
    Stratton against Hubbel.
    NEW YORK
    Oct. 1812.
    Where atur i emptea peithXa°usual° blacksmith’s shop, from the ^ uwasheid that a person ^ed a load^of fí^and onMs return, stopbtooksmith’sto ~!ed i0 P,a=sto!i turn home, theefila"£ ° ™thcSpvhicf pal, not theincidental business, to bring it within the exemption. iTffefrick,011 ante, 356.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. TIubbel sued Stratton, before the justice, for obstructing the highway leading irom the village of Cocksackie and preventing the plaintiff from ti it was proceeding on the road, about his lawful business, &c. proved that the plaintiff came to the turnpike gate, with his waggon and horses, and demanded to pass free, because he had been to his usual blacksmith’s. The defendant, who was the toll-gatherer, re. fused to let him pass until he paid the toll. The plaintiff confessed that he had been down to Cocksackie landing, "with a load of boards» and bad paid toll on going down. Rockwell, the blacksmith, testified, that he had been the plaintiff’s usual blacksmith for a number of years, and had mended a pot for the plaintiff about the time the plaintiff claimed to pass toll free on his return, but the witness could not remember the exact day. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 5 dollars, on which the justice gave judgment.
    
      Kirtland, tor the plaintiff in error.
    
      Powers, contra.
   Per Curiam.

There was no just pretence for an exemption from toll. The principal business of Hubbel was to carry a load of boards to market; and if the pot had been mended by the. blacksmith, on that day, it was not, and could not have been, he principal object of the journey. It was merely an incidental business, if not a mere pretext to claim the exemption. He ought to be considered as returning from market, and not as returning from the blacksmith's shop; because that shop was not the tenth-nation any more than the object of his travelling on that day from' home. The claim of exemption was unjust, and a fraudulent abuse of the act.

Judgment reversed. 
      
      
         See Stratton v. Herrick, ante, p. 356.
     