Gildart against Gladstone and Gladstone, in Error
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 July 1810 |
| Date | 09 July 1810 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 104 E.R. 171
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
See other proceedings, 11 East, 675; 12 East, 668.
gildart against gladstone and gladstone, in error. Tuesday, June 26th, 1810. Under the Liverpool Dock Acts of 8 Ann. and 2 Geo. 3, tonnage duties, are payable to the dock company on all vessels sailing with cargoes outwards or inwards, which rate varies according to the several descriptions of voyages in the Acts, one of which is to and from America generally ; so as no ship shall be liable to pay more than once for the same voyage out and home : Held that a voyage out from Liverpool with a cargo to Halifax in North America, where the ship delivered it, and took in another cargo there for Demarara in South America, and after delivering that, returned to Liverpool with a cargo from Demarara, was all the same voyage out and home within the meaning of the Acts, and chargeable only with one tonnage rate for the use of the docks. [See other proceedings, 11 East, 675; 12 East, 668.] This was another action brought in the Court of C. P. by the Gladstones against (a) Cited in Hardr. 42. (&) Willes, 62. 172 GILDART V. GLADSTONE 12 EAST, 410. Gildart to recover back 331. 15s. 3d. paid by them to Gildart by compulsion and under protest, under circumstances similar to those which existed in the case already reported (a) between the same parties, and arising upon the same Acts of Parliament of the 8 Ann. c. 12, and 2 Geo. 3, c. 86, for establishing the Liverpool docks, and granting certain tonnage-rates on vessels sailing with cargoes outwards or inwards; and which provide that no vessel shall be liable to pay more than once for the same voyage out and home. The defendant pleaded the general issue; and at the trial a special verdict was found, stating that the plaintiffs were owners of the ship " Kelton " belonging to and registered at the port of Liverpool, which ship in Sept. 1807 was about to clear outward from Liverpool with a cargo of goods for' Halifax in North America; and thereupon Gildart, as collector of the Liverpool dock duties, demanded from the plaintiffs as owners of the "Kelton" 331. 15s. [440] 3d. as the duty payable on her so clearing out, and refused to permit the ship to clear out till payment of the same: on which the plaintiffs paid that sum to enable their ship to clear out. The ship thereupon cleared out and proceeded with her cargo from Liverpool to Halifax, where the goods were discharged, and she took in another cargo for Demarara in South America, which she afterwards delivered there; and then she took in a cargo at Demarara for Liverpool, and sailed from thence and returned back to and arrived at Liverpool in June 1808 with the last-mentioned cargo. That upon her arrival there Gildart, as collector, demanded from the plaintiffs, as owners of the ship, payment of a further sum of 331. 15s. 3d. as for the Liverpool dock duty, insisted by him to be payable on her entry inwards, and refused to admit her to enter until the same was paid : whereupon the plaintiffs paid that sum in order to obtain an entry inwards for their ship into the port of Liverpool; having first protested against the validity of the demand. But whether on the whole the plaintiffs below were entitled to recover the last-mentioned sum, the jury submitted to the Court. The Court of C. P. gave judgment for the plaintiffs below (b), on which this writ of error was brought. J. Clarke contended that the facts stated in the special verdict disclosed two different voyages, and not the same voyage, out and home; and therefore that the plaintiff in error was justified under the Stat. 8 Ann. in receiving the two sums mentioned in the special verdict as for the duties on one voyage out from Liverpool to Halifax, and for another voyage home from Demarara...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jaques v Caesar
...by which the damages are (t) More correctly, "the judgment shall be the same as that which the Court below ought to have given." For in 12 East, 668, Gildart v. Gladstone, a judgment of C. B. for the plaintiffs upon a special verdict in assumpsit having been reserved, the Court held that th......
-
Bourne and Others v Gatliffe, in Error
...they took. The judgment for costs is clearly erroneous: Everard v. Pat-[864:]-teson (6 Taunt. 645, 2 Marsh. 304). In Gildart v. Gladstone (12 East, 668), judgment having been given in the Common Pleas for the plaintiffs upon a special verdict in assumpsit, which was reversed in the King's B......
-
Campbell and Another against The Queen
...1 Salk. 201. (6) His Lordship referred to a late patent case before the Exchequer Chamber; probably Bynner v. The Queen, 9 Q. B. 523. (a) 12 East, 668. See Pollitt v. Fon-est, p. 949, post. 11 Q. B.8. CAMPBELL V. THE QUEEN 685 Bench, as a Conrt of Error, declined to pass any sentence, the p......
-
The King against Bourne and Others
...should be passed. [Patteson J. The distinction between error brought by plaintiff and by defendant is repudiated in Gildart v. Gladstone (12 East, 668); and many of the authorities are referred to, particularly Anon. 1 Salk. (1 Salk. 40L).] In Gildart v. Gladstone (12 East, 668), the [65] d......