[42] Mr. William Pierssene, Manager to Messrs. Pickford & Co., stated in his evidence before the Railway Commissioners in the case of Kempson v. The G. W. R. (4 N & M 426), that in addition to the amount of the railway companies’ tolls, a sum varying from twelve to _eighteen shillings_ a ton was paid by the customer for the services which now form the subject of terminal and cartage charges. This view has been sanctioned by the Legislature in almost all Railway Acts passed since 1845. The charges which a company are authorised to make are of three kinds--first, tolls for the use of the railway as a highway; secondly, charges, in addition to the tolls, for the use of carriages, wagons, and for locomotive power where such of them are provided by the company--in other words, for conveyance along the railway. A third class of charges becomes due when the company not merely convey the goods, as they would for the carriers who had their own station accommodation and staff, but are themselves the carriers; cases where, in addition to providing the highway, vehicles, and locomotive power, they perform “such services as are incidental to the duty or business of a carrier.” These services include the providing of stations, warehouses and sheds, where goods are received, sorted, loaded, covered, checked, weighed, and labelled, and trucks marshalled for convenient removal to their various places of destination, and the maintenance of a large staff of clerks, book-keepers, porters, workmen, engines and horses necessary for these operations. In this last case the company are entitled to make, in addition to the charges proper to highway, rolling stock, and locomotive power, a reasonable charge for the services, often costly and onerous, rendered in their totally different capacity of carriers. It is undisputed that if the railway companies were not carriers and acted as toll takers only, they would be entitled to claim their full tolls. But what would be the result if they put in force such a right? The carriers or forwarding agents who would replace them, naturally would, as they formerly did, levy such payments as would cover the cost of station accommodation, and all the services performed in respect of the carriage of goods beyond the mere conveyance along the railway. Can it have been in the contemplation of the Legislature that railway companies were not to be entitled to make the same charges?