Star.
London, England, 1830-05-19 00:00:00

IMPORTANT DECISION.

This was an application on the part of Messrs. Fare-
brother, Wilson, and Lye, the well-known auctioneers,
to be relieved from the payment of 29/. auction duty,
which they had paid into the Excise on account of a sale
which had not been completed.
Mr. BROWNING, as solicitor to the venders of the pro-
perty, which had been sold by Mr. Alderman Farebrother,
stated, that in July last year the auctioneers had sold, at
Garraway's, a freehold and copybold estate in Thames-
street, Kingston-upon-Thames, for 1,0001. and in due
time paid the auction duty, 291. which was now sought
to be returned. The purchaser, who had paid a deposit,
objected to the completion of the purchase, on account of
a deed of the year 1712, establishing the right of posses-
sion, not being produced. Search was made for the deed,
but it could not be found ; and the contract between the
vender and the purchaser was broken off, the latter hav-
ing obtained the advice of his counsel, Mr. Gurney, who
gave it as his opinion that there was not a good title. The
venders then took the opinion of Mr. Knight, of the
Chancery Bar, who, without particularly expressing the
validity of the title, said he did not think the purchaser
could turn round upon the vender on the point in dispute
—namely, the non-production of the deed. It was true,
the question might have been decided by an equity suit
in Chancery, and the title made clear, but the venders
were unwilling to incur the risk and expense, and there-
fore contented themselves with giving up the point, and
praying the Excise Court to relieve them from the auc-
tion duty, there being no bond fide sale.
In answer to several questions from the Commis-
sioners, it appeared that Mrs. White, an executrix under
the will empowering the sale of the estate, had given
501. out of her own pocket to pay the expenses of the sale.
Mr. Mayo, the solicitor to the Excise, said that the
act of parliament only relieved the applicant when it
was found that, after the sale had taken place, and the
auction duty paid, there was not a good title to the pro-
perty. In the case before the court, however, it appeared
the counsel for the venders had given as his opinion, that
the purchaser could not turn round on the venders upon
the point then at issue between the parties. A bad title,
therefore,had not been proved, as it might have been, one
way or the other, in the Court of Chancery.

Mr. BROWNING contended that he had made out a
case, clearly showing there had not been an absolute sale,
and that it arose from a good title not being proved, and
that he was entitled to a return of the auction duty, which
had been paid on the supposition the sale would be made
absolute.

The CHIEF COMMISSION Ea (W. Parish, Esq.) with
the concurrence of Commissioners Plunkett and Harri-
son, said, the Court in this case could not consider the
applicants entitled to relief. They had agreed to a com-
promise in accepting the 501. from the executrix, and
they had not proved a bad title, which the law required
to empower the Court to restore the auction duty. The
claim must, therefore, be dismissed.

John Henderson, a wholesale dealer in spirits and
wine, residing in Laurence Pountney-lane, appeared to
answer an information for having sold by retail, without
a license, a quantity of liquor, by which he had incurred
a heavy penalty.
William Wells, an excise-officer, deposed that on the
18th of February last he purchased of the defendant, who
was a wholesale dealer, without a retail license, two
bottles of rum, two bottles of brandy, two bottles of
gin, and some wine. Witness obtained the spirits
under pretence, saying he came from Miss Wells, of
Islington, and that the goods were to be sent to the
Flower-pot coach-office, to be forwarded to that lady.
The defendant observed at the time he had not a retail
license, but that other persons in the trade did the same,
and he supposed he need not fear any unpleasant con-
sequences.
In reply to the charge, the defendant admitted that
he had no retail licence, and could not urge any thing in
defence, but that he was not aware of acting illegally.
Lord 'AFFORD, one of the commissioners, said the
defendant must have been aware of the illegality, for he
expressed his knowledge of committing an unlawful act
to the officer at the time he sold the goods.
. ... _ .

The defendant here said that Wells, the officer, had
told him at the time that it was no offence to sell by
retail.

Wells denied the statement. The defendant, during
the transaction, said he was doing wrong, but he supposed
Miss Wells would not inform against him; when he (wit-
ness), knowing there was no such person, replied he was
sure she would not.

The Cot! RT cautioned the officer not to go beyond the
strict line of his duty, or by unfair inducements cause
persons to commit a breach of the revenue laws.
The defendant was then convicted in the mitigated pe-
nalty of 51.