The defendant was the manager and licensee of a public house owned by a brewery. When the premises were visited by a sampling officer the gin supplied by the barmaid was adulterated. She was the servant of the brewery, and the magistrates dismissed the allegation that the defendant had contravened the section which provided ‘If a person sells to the prejudice of the purchaser any food . . which is not . . of the substance . . demanded by the purchaser he shall . . be guilty of an offence.’
Lord Parker CJ said that the statutory provision created an absolute offence which was not correct ‘The forbidden act is the selling to the prejudice of the purchaser, and it has long been held that a person who has done the forbidden thing through somebody else like a servant or agent is himself liable. Further, as long ago as 1891 it was held in Hotchin v Hindmarsh that the forbidden act in a provision such as this is not the parting with the title by the owner but is the physical handling and handing over of the goods by way of sale: in other words the shop assistant, or in this case the barmaid, is liable, and accordingly in view of the general principle to which I have already referred any person on whose behalf that act of handling and handing over is done is also liable.’ Widgery J ‘Rather it is a fact that licensed houses are, by the necessity of the licensing legislation, organised on that footing, and here the act of selling complained of was an act . . which could only have been done in that house by the defendant licensee. In those circumstances it seems to me inevitable to conclude that Mrs Wright’s act of selling was in law the act of the licensee and he should be responsible for it.’
Judges:
Lord Parker CJ, Widgery J
Citations:
[1966] 1 QB 83
Statutes:
Food and Drugs Act 1955 2, Licensing Act 1953 120(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hotchin v Hindmarsh QBD 1891
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 . .
Cited by:
Distinguished – Nottingham City Council v Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries QBD 27-Nov-2003
A pub was found to have been selling beer below the advertised strength. Both licensee and the owner of the pub were prosecuted. The owner now appealed.
Held: The owner was liable. The words of the Act must be given their ordinary and natural . .
Cited – Bellerby v Carle HL 1983
Beer measuring instruments dispensed smaller quantities than permitted by law. The joint licensees were not permitted to interfere with the measuring instruments, so it was held that they did not have such possession of them as would give rise to . .
Explained – Allied Domecq Leisure Limited v Cooper (West Yorkshire Trading Standard Service) Admn 9-Oct-1998
Short measures of beer had been sold. One aspect of the case was the responsibility of the company, which was not the licensee, for the shortcomings of an inadequately trained bar person.
Held: The question did not really arise because of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing, Crime, Consumer
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188660