In an action by a company to enforce the statutory penalty for illegally passing its tollgate, it is no defense that the road was not in good condition; Canal St. Gravel-Road Co. v. Pans, 95 Mich. 372, 54 N. W. 907. Exemptions from toll are construed most lib erally in favor of the community; Ang. High. § 359; and are usually created by special stat ute in relation to different kinds of vehicles; Mahon v. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 658; going to or from mills; Bates v. Sutherland, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 510; in favor of husbandry; Camden, E. & M. T. Co. v. Fowler, 24 N. J. L. 205; go ing to church; 2 B. & Ald. 206; ordinary do mestic business of family concerns ; Centre Turnp. Co. v. Smith, 12 Vt. 212. Mail coach es are subject to toll, but may not be delayed for non-payment; Hopkins v. Stockton, 2 W. & S. (Pa.) 163.
A turnpike company authorized to collect toll from designated carriages, etc., may col lect toll from bicycles, although the amount of toll cannot be exactly determined by the method designated for other vehicles; Geiger v. Turnp. Road, 167 Pa. 582, 31 Atl. 918, 28 L. R. A. 458; but no charge can be made to the person using bicycles where the statute designates "vehicles drawn by animals"; Murfin v. Plank-Road Co., 113 Mich. 675, 71 N. W. 1108, 38 L. R. A. 198, 67 Am. St. Rep. 489; "or vehicles drawn by one or more beasts;" String v. Turnp. Co., 57 N. J. Eq. 227, 40 Atl. 774.
A "shunpike" is a road or turnpike laid out by an individual or by the selectmen of the town to facilitate the evasion of toll by travellers upon a turnpike road and will en title the turnpike company to an action on the case for the damages, or to an injunction ordering the same to be closed; Elliott, Roads, 74 ; Cheshire Turnpike v. Stevens, 10 N. H.
133; Salem & H. Turnpike Co: v. Lyme, 18 Conn. 451; Clarksville & R. Turnpike Co. v. Clarksville (Tenn.) 36 S. W. 979; unless made necessary -by the lay of the land and the wants of. the community; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 420, 9 L. Ed. 773. And such company has been held entitled Ito compensation for the injury to their franchise by a highway which inter sects their road at two distinct points and thereby enables travellers to evade the pay ment of tolls, though such highway be regu larly established by the proper authorities to meet the necessities of public travel; In re Flatbrush Ave., 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 286.
Abutting owners have a right to enter on a turnpike from any part of their premises and they may erect and maintain bridges for that purpose, but cannot so connect it with a private way that it operates as a shunpike, and allow it to be used by the general pub lic; Cincinnati & S. G. Ave. Co. v. Bates, 2 Ohio Cir. Ct. 376 ; Chestnut Hill & S. H. Turnpike Co. v. Piper, 15 W. N. C. (Pa.) 55 ; and a turnpike company cannot by building a fence along its road prevent any one from entering thereon from his own property at any point ; Saul v. Turnpike Co., 12 Phila. (Pa.) 346.