Robert Howe Gould against James Watson Webb
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 April 1855 |
| Date | 27 April 1855 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 347
Queen's Bench Division
S. C. 24 L. J. Q. B. 205; 1 Jur. N. S. 821; 3 W. R. 399. Referred to, Mayor of London v. Cox, 1867, L. R. 2 H. L. 271.
EL & EL 552. GOU LD V. WEBB 347 not imported into it. Generally speaking, it is true, goods are imported into the harbour which is the final destination of the goods and, if Tweedmouth, where the goods were landed, were itself a harbour, the goods could, perhaps, not fairly be said to be imported into the harbour of Berwick. In that case, the harbour of Berwick would be a mere place of transit, and it could not be said that the vessel had the benefit of that harbour. But, in this case, there is no harbour at all above the bridge : the vessel therefore has derived from the harbour of Berwick all the benefit which she has in fact obtained from resorting to a harbour. Berwick is properly the harbour of destination. The port of Berwick is the port (932] of delivery. [Lord Campbell C.J. I think we shall not be much assisted by referring to the limits of the port. Holy Island is within the port. Wightman J. You do not argue that the port and harbour are synonymous.] They are not : but the Court has the functions of a jury in this case, and is to .y whether bona fide the harbour has not been used for the imports: tion. The lowering of the masts took place within the harbour, and by aid of the posts erected in the harbour ; and that is substantially a part of the process of unload- ing. The place of landing does not necessarily determine the place of importation ; in schedule A. a duty is laid on goods " imported " "arid not lauded." [Crompton J. That seems only to make shipping and reshipping equivalent to landing.] The quays of the harbour are not used ; but other conveniences of the harbour are used. Into what place were the goods imported I [Lord Campbell C.J. Into Tweedmouth, which may be a part of the port, but is not part of the harbour.] They would be returned to Parliament as imported into the harbour of Berwick. [Lord Campbell C.J. The returns are generally for the ports.] Bramwell, contra, was not called upon. Lord Campbell C.J. Mr. Atherton's remarks are very forcible, and would probably prevail if addressed to the Legislature; for it is reasonable that there should be a payment of dues where a benefit is derived. But we are to inquire what the Legisla- ture has enacted in fact, and whether they have laid the burthen, as alleged, upon the Queen's subjects. The duties are to be paid upon such goods only as are imported into the harbour [933] of Berwick : and that, by sect. 61, extends only from the bridge to the sea. Mr. Atherton properly concedes that, if the goods had been carried up to a harbour lying higher up the river, and there landed, the duty would not be payable in respect of the harbour of Berwick. But that admission really puts him out of Court. I think the duties clearly not payable in this case. Wightman, Erle and Crompton Js, concurred. Judgment for defendants. 1,725.1 493 ROBERT HOWE GOULD against JAMES WATSON WEBB. Friday, April 27th, 1855. Count stated that, in, consideration that plaintiff, at the request of defendant, would enter into defendant's employ as European correspondent of a newspaper till the service should be determined by due and customary notice, at a salary, defendant promised to retain plaintiff in that capacity, to pay him the salary, and continue him in such employ till the same should be determined as aforesaid.: that plaintiff entered into the service; yet defendant wrongfully discharged him without notice.Pleas. First That the engagement was " made upon the terms and condition that" plaintiff should, by every steamer, from Liverpool to New York, forward a letter containing European news ; but plaintiff wrongfully neglected to forward any letter containing such news by several steamers that sailed from Liver- pool to New York : wherefore defendant discharged plaintiff. Secondly That defendant employed plaintiff and plaintiff accepted such employment "upon the terms and condition that" plaintiff might draw bills upon defendant for the amount of plaintiff's salary as the same should become due, brit should not draw for any sum riot due : but plaintiff wrongfully drew on defendant, and negotiated, bills for sums not due, which were presented to defendant and dishonoured, to the damage of defendant's credit : wherefore defendant discharged plaintiff.Both pleas held bad on demurrer, as not spewing a default by plaintiff going to the whole condition of defendant's contractSimilar pleas, to a count stating the service to be from year to year, held bad, on demurrer, for the same reason.Plea, to money counts, as to 501, That 0. brought an action against plaintiff in the Supreme Court of New York in the United States, for a sum exceeding 501, : 348 GOULD V. WEBB 4 EL. & EL, 03% that such proceedings were had in that Court that, by process duly issued out of that Court, and executed upon defendant, the said 501., owing from defendant to plaintiff, was duly attached in defendant's bands to satisfy the demand of D. against plaintiff, with coats; and such further proceedings were had that D. recovered judgment in that Court for the amount of his demand, with costs, and issued and delivered a writ of execution to the sheriff of New York ; whereupon defendant became liable and was obliged by the laws of the State aforesaid to pay over to the sheriff under the attachment and execution the value of the 501. due from defendant to plaintiff, deducting the expenses to which defendant had been put by the attachment, in part satisfaction of D.'s demand, And defendant, being within the sheriff's bailiwick, paid over to the sheriff, under the attachment and execution, a sum which, with the sum so deducted, was of the value of 501. : that plaintiff and defendant were at the time...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yourrell v Proby
...Floyd v. BethellUNK20 Vin. Abr. 182. Perrin v. Monmouthshire Railway Co.ENR11 C. B. 855. Leland v. Tancred16 Q. B. 664. Gould v. WebbENR4 E. & B. 933, 943. Cosker v. Musgrove9 Q. B. 223. Towne v. CrowderENR2 C. & P. 355, 357. Dean of Hereford v. MacknamaraUNK9 Dowl. P. C. 95. Gibbon v. Cott......
-
Wallace v Rand Daily Mails Limited
...consequences as to be equivalent to habitual negligence; Edwards v Levy (2 F. & F. 94); Callo v Browncker (4 C. & P. 518); Gould v Webb (119 E.R. 347.) J. Stratford, K.C. (with him R. Honey), for the respondent: Plaintiff's conduct justified dismissal without notice, as he utterly failed to......