Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/265

appellant's letters patents and records, and all the proofs on either side, his lordship and the judges unanimously agreed in opinions, that the goods and chattles of felons were a flower of the Crown, and that felons goods could not pass from the Crown by implication, but only by grant, by plain and express words; and that usage or prescription could not divest the Crown of that which can only pass by matter of record: And appellant, and the other pretenders, failing in proof of any grant, it was ordered and decreed, that the bonds should be delivered up to be cancelled; and that respondent was well intitled to the same, and therefore dismissed the appellant's bill; and that the appeal was not brought till almost three years after the decree; and that appellant now, in aid of his appeal, objected that he and his ancestors were intitled to felon's goods, under several letters patents, grants, matters of record and otherwise, and had enjoyed same without interruption for 500 years; and that respondent's letters patents were granted pendente lite, and that the matter ought to have been tried law: To all which respondent answered, that appellant did not, nor could show any patent, whereby felons goods were ever granted to him or his ancestors; and that the usage contended for, was an encroachment on the Crown, and created no right to appellant, nor bar to the Crown: And that, as to a trial at law, appellant had made his election to sue in Chancery; and that the opinion of the two common law judges, besides the Lord Chancellor's, was against him upon a full and fair hearing of all his evidence: And that respondent was a purchaser for good and valuable considera-[201]-tion from the Crown, and ought to enjoy the benefit of his purchase. (T. Powys.)

Die Veneris, 27 Martii, 1702. After hearing council on this appeal, the Lords adjudged that it should be dismissed, and the decree affirmed; and that appellant should pay respondent 10l. for his costs. Lords Journ. vol. xvii. p. 84.^[1]

The appellant made this case: That, by an Act of Parliament, 1 Jas. 2. an additional duty of 3d. per pound was laid on all tobacco imported between the 24th June, 1685, and the 24th June, 1693, to be paid after this manner, viz: The importer was to give a bond to the King, with condition, not to deliver the tobacco to any consumptioner or retailer before the duty paid; or if the importer should not sell, or export the tobacco in eighteen months, that then he should pay the duty: And that, in regard tobacco was liable to waste and decay, during the time it might so remain on the importer's hands, before sale or exportation, the Commissioners of the Customs were impowered to make such allowance for the same, as in their judgments should seem meet, considering the quality of the tobacco, and the time of its lying by; such allowance not to exceed 8l. per cent. in the whole: And that the Commissioners of the Customs were required every three months, or oftener, to call on the merchants to bring in their accounts of all the tobacco liable to the duty which remained in their hands; and, if any merchant should, upon notice, refuse to give such account, he should pay the full duty of the tobacco he should stand charged with in his impost account; but, if the merchant or importer should bring in such account, then the Commissioners of the Customs might appoint an officer to search the warehouses of such merchant, and compare the tobacco there with his account given in; and, if the merchant, or importer, should not clear his impost account, either by sales, or exportation, within eighteen months, from the time of importation, he should answer and pay the duty as if the tobacco had been sold for retail, but allowance to be made for waste in manner aforesaid: And that, during the continuance of that act, appellant imported into