case Robinson against watkyns Qure whether the city of London under its custom  to regulate trade so as to prevent their become nuisance to the public can  make bylaw to regulate a new traffic such as drive hackneycoach by limit they  to a particular number?SC skin the return of a habeas corpus be that London be  a ancient city and that there be a custom in the say city for the mayor  alderman c to make act of common Council for the better government of the city  that the custom of London be confirm by Act of parliament that the say mayor  and alderman c be inform that the number of hackneycoach in London be great  increase and the trade of the city thereby impair do order that the number of  those shall not exceed four hundred and that none shall be licence modern  afterward but stagecoaches that if any person not licence stand to be hire c  the offender shall forfeit forty shilling for every such offence to be recover  by action of debt to be bring by the chamberlain of the city that before the  levy of the plaint whereupon the defendant be take he stand with a unlicensed  coach in Cornhill to be hire per quod action to grow progressively c and that  the defendant be take upon the say plaint which be the cause of his  imprisonment it be argue that this Act of common Council be illegal first by  consider the nature and extent of the custom and what operation be make upon  it by the confirmation in parliament for that give no new or far power or any  thing more than what they have before by the custom which be confirm but not  enlarge modern er p act of common Council in London be no more than bylaw they  be find upon the custom use in the city now they have no custom to warrant  this bylaw and therefore it be void for it be make by a corporation for a  private end it must have a custom to support it   a but if it have be for a  public good as for the repair of a highway c then it may have be well without  a custom   b then as to the restrain part of this law it be void because it be  against the liberty of the subject to be hinder in his lawful occupation and  so it be adjudge in the tailor of Ipswichs case   S c roll Rep S c godb S c  viner Abr S c roll Abr see mayor of Bedford v fox Lutw Parry v berry comy Rep  c in the case of Norris v stupes hob roll Abr bylaw pl see ld ray salk Bac Abr  d the question be whether a town corporate have no prescription to exclude  other can by any particular privilege make a law to obstruct all person from  use a trade there have not be apprentice in the town this seem to be against  the general liberty of the people and therefore of no force to bind stranger  act within the liberty of the place contrary to such law but it do not receive  any determination king Edward the three by letter patent confirm in parliament  give power to the mayor and commonalty of London to make bylaw for the better  regulate of the city and they make a law that no carman shall go into the city  without leave of the warden of a particular hospital under a certain penalty  and this be hold void raym side roll Abr pl e because it restrain man from use  of their trade and be in the nature of a monopoly it be true in Elizabeth a  action of debt be bring in London ground upon a Act of common Council  videlicet that if any citizen freeman or stranger within the say modern city  shall offer broad cloth to sale there before it be bring to blackwellhall to  be view he shall forfeit S d for every cloth and this be heldChamberlain of  London case   S c roll Abr S c Leon S c viner Abr see the case of Woolley v  idle where a bylaw that no stranger shall use the craft of a tailor in bath  except first make free under a penalty of three shilling and fourpence a day  find on a custom that no stranger shall use the say craft there unless make  free be good burr see also Wannel v chamberlain of London stram green v mayor  of Durham burr f a good law to bind stranger but the reason of that judgement  can have no influence upon this case because that be a good law make to  prevent fraud in sell of cloth not vendible beside it be hold that they have a  power by their custom to make such a law which be want here and therefore it  be pray that no procedendo may be award e contra the general question be  whether it be lawful to restrain the number of hackneycoach in London by a Act  of common Council which be admit to be no more than a bylaw and it be argue  that this bylaw be lawful first it be insist that a bylaw may be good in part  and void for the rest and that though there be no particular custom to support  this law yet it be good as find upon the general custom of London to supply  all defect of good government within the city the custom of that city be very  ancient and have be great regard in the court of justice   a they have be so  far from be construe to restrain trade within their liberty that they have be  allow even against common right and against the rule of law as a custom to  arrest a man for debt before it become Payable have be hold good for it be to  make the defendant find better surety all bylaw make for a public good be  justifiable for as such they can be no burden to the people it be true where  they be make for private end or for gain it be otherwise but that be not this  case because by this law no private benefit can accrue to the city it be a law  make to prevent a public nuisance and this be the reason of the judgement in  the case of Hayward v pain side roll Abr c which be a bylaw to restrain the  carman from go into the city without a licence from the warden of a particular  hospital because it be a law which have no respect modern er p to a public  good but to the profit of the hospital but for a authority which come near the  case in question this be cite videlicet a bylaw be make in London that there  shall be but four hundred and twenty cart let to hire under penalty of forty  shilling for every one above that number to be pay by the owner now this be a  law make in restraint of a lawful employment yet it be hold to be good raym  side say vide roll Abr contra d for if modern the number shall not be restrain  it may prove a nuisance by stop up the street and by hinder the passage it  have be object that these be different case because such bylaw which have be  hold good have be find upon custom but no custom can extend to coach which  have be new set up but what reason can be give why a bylaw shall not be good  which be find upon a general custom to supply all defect of former law many  instance may be give where such bylaw have be hold good roll Abr godb Bulst  Brownl e a bylaw make in London that none shall make or use a hotpress there  be hold good as find upon the general custom so be all the bylaw make against  butcher prohibit they from stand in certain street under a penalty Edward case    S c roll Rep S c viner Abr but see king v Harrison Bl Rep S c burr and  Harrison v goodman burr a it can be object that this be a law to licence a  nuisance because the city have adjudge four hundred coach to be a convenient  dumber neither can it be say to be a monopoly because it be only a restraint  of person beyond such a number to exercise a employment in a particular place  which be always allow to be goodSee the case of sir George Fermon v brook cro  Elizabeth b neither can it with any reason be object against the authority of  the mayor and alderman to make this bylaw videlicet that hackney coach have be  regulate by a statutelaw car c c which have make it needless if it can be do  by a bylaw because act of parliament have be make in confirmation of the  commonlaw so that thing though good in themselves may have occasion to be  support by the legislative power and last for a late authority the case of  gavel v tasker keb S c viner Abr d be cite which be a bylaw to restrain cart  to such a number as shall be licence by the company of woodmonger and this be  adjudge in the common plea James to be a good law which judgement be affirm in  the exchequer Chamber Adjournatur it be say S c skin that afterward the matter  be settle in parliament and that the city never think fit to stir further in  it see Ann c I Geo c S Geo c S Geo c S in the case of player v Jenkins viner  Abr a bylaw make by the city of London that there shall be no more than cart  let to hire in London on pain of forfeit S be hold good side Mod but see the  case of player v veer raym it be clear however that under a general power to  make bylaw a bylaw can be make to restrain trade burr Rep see the case of the  chamberlain of London v Grosecourt Mod Harrison v goodman burr king v Harrison  burr Rep but a bylaw not be in restraint of trade but only in regulation of it  be good Bosworth v hearne stram b r h andr green v mayor of Durham burr king v  surgeon Com any burr pierce v Bartum Cowp e