swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Consumer - From: 1849 To: 1899
This page lists 5 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Elias v Nightingale [1858] EngR 200; (1858) 8 El and Bl 698; (1858) 120 ER 260
16 Jan 1858
Animals, Consumer
[ Commonlii ]
Stallard v The Great Western Railway Company [1862] EngR 579; (1862) 2 B and S 419; (1862) 121 ER 1129
16 Apr 1862
Transport, Consumer, Contract
[ Commonlii ]
George v Skivington; 1869 - (1869) L R 5 Ex 1; 39 LJ Ex 8; 21 LT 495
Hotchin v Hindmarsh (1891) 2 KB 181
1891
QBD
Lord Coleridge CJ, Mathew J
Licensing, Consumer
The appellant was the local foreman of a dairy company, and the milk which he supplied had added water. He was prosecuted and convicted under section 6 of the 1875 Act. The 1875 Act had limited defences in section 6 and a warranty defence in section 25, which the appellant was unable to establish, but it was contended on his behalf that his employers and not he should have been prosecuted. Held: The earlier sections of the Act were directed to physical acts, but in relation to two of those sections, Lord Coleridge CJ said: "If the magistrates find the existence of the intent and the commission of the act . . the person doing the act must be dealt with as a principal, even though he is a servant. It cannot be his duty to break the law and if he knowingly commits the act he is guilty."
As to section 6: "In my opinion a person who takes the article in his hand, and performs the physical act of transferring the adulterated thing to the purchaser, is a person who sells within this section." and "If, therefore, any person transgresses against the provisions of section 6, be he principal or agent, he falls within that section."
Mathew J said: "It would be an extraordinary interpretation of the Act to hold that even when it was shown that the person who did the act was guilty, his employer alone could be liable to be convicted."
Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 6
1 Citers
Coppen v Moore (No 2) (1898) 2 QB 306
1898
Lord Russell CJ
Consumer, Intellectual Property
Section 2(2) of the 1887 Act made it an offence to sell or expose for sale goods to which a forged trade mark or false description was applied unless the alleged offender could prove what amounted to due diligence. Salesmen at one of the appellant's shops sold American Ham as Scotch Ham, despite instructions from the appellant to branch managers that breakfast hams should only be sold as such, without reference to any place of origin. He was nevertheless convicted. It was contended on his behalf that he should not be held criminally liable for the unauthorised acts of his servants. Held: "In our judgment it was clearly the intention of the Legislature to make the master criminally liable for such acts, unless he was able to rebut the prima facie presumption of guilt by one or other of the methods pointed out in the Act. Take the facts here, and apply the Act to them. To begin with, it cannot be doubted that the appellant sold the ham in question, although the transaction was carried out by his servants. In other words, he was the seller, although not the actual salesman."
Merchandise Marks Act 1887
1 Citers
