Case ID: va_8/html/0684-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Bentley v. Roan.
    [June, 1790.]
    State Revenue Laws — Failure to Enter Articles Shipped by Sea — Effect.—A failure to enter a chariot and harness, from Philadelphia, was a forfeiture of the vessel, chariot and harness, under the state revenue laws existing in May, 1786.
    Same — Failure to Enter Articles Shipped by Land-Effect — But if the same articles had been imported by land, they would have been free from duty.
    By the act of assembly, passed at the October session 1782, intituled ‘an act to amend and reduce the several acts of assembly for ascertaining certain taxes and duties, and for establishing a permanent revenue into one act,’ it is enacted, “That on all vessels at entrance or clearance from, or to, foreign ports, or from, or to, any of the United States, vessels of war excepted, there shall be paid, by the master or owner thereof, the duty of one shilling and three pence per ton, to the collector of duties at the port or ports established, or to be established, for the entrance and -clearance of such vessels; and for every gallon of rum, brandy and other distilled spirits, and for every gallon of wine, which shall be imported, or brought'into this commonwealth, either by land or water, from any port or place whatsoever, the duty or custom of four pence, which shall be paid by the owner or importer of the same; and for every hundred pounds of sugar which shall be brought or imported into this commonwealth as aforesaid from any port or place whatsoever, the duty or custom of four shillings, and two pence; and for every pound of coffee which shall be imported, or brought into this commonwealth as aforesaid, from any port or place whatsoever, the duty of one penny; and for all’ other goods or merchandize which shall be imported or brought into this commonwealth as aforesaid, from any port or place whatsoever, the duty of one per centum ad valorem on the amount per invoice of such goods and merchandize; all of which said duties shall be paid by the owner or importer of any of the articles or merchandize above mentioned. And it is further enacted that the master or pursuer of every ship or other vessel, importing *any goods, wares or merchandize liable to a duty, by virtue of this act, to any port or place within this commonwealth, shall, within forty-eight hours after his arrival, make a true and just report, upon oath, with the collector of the duties in the said port or place, of the burthen, contents and loading of such ship or vessel, with the particular marks and numbers of every cask or package whatsoever therein laden with spirits, wine, sugar, coffee and other merchandize, to whom consigned to the best of his knowledge; and also where and in what port the same were laden and taken on board, upon penalty of forfeiting three hundred pounds current money, recoverable on information in any court within this commonwealth, who shall thereupon enter judgment, and award execution for the same, to be applied, one moiety to the use of the informer, and the other to the use of the commonwealth. And it is further enacted, that no spirits, wine, sugar, coffee, or other, merchandize, liable to the said duties, imported or brought into this commonwealth by water, by any person or persons whatsoever, shall be landed or put on shore, until due entry thereof with the collector of the duties in such port or place, and a true account of the marks and numbers of every cask and package as aforesaid, at that port or place where the same was shipped or taken on board, given on oath ■ before the collector, who shall certify the same upon the back of the original invoice, or a true copy thereof, to him produced; and thereupon such importer paying the duties laid by this act, or securing the payment thereof within six months, shall obtain a permit, under the hand of such collector, for the landing and delivery of the same: and all spirits, wine, sugar, coffee, or other merchandize, landed, put on shore or delivered, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, or the value thereof, shall be forfeited and lost, and may be seized or recovered by the said collector of the port or place, where the same shall be put on shore, or delivered, or by any other person or persons whatsoever. And it is further enacted, that if any person or persons whatsoever shall willingly make a *false entry, and be thereof convicted, such person or persons shall forfeit and pay one hundred pounds current money, and also forfeit the goods, recoverable on information in any court within this commonwealth, who shall thereupon enter judgment and award execution for the same, to be applied, one moiety to the use of the informer, and the other to the use of the commonwealth. ’ ’'
    By the act of May session 1784, which refers to the last act, and is intituled ‘an act for imposing an additional duty of one and a half per centum on certain goods, wares and merchandizes,’ it is enacted, “that an additional duty of one and a half per centum ad valorem, be paid on all goods, wares and merchandizes, which are subject to a duty of one per cent, by the act herein before recited; which said duty of one and a half per cent, shall be paid by the owner or importer of any such goods, wares and merchandizes, and shall be collected and accounted for under the same regulations and penalties as are provided by the said recited act for the one per cent, aforesaid. ’ ’
    By the act of October session 178S, entitled ‘an act for better securing the revenue arising from customs,’ it is declared, “that whereas many frauds have been practised and committed, by the owners or commanders of vessels trading to this commonwealth by their failing to enter the same according to law, whereby great loss has resulted to the public on the duties payable on goods, wares and merchandize; for remedy whereof in future, it is enacted, that if the owner or commanding officer of any vessel, trading to this state, shall fail to enter the same together with her cargo, in the manner prescribed by law, and pajr or secure to be paid the duties arising thereon, such vessel, together with her rigging, tackle, apparel and furniture, and such part of the cargo as shall not have been duly entered, shall be liable to be seized by any person or persons who shall detect such vessel, to be prosecuted and condemned before the court of admiralty, one half to the use of the informer, and the other half to the use of the commonwealth.”
