Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Inland Revenue v. Cowan [1896] ScotLR 33_564 (16 May 1896)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1896/33SLR0564.html
Cite as: [1896] ScotLR 33_564, [1896] SLR 33_564

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 564↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

[Quarter Sessions of Inverness-shire.

Saturday, May 16 1896.

33 SLR 564

Inland Revenue

v.

Cowan.

Subject_1Revenue
Subject_2Excise Duties
Subject_3Licence to Carry Armorial Bearings
Subject_4Customs and Inland Revenue Duties Act 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. cap. 14), sec. 19, sub-sec. 13.
Facts:

Held that a device upon a signet ring consisting of a shield charged with a lion rampant surmounted by a crown, there being also a bar or other cutting at the base of the shield, was an armorial bearing within the meaning of the Act 32 and 33 Vict. cap. 14, sec. 19, sub-sec. 13.

Headnote:

Samuel Milligan, officer of Inland Revenue at Inverness, brought a complaint against Alexander Cowan, wine and spirit merchant, Union Street, Inverness, charging him with having “contravened the 27th section of the Act of Parliament 32 and 33 Vict. cap. 14, in so far as on the 6th day of December 1895, at Union Street aforesaid, he did wear or use armorial bearings on a ring, for the wearing or using of which a
Page: 565↓
licence was required by the said Act, without having a proper licence under the said Act, whereby the said Alexander Cowan is liable to forfeit the penalty of twenty pounds provided by the said Act.”

On 3rd February 1896 the Justices of the Peace for the county of Inverness at Petty Sessions assoilzied the respondent from the complaint.

The Inland Revenue appealed to the next General Quarter Sessions, at which, on 3rd March, the Justices resolved, before pronouncing judgment, to state a case for the opinion and direction of the Court of Exchequer in terms of the Act 7 and 8 Geo. IV. cap. 53, sec. 84.

The facts stated were as follows:—“On 6th December 1895, at Union Street aforesaid, the respondent wore and used a signet ring on which there was a shield charged with a lion rampant surmounted by a crown or coronet or other ensign. At the base or bottom of the shield there was a bar or other cutting. There was no wreath. An enlarged sketch of the device on the ring is herewith submitted. The respondent had not an Excise licence in force authorising him to wear or use armorial bearings.”

The questions of law submitted for the opinion of the Court were these—“(1) Whether the device on the ring is an armorial bearing, crest, or ensign within the definition of ‘armorial bearings’ contained in sub-section 13 of section 19 of 32 and 33 Vict. cap. 14? (2) Whether, upon the facts stated, the respondent contravened the statute and is liable as charged in the complaint?”

By the Customs and Inland Revenue Duties Act 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. cap. 14), sec. 19, sub-sec. 13, the expression “armorial bearings” is declared to mean and include “any armorial bearing, crest, or ensign by whatever name the same shall be called, and whether such armorial bearing, crest, or ensign shall be registered in the College of Arms or not.”

Section 27 of the same statute enacts that any person wearing or using any armorial bearings “without having a proper licence under this Act … shall forfeit the penalty of twenty pounds.”

Argued, for the appellant—The questions should be answered in the affirmative. The device in question was plainly an armorial bearing within the meaning of the Act—Assessed Tax Cases (Scotland), Nos. 482 and 1098, referred to.

The respondent did not appear.

Judgment:

Lord President—My opinion is that both questions should be answered in the affirmative.

Lord Adam—I am of the same opinion. My view is that this is an armorial bearing. It is an ordinary heraldic lion on a shield. I do not know what else constitutes an armorial bearing.

Lord M'Laren—If the question were whether this is such a bearing as anyone was entitled to use in accordance with the rules of the Heralds College, one would like to be better informed as to the laws of heraldry before deciding it, for there are rules of a highly artificial character with regard to the bearing of shields and like matters. But on inspection of the statute it appears to me that it is not required of an armorial bearing before it becomes subject to duty that it should be regular; so that even though the person making use of the sign was not entitled to use it, still if it is used by that person as an armorial bearing, that would be sufficient to subject it to duty. We have here a shield with a well-known heraldic cognisance, and I cannot doubt that it subjects its owner to duty.

Lord Kinnear—I agree with all that your Lordships have said.

The Court answered both questions in the affirmative.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Board of Inland Revenue— A. J. Young. Agent— Philip J. Hamilton Grierson, Solicitor of Inland Revenue.
1896