case fazakerley chamberlain of London against wiltshire the bylaw of the city  of London that none but free porter shall work in unship of corn import into  London from any place between Stains bridge and Kendal in ken be good S c  stram the only question be upon the validity of a bylaw in the city of London  a this bylaw be make in the eighteenth year of James the first videlicet that  the corn porter shall be a company with twentyfour assistant who be call free  porter who shall work at a particular settle rate and that none but the free  porter shall intermeddle in import or export any corn root c within the bind  mention in the custom on pain of twenty shilling for every offence except in  time of danger or urgent necessity or in the case of good to pass away the  forfeiture to be recover by action in the name of the chamberlain and four  hundred porter be appoint S c stram a modern report er p that none but free  porter shall intermeddle with the carry or unload of corn salt or seacoal or  any other good out of any barge light c between Stains bridge and Kendal in  the county of ken that be to be import into the port of London under the  penalty of forfeit twenty shilling for each offence except in time of danger  and to save the lose of good peer William against the bylaw argue to the  follow effect modern report the bylaw restrain the number of cart in the  street of London do not prevail without the great difficulty a see Bosworth v  hear stram a and the main reason why that bylaw be adjudge good be that a  unlimited number of cart will occasion stop and be a nuisance to passenger b  see Cuddon v Eastwick Mod b a navigable river be in all respect like a highway  to be free to all and none ought to be debar from use it c assize and see hawk  p c that edit c a man can certain have a more natural right to anything than  to the free use of his bodily labour and therefore a bylaw that shall restrain  a man from the use of that as this do must be nought especial when no  recompense be give in lieu of it d roll Abr   d to the performance of this  employment the serve a apprenticeship be not necessary for it require not  skill but strength this be a bylaw that enhance the price of carriage and  encourage idleness the extent of this bylaw be from Stains bridge to Kendal in  the county of ken which be much too great the king by his proclamation can not  make such a bylaw and certain no derivative power can be great than the  primitive there be not so much as a exception in this bylaw for the owner of  the good or his own servant so that accord to this law a man can neither carry  his own good nor employ his own servant c this bylaw be pen in obscure and  ambiguous word it be very uncertain what act may amount to a intermeddle  perhaps the help and assist a free porter though at his own request may be  construe such from all these reason put together he conclude that this bylaw  be both unreasonable and prejudicial to the subject and therefore void the  case quote by he in his argument be Lutwyches Rep more roll Abr Brownlow  carter Jones Mod Adjournatur e this case be argue again in Trinity term Geo  and the court be of opinion that both the custom and the bylaw be good  inasmuch as it be a regulation convenient to the public and the restraint only  from bodily labour in one instance S c stram see also Robinson v web bar king  b Bosworth v hearne stram e