Ch.X. Sec.IL] Marts, S^^. 195 to the King, and he grants the market cum partimentiisy the toll passes {a). The King may clearly enable the grantee to take -a reasonable toll ; and, it seems, the exact toll to be taken need not be specified in the patent (&), and that usage may fi^ the identical charges {c. However, apt and certain words must be used in the grant, if it profess to point out what toll is to be taken ; and, therefore, a grant of such toll to be taken at two bridges, as is used to be taken, * ihi et alibi infra regnum An^- gli(£y has been held uncertain and void {3), The King may, after he has granted the fair or market, grant to the patentee the right to take toll in respect thereof; but in such case there must be a quid 'pro quo, some proportionable benefit to the public (e). If an unreasonable toll be granted, the patent is void as to the toll, in toto, and the market or fair becomes free {f). So, if the patentee of a market or fair take outrageous toll, (the reasonableness of which, under all the circumstances, is a ques- tion determinable at law (g) ), he forfeits the whole toll in future ; and the King may, on office found {h seize the market or fair into his own hands till it be redeemed (z). But the market or fair itself is not forfeited in such case [k). Toll cannot be ta- ken for goods not brought to a market, or sold tlierein by sam- ple only (/). The King is not liable to pay toll (m), nor is he bound by a sale in market overt (w). He may grant an exemption from tolls due to himself, or which may thereafter become due in respect of a subsequently granted fair or market, but not from toll due on account of an old fair or market (0). As just observed, a market or fair is not absolutely forfeited (a) Palmer's R. 78. (rf) Cro. Jac. 421. {b) See Ibid. 86. This was the opi- (e) 2 Inst. 220. Cro. El. 558 ; 591. nion of three judges. See also the Re- Moore, 474. 4 Taunt. 519, 520. gister, p. 103. But Montague, C. J. (/) 2 Inst. 220. 2 Lutvv. 1336. held the contrary ; and in Palm. 79, {g) 2 Inst. 222. said that it was agreed by Popham in {h) 2 Ibid, 221. Heddy's Case, (see Heddy v. Wheel- (i) Ibid. Pal. 82. Com. Dig. Mar- bouse, Cro- El. 558, and 591.) that the ket, I. King ought to determine the quantum of {k) Ibid, toll, Moore, 474, S. C. In Osbuston v. (/) 4 Taunt. 520. James and others, 2 Lutw. 137T, the {m) 2 Inst. 221, 2 Rol. Ab. 198. came objection was taken j but judg- («) 2 Inst. 713. ment was given on another point. (o) Ibid. 221. Bac. Ab. Fairs, D. 2. {c) 5 East, 2. o 2 by
