Northampton Mercury, August 29th 1863, transcribed by Susan Manton

Mr. John Gross, farmer, of Rushden Lodge, was summoned by Wm. Higgs, toll collector, for refusing to pay 1s 6d for a cart drawn by two horses, through the Park side gate, in the parish of Rushden, on the 28^th of July. Mr. White appeared for the complainant, but defendant did not put in an appearance, he having requested the Bench to let the case stand over to another session. It being known, however, that if he had been present he would have claimed exemption on the ground of drawing material for the repairs of the highway, the Bench, after some consultation, decided to hear the case, as the adjournment would involve defendant in considerable additional expense. Mr. White, for complainant, admitted the right of defendant claiming exemption from toll for drawing material on the highway for the necessary repairs thereof, provided the wheels of the carts employed for that purpose were of the width of 4½ inches. If they were under that width, toll could be demanded according to the statute. Evidence being produced that the cart in question and others used by the defendant were only four inches wide in the wheels, an order was made for the defendant to pay the costs and toll, and to be fined 1s.

Northampton Mercury, 11^th February 1865, transcribed by Susan Manton

Refusing to pay toll. William Higgs, toll collector, summoned Perkins Saunders of Wymington, for refusing to pay 1s 6d for a dray drawn by a horse and a bullock passing through the Park Lea side gate near Higham Ferrers, on the 19^th of January. The defendant had acted by his employer’s orders, Mr. Nicholas Fisher, farmer, Rushden Lodge. Mr. R. Sharman appeared for Mr. Fisher. From the evidence, it appeared that the dray had been used to fetch water for the use of the cattle from a field belonging to Mr. Fisher, where a dam had been made to collect it. The farm opens on either side on the turnpike road, and Mr. Sharman said that, some time ago, defendant, in consequence of disagreement about the toll, had made a road through a corner of one of his fields, whereby he could avoid going through the toll gate altogether, but he did not on this occasion, choose to do so, as he claimed exemption from toll under the Turnpike Act, which provided that farmers removing fodder or agricultural produce arising out of the culture of the land shall be exempt from toll. Mr. Sharman contended that water, fetched from a watering place for the use of the cattle, as done by the defendant, came within the meaning of the Act and must be considered to be fodder, especially as the Act was meant to be construed beneficially. The Bench discussed the matter at some length. The Chairman and Captain Stockdale were of opinion that the Act could not by any means be so strained so as to consider water agricultural produce or fodder. Johnson’s Dictionary was referrer to and the definition of the word “fodder” there given “dry food stored up for the cattle against winter” decided them that water could not by any means be called fodder or agricultural produce. Mr. Young and Mr. Mitchell were of opinion that water artificially collected on land for the use of cattle came under the meaning of agricultural produce and was within the Act. The Chairman said that, with regard to his own personal feelings, he thought that water should have been included in the act but as it at present stood, he was of opinion that it could not be considered either as fodder of agricultural produce. The Bench, being equally divided no decision was come to. The complainant said he should enter an action at law against defendant, in order to get a decision.