    *Under the foregoing acts of assembly, Christopher Roan, in May 1786, as well on behalf of himself as of the commonwealth, filed a libel, in the court of admiralty, against the brigantine Uittle Nancy,- Nathaniel Bentley, master, charging that the master of the vessel laden with goods, bricks, a chariot and harness, and other wares and merchandizes, arrived from Philadelphia at Norfolk about the 20th of April, 1786, and made a false entry, by concealing the chariot and harness, and secretly landing part of her cargo, without paying, or securing the duties.
    The answer of Bentley states that the vessel belongs to William Pennock and company, citizens of Virginia. That she left this state in December 1785, and returned to, and entered at Norfolk, on the said 20th day of April, 1786. That the chariot and harness were not entered; but denies that the failure subjects the vessel and the chariot and harness to forfeiture.
    There was a general replication to the answer: And the jury, upon the trial of the issue, found a special verdict; which the court set aside for uncertainty, and awarded a new trial.
    Upon the second trial, the verdict found, that the respondent imported into this commonwealth, the chariot and harness, as charged in the libel; but did not enter the same with any custom house officer within the state, nor pay, or secure the duties thereon: and that if the law was for the libellant, then they found the brigantine, chariot and harness, for him: but otherwise the3r found for the respondent.
    The court, upon the last mentioned verdict, condemned the brigantine, chariot and harness, as forfeited: and from that sentence, the respondent appealed to the court of appeals.
    Baker, for the appellant,
    contended, that the chariot and harness were not within the acts of assembly. Por they were not merchandize, which obviously means things to be bought and sold: a definition by no means applicable to the *chariot and harness; because things of that kind are never warehoused and sold but are always imported for the owner’s own use. That if they had come by land, the duty would not have reached them; and it was not to be conceived, that a distinction was intended. That, in all parts of the act, the mercantile character of the article to be entered, appears; for the marks and numbers of the casks and packages are to be reported, and the invoice produced: all of which are commercial terms, and denote buying and selling. That the dutiable articles are known by their companions; for, in .all the after parts of the act, they are constantly associated with spirits, wine, sugar and coffee: which are all of a commercial nature, and prove that only articles of that description were to be subjected to a duty.
   On the other side, it was said, by the attorney general, that merchandize was nomen collectivum, and comprehended every article on board. That chariots and harness might be imported for sale as well as any other goods; and there was nothing which shewed an intention to make a distinction in their favour. That it was to no purpose to say, that if they had been imported by land there would have been no duty; for the same argument would be as applicable to all the other articles, on which it was admitted duties ought to be paid: and it would defeat the law unless every part of the cargo was subjected to duty, as the door would be otherwise open to every species of fraud in the entry. That the chariot and harness probably came in packages ; and therefore satisfied the words relied on by the appellant’s counsel. That the term merchandize lost nothing of its comprehensive character, by being associated with the words “spirits, wine, sugar and coffee;” for the reference was general; and was intended to comprize every article, which any of the preceding words would include.

And of that opinion was the court; and the sentence was affirmed.