chapman v lamb trespass action of trespass against the defendant who be a  customhouse officer for take shirt a silk nightgown and a velvet cap the good  of the plaintiff the defendant justify that he be one of the customhouse  officer and that he seize the good and carry they to the king warehouse  because the plaintiff refuse to pay duty c the jury find that the defendant be  a customhouse officer and that he have seize the good mention in the  declaration they likewise find that these be wear apparel only which the  plaintiff bring from France for his own private use and upon the whole they  find that these good be not mercantile and therefore give a verdict for the  plaintiff with damage this Cause be try before Raymond c I who at the trial  reserve this point videlicet whether these good be find to be for a private  use and not mercantile be liable to pay duty or not Mr Kettleby for plaintiff  argue that no good but mercantile good be liable or subject to the payment of  duty and that the statute of car do not extend to good buy for a private use  that by the d section of this statute it be enact that vessel appoint to carry  letter common call packet boat may not import nor export merchant upon the  penalty of the forfeiture of pound and that the merchant which shall be find  aboard these vessel shall be forfeit and lose now it can be conceive that this  clause extend to good which be import for private use and that a passenger  that carry a few shirt and other necessary apparel shall be subject to such  severe penalty the statute car whereby tonnage and poundage be grant to his  majesty extend likewise to mercantile good only and the reason they can by  implication be extend to any wear apparel be because such good be necessary  for the conveniency of all traveller and passenger whereas by the construction  that be contend for by the defendant a man must not wear a shirt to his back  but if he W Kelynge come from beyond sea he must pay duty for it and cite  Vaugh Sheppard and Gosnold all where Vaughan Ch I in his exposition of car c  say that the wine subject to tonnage by the statute must be import as merchant  that be for sale and to that end for no other conception can be of good bring  as merchant and in the present case the good be express find not to be  merchant and be so state upon the point reserve Mr reeves content whoever  import good whether he be a merchant by profession or not be a merchant within  this statute it have be adjudge that if a person draw a bill of exchange he be  a merchant Ventr Sarsfield and W Kelynge er p Witherle common usage be always  allow a good exposition of a Act of parliament and it have be the constant  usage where wear apparel have be bring from beyond sea to pay duty for they  though not bring as merchant if the exposition that have be make upon the  statute by the plaintiff counsel shall prevail the consequence will be very  prejudicial to the kin S revenue if no good must pay custom but what be  merchant it will in a manner exempt French wine from all duty for they be take  the same notice of in the Act of parliament as other good and if they must pay  no duty but when they be import as merchant for sale then when wine be import  by private family for their own private use this will evade the duty and the  king lose his revenue contrary to the intent of the act of parliament suppose  a man shall have occasion to cloth his family and import bale of rich silk for  they all fall under the same description must these silk pay no duty this  construction will be such a Inlet into the act that any private person may  import good without payment of any duty to the crown because they be not bring  over as traffic cur the point in this case will depend upon the circumstance  of it it appear the good in question be necessary apparel and import for the  plaintiff own private use where person go to excess and bring over any great  quantity of good that will fall within another consideration it do not seem  reasonable that duty shall be exact for wear apparel that be necessary and on  the other hand it seem as unreasonable that people shall be leave at liberty  to import what quantity they think proper under this denomination but that a  man shall be oblige to pay duty for every trifle he bring over do not seem to  be reasonable say adjournatur the attorneygeneral desire leave to speak to it  and Michaelmas term g judgement be this term give for the plaintiff Raymond Ch  I the good in this case be find not to be import by way of merchant but for  the plaintiff own W Kelynge private use and it be not the intent of the Act of  parliament such good shall pay duty and so judgement for the plaintiff per tot  cur see stram same case