Cooper and Another v Boot
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1785 |
| Date | 09 June 1785 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 99 E.R. 911
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
[339] cooper and another v. boot (a). Thursday, 9th June, 1785. An officer, acting under a warrant granted by Commissioners of Excise under stat. 10 Geo. 1, c. 10, is not liable as a trespasser, although no goods are found, nor is it necessary for him to prove that he had reasonable grounds of suspicion. Boot brought an action of trespass in the Court of Common Pleas against Cooper and Cameron, and declared against them, for breaking and entering his house in the parish of St. James, Westminster, and staying there without his licence, aud against his will, and for breaking the doors, latches, aud hinges, and entering, searching, and examining the several rooms of his said house. Plea-" Not guilty." The cause was tried before Lord Loughborough, at Westminster-Hall, when the jury found a special verdict, of which the following is the purport: Boot was a dealer in tea in the parish of St. James, Westminster, and his house was situate in that parish, within the limits of the chief office of Excise in London. Cooper and Cameron were officers of the Excise, and for the duties upon tea. On the 29th of January, 1783, two of the Commissioners of the Excise, and for the duties upon tea-upon oath made before them by Cameron that he had cause to suspect, and did suspect, that tea was fraudulently hid and concealed in or about Boot's house, with intent to defraud the King of his duties thereon, setting forth in the said oath the (d) The question as to the admissibility of the declarations of the husband arose in the case of R. v. Eriswell, T. 30 Geo. 3, 3 T. R. 707, when the Court were equally divided, Mr. Justice Buller and Mr. Justice Ashurst being of opinion that the evidence was admissible, and Lord Kenyon and Mr. Justice Grose that it was inadmissible. But in the subsequent cases of R. v. Nuneham Courtney, E. 41 Geo. 3,1 East, 373 ; R. v. Ferry Frystone, M. 42 Geo. 3, 2 East, 54 ; and R. v. Abergwilly, M. 42 Geo. 3, 2 East, 63, it was held that such evidence was not admissible, and the point was considered to be at rest. See also R. v. Chadderton, M. 42 Geo. 3, 2 East, 27. On the second and principal point, this decision has been confirmed by various cases. R. v. Castleton, E. 35 Geo. 3, 6 T. E. 236 ; R. v. Mwton, E. 55 Geo. 3, 4 M. & S. 48; R. v. Mary-k-bone, T. 5 Geo. 4, 4 D. & R. 475 R. v. East Fairdeigh, E. 6 Geo. 4, 6 D. & R. 147 ; R. v. Denio, M. 8 Geo. 4, 7 B. & C. 620; R. v. Stourbridge, E. 9 Geo. 4, 8 B. & C. 96; 2 M. & R. 43, S. C. (a) S. C. 3 Esp. 35. 912 COOPER V. BOOT 1 DOU01. 340. ground of his suspicion,-granted a warrant under their hands and seals, which was sat forth in hsec verba, by which, after reciting the oath of Cameron, and that Ithe ground of suspicion appeared to them reasonable, they, by virtue of the power and authority to them given, did adjudge it reasonable, and authorised and empowered him to enter into all and every room and place in and about the house, and the outhouses thereunto belonging, and to seize all such tea and other goods liable to!the duties of [340] Excise, or inland duties upon coffee, tea, &c., as he should find so fraudulently hid and concealed, as forfeited for His Majesty's use, together with all the casks and other vessels and things, wherein the same should be contained; and they thereby authorized all constables and other His Majesty's officers to be aiding and assisting to him in the execution thereof, for which the same should be to them and every of them a sufficient warrant. In pursuance of, and under this warrant, and for the purposes therein mentioned, Cameron, and Cooper in his aid and assistance, oh the said 29th of January, entered the said house of Boot in the warrant mentioned, without his consent, and rummaged the same, and in order to enter the several rooms and places, parcel of the house, for the purposes mentioned in the warrant, broke open several locks with which such rooms and places were fastened, Boot refusing to open the same. They found no tea nor other goods fraudulently hid or concealed. Upon this special verdict, judgment was given in the Court of Common Pleas for Boot, upon which Cooper and Cameron brought a writ of error, and assigned the common1 errors. Wood, for the plaintiff in error.-The question intended to be now raised was not argued in the Court of Common Pleas, because in Boslock v. Saunders (b), that Court had decided the same question against the plaintiff in error. It is intended to reconsider the grounds of that decision. The question arises on the statute 10 Geo. 1, c. 10, which gives a duty on coft'ee, &c., and requires an entry of the dealer's house. The twelfth section gives the power of entering in the daytime. The thirteenth section is the clause in question, and it enacts, that in case any officer or officers shall have cause to suspect that any coffee, &c. shall be fraudulently hid or concealed in any place whatsoever, &c. with an intent to defraud His Majesty, then, upon oath made by such officer before the commissioners, &c., setting forth the ground of his suspicion, it shall be lawful for the commissioners, &c., if they shall judge it reasonable, by special warrant under their hands and seals, to authorize and empower such officer or officers by day or by night, but if in the night-time, then in the presence of a constable, [341] &c., to enter into all and every such place or places where he or they shall suspect such coffee, &c. to be fraudulently hid or concealed, and seize and carry away such coffee, &c. Under this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
John Lawless v The Commissioners of Police
...Dominus Rex v. Smith 1 Stra. 126. Welch v. Richard ClerkENR Barnes, 468. Cooper v. BoothENRENR 3 Esp. 135; S. C., nom. Cooper v. Boot, 4 Doug. 339. The King v. The Nottingham Old Water-works Company 6 A. & E. 370. The Queen v. The Lord Mayor of London 5 Q. B. 555. CASES AT LAW. 367 M. T. 18......