smallpox, 400 were inoculated. The slaves were kept on the island until 
January, 1763, when appellant attempted to reship the 521 survivors to Havana. 
But respondent official refused to allow such reshipment until a duty 
was paid under provisions of a 1761 local revenue statute. This act provided 
that there should be paid a duty of 10 shillings current money for every slave 
imported or brought into any harbor, bay, etc., of the island, to be paid by 
the masters, owners, or importers of such slaves; a further duty of 20 shillings 
per head was to be paid by the purchaser or exporter of every such slave imported. 
To facilitate shipment, appellant paid the duty under protest and then 
sued for recovery of the money in an action of trespass on the case in the local 
Supreme Court. In July, 1763, judgment was given for appellant, but upon 
writ of error to the Governor and Council this judgment was reversed on 
August 18,1766. 538 The appeal then taken to the King in Council was entered 
in March, 1767. 539 
The appellant in his conciliar case argued inter alia that it was an established 
maxim of government policy not to permit the colonies to impose duties 
upon the trade and navigation of the mother country. The royal instructions 
to the plantation governors constantly prohibited their giving way to such 
attempts. Although in cases of great emergency this prohibition had sometimes 
been dispensed with, and Jamaican governors impowered to assent to 
acts laying reasonable duties upon negroes during insular exigencies, yet 
even then it was ordered that the import duty be paid by the purchaser, not 
by the importer, and the export duty laid only upon such negroes as were 
actually sold in the island. Agreeable to this invariable maxim the 78th article 
of Governor Lyttleton's instructions declared that the governor should not 
assent to or pass any law imposing duties upon negroes imported into Jamaica, 
payable by the importer, or upon any slaves exported that had not been sold 
there. Consequently it was argued that as the act in question was made after 
notice of these instructions, it must have been intended that the import duty 
thereby laid was meant only as to negroes imported for sale and the export 
duty in case only of an actual sale or change of property in the island, else 
the act "being expressly contrary to his Majesty's instructions was and must 
be deemed void ab initio!' 540 
538 This account is taken from the Case of 
the Appellant, Add. MS, 36,220/163. Respondent 
in a notation on this Case attacked 
the accuracy of its recitals and its correspondence 
to the bill of exceptions. The Case of the 
Respondent {Add. MS, 36,220/168) offers a 
different interpretation of the facts, alleging 
that Jamaica served as an entrepot and that 
tlie slaves would have been sold within the 
island if prices had warranted such sale. Since 
the Committee accepted the appellant's version 
of the facts, we feel our reliance is justified. 

539 PC 2/1 12/192. 
SM Add. MS, 36,220/163. To this argument 
respondent noted on the margin of the Case 
"It seems extraordinary to contest the validity 
of this law now. The act has passed the Gov-