{
  "id": 8685618,
  "name": "The United States v. Thomas Whitmell",
  "name_abbreviation": "United States v. Whitmell",
  "decision_date": "1819-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "137",
  "last_page": "138",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "3 Mur. 137"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. 137"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 4503,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "sha256": "0550547fae976788f56d52920e249ea17e5c4a33ded8fd5f7a61187a0aad71b4",
    "simhash": "1:3f030e78b91d313d",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:45:47.457789+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The United States v. Thomas Whitmell."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Daniel, Judge,\ndelivered the opinion of the Coiirt:\nThe Defendant had obtained a licence under the act of Congress passed 24th July, 1813, which laid a tax on stills according to their capacity. The act of 21st December, 1814, laid a duty of twenty cents on every gallon of spirits distilled, in addition to duties payable for licences. The objects of taxation in the two acts are different, and there is no constitutional objection to enforcing the provisions of the last act against the Defendant. The circumstance of his having a licence under the first act, did not exempt the spirits distilled from the duties imposed by the last act. Nor do I see that the contract (if the licence be considered as constituting one) between the United States and the Defendant, is impaired by enforcing the provisions of the last act: for, in addition to the circumstance that the objects of taxation are different, and each a fair one, if the exigencies of the country demanded a revenue from them, a provision is made in the 17th section of the act of 1814, to relieve the Defendant and others in his situation from, the duties under the licence, from the time of notifying the Collector of the fact, provided he gave such notice, and desisted from stilling before the first February, 1815. if he did not desist from stilling, and has thought proper to proceed, he has become liable to pay the duties laid by both acts j and there being no presumption that the judgment is for a huger sum than what is due to the United States, the certiorari must be dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Daniel, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The United States v. Thomas Whitmell.\nFrom Halifax.\nThe Defendant obtained a licence to distil, under the act of Congress passed 24th July, 1813. After the passage of the act of 21st'December, 1814, laying a duty of twenty cents per gallon on spirits distilled, he failed to give notice to the Collector of the Internal Revenue of his intention to desist from stilling under liis licence, after tire 1st February, 1814. By reason of this neglect, he became liable to pay the duties laid by both acts.\nThe following affidavits disclose the facts of this case :\n\u201c STATE OE NORTH-CAROIINA.\n\u201c Thomas Whitmell maketh oath, that on or about the 12th day of November, 1814, he entered with the Collector of the Internal Revenue \u201c for the district of Halifax, four stills, for tire distillation of spirits from \u201c domestic materials, for the term of twelve months, and obtained from \u201c him a licence. That after the additional duty of twenty cents per \u201c gallon was laid by Congress, on spirits distilled, he withdrew two of his \u201c small stills. That afterwards, and before the expiration of his licence, ct he was warned by the Collector not to distil under Iris licence alone; \u201c that if he should, he would incur the penalties inflicted by the act of \u201c Congress imposing additional duties. That, in consequence of this \u201c warning, he gave bond with security for the payment of the additional \u201c duty of twenty cents per gallon; on which bond suit had been institu\u00ed\u00bb \u201c ed and judgment recovered in Halifax County Court, for 288 dollars:\u2014 \u201c with this judgment the deponent was dissatisfied, and from which he \u201c would have appealed, had he been able at tire time to grve security: \u201c that he was'now able to give security, and he prayed for a writ of cer- \u201c tiorari.\u201d\nThe writ of certiorari with a supercedeas, having been awarded upon this affidavit, Ehesa Head, the Collector of the Internal Duties, came into Court, and filed the following affidavit, to wit,\n\u201c Halifax County \u2014 Set.\u2014Superior Court of Lato, April Term, 1817.\n\u201c The United States 1 \u00bb\u2022 > \u201c Thomas Whitmell. j\n\u201c Rhesa Read maketh oath thatafter the passage of the act of Congress * laying additional duties upon distilled spirits, he informedthe Defendant \u00ae that he must comply with the requisites of said act, by giving bond and \u201c security for the payment of the said duties, agreeably to tbe directions \u201c of the said act, or he should consider it to be his duty, as Collector for \u201c the District, to enforce the penalties of the act against him. That \u201c Defendant gave bond with security accordingly, and having made a \u201c return of spirits distilled by him, and neglected for eleven months to \u201c pay the duties, suit was instituted on his bond, and the judgment \u201c obtained of which Defendant complains. That the judgment thus \u201c obtained, was founded upon and was pursuant to the return which the \u201c Defendant had made, of the spirits distilled by him.\u201d\nA motion was made to dismiss tlie certiorari, and"
  },
  "file_name": "0137-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 142
}