Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

55 Geo. 3.
c. 10. § 1.
Warehousing
duties on cer-
tain goods.

Rule 48. The warehousing duties imposed by 54 Geo. 3. c. 36. (a), shall be charged upon all such goods as are therein enumerated or described, which shall have been or which may hereafter be imported into Great Britain by the East India Company or by private traders from any places from whence such goods may lawfully be imported, and which shall have been or may be sold at their sales, either before or after the 10th April, 1814, and such duties shall be paid by the East India Company, or secured by their bond, in the manner directed by 39 Geo. 3. c. 59; (b) and in cases where the said duties are charged not according to the weight, tale, gauge, or measure, but according to Valuation of the value of such goods, such value shall be ascertained according to the gross price at which such goods have been or may be sold at the public sales of the said company without any deduction or abatement what

goods.

Private tra

ders to give bond, § 5.

soever.

Rule 49. Before any goods, imported into the port of London by any private traders, under the authority of 53 Geo. 3. c. 155. [TITLE 86.] and which are not intended to be sold at the sales of the East India Company, shall be lodged in any warehouse without payment of the duties, the proprietor shall give bond unto His Majesty, in a pe nalty equal to double the amount of the said duties, with condition for payment of the same before the delivery of the said goods, from the warehouses wherein the same shall be deposited under the authority of the said act, and at the times and in the manner required by any act of parliament in force on the 10th April, 1814: provided that it shall bond in cer- be lawful for the East India Company, upon the application of the proprietor of such goods, to give bond for the duties payable thereon, at the times and in the manner directed by the said acts of the last and present (c) session of parliament, as to goods imported by or on account of the said company; and such bond shall be in lieu of that hereinbefore required of the proprietor of such goods.

Company

may give

tain cases.

Home consumption,

$6.

Rule 50. In all cases where any of the goods enumerated or described in Table C. (except indigo sold at the company's sales before the 10th April, 1814,) shall be entered for home consumption, the ⚫ proprietor shall pay the duties respectively charged thereon by the said table, although such goods may have been imported and sold at the company's sales before the 10th April, 1814, or have been imported and sold before the passing of this act.

(a) See TITLE 247 & 248.
(c) Thus in the original.

(b) See Rules 3—17 of this title.

TITLE CIV.-Wine.

c. 5. 26.

bottles.

From July 5, 1819, it shall be lawful to import into Great Britain, 59 Geo. 8. from any parts within the limits of the charter granted to the East Wine in India Company, any wine whatever in bottles, on payment of the several duties, as well of customs as excise, due on the importation of such wine into Great Britain: provided, that the importer of such wine, or his known agent or factor, shall make a declaration before the officer of customs at the port of importation, stating the nature and quantity of such wine, and that the same is for private use and not intended to be sold, and that such wine shall be regularly entered and landed under the care of the proper officer of customs.

TITLE CV.-Adjudged Cases.

Wilson against Saunders.-May 18, 1798.

Trespass for scizing goods under the following circumstances. The plaintiff purchased at the India sale a quantity of Bandanna handkerchiefs, which are prohibited to be used in this country by 11 & 12 Will. 3. c. 10. [TITLE 98.] and sent them down with the usual forms, under the care of an officer of customs, to the custom house at Aldborough, where they were put on board the Experiment cutter by the officers of customs, the plaintiff having entered them for Hamburgh, and the cutter having cleared out for that port, though she had only a licence to fish between Flamborough Head and the Isle of Wight, under 24 Geo. 3. c. 47. [TITLE 2, Rules 9-13.] The plaintiff had given security for the goods "being exported and not re-landed," according to the directions of the said

tain of the Argus revenue cutter,
seized the vessel and goods after the
former had proceeded some way down
the river, but while she was within
the limits of the port of Aldborough,
and a tide-waiter of that port being on
board at the time.

The cause was tried before Heath,
justice, at the summer assizes for Suf-
folk, 1797, when a verdict was found
for the plaintiff, with liberty to the
defendant to move to set it aside in
the ensuing term.

