(14.) The opinion of the Attorney-General, Yorke, on the commencement of duties upon importation.

Case. An act passed the 12th of May, 1726, that liquors imported after the 10th of June should pay three shillings duty.-A ship arrived on the coast the 8th of June, and anchored in port the 10th of June. Is the rum liable to duty?

The general rule is that duties laid upon goods imported become due instantly upon the importation thereof; and such importation is always accounted from the time of the ship's coming within the limits of the port, with intent to lay the goods on land: therefore, I am of opinion that if the place in Rappahannock river, at which the ship in question was moored or at anchor the 10th of June, was within the limits of the port, then the rum is not liable to the duty; for the duty not commencing till from and after the 10th of June, there was no such duty in being at the time of this importation.

Nov. 2, 1726.

P. YORKE.

(15.) The opinion of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, Kemp and Smith, at New York, on the distribution of forfeitures, under the acts of trade.

Sir:

Romney, at Halifax, Dec. 8, 1763.

As his Majesty has been graciously pleased to bestow on me a quarter of the moiety granted him by act of parliament, of all seizures made by sea officers, and condemned in your court of admiralty, I hereby apply to you for the same; and if I may be indulged in a further request, I pray the favor of you to cause the proper officer of your court to give me some account of your proceedings

with regard to such seizures, for we have strange accounts here of claims from governors, causes prejudged, and determined before trial, and of an attorney-general giving an opinion confessedly against the spirit and meaning of an act of parliament and the evidence of his own understanding; in short, of reason being lost in law or love of money; but I persuade myself that these are only mistaken reports, and that so far as the issue depends upon you, as judge, you will duly consider the act of a British parliament, the King's proclamation founded there upon, and your own appointment from the lords of admiralty, who are required by the King to cause his pleasure, signified in the proclamation, to be duly complied with.

COLVILLE.

The acts of trade, respecting the plantations, generally enact, "That the penalties and forfeitures sued for on those acts in the plantations, shall be divided between the King, the Governor, and the persons suing for the same, each a third."

A statute was passed in the third year of his Majesty's reign, entitled "An act for the further improvement of his Majesty's revenue of customs, and for the encouragement of officers making seizures, and for the prevention of the clandestine running of goods into any part of his Majesty's dominions."

Under this act, and his Majesty's order in council of the 1st day of June, 1763, the officers and crews of his Majesty's ships of war making seizures in America, claim the moiety of the net produce of those seizures, to be divided among them in the proportions mentioned in the said order of council.

Captain Hawker has made a seizure of a vessel and cargo, at New York, as forfeited on some of the acts of trade, which declare the forfeitures shall be divided in thirds, as aforesaid.

Can Captain Hawker, under the late act, and the King's order in council, demand the moiety for himself, officers, and crew? We have perused the late statute and the royal order, and do not observe any thing in that statute, vesting in the officers and crew the moiety of seizures made by ships of war in America, excepting the forfeitures by the last clause of that act; nor any virtual repeal of those laws, whereby the forfeitures were distributable between the Crown, the Governor, and the prosecutor.

The moiety which his Majesty is empowered to proportionate among the officers and crew, is the moiety mentioned in the precedent clauses in that statute, and is the share the officers of the customs in Great Britain are entitled to by that statute, on seizures made by them, on breaches of the acts of trade there.

The other part of all and every the seizures, &c. as the statute expresses it, which his Majesty is also empowered to proportionate as aforesaid, we think can be construed to extend no farther than to effect a division of whatever other share the officers and crew seizing may be entitled to, under the laws by which the seizure was made, which differ in England and the plantations, and may, perhaps, empower the Crown to proportionate among them any part of his Majesty's share: we conceive, that wherever seizures are made by his Majesty's ships of war, the officers and crew become entitled, upon prosecution, to the shares of the officers of the customs,

and upon the whole, therefore, are of opinion, that this late act cannot warrant a claim, in America, to more than one-third part of these forfeitures in such cases, where, by prior statutes, the Crown and Governor are each entitled to a third; and with respect to the royal order in council, we presume, with submission, it will be considered only as declarative of the distribution of those rights the cfficers and crews are entitled to by the acts of trade.

November 7, 1763.

J. T. KEMPE. WM. SMITH, jun.

(16.) The opinion of the Attorney-General, Levinz, on the importation of painted stoneware.

At the court at Whitehall, the 3d of March, 1679-80: present, the King's most excellent Majesty in council.

The aforewritten memorial, with regard to the importation of foreign painted stoneware, being this day presented to the board, with the papers annexed, it is ordered that the Lords of the Committee for Trade do examine the same, and report their opinions, what may be fit for his Majesty to do therein.

THOS. DOLMAN.

Reference therein, touching earthenware. Report of Mr. Attorney-General about earthenware.

May it please your Lordships;

By the statute of the 3d Edward IV. cap. 4 the bringing of any painted wares into this kingdom is prohibited; whether the earthenwares in question be painted or not is matter of fact, and, properly, by the laws of this kingdom, triable by a jury; therefore, whether your Lordships will think fit to have the matter determined

by a certificate of the officers of the place, whose intent it is to import them, or refer them to a trial by a jury of this kingdom, whose intent it is to obstruct the importation, I most humbly submit.

April 19, 1680.

CRESWELL LEVINZ.

III. (1.) The opinion of Sir William Jones, Sir F. Winnington, and Mr. J. King, in 1676, on the statute 21st James, of monopolies, how far an action would lie, in the Barbadoes courts, for seizing goods of the African Company.

An action is brought against B. in the Barbadoes, upon the statute of the 21st Jac. cap. 3. of monopolies, for seizing certain goods imported thither from Guinea, contrary to the immunities and privileges granted by his Majesty to the royal African company.

Quare 1.-Whether, in this case, the action lies upon that statute for treble damages, considering the proviso that exempts all charters granted to any companies or societies, erected for the maintenance or ordering of any trade or merchandize out of that statute? I am of opinion, that this proviso doth exempt any charter, granted to any society of merchants, for the maintenance or ordering of trade, from being within the penalty of the statute; for that proviso, as it doth not confirm such charters, but leaves them to stand and fall by the common law, so it doth not inflict any new penalty upon them wherefore, I think, an action will not. lie upon this statute for treble damages, for doing any thing in execution of such charter.

Quare 2;-If any action lies upon the statute, can it be brought in any other courts but the king's bench, common pleas, or exchequer at Westminster, the statute