« PreviousContinue »
but to every one engaged in mer- man must not carry on tride, cantile transactions; for if the holding out filse colours, in other learned gentlemen were right in words, making fulse representatheir construction of this oath, tions to the world. But what was there was not one man who acts the case here? One inight as well as a broker in the city of London say, that a man could not recover who was not perjured: but what who writes up, as many persons were the words of this cath? do, " This is the cheapest shop They were, “ You shall sincerely in London.” The fact was, the promise and swear faithfully to learned gentlemen had argued discharge your duty as a broker, the case of persons acting as between party and party, without brokers and merchants in the fraud or collusion, to the best of same transaction; but here, a your knowledge.” It was' ad- considerable part of the debt mitted, that if a man acted as arose out of other transactions. broker and principal, and took a No less a sum than 8,0001. was larger price than he would have for loans of money, in which there taken in any other character, he
mercantile transaction hd violated this oath ; but it was whatever. Upon the whole, the material to state with precision argunents on the other side were what brokers engaged to do, and not warranted by the facts of the in what instances they were per- caso, or the principles of cquity, jured, if they did otherwise. They and the petitioner was clearly enundertook, first, to keep a book, titled to recover. or register, and to enter every The Lord Chancellor said, that contract within thrce days, with this was, indeed, a inost imthe names of the principals ; and, portant question to the mercanon demand, to produce such en- tile worki. His Lordship had altries, in order to prore the truth ready ordered a question on the of the contracts. Secondly, they statute of James, as to dormant were to produce a silver medal, partners, to be nade the subject to shew that they were authorised of a case for the opinion of the to act in the character of brokers. Court of King's Bench, and he Thirdly, they were not to deal hoped, that when that question for themselves, or for their own came to be argued, it would be or any other broker's benefit or considered that the Court of advantage, and were not to em- Chancery was not merely a court ploy a deputy. The question, of equity in matters of bankrupttherefore, came to this: whether cy, but was bound to enforce the the petitioner had done any thing provisions of the several statutes. to render his transactions with the In point of fact, that question had bankrupt illegal, so as to prevent greatly distressed his Lordship’s him from recovering his debt, on predecessors, ara was justly principles of public policy. The thought à most difficult question. learned Counsel asked what the The present, he repeated, was a law was that he had violated, most important case, and he was which made those transactions quite satisfied that he did not know illega!? It had been said, that a enough of the facts to decide it.
He did not know, indeed, that he Lord Mayor and Aldermen should should be satisfied with his own think fit and reasonable." decision. If there were no more The Lord Chancellor.-" Unin the case than the bond, he doubtedly those words may reshould think that would be no quire further consideration. We objection to the petitioner's re- have argued the case all along as covering, because he would be if the word regulation had been liable for the penalty of the bond. employed in the statute. I should But the act of Queen Anne had wish to know, therefore, what been cited, and by that Act, no restrictions and limitations have man was to act as a broker unless been established." authorized by the Mayor and Al- His Lordship then stated, that dermen, and under such regula- he had spoken to the Chief Justions as they should think fit and tice of the Common Pleas this reasonable. His Lordship appre- morning on the subject of this hended, therefore, that the ques- case, who observed, that he had tion was, whether any regulations known this objection taken to a had been made, and what those broker's action at Nisi Prius, but regulations were. It was mate- it had been over-ruled. As to rial to ascertain, whether the the statute, the Chief Justice debond and oath were to enforce clared, he had never heard that it certain regulations, or whether existed. such bond and oath were to be Mr. Bell said, that the 13th considered as stating what the Edward III. expressly authorised regulations were. He was dis- the city of London to administer posed to think that the Mayor oaths to their brokers ; the quesand Aldermen had made regula- tion was, what oaths they were to tions, and sought to secure them administer. by this bond and oath. The next Ordered to stand over till the point was, whether those regula- several records have been intions were such as they were em- spected. powered to make, according to the true intent and meaning of Gladstone and Co. v. the Trusthe statute. If they were such tees of the Liverpool Docks. This as the statute authorized, then was a writ of error from the Comthe question might be brought to mon Pleas at Lancaster : it was this that brokers, being pro- an action brought by the plaintiffs hibited from this species of trad- to recover 241. 8s. 9d. as an overing by those regulations, they charge made upon the ship Richwere also prohibited by the sta- ard, upon her arrival in the tute. His lordship, therefore, docks at Liverpool. The record wished to know what those regu- stated, that before the passing of lations were, de facto.
