Attorney General v Riddle
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Date | 01 January 1832 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 149 E.R. 209
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 2 Tyr. 523; 1 L. J. Ex. 182.
[493] reports of cases argued and determlned in the courts of exchequer and exchequer chamber, trcnlty term, 2 well. IV. the attorney-genkral . riddle. Revenue. 1832.-A wife, who was proved to have authority from her husband, a paper-maker, to do certain acts in his trade, pledged paper which had no wrapper, label, or departure stamp on it; the Chief Baron was of opinion at the trial that the husband was not liable for this act of his wife, but the Court, upon motion, held that the authority of the wife was a question for the jury. [S. C. 2 Tyr. 523; 1 L. J. Ex. 182.] This was tin information against the defendant, a paper-maker, for selling, sending out, and delivering paper not tied up and labelled, and for removing paper from his manufactory not inclosed in a wrapper so labelled, and with such impressions of a ;departure stamp thereon as are required by the stat. 1 Geo. 4, c. 58, sa. 6 & 7. At the- trial, before the Lord Chief Baron at the sittings after last Michaelmas Term, it was proved, that, on the day laid in the information, the defendant's wife iwent with her brother-in-law in a cart to the shop of Shering, a grocer at Halstead. The man went in, and in her name solicited a loan of 51. to make up 501. then due from her husband, tho defendant, for paper duty ; adding, that she would deposit with him paper worth 61. which was then in the cart. Shering came to the cart, and she repeated the same [494] thing to him, saying, if the money was riot forthcoming he might keep the paper. The bundle of paper had no wrapper or label, and no departure or duty stamp on it, both of which stamps are on the label, and put on by the officer charging the duty. Shering took the paper arid gave her a cheque for 51., for which she got cash, and on the same day paid 51. for paper duty then due, 451. having been paid before. Her brother-in-law was in the house with her when she paid the duty. The money was not repaid, and Shering kept the paper, which was seized on his premises. It was proved that the defendant was an entered paper-maker, and that the course of the trade was for the surveying officer1, on receiving notice from the paper-maker to attend to weigh and charge the duty, to take the stamp denoting the charge of duty in order to apply it to part of the label fixed on the top of the wrapper ; 210 THE...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archbold v Lord Howth
...6 Sc. N. R. 894. Motteux v. The London Assurance Co. Moo. & Mal. 433. Collett v. MorrisonENR 1 Cr. & J. 220. Fowle v. FreemanENR 2 Cr. & J. 493. Field v. BolandENR 10 Cl. & Fin. 934 Wills v. Stradling 3 Ves. 378. Dowall v. Dew L. R. 1 Ch. Ap. 35. Nunn v. FabianENR 1 Y. & C. C. C 345. Horsfa......
-
Coleman v Riches
...instances where an injury has resulted from negligence in performing a lawful service, do not apply. In The Attorney-General v. Riddle, 2 C. & J. 493, 2 Tyrwh. 523, where the wife of a paper-maker delivered out paper without proper stamps, the court of Exchequer held it to be a fit question......
-
The "Druid"
...The instances where an injury has resulted from negligence in performing a lawful service do not apply In the Attorney-General v. Riddle (2 Cr. & J. 493), where the wife of a paper-maker had illegally delivered out paper [405] without proper stamps, the Court of Exchequer held it to be a fi......