iitfl~Ience(1. Hmd enses, it h:ts we uliserved, are apt to introduce td law. r Judgment for the defendant.

frcr~Lietitly

[117] THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 14. DONALDSON I) AN

Jtirte 9,

0~~~11s. Exch. of Pleas 1842.-Ati i i i f o r ~ a ~ i o of it~tr~js~ort ri stated, that the defer~rl~krits iritrii~let~ situatc Be., and IJeiiig and made entry on a certain niessuage or dwellii~~-house, parcel of I the royd palace of Kensirigton, then in the oceiipation of our Li;tc?y the Queen, apd which was in the liarids and possession of tho Queen in right of her Crown. The defendants pleaded, in the form given hy the st&. 23 Hcn. 8, c. 5 , s. 11, that they committed the trespasses under the siithority of n t:ornrtiission of sewers, for tax assessed by the said co~nriiissiori :-Elcld, O I I rlemurrer, t h a t this form of plea wt~snot a 1 l o ~ ; ~ ~i)nl e i I i f o r ~ ~ ~ t iofI iiritrusian at the suit of the an o Crown.--A distress cannot be levier1 for sewers rates withiii the precincts of a royal paktee, occupier as the residelice of the Sovereigri ; arid r ~ e t t s j r i Palwe ~~~i is within this description.-Bot semble, that the averment in this infurmation did riot sufticieiitly shew the palace to lie the resitfeiice of the Sovereigti.
oti

[S.C. I1 L. d. Ex. 338. Applied, ,fttm.rtey-Ce?iei,nl v. U a k h , IH70, L. R. 4 11. I,. J51;

1% T S ~ ~; En. ~ t e ~ o s t ~ : l r a ( ~ s t e 1879, ~IO ~ Gii. ~L). OO1 : reported p } ~ i t . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ t mother point, 7 M. & W. 422.1
This was ~ L Ri ~ i ~ ~ r . n ~ of ~ intrnsian, The iiiforn&on stated, that whereas ~ tion heretofore, to wit, oti &e., n certain messusge or dwelling-house, situatc m d being in the parish of St. M ~ ~ r ~ a rwithiti the litterty of ~ ~ ~ e s t I ~ in i thes county of et, ~ ii ~r~ Middlesex, and parcel of the Royal Palace at Kensingtoti, long I d o r e then, aid at that time in the oecupatioti of our Lady the Queeu, was, i t l d ought to have been, a i d of right is, or ought to be, iri the harids and possession of our said 1,arly (Jueen Victoria, its in right of her crowu of Great Britain :~iid Irclitiirl : yet the deferidiLnts heretofore, to wit, OIL &e, with force arid arms, in and uport the possession of our said Lady the Queen, of and iri the premises aforesaid, entered, intruded, arid niacio entry, continued thereon for L: long time, to wit, kc. and remained ;&rid Plea, tti;ib the trespasses in the inforniatiori mentioiiecl mere committed by the defendants urder the iiiittiority of i certain comniissiori of sewers of our said sovereign l I d y the tiow Queen, before :md ilt the said times when &e., beiitg i n fill1 force, for tax asseased by the said co~~t~iissioii, according to the tetior mtl eftect, true intent atid and ineatiing, of the several statutes of sewers mule :md then und now in force. Verification. Demucrer.. The following were the p i n t of deruiircer stated on the part of the of Attorney-Cmeral. First, that the Queeu is riot boutid by the s t ~ t u t e sewers, so far as the sume points out t h e ntotle of p ~ e ~ c ~ i n Seconc!, that the plea shoultl fiave g. set out spedally the whole of the grounds itpori which the ~ e f e i i [ ~ ~ ~jiIstiticatioii ri~s depends. [I181 Third, that the plea should have set forth more definitely the comniission of sewers, aiicl the a s s e ~ s r ~ ~under i t eri~ The case was argued i n Easter Term (April %>, hy questions tirise in t h i s case : the Erst rile Attorney-General for the Crowti. T~ro one of caxtsicleritkile intportanac, whether a i o y d pal:ice, i t 1 the occupittiori of the savereigti, is withiii the statute of sewers, uric1 liihle to be rated for the sewers tax : the secoitd, whether t h e deEendattts, iti an i 1 i f o ~ ~ i ~ 4 t ~itttrubiott at the suit of the of ~ t i Crown, are a t liher ty to plead the general form of ple:t giveri by the Stahite uf Sewers, 33 Hen. 8, 0. 5, s. 11. Wibh respect to the first poirit, i t is impossible that a rate eittl be levied on a palace ip the occupttiott of the sovereign. And i n the casa of Uznter Y. i l M e ~ (10 East, 578), it wits held that Kensiitgtori Palace, being kept in :L caiistiliit state of prepnratiori to ~ w e i v e king, with his otficers, servants, :tnd guards resitliug mtl clnitig cluty there the :rt d l times, :tnd sortie of the royal f:imiiy haviiig aplrrtnients there ( d l which cireurustances still exist with respect to it), was privileged as a royal palace against the j I ~ t r ~ i of ~ h et sheriff for the p ~ i ~ ~ of ~ e~ s e ~ i t i ~ i ~ ~ t~ i i xe process a p i u s t the goorla of a person having the use of :iprtnretits therein. There Imcl El1erihor.ough says -- If his Majesty were neither actually tior virtually preseiit at Kerisingtori, neither itr his