Next is Order #137, which is dated 14 December 1784 (here the day is clearly visible) and is signed by James Edgar (top signature), Basil Cochrane (middle), and Adam Smith (bottom). Once again, we see the commissioners’ attention to detail:
“We have received your Letter of the 27th of last Month [i.e. 27 November 1784], with the Report of Mr. Gabriel Hay Officer of Excise relative to Return of Seizure No. 289 for 462 [or 1162] lbs of Tobacco seized by him. And We acquaint you for your Information that the Officer has not assigned a distinct Cause of forfeiture. He has referred to a Section of the 24th Geo. 2d Cap. 41, [illegible], the 1st, which contains no such enactment as he sets forth; You should have attended to this, and should have pointed out the Error to Mr. Hay, so as you might have come at his proper meaning: — However from the fact stated there being reason to presume that the Tobacco was landed without payment of Duties, and that it was removed from the Port or Place of Importation by Land, without a Certificate, by which removal it has become subject to forfeiture by the Act 24th Geo. 2d Cap 41st Sect 9th & 12th as also by the 23d Geo 3d Cap 11 Sect. [cut off] — We have given Directions to the Solicitor for the Prosecution thereof on these Grounds.”
This order is addressed to the Collector and Comptroller of the Port of Inverness, and it refers to two revenue statutes: 24th Geo. 2d Cap. 41 and 23d Geo 3d Cap 11. The first statute refers to the Tobacco Duties Act of 1750 (see here, scroll down to “Tobacco Duties Act 1750”), while the second statute refers to the Customs Act of 1783 (see here; scroll down to “Customs Act 1783”). Here, the Commissioners of the Board of Customs reprimand the principal officers at the Port of Inverness for failing to catch a legal citation error made by one “Gabriel Hay Officer of Excise.”
In summary, Officer Hay had seized 428 pounds of tobacco, logged as Seizure Return No. 289, but failed to identify the correct legal authority for this forfeiture, incorrectly citing the wrong section of the Tobacco Duties Act. The commissioners, however, are pro-active and fix this legal error themselves. Instead of accepting the filing “as is” or letting the case collapse, the board sua sponte re-grounds the legal justification of the seizure in the 1783 Customs Act (23 Geo. 3 c. 11) and in Sections 9 and 12 of the 1750 Tobacco Duties Act (24 Geo. 2 c. 41), stating that there is “reason to presume” the shipment of tobacco in this case was landed without the payment of duties and was moved overland without a proper certificate.
The Commissioners of the Board of Customs also call out Hay’s superiors, the Collector and Comptroller at Inverness. (Cf. Order #130, dated 15 or 25 Nov. 1784, in which the board calls out these same officials for dragging their feet in another case.) By stating that they (Hay’s superiors)“should have attended to this, and should have pointed out the Error,” the board is all but reprimanding them for not catching this legal citation error sooner and fixing it themselves. In the meantime, the commissioners instruct the board’s solicitor to proceed with the prosecution of this case.
