
    Salmon and Jordan v. Mallett.
    From Cumberland.
    When a bridge company entered into certain articles, one of which was, that the stockholders should have permission to pass toll free, so long as they owned stock, it was held, that the wagon of a stockholder had a light, under this article, to pass toll free.
    A toll bridge was erected in the town of Fayetteville, by a company who associated themselves for that purpose under articles of agreement, containing among others, the following:
    Art. 4. The owners of stock to have permission to pass without any charge of toll, so long as they continue possessed of stock in the said company.
    The Plaintiffs, (who were stockholders) leased the bridge from the company, and in the lease there was a reservation to stockholders of the privileges secured .by the original articles of agreement. The Defendant was also a stockholder, and during the continuance of the lease, his wagon crossed the bridge frequently, claiming to do so toll free, under the 4th article above set forth.
    This was a suit brought to recover for the toll of the wagon.
   Tayxoe, Chief-Justice.

The permission to pass with.. out any charge of toll extends as well as to the Defendant’s wagon as to his person. The expression being-general ami in its common acceptation signifying a charge upon horses, carriages and cattle, as well as persons, will comprehend all, unless limited and quali-tied by an especial exception. This construction which seems to be the one naturally arising from the terms of the agreement, is justified and supported by an ancient rule of law, by which it is held, that the law respecteth matters of profit and interest largely, matters of pleasure, skill, case, trust, authority, and limitation strictly — Win-gate’s maxims 99. Thus a license to hunt in my park or walk in my orchard, extends but to himself, not to his servants or others in his company; for it is hut a thing of pleasure; otherwise, it is of a licence to hunt, kill and carry away the deer, for that is matter of profit. Ibid. We therefore think the decision in the Court below was correct.  