APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



28J 



her voyage begins, and at Liver- 

 pool it ends. London, therefore, 

 is the only port at which the 

 Rjc'i'.rd touches. 



Mr. Joy added, that the trad- 

 ing in question was not from St 

 Domingo ; that adventure had 

 been concluded in London where 

 a new trading commenced, for 

 which the plaintiffs admitted that 

 a dock-duty was payable. H^ 

 cited the case of the ship William, 

 in Admiralty Reports, to establish 

 that the first voyage had been 

 terminated in London by the un- 

 loading of the cargo, and the 

 discharge of the port-dues there : 

 the Master of the Rolls had even 

 gone so far as to decide, that if 

 the identical goods had been re- 

 shipped, the original voyage would 

 have been concluded : a fortiori, 

 therefore, in this case, where a 

 totally different cargo had been 

 sent to Liverpool from London. 

 The argument on the other side 

 must either go to this extent, or 

 it amounted to nothing — that if a 

 ship originally sailed from Liver- 

 pool, and having performed se- 

 veral voyages to the East Indies, 

 discharging all her cargoes at 

 London and returning to Liver- 

 pool, the owner was liable to the 

 payment of the rate of duty fixed 

 for the East Indies. 



Mr. Richardson replied j and 

 iij answer to a question from the 

 Court, allowed that he must con- 

 tend for the affirmative of the 

 case last put by Mr. Joy. He 

 was bound to argue, even that if 

 a ship sailed from Liverpool to 

 London, and there was taken up 

 by GoTcrnment for the transport 

 service, and sent to the West 

 Ipdies^ she was liable on her re- 



turn to Liverpool to the payment 

 of duty as for a West India voyage. 

 This, however, was an extreme 

 case. He submitted, that the 

 trading contemplated by the Act 

 was not completed until the re- 

 tuin of the ship to the port of 

 Liverpool, from whence she had 

 originally proceeded. 



Lord Ellenborough grounded 

 his decision upon the unambi- 

 guous terms of the 6'th section 

 of the 51st Geo. III., which ought 

 not to be confounded with the 

 language of the 7th section, 

 which his Lordship did not feel 

 himself competent to explain. It 

 was clear that there was in this 

 case no trading but from London 

 to "Liverpool : the whole of the 

 cargo from St. Domingo had 

 been unladen, and never was re- 

 shipped, and no dispute could 

 therefore arise upon the words 

 the most distant port. The point 

 was rendered still more indis- 

 pytable by reference to the 12th 

 section ; for if the master of the 

 vessel, under the powers there 

 given, had been interrogated, he 

 could have given no other an- 

 swer, but he had come from 

 London with the new cargo he 

 had on board, and that on that 

 voyage he had traded to no other 

 place. The consequence was, 

 that the London duty of 7d. per 

 ton was only demandable by the 

 Dock Company, and consequently 

 that the sum of 241. 8s. 9d. 

 sought to be recovered by the 

 plaintiffs, had been improperly 

 received by the defendants In 

 this view, the judgment below 

 in favour of the plaintiffs (the 

 defendants in error) ought to be 

 affirmed. 



Mr< 



