Johnson and Others against Hudson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 May 1809 |
| Date | 06 May 1809 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 103 E.R. 973
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
johnson and others against hudson. Saturday, May 6th, 1809. A factor selling a parcel of prize manufactured tobacco, consigned to him from his correspondent at Guernsey, of which a regular entry was made on 'importation, but without having entered himself with the Excise Office as a dealer in tobacco, nor having any licence as such, may yet maintain an action against the vendee for the value of the goods sold and delivered : and thiSj though the tobacco were sent to the defendant without a permit, at his desire; there being no fraud upon the Revenue, but at most a breach of Revenue regulations protected by penalties: even if such factor could, upon this single and accidental instance, be considered as a dealer in tobacco within the meaning of the stat. 29 Geo. 3, c. 68, s. 70, which requires every person who shall deal in tobacco first to take out a licence under a penalty. This was an action to recover 601. 7s., the value of 211bs. of tobacco-segars, sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant in November 1806. The tobacco appeared to be partly manufactured; and the [181] principal question made at' the trial, at Guildhall, was, whether the plaintiffs, who had never before dealt in tobacco, but had had the tobacco iri question, parcel of a larger quantity, consigned to them from Guernsey, to be disposed of, and who had made a regular entry of it on importation, but had not entered themselves with the Excise Office as dealers in tobacco, nor had any licence to such, and who had sent out to the defendant, at his desire, the tobacco in question, without a permit, were entitled to maintain this action against him for the value of it ? Lord Ellenborough C.J. thought that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover, and they obtained a verdict accordingly. But an objection having been made to the action on the ground of the requisites of certain Acts of Parliament not having been complied with by the plaintiffs to entitle them to sell this commodity, leave was given to the defendant's counsel to move to set aside the verdict and enter a nonsuit, if, upon further examination of the Acts, the objection should appear to be well founded. Wigley accordingly moved to that purpose in the last term, and stated the several provisions of the Acts on which he relied. The stat. 29 Geo. 3, c. 68, for granting the duties on tobacco, enacts, (s. 70,) that every...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- American International Assurance Company Ltd; Asia Insurance Company Ltd
-
Robinson v Kitchin
...Meath (2 Ves. sen. 108); Paxton v. Douglas (19 Ves. 225); The King of the Two Sicilies v. Willtm, (1 Sim. N. S. 301); Johnson v. Hudson (11 East, 180); Smith v. Mawhood (14 M. & W. 452). Mr. Roundell Palmer and Mr. W. Rudall, for the Plaintiff. They referred to Johnson v. Hiulson (11 East, ......
-
Dominus R v Kilderby
...see infra.'] So a dealer in tobacco having omitted to take out a licence, may yet maintain an action for the price of tobacco sold by him; 11 East, 180, Johnson v. Hudson; this being at most but a breach of revenue regulations protected by a penalty, and no fraud on the revenue. [But the au......
- Bong Kee Man; Pui Miaw