the 51 Geo. III. c. 143, for inSir Samuel Romilly observed, corporating the Liverpool Dock that the word regulations did not Company, the plaintiffs occur in the statute. The words owners of the ship Richard, built of the statute were : “With such at Whitby, and registered at Lilimitations and restrictions as the verpool ; she had traded out
wards, and had paid the duty dants (the plaintiffs in error), under the former acts. At the contended, that by the 6th sectime the 51st of the King was tion, as explained by the 7th passed, the Richard was ab- section of the 51st Geo. III. the sent from Liverpool, and return- trustees could insist that the ed, paying no duty, having been owners of the Richard should pay charged on her outward voyage. the rate of duty due for the most This exemption was provided for distant port at which she had in the 51st Geo. III.; and after touched in the course of her voythat statute had passed, the Rich- age. Under the old acts, in the ard proceeded on a voyage to St. case of Gladstone v. Geldert (2 Domingo, where she discharged Taunt. 97, and 12 East 439), it her cargo, no duty being de- had been decided, that a vessel manded on her clearance out which cleared out from Liverfrom Liverpool. Having dis- pool with a cargo incurred only charged her outward and taken one duty, though she might have in her homeward cargo,
the traded to intermediate ports, and Richard returned to London, carried more than
one cargo where she was completely un- during her absence; but the exladen, and after she had been press provisions of the 51 Geo. again freighted for Liverpool
for Liverpool III. were decisive upon the point, with other goods, she sailed for that if a ship, as in this case,
on her arrival the cleared out for St. Domingo, pertrustees demanded the payment formed her voyage, discharged of 341. 10s., the sum which they her cargo at London, and took in contended was due according to another, which she conveyed to the rate of duties provided by the Liverpool, she was liable to pay act of parliament after a voyage the dock duty as for a voyage to to St. Domingo. The plaintiffs St. Domingo, being the most resisted ; but afterwards settling distant port to which she had the whole claim under a protest, traded during her absence. The they brought an action to recover reasons for the augmented duties 241. 85. 9d. being the difference for distant adventures seemed to between the amount of duty pay- be, that after it the vessel would able by the act after a voyage to require additional accommodaLondon or to St. Domingo. The tion, and would probably make a question therefore was, whether, longer stay in the docks, and that according to the terms of the 51st the owner was supposed to be Geo. III, the trustees of the Li- better able, from the profits of verpool Docks, after the voyage his speculation, to sustain a heaperformed by the Richard, could vier burden; it might also be enforce the payment of the duty said, that ships making short on an adventure to St. Domingo, trips would not be long absent which is 2s. per ton, or could from the docks, and would cononly claim the duty as for a voy- sequently pay a smaller duty age from London, at the rate of more frequently. The learned 7d. per ton.
Counsel admitted that the 6th Mr. Richardson, for the defen- clause was somewhat ambiguous,
but that all doubt was removed ship always cleared her on her by the terms of the 7th, which outward voyage, and consequently declareil that ships clearing out that if the defendants insisted from Liverpool should be charged, that ihe voyage was to St. Doon their return, “ according to mingo, nothing was due for that the rate of duty payable from the voyage. It would be attended most distant port from which with great hardship if it were they shall so trade to the port of decided that duty was payable for Liverpool."
the most distant port on the reLord Ellenborough.-Can it be turn of the ship to Liverpool said, that in this case there was without the cargo, which she any trading from St. Domingo had discharged at another port to Liverpool ? The Richard un- of the United Kingdom; since loaded the cargo she brought in that case the owner would be from St. Domingo at London, twice liable to tonnage-once at and there took in a new cargo, the port where the cargo was acwhich she carried to Liverpool: tually delivered in this case Lonon this new royage she had as don), and again at the port to little to do with the St. Domingo which the ship belonged (in this cargo, as if she had delivered it
case Liverpool). The language ten years before.
