FINAL REPORT Royal Commission Of Market Rights and Tolls

As to Establishment of rival or other Markets within Limits of Market Rights.

23.The plaintiffs were owners of the franchise of. the S. fruit and vegetable, market, deriving their title from grants of letters patent in the reigns of Charles II and James II. The defendants, a railway company, established at their goods station. at B., less than a quarter of a mile from the S. market, a new market for fish, fruit,, and vegetables, which they at first advertised as a "market," but afterwards substitute. the title of " depot " . The plaintiffs having brought an action for an injunction to restrain the Company from carrying on their market on. the ground that it was disturbance of the plaintiff's market rights and a fraud upon their market, a prejudicial to the ownership thereof, the defendants alleged that the S. market was wholly inadequate to the wants of the neighbourhood, and that such. inadequacy was increased by the fact that the plaintiffs devoted the whole space of the S. market to tenants by the year and for other periods, thus: depriving the public of accommodation.

It was held that the injunction must be granted, for the defendants would not be justified in establishing a market, which interfered with the plaintiff's legal right even if there were evidence that the accommodation, of the S. market was insufficient which was not proved to be the case.- Goldsmid v. Great Eastern Railway Co., L.R. 25 Ch. Div.51l ; 49 L.T. 717; 53 L.J.-Ch. 371.

This decision was confirmed on appeal to the House of Lords. See Great Eastern. Railway Company v. Goldsmid, L.R. App. Cas. 927; 33 W.R. 81 (H.L., E.).; 54 L.J., Ch; 162; 52 L.T. 270; 49 J.P. 260.

27. If the grantee of a market under letters patent from the Crown suffers another to erect a market in his neighbourhood and uses it for the space of 24 years without. by such use barred of his action for disturbance of. his market. Holcroft v. Heel, 1 B. & P.,400.

28. An action will lie for erecting a market near the plaintiff's ancient market, though the defendant only took. money in the nature of rent for his stalls, which is a lawful act, but took no toll, and had no, pretence to a pie-poudre court, or anything that amounted to a usurpation. of a franchise of the Crown. Mosley . Chadwick,7 B.&C47, n; 3 Doug. 117.

29. Where a corporation held a market by prescription, and the Crown afterwards granted to the corporation a charter with these words " quod nullum .mercatum.infra septem leucas in circuitu burgi praedicti per nos vel haeredes nostros.alieno concedatur: "

- Held that such prohibition, if it could be considered to extend beyond that which is attached by the common law to the grant of a market, was void . In re Islington Market Bill, 2c. &F.513.

30. The establishment of a new market, to be holden within the same times, within the common law distance of the old market,, is prima facie . injurious to the latter, and therefore void ; the convenience of the public would not, under such circumstances, justify the grant of a new market. In re Islington Market Bill, 2 C. & F. 513.
And where a charter purported to be granted " de assensu praelatorum, comitum, &c., in instanti parliamento convocati, " a new charter granted to hold the market &c., in instanti " parliamento convocati, " a new charter granted to hold the market within the distance would be void, and would be repeal able by scire facias.
The words stated would have the effect of giving the first charter the authority of an Act of Parliament. Such a charter could only be repealed by Act of Parliament. Ib.
If the market created by the first charter had not sufficient space for the accommodation of the public, and also if part of the space originally allotted to it was employed, or suffered by the grantee to be employed for other purposes without his providing a convenient place for the public to buy and sell in elsewhere within the limits of his grant, such circumstances would form a good defence to an action brought by him against any person for selling out of the market. They might also furnish ground for a scire facias to repeal the patent. lb.
Quoeree, whether such circumstances would not render the grantee liable to an indictment for a misdemeanor? If they would, an action would lie also against him for his default, but while such grant remains unrepealed, no other market could b granted within the limited distance. lb.
If by the terms of the grant the market was to be held in a fixed place, defined and known by metes and bounds, should those limits not be sufficient, and the owner of the market have no power to enlarge them, a new market might be granted to such an extent as to supply the deficiency, but no more. lb.