Attorney General v Louis Clerc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1844 |
| Date | 06 February 1844 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 1355
EXCH. OF PLEAS.
S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 82. Referred to, Attorney-General v. M'Cormack, (1903) 2 Ir. R. 517.
[640] the attorney-general v. Louis clerc. Exch. of Pleas. Feb. G, 1844.- An information in rem stated, that certain officers of customs, after the 9th July, 1842, (the date of the passing of stat. 5 & 6 Viet. c. 47), and before the 2nd of November, 1842, (the day of filing the information), to wit, on the 30th of 'August, 1842, at, &c., did seize and arrest to the use of her Majesty, as forfeited, a large qnantity of foreign wines, &c.; for that, before the said 2nd day of November, arid before the 30th day of August, to wit, on the 20th day of August, one T. S., at &c., entered for exportation from Great Britain to parts beyond the seas the said large quantity of foreign wines, and then and there entered the same for drawback, with intent to obtain the amount of the drawback payable and allowable by law in respect of goods, &c., of the denomination under which the said wines were entered for exportation and drawback; and that after the said entry of the said wines, and before the said 2nd day of November, and before the 30th day of August, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, the said A. R. and R. C., being the proper officers of customs in that behalf, examined the said wines, to see if they were of the value by law required for the drawback ; and the said officers then and there found, on such examination, that the said wines were of less value than the amount of the drawback payable and allowable by law, contrary to the form of the statute, whereby they became and Lwere forfeited.-At the trial, it appeared that the entry of the wines for exportation, and the seizure by the officers, in consequence of the entry, took place on the 30th of August. On motion to enter a verdict for the defendant on the ground of variance between the proof and the information-Held, that there was no variance, for that it was not necessary to make a direct allegation in the information, that the cause of forfeiture took place before the seizure; and that, if the allegation, that the cause of seizure was before the 30th of August, were omitted, the information would be sufficient. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ex. 82. Referred to, Attomey-Guneral v. M'L'ormack, [1903] . : 2lr. R. 517.] Information. The first count stated, that certain officers of customs, (naming thereafter the 9th July, 1842, and before the 2nd November, 1842, to wit, on the 3.0th of August, 1842, to wit, at Ratclift', in the county of Middlesex, did seize and Hrre^t to the Use of her said Majesty as forfeited a large quantity, to wit, 1070 galldna of foreign French wine, together with divers, to wit, twenty-two casks, the said, casks then and there being the packages containing the said wine, for that, before the said 2nd day of November, and before the 30th of August, 1842, to wit, on the 20thj of August, 1842, one Thomas Scholefield, to wit, at the port of London, to wit, at liatclitt', in the said county, entered for exportation from Great Britain to parts beyqnd the seas, to wit, to the port of Hamburgh, in a certain ship or vessel, to wit, in a ship called the "Neptune," the said large quantity of foreign wines, and then and there entered the same for drawback, with intent to obtain the amount of the drawback payable and allowable by law in respect of goods, wares, and merchandises of tHe denomination under which the said wines were entered for exportation and for drawback as aforesaid ; and that, after the said entry of the said wines so made as aforesaid for [641] exportation and drawback, and before the said 2nd day of November, jand befer^ the said 30th of August, 1842, to wit, on the day and year last aforesaid, to wit, at Ratcliff aforesaid, in the said county, the said Abraham Rickon and liobert Cox, being the proper officers of the customs in that behalf, examined the said wines so entered as aforesaid, to see if they were ut the value by law required for the attokney-genkral v. olebc 12 m. &w. 6*2. the drawback; and the said officers, being the proper officers in that behalf, then and there found, on such examination, that the said wines were of less value than the amount of the drawback payable and allowable liy law in respect of goods, wares, arid merchandize of the denomination under which the said wines were entered as aforesaid, contrary to the form of the statute in that case made and provided, whereby, and by force of the statute in that case made and provided, the said wines, and the said casks containing the same, became and were forfeited. The second count charged, that, before the 2nd November, 1842, arid before the said 30th of August, to wit, on the 20th of August, to wit, at &c., the said wines were entered for drawback, to wit, by the said T. Scholeh'eld, the said wines then and there being of less value than the amount of the drawback then and there claimed thereon, viz. of less value than 5s. Gd. for each and every gallon thereof, contrary &c. The third count alleged, that, before the said 30th of August, to wit, on the said 20th of August, to wit, at &c., the said T. Scholeh'eld entered the said wines for draw-buck, aud then and there claimed the sum of 03. (id. on each and every gallon as the drawback by law then and there payable on each and every gallon thereof, the said wine being then and there of less value than the said sum of 5s. Gd. for each and every gallon thereof so claimed as the drawback by law payable on the said wines as aforesaid; contrary &c. The information concluded with the usual prayer to the [642] Court, that the wines, with the casks containing them, might remain forfeited. The defeudant pleaded the general issue. At the trial before Parke, B., at the Middlesex Hittings after last Michaelmas Term, it appeared that this was an information for the condemnation of certain wines, on the ground that they were entered for drawback, being of less value than the amount claimed for drawback. It was proved that the entry of the wines for drawback was made and completed on the 30th of August, and that the seizure by the custom-house officers was made on the same day. It was objected for the defendant, that, as the information averred that both the entry and the seizure took place before the 30th of August, there was a variance between the proof and the information. The learned Judge reserved the point...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Attorney-General v Patrick M'Cormack
...R. 6 Ex. 78. Attorney-General v. BorrodaleENR 1 Price, 148. Attorney-General v. ChurchillENR 8 M. & W. 171. Attorney-General v. ClercENR 12 M. & W. 640. Attorney-General v. DonaldsonENR 7 M. & W. 422. Attorney-General v. Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway CompanyENR 2 H. & C. 792. Attorney-Ge......