of the 6th clause was quite clear, Mír. Richardson submitted that and the only doubt that could be the words of the 7th sect. which raised was upon a few words in were most explicit, controlled the 7th sect. which, in fact, had and explained the doubtful terms no bearing upon the real quesof the 6th section. If the Court tion, and had been intruded into should decide against his argu- the act. The onus of explaining ment, that determination inight away the decider intention of the lead to many evasions of the act; legislature lay upon the Trustees for a vessel which had performed of the Liverpool docks, and rea long and prosperous voyage ference to the 10th and 12th secmight then discharge her cargo tions further confirmed the conat Bristol or Waterford, and af- struction for which the plaintiff's terwards entering the post of Li- argued. The contrary had never verpool, would only be liable to been suggested until two years pay a duty of 5d. per ton. The after the passing of the 51st Geo. word 'trading, which had been III. : and the 53d Geo. III. c. constantly and cautiously used 156, showed that the framers of instead of 'voyage,' which had the former act never intended to formerly occasioned much dis- give to the company that for pute, did not mean bringing the which they now contended. cargo which she had taken in at Lord Ellenborough.-The word the most distant port to Liver- niost in the act, where it speaks pool, but re-entering after the of the most distant port, is a completion of the adventure.
comparative term, and refers to Mr. Joy, on the other side, some other ports. Now, in this contended, that the payınent of case, the ship sails from London the duty on the entrance of the with an entirely new cargo : there
her voyage begins, and at Liver- turn to Liverpool to the payment pool it ends. London, therefore, of duty as for a West India voyage. is the only port at which the This, however, was an extreme Richard touches.
case. He submitted, that the Mr. Joy added, that the trad- trading contemplated by the act ing in question was not from St. was not completed until the reDomingo; that adventure had turn of the ship to the port of been concluded in London, where Liverpool, from whence she had a new trading commenced, for originally proceeded. which the plaintiffs admitted that Lord Ellenborough grounded a dock-duty was payable. He his decision upon the unambicited the case of the ship William, guous terms of the 6th section in Admiralty Reports, to establish of the 51st Geo. III., which ought that the first voyage had been not to be confounded with ihe terminated in London by the un- language of the 7th section, loading of the cargo, and the which his Lordship did not feel discharge of the port-dues there: himself competent to explain. It the Master of the Rolls had even was clear that there was in this gone so far as to decide, that if
case no trailing but from London the identical goods had been re. to Liverpool : the whole of the shipped, the original voyage would cargo from St. Domingo had have been concludeil : à fortiori, been unladen, and never was retherefore, in this case, where a shipped, and no dispute could totally different cargo had been therefore arise upon the words sent to Liverpool from London. the most distant port. The point The argument on the other side was rendered still more indisnust either go to this extent, or putable by reference to the 12th it amounted to nothing that if a section ; for if the master of the ship originally siled froin Liver- vessel, under the powers there pool, and having performed se- given, bad been interrogated, he veral voyages to the East Indies, could have given no other an. discharging all her cargoes at swer, but he had come from London and returning to Liver- London with the new cargo he pool, the owner was liable to the had on board, and that on that payment of the rate of duty fixed voyage he had traded to no other for the East Indies.
place. The consequence was, Mr. Richardson replied ; and that the Londou duty of 7d. per in answer to a question from the ton was only demandable by the Court, allowed that he must con- Dock Company, and consequently tend for the affirmative of the that the sum of 241. 8s. 9d., case last put by Mr. Joy. He sought to be recovered by the was bound to argue, even that if plaintiffs, had been improperly a ship sailed from Liverpool to received by the defendants. In London, and there was taken up this vicw, the judgment below by government for the transport in favour of the plaintiffs (the service and sent to the West defendants in error) ought to be Indies, she was liable on her re- affirmed.