burrow king versus ROBOTHAM Monday that may hawker licence this be a  conviction upon the hawker and pedlar Act W c and remove into this court by  certiorari upon its come on in the Crownpaper the conviction be quash for a  manifest mistake of the justice of peace who convict the defendant for though  the defendant have a regular licence for travel c with a horse common term by  those people a horselicence yet the justice have convict he because he travel  with two horse and have not a licence to produce for each horse with which he  so travel which the statute as it appear by the print statute do not require  on Saturday that February last Mr sergeant Hewitt take the exception and Mr  sergeant nares own it to be fatal but propose to refer it to I to award full  satisfaction to the defendant both for his cost and damage for the justice he  say have be draw into this by a error in Mr burn justice p in the three  edition in folio title hawker and pedlar where the word horse be by mistake  put for year Lord Mansfield suppose it to be only a slip of the press rather  than a mistake of the author and desire that Mr burn may have notice of it in  order to set it right in his next edition the conviction be quash and a rule  of reference to I make as above propose MemorandumUpon my have take the  liberty this morning private to acquaint the judge that have the curiosity to  search the Parliamentroll on find the word of the Act to be nonsense in say  for each year he or she shall so travel with and that I have discover a  blunder in this original Act of W c in omit several essential word which ought  to have be insert therein and which be insert in the annual Act of the precede  year namely for each burrow horse ass or mule or other beast bear or draw  burden he or she shall so travel with which mistake manifest arise from change  the annual duty before give into a triennial duty as may be most clear see by  compare the annual Act of W c with the triennial one of c S and that dr burn  book be certain agreeable to the true intent and meaning of the latter Act  whatever it may be to its word and that the mistake be in the statute itself  of W which give the duty for three year Lord Mansfield Mr justice Wilmot and  Mr justice Yates Mr justice denison not be present be extreme clear that the  Act of parliament be so intend and they think it ought to be so construe and  Lord Mansfield desire I to speak to the two sergeant to come together to the  court of king bench this morning in order to have the rule set right they  accord come up and his lordship explain the whole matter to they but Mr  sergeant nares say that he have two reason for give it up one V Mod reignolds  v Davis S p leave undetermined note that case be wrong state in the table of  that book it state that the feme sole give the letter of attorney whereas it  be give to her see sect and sect N B the error be not in dr burn but in the  Act of parliament itself see dr burn history of the poor law with observation  p title hawker and pedlar burrow er p that there be another fatal objection  videlicet that the informer himself be the only witness and the other that he  have send to the hawker and pedlar office and be there inform that it be their  practice and usage ever since this Act of W to require only one horselicence  to be take out for travel with several beast of burden and Mr Wallace also as  friend curiae inform ache court that the late Lord Hardwicke have when at the  bar give his opinion that though the intention of the legislature can not well  be doubt and there certain be a mistake in the Act of parliament yet as it be  word the commissioner can not oblige a hawker or pedlar to take out more than  one horselicence for travel with several beast of burden and that accord the  commissioner never require more than one single horselicence for several horse  the court declare that they only desire it may be understand that nothing have  be determine by they upon the construction of this Act and that they shall not  determine any thing upon it without hear the point argue since the usage  appear to have be to require only a single licence for a number of horse  burrow and Lord Mansfield wish that the commissioner of hawker and pedlar may  have notice of what have now pass upon the whole no alteration be make in the  rule of last term but it stand as it do videlicet by consent of counsel on  both side it be further order that it shall be refer to James burrow Esq  coroner and attorney of this court to fix and assess what cost and damage the  defendant have be put to and have real sustain and that the sum so to be allow  by the say master for cost and damage shall be pay by Francis turner blithe  Esq the justice of the peace before who the say defendant be convict and it be  last order that no action shall be bring touch this matter N B holdfast on the  demise of Barker v chapman ms be adjudge this term in b r may that omit by  Blackstone as well as burrow