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 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.’

Judges:

Lord Coleridge CJ, Mathew J

Citations:

(1891) 2 KB 181

Statutes:

Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedGoodfellow v Johnson 1966
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Licensing, Consumer

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188661