Sorrell claimed that he had a licence in his capacity as a member of the "Master, Wardens, Freemen, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London".

The Taxation Act 1660 contained the following provision: Provided also, that this Act, or any thing therein contained, shall not extend, or be prejudicial to the Master, Wardens, Freemen, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London, or to any other city or town corporate, but that they may use and enjoy such liberties and priviledges, as heretofore they have lawfully used and enjoyed.That as to all the debt, except fifty pounds, the defendant owes nothing.

And as to the fifty pounds, they find the statute of 7 E. 6, c. 5, concerning retailing of wines, prout in the statute.Vaughan CJ said: A dispensation or licence properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property in any thing, but only makes an action lawful which, without it, had been unlawful.

The £50 arose from the defeat of the dispensatory (royal) letters patent of 2 February the 9th Year of James I (1612) to the Vintners, incapable of modifying the taxation provisions of the Wines Act 1553 (7 Edw.

As directed, King James had exceeded his prerogative in his royal letters patent so the statute of Edward VI on wine taxation stood.