Shepherd v Hills
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 April 1855 |
| Date | 23 April 1855 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 156 E.R. 743
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 6. Distinguished, St. Paneras Vestry v. Battenbury, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S) 477 Referred to, Lowe v. Dorling, [1906] 2 K. B. 784
U EX. 56 SHEPHERD V. HILLS 743 shepherd, Deputy Mastet of the Trinity-House, Deptford Strond v. hills, April 23, Ib55 -The 32 Geo 3, c. 74, s. 8, imposes certain rates and duties " to be paid by the master or owneis " for every ship or vessel of a certain burthen passing from, to, or by Rarnsgate. Sect 14 declares, that " no coasting vessel or fisherman shall pay the duty charged by that Act oftener than once in any one year " Sect. 15 empowers the collectors to distiam every ship and all the tackle, &c , for non-payment of the duties. By sect. 16, if any master or owner of any ship or vessel shall elude or avoid payment 'of the duties, he shall stand charged and be liable to the payment of the same , and the same shall be levied and recovered from such master or ownei by the same method by which tines and penalties imposed by that Act are levied and iccovered By sect. 72, penalties and foi-feitures are to be recovered by action or distress. The defendant, who was sued for duties under the above Act, was the owner of a vessel which several times in the year sailed in ballast to Jersey, and brought from thence oysterfe, which the defendant purchased of fisheimen theie, and which he deposited in beds at Milton -Held, first, that an action would lie on the statute foi the recovery of the duties, and that the power of distiess was meiely a cumulative remedy , secondly, that the plaintiff's vessel was not a " coasting vessel " or " fisherman " within the meaning of the above Act, thirdly, that the action being on a specialty, the period of limitation was twenty years, under the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 42, s. 3. [S. C. 25 L. J. Ex. 6. Distinguished, St. Paiiaa* Verity v. Batt&nbwy, 1857, 2 C. B. (N. S ) 477 Referred to, Lane v. Dorhng, [1906] 2 K. B. 784 ] The following case was stated for the opinion of this Court, by consent and order of a Judge, pursuant to the Common Law Procedure Acts, 1852 and 1854. [56] This action is brought by the plaintiff, under the piovisionsof the 32 Geo 3, c. 74, and other Acts for the Impio%ement of Ramsgate Haibour, on behalf of the trustees for carrying into execution the said Acts, for the recovery of certain tolls or dues claimed by the said tiustees as due to them. The 32 Geo. 3, c. 74, s. 8, is as follows -"And be it further enacted, that the said trustees, or any such fifteen 01 more of them as aforesaid, at a public meeting (previous notice whereof shall be gi\en),"&c, "are hereby authorised to settle and impose the several rates and duties hereinafter mentioned, which rates and duties shall commence and become payable from and after the 25th day of June, 1792, inclusive," &c. : " That is to say, any rate or duty not exceeding three-pence per ton, to be paid by the master or owneis for every ship, vessel, or crayer, of the burthen of twenty tons or upwards, and not exceeding the burthen of three hundred torib, whether the same may be laden or in ballast, passing from, to, or by Ramsgate, whether on the east or west side of the Goodwin Sands, or otherwise passing by or coming into the harbour there (other than and except ships laden with coals, grindstones, or Purbeck, Portland, or other stones), not having a receipt testifying his payment before on that voyage, and for e\ery ship, vessel, or crayer, which shall exceed the burthen of three hundred tons, any rate or duty not exceeding one penny for each tori of such ship (except ships laden with coals, gundstones, Purbeck, Portland or other stones), and for every chaldron of coals, or ton of grindstones, Purbeck, Portland, or other stones, a rate not exceeding three-halfpence , and the said duties shall be paid every time such ship, vessel, or ciayer shall sail from, arrne, or come into harbuur at, or pass by Ramsgate as aforesaid (except as hereinafter mentioned , and such rates or duties, when settled by the said trustees, shall be forthwith published in the London Gazette for the information of all parties concerned , the same to be paid [57] to the customer or collector of the customs, or their deputies, or such other person or persons as shall be appointed by the trustees of this Act to icceive the same, in such port or place whence such ship, ^ebsel, or crayer shall set forth, or where such ship, \essel, or ciayer. shall arrive, before she sails from such poit on her outward-bound \oyage, and before unloading the goods on board thereof on hei homeward-hourcl voyage , the amount of the number ot such tons to be ascertained according to the rules laid down by an Act passed,' &c (26 Geo 3, c 60). "And that the rates urcl duties po to be leMed and raised as aforesaid shall be applied, by or urdei the discretion cf the said trustees, in or towaids the enlarging, building, finishing, maintaining, and supporting and improving the said harboui of Ramsgate." 744 SHEPHERD V. HILLS 11 ET 58- The 12th section enacts: "That no ship, vessel, or crayer outward-bound, the place of whose destination shall be to or by Eamsgate, shall be cleared at the office of his Majesty's Customs or subsidies on such outward-bound voyage; nor shall any vessel who shall have sailed from or by Ramsgate, or have gone into harbour there, be allowed to enter at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collin v Duke of Westminster
...stock ( In Re Cornwall Minerals Railway Co. (1897) 2 Ch. 74) and to an action for recovery of rates and duties imposed by statute ( Shepherd v. Hills (1855) 11 Ex.55). A distinction, however, was drawn between the case where all that the statute did was to make binding a contract which othe......
-
Victorian Workcover Authority v Esso Australia Ltd
...created by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (Cth). The Court said 9: ‘The rule applicable here is stated in Shepherd v Hills10 as follows, viz, “Wherever an Act of Parliament creates a duty or obligation to pay money, an action will lie for its recovery, unless the Act......
-
Pape v Commissioner of Taxation
...of the Special Case but rather its relevance. 190 See below at [168]–[171]; see also at [267] and [394] per Hayne and Kiefel JJ. 191 (1855) 11 Ex 55 at 67 [ 156 ER 743 at 747]. See also Mallinson v Scottish Australian Investment Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 66 at 70; [1920] HCA 51; The Commonwealth......
-
Brisbane City Council v Amos
...14 The Cork and Bandon Railway Co v Goode (1853) 13 CB 826 at 835–836 [ 138 ER 1427 at 1431–1432]; Shepherd v Hills (1855) 11 Ex 55 at 67 [ 156 ER 743 at 748]. 15 3 & 4 Will IV c 27. 16 Sutton v Sutton (1882) 22 Ch D 511 at 515. 17 Wood, A Treatise on the Limitation of Actions at Law and in......