Accordingly Le Blanc, sergeant, having in Michaelmas term obtained a rule to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside and a new trial had, because the Experiment cutter, having been found acting in a manner not warranted by her licence, was to be considered as having no licence.

act. The defendant, who was cap- Shepherd, sergeant, in the follow

ing term, was proceeding to show cause on the above ground, when the court said, that if the goods were bona fide delivered for exportation, the plaintiff's case was clear; but that if there was no bona fide intention to export them, it might be a question whether they were not seizable under 11 & 12 Will. 3. c. 10. § 2. [TITLE 98.] in the same manner as if they had been found exposed in a shop for sale; and directed him to speak to that point, which he accordingly did.

Eyre, chief justice. See how this case would stand if it were put in pleading. The officer's primâ facie defence would be, "I seized these "goods because I found them on "board such and such a vessel, and "not in a warehouse approved by "the commissioners of customs ac"cording to 11 & 12 Will. 3. c. 10. "§ 2." To this the plaintiff would answer, "True it is, that the goods "were not in such a warehouse, yet "I am by law allowed to export "them; and I have a right to take "them out of the warehouse for ex"portation, provided I give a bond to 66 export and not re-land them ;" and would aver that he took them out of the warehouse for exportation, and that he gave a bond, &c. The defendant might deny that the goods were taken out of the warehouse in order to be exported, and on this an issue would be joined. The question for the jury would then be, whether, when a person goes through the necessary ceremonies which belong to a fair exportation, and puts his goods on board a vessel colourably bound for Hamburgh, but in fact a cutter licensed to fish between Flamborough Head and the Isle of Wight, together with all the circumstances which belong to this case, tending to prove that

they were not meant to be exported, he can be considered as having taken them out of the warehouse in order to export them? My opinion is, that if it could be demonstrated that he had no intention to export them, and that he meant to put them on board a vessel, in order to be carried one, two, or three leagues only from the shore, proof of that intention would defeat the allegation that they were taken out of the warehouse for the purpose of exportation. The circumstance of actual re-landing need not to be shown, for the case would be vitiated by the original intention with which the goods were taken out of the warehouse. I think that the circumstances of the case afford a presumption on this one point, which ought to be submitted to a jury. There may have been reasons of necessity sufficient to justify the plaintiff in having acted in the manner which he has done; and he will have an opportunity of insisting upon them at a new trial. I am anxious that the principle of these laws should be a little understood, and that an idea should not be entertained, that if all the forms and ceremonies prescribed by the act are complied with, the substance may be evaded with impunity.

Per Curiam. Rule absolute.

At the spring assizes following, the cause again came on to be tried before Ashhurst, justice; and it being left. to the jury to determine whether the goods were put on board the cutter with the intention of being exported, a verdict was found for the defendant.

In consequence of which Shepherd, sergeant, in this term obtained a rule nisi for a new trial on two grounds: 1st, That the goods at the time of the seizure were in custodia legis, having been sent down to Aldborough, under the care of an officer

of customs, having been put on board the vessel at Aldborough by officers of customs, and an officer having been on board at the time when they were seized: 2dly, That the goods were in a course of exportation, no act towards re-landing them having been done.

But the court, after hearing Shepherd on this day, were clearly of opinion, that the goods were not in the custody of the law, for that the owner, after giving security in London according to the statute, was at liberty to export them as he thought fit; that the practice of sending down an officer with the goods was not required by 11 & 12 Will. 3. [TITLE 98.] but had been adopted from 6 Geo. 3. c.

40. [TITLE 98. in note] which relates to the exportation of East India goods to Africa, and that the officer who was on board at the time of the seizure was placed there for the general protection of the revenue, not to watch these particular goods. As to the second point, that there was no distinction between an intention to export the goods, and their being in a course of exportation; and that if it could be demonstrated that all intention to export them was abandoned, the bond of security might be put in suit, though all the forms necessary to exportation had been complied with. Rule discharged.

BOSANQUET and PULLER'S Reports, vol. i. E. T. 1798.

The King against Vyse, and the King against Spearpoint.—January 27, 1801.

A scire facias was brought against each of these defendants, on their bonds given in pursuance of 11 and 12 Will. 3. c. 10. [TITLE 98.] Both the defendants pleaded that the goods were shipped and exported to Guernsey, and there landed, and that no part was re-landed or unshipped with intent to be re-landed in any port of Great Britain: and that the defendants brought certificates of the goods being landed abroad, according to the conditions of the bonds. To these pleas the crown replied generally; and issues were joined on the facts there stated.

The causes being afterwards consolidated by rule of court, came on to be tried before Macdonald, chief baron, and a special jury, at the sittings for Westminster after last Hilary

term.

The issues lying on the defendants, Rous and Dauncey their counsel proved the shipping of the goods in the river, and offered in evidence a cer

tificate of the goods being landed at Guernsey, under the hands and seals of two British merchants there; they proved the signatures, but not the sealing. The chief baron, being of opinion that that was not a sufficient proof of the certificate, directed a verdict for the crown on both issues, subject to the opinion of the court on that point.

In the case of the King against Dickenson, argued in Trinity term last, the same point came before the court; when they decided that the proof of the signatures only was good evidence of the certificate.

Upon this, Rous obtained a rule to show cause why there should not be a new trial of the first issue, on the ground that as it was now decided that the certificate was sufficiently proved, the defendant was entitled to make it evidence to the jury on the first issue, as well as on the second; for that it was primá facie evidence of the exportation of the goods, and

Auctions.

30 Geo. S.

c. 26. § 2. Drawback.

there was no proof of their being re-
landed in any part of Great Britain.

Plumer, Lycester, Ridley, and Dam-
pier, now showed cause; and Rous
and Dauncey argued for the defen- -
dants.

Macdonald, chief baron. I am extremely glad this point has been made, as it is a question of great importance to the commercial world. These certificates are a very slender security on one hand; yet, on the other, it is very difficult to procure other evidence of the landing abroad. The act of parliament certainly makes it evidence for the commissioners: but the question is, whether it is also to be admitted as evidence before a jury? Another question arises in this case: Whether this certificate should not have found its way to the custom house?

[blocks in formation]

We are of opinion that this certificate is not admissible evidence; it is nothing more than a declaration of two individuals, not upon oath. It may be very good evidence to the commissioners, but not to the jury. The words of the act are, "the ex"amination, and proof thereof, being "left to the judgment of the said "commissioners." The commissioners of customs may have time to investigate the validity of the certificate; but as the court of nisi prius has not, it is not to be received as evidence there. Therefore the verdict must stand.

Rule discharged.

FOREST'S Exchequer Reports.

TITLE CVI.—YUCATAN.

[As to the sale by auction of goods from Yucatan, see TITLE 20.] Rule 1. THERE shall be paid or allowed to the exporter of any goods which shall be exported to the settlement of Yucatan, the like drawback of the duties of customs and excise as is now allowed on the exportation of such goods to the British plantations in America, on condition that the same shall be exported in the like manner, and under the like regulations, penalties, and forfeitures, as such goods are now subject to, upon the exportation thereof, for a drawback to the Export bend. British plantations in America: provided also, that the like bond shall be given for the due exportation thereof, with further condition that the exporter thereof shall produce a certificate under the hands and seals of two British merchants within the space of twelve calendar months from the exportation thereof, that the same have been duly landed there.

Certificate.

Rule 2. By letter of the board of treasury, dated 6th June, 1817, it is directed, that no importation of wood from Honduras shall, after the 1st January, 1818, be entered at the low duties, unless the importer shall produce a certificate from the superintendant of the settlement, specifying that the wood has been actually cut within the proper boundaries. (a)

TITLE CVII.-BRITISH WEST INDIES.

[IN January, 1812, when this book was first published, Great Britain was at war with not only most of the European powers, but was also in a peculiarly unsettled state with the united States of America; it was judged proper there. fore, at that time, not to include more of the laws affecting our West India trade, than served to show the direct intercourse between the British Colonies and the Mother Country. The restoration of peace has opened in a great degree the former channels of commerce. Great pains have therefore been taken by the Compiler to ascertain the precise nature and extent of our colonial trade; and he

(a) For the duties on Mahogany and other specics of wood, see Wood under TITLE 246.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »