APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE, 



283 



wards, and had paid the duty 

 under the former Acts. At the 

 time the 51st of the King was 

 passed, the Richard was ab- 

 sent from Liverpool, and return- 

 ed, paying- no duty, having- been 

 charged on her outward voyage. 

 This exemption was proviiled for 

 in the 51st C.'eo. HI.; and after 

 that statute had passed, the Rich- 

 ard pioceedt^il on her voyage to St. 

 Domingo, where she discharged 

 her cargo, no duty being de- 

 manded on her clearance out 

 from Liverpool. Having dis- 

 charged her outward and taken 

 in her homeward cargo, the 

 Richard jeturned to London, 

 where slie was completely un- 

 laden, and after she had been 

 again freighted for Liverpool 

 with other goods, she sailed for 

 that poit : on her ari-ival the 

 trustees demanded the payment 

 of 341. 10s., the sum which they 

 contep.ded was due according to 

 the rate of duties provided by the 

 act of parliament after a voyage 

 to St. Domingo. The pkintiirs 

 resisted ; but afterwards settling 

 the whole claim under a protest, 

 they brought an action to recover 

 241. 8s. 9d. being the difference 

 between the amount of duty pay- 

 able by the Act after a voyage to 

 Loudon o>- to St. Domingo. Tlie 

 question therefore was, whether, 

 according to the terms of the 51st 

 Geo. III. the trustees of the Li- 

 verpool Docks, after the voyage 

 performed by the Richard, could 

 enforce the jrayment of the duty 

 on an adventure to St. Domingo, 

 which is 5s. per ton, or could 

 only claim the duty as for a voy- 

 age from London, at the rate of 

 7d. per ton. 



Mi . Richardson, for the defen- 



dants (the plaintiiFs in error), 

 contended, that by the 6th sec- 

 tion, as explained by the 7th 

 section of the 51st Geo. III. the 

 trustees could insist that the 

 owners of the Richard should pay 

 the rate of duty due for the most 

 distant port at which she had 

 touched in the course of her voy- 

 age. Under the old Acts, in the 

 case of Gladstone v. Geldert (2 

 Taunt. 97, and 12 East 439), it 

 had been decided, that a vessel 

 which cleared out from Liver- 

 pool with a cargo incuned only 

 one duty, though she might have 

 traded to intermediate ports, and 

 carried more than one cargo 

 during her absence ; but the ex- 

 press provisions of the 51 Geo. 

 III. were decisive upon the point, 

 that if a ship, as in this case, 

 cleared out for St. Domingo, per- 

 formed her voyage, discharged 

 her cargo at London, and took in 

 another, which she conveyed to 

 Liverpool, she was liable to pay 

 the dock duty as for a voyage to 

 St. Domingo, being the most 

 distant port to which she had 

 traded during her absence. The 

 reasons for the augmented duties 

 for distant adventures seemed to 

 be, that after it the vessel would 

 require additional accommoda- 

 tion, and would prob;ibly make a 

 longer stay in the docks, and that 

 the owner was supposed to be 

 better able, from the profits of 

 his speculation, to sustain a hea- 

 vier burden; it might also be 

 said, that ships making short 

 trips would not be long absent 

 from the docks, and would con- 

 sequently pay a smaller duty 

 more fiequently. The learned 

 Counsel admitted that the 6th 

 clause was somewhat ambiguous, 



but 



