HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0082 and id is 1 raw text is: MITTELHOLZER V. FULLARTON
which are applicable only to imported goods. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion
that, although the applicant did take all those steps which are enumerated in this
section, yet he was not entitled to a permit, because he omitted to take the other steps
which are required by the regulations of the Excise, and, particularly, because he
omitted to deliver a proper request note. This rule must be discharged.
Rule discharged.
[989] MITTELHOLZER against FULLARTON. [1842.] Declaration in debt alleged:
that, by agreement made, to wit on 25th September, 1834, between plaintiff and
defendant, in consideration of 78001., payable as after mentioned, plaintiff did
sell, assign, transfer and make over all his right, title and interest in and to the
services and labour of 153 apprenticed labourers formerly slaves, belonging to
plaintiff, for and during the term of their apprenticeship, to defendant, his heirs,
executors or assigns, and engaged to warrant and defend him from all claims and
demands on, and, otherwise, as far as was in plaintiff's power, to guarantee the
undisturbed possession of, the services of such labourers according to law : and
defendant promised to pay plaintiff the 78001. in six instalments of 13001. at
specified annual periods : and it was agreed that, in case of failure in the regular
payment of any instalment, plaintiff should be entitled to reclaim the services
of such labourers during the remaining term of apprenticeship, and the services
should revert to plaintiff, defendant remaining liable for such sums as should
be then due for the value or hire of the labour during such period as defendant
should have received the services, at the rate of 13001. per annum. Averment
that defendant had the services, to wit from the time of making the agreement
for and during the term of the apprenticeship, and plaintiff was always ready
and willing to warrant, &c., and did warrant, &c. and otherwise guarantee, &c.
(in the terms of the agreement), and defendant had undisturbed possession, &c.
during the term, but, although defendant paid four of the instalments, and the
time for paying the other two had elapsed, he did not pay, &c. Held, by the
Court of Queen's Bench (on objection taken upon argument of demurrer to a
plea), that it did not appear, and the Court would not intend in the absence of
express statements, that the agreement was in any respect contrary to the law
of England generally, or to stat. 3 & 4 W. 4, c. 73, s. 10: that, if the validity
of the agreement depended on s. 10, the plaintiff was not bound to state that any
Act of Assembly, &c., mentioned in that clause, had been made and complied with,
or that none had been made: and that the declaration was good. Judgment
affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber. Plea 3 to the above declaration,
that, during the term for which the services were transferred, and before either of
the last instalments became due, plaintiff, against the will of defendant, removed the
labourers from his plantation to that of plaintiff, and there detained them from
thence hitherto, and defendant has never had their services since the removal:
and, further, that defendant declined to pay the last two instalments, and failed
in the regular payment of one, and thereupon the services of the labourers reverted
to plaintiff according to the agreement; and that all sums due at the time of such
failure for the value or hire of the labour while defendant had the services were
paid. Held, by the Court of Queen's Bench, on demurrer, a bad plea, as not
shewing that the plaintiff exercised his right to reclaim, on default made by the
defendant. Judgment affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber. Plea 1.
That, before either of the last two instalments became due, the agreement was
rescinded by and with the consent of plaintiff and defendant. Plea 4. That the
agreement was made at Berbice in British Guiana, between British subjects, and
was made for the purpose of transferring, and purported to transfer, the services
of the 153 labourers during their term of apprenticeship, according to the statute.
That, after such agreement, defendant had the services till 1st August, 1838 : that
in July, 1838, the Governor and Council of Berbice, according to the statute and the
usages of the colony, made an ordinance that all persons who on 1st August, 1838,
were apprenticed labourers should, from that day, be discharged from such
apprenticeship; and thereupon, and before breach of the agreement, the labourers
were discharged, &c., and the parties'to the said agreement were prevented and
prohibited by the authority aforesaid from further performing the same. Averment
6 Q. B. 989.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0082&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)