Salomon v Gordon and Berrie
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Date | 01 January 1779 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 96 E.R. 479
COURTS OF WESTMINSTER-HALL
[813] salomon v. gordon and berrie. Onus probandi of payment of duties lies on the claimer on prosecutions in the Exchequer, but in actions of trespass for taking the goods, the onus of proving the non-payment lies on the defendant. Trespass for taking four boxes of plate glass; and, on not guilty pleaded, the cause came on to trial at Guildhall, before Blackstone, J., at the sittings after Hilary term. It appeared in evidence, that the goods were seized in the open streets of London from the plaintiff's porter, who was carrying them from a warehouse, where they had lain three months, to the plaintiff's house, in the passage to which they did not go near the water side. That the defendants were Custom-House officers, and seized the goods, under a suspicion of their not having paid the duties, about nine o'clock in the evening. The defendants admitted these facts, but insisted, that under the statutes 6 Geo. 1, c. 21, sect. 41, and 12 Geo. 1, c. 28, sect. 8, the onus probandi, that these goods had paid duty, lay upon the plaintiffs : in default of which the seizure was justifiable. The Judge was of a different opinion, and thought the defendant, in an action of trespass, must shew the goods were forfeited; and the plaintiff recovered a verdict. Burland now moved for a new trial, and insisted, that the provisions in those statutes extended to all cases, as well actions as prosecutions. Glyn, contra, that they related to prosecutions only. And by De Grey, C.J., Gould and Nares, Js. The Judge's direction was right; they relate to prosecutions only. It has been found necessary for the Revenue to lay traders under special restraints, to prevent collusion and fraud. Before the Statute 6 Geo. 1, if an officer went into a trader's house, and [an] action of trespass was brought against him, then, on proof of the trespass committed, unless the defendant could prove that the goods therein were forfeitable, he had a verdict against him. This stopped the collection of the public [814] revenue. To remedy this, the Statute 6 Geo. 1 was made, and the preamble to sect. 39 states the mischief. And the purport of the Act is, that where an officer acts bona fide, he shall be protected. Violent presumption shall excuse him, though he mistakes in these three cases; 1. Where goods are on board a boat, &c. without any officer; 2. Where they are coming from the water side; 3. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial