Bigley and pechey how far toll shall not be say to be due in trespass for take  good the defendant plead that at the time of the trespass suppose to be commit  Richard Lord bishop of Winchester be seize in fee of a market in the town of  Croydon and that the defendant as bailiff to the say bishop distrain the good  in question for damagefeasant the plaintiff reply that the late king by his  letter patent grant the say market to Jonathan Lord bishop of Winchester and  allege that at the time in the declaration mention he bring the good into the  say market for sale till the defendant take they of his own wrong the  defendant by his rejoinder crave oyer of the say letter patent and plead that  the plaintiff bring his good there without payment of toll upon which the  defendant desire he to remove away his say good which the plaintiff do not  notwithstanding and thereupon the defendant distrain they as he well may to  this the plaintiff demurrer and show for cause that the defendant have demand  oyer of letter patent which be not plead with a profert that he have not  allege that any toll be due nor Barnardiston king b for what it be due nor in  what manner it be due nor that any be deny and that the rejoinder be a  departure from the bar Mr draper now argue for the plaintiff and say that all  market be of a public nature free for all people to come into and therefore  admit that toll be due yet still by refuse to pay it the plaintiff will not  become a trespasser upon the soil of the market for which reason the good  bring by he into the market can not be distrain for damagefeasant and for this  purpose he cite cro but he submit it that toll be not due in this case because  it be not mention in the letter patent and be not due of common right as  incident to a market in proof of which be cite Inst and Lutw he observe far  that the nature of toll be such as to be due from the buyer only and not from  the seller and for this be cite Inst and take notice that in all demand of  toll the quantity of the toll ought to be set forth that the court may judge  whether it be reasonable or not Inst and the nature of it ought to have be set  forth because some be in specie and other not roll Abr sergeant Belfield argue  on the other side and do agree that the rejoinder can not be maintain but he  submit it that the replication be bad and if so judgement must be for the  defendant he observe that the plaintiff have admit by his replication that he  bring his good to sale into the market but before he do do so the sergeant  submit it that the plaintiff ought to have tender stallage to the lord bailiff  and for this purpose he cite a case determine James in roll Abr relate to the  town of Cambridge the court declare themselves by no mean satisfy that toll or  stallage be due to a market without a express clause in the grant or  prescription for that purpose but if these duty be incident to market of  common right they think that stallage can not be necessary to be tender before  the good be bring into the market and that it be enough to do it after they be  bring in and as to the case cite out of roll Abr the chief justice and judge  page declare that they doubt whether it be law accord judgement be give for  the plaintiff unless cause on Thursday next