burrow maxwell versus mayor SC black wholesale trader need not take out a  licence from the hawker office this be a action of trespass for take the  plaintiff good to which not guilty be plead on the trial at nisi prius a case  be reserve for the opinion of the court the case state be this that the  plaintiff be a native of Scotland that he be a hawker and pedlar carry linen  good of the manufacture of Scotland from town to town in England and expose  they to sale in a room in eachtown by wholesale only and that he trade in  saint Samson parish in York without any licence burrow er p that upon a  information duly make against he for this before the defendant who be a  justice of peace for the city of York the plaintiff be require by the  defendant the justice of peace to produce a licence for so do but he insist  that it be not necessary for he to have a licence as he be a native of  Scotland a wholesale dealer in linen of the manufacture of Scotland and sell  by wholesale only that the defendant thereupon convict he in the penalty of  twelve pound which penalty he refuse to pay that the defendant the justice of  peace therefore issue his warrant to distrain c which be execute c and for  this the present action be bring the question be whether the plaintiff who be  a native of Scotland be a wholesale dealer in linen of the manufacture of  Scotland be oblige to take out a licence to qualify he to trade thus by  wholesale in England it be first argue on Tuesday that of November by Mr  Clayton for the plaintiff and Mr Yates for the defendant and again on Friday  that of February by Mr Aston for the plaintiff and Mr Norton for the defendant  for the plaintiff it be insist that the union take away all distinction  between the two kingdom and between the native of one or the other and that  the manufacture of Scotland be since the union the manufacture of this kingdom  within the meaning of burrow W c take together with the follow section and  upon which Act of W this conviction be find and all claim arise under  subsequent statute be good and valid for the future under precedent statute  though they do not even exist when the former statute be make in Plowden and a  b sir Richard Bulkley v rice Thomas upon the stat of h c unite England and  Wales upon the three exception brook sander and brown be of opinion for the  plaintiff Staundforde Puysne Justice hold indeed for the defendant but the  three other hold that the subsequent statute communicate the remedy give by  the precede one by   b Vaughan case second resolution all the statute of  England extend to Wales because Wales be make parcel of England and so also  the legislature declare in g c the counsel for the defendant argue that the  present question depend single upon the act of parliament make relate to  hawker and pedlar and that where several law be make relative to the same  thing all of they must be take together or as one law the Act of union do not  mean or intend to meddle at all with the hawker act and the scot have never  bear any part of the burden impose by the act relate to hawker and pedlar  therefore they be not entitle to the benefit of they the Act of Ann parliament  sess c continue the hawker Act for year without say a word about great Britain  and this Act be make immediate after the union the Ann c continue these duty  within the whole kingdom of great Britain for one year after the expiration of  the year so that this question can not proper arise till after the year the  exemption of Ann and of W must be take to be equal extensive for the provision  be the same in both this law never attach upon the manufacture of Scotland the  hawker Act do not extend to they therefore it can not exempt they nor ought it  to extend to burrow they when the burden do not and it be a great advantage to  Scotland that neither the burden nor the exemption do for year extend to they  and for this reason the argument from Plowden be out of the case neither do  the argument from   Vaughan case apply to the present case a exemption  presuppose a lie but here be no lie therefore there can be no exemption and  they allege that their construction of these act of parliament be confirm by  usage the counsel for the plaintiff reply that every man who sell these  manufacture V Ann c S t v Ann c S burrow er p in England be liable to the  burden it be the sell in England that render they liable to the burden and  within the exemption therefore the burden and the exemption be coextensive  this be no particular or local regulation of trade it be a benefit of trade in  general the Scotch do bear the burden impose by the hawker and pedlar act  equal with the English and they be equal oblige to take out a licence if they  sell manufacture not exempt out of those act the court think it proper that  the follow fact shall be ascertain before they give their opinion videlicet  whether since the union person come from Scotland and bring linen or woollen  good into England and sell they by wholesale do or do not usual take out  licence or whether there have be any and what conviction of such person who  have sell Scotch linen thus by wholesale after have take time to inquire into  these fact and to consider it Lord Mansfield now deliver the resolution of the  court he say they have have certificate from the commissioner and answer to  they and reply and rejoinder and surrejoinder without end but upon the whole  they the court be clear that there be no pretence for support such a usage as  have be pretend on the side of the defendant burrow the usage then be out of  the case the single question be whether the linen manufacture of Scotland be  or be not the linen manufacture of this kingdom within the Act of W c and the  Act of union and we be of opinion that the linen manufacture of Scotland be  the linen manufacture of this kingdom within those act the argument that the  scot be not entitle to the benefit because they have never bear any part of  the burden do not conclude to the point because they will bear their part of  the burden from the time when the legislature have think proper that it shall  commence upon they therefore let the postea be deliver to the plaintiff