Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

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.  














Licensing - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
George Cross v Thomas Watts [1862] EngR 1072; (1862) 13 CB NS 239; (1862) 143 ER 96
19 Nov 1862


Licensing

[ Commonlii ]
 
Washington v Scott [1865] EngR 87 (B); (1865) 6 B & S 617
1865


Licensing

[ Commonlii ]
 
Smith v Redding [1866] EngR 148; (1866) 6 B & S 621; (1866) 122 ER 1324
2 May 1866


Licensing

[ Commonlii ]
 
Muir v Keay (1875) LR 10 QB 594
1875


Licensing
The defendant ran premises under the name 'The Café. It was discovered to be open through the night, and at the time seventeen women and twenty men were there. They had been sold with cigars, coffee, and ginger beer, and were consuming them. Held: The house was kept open for public refreshment, resort, and entertainment, and required a licence.

 
Taylor v Smetton (1883) 11 QBD 207
1883


Contract, Licensing
The defendant was accused of running an unlicensed lottery. He sold tea packets. With each tea packet he gave away a ticket allotting a prize to the purchaser. The prizes varied in value, and the purchaser would not know what he would receive until after he made the purchase. Held: The defendant was runing a lottery.
1 Citers


 
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


 
Williamson v Norris (1899) 1 QB
1899
CA
Lord Russell CJ, Wills J
Licensing
A barman sold beer at a bar in House of Commons run by the Kitchen Committee. There was no licence. He was convicted of an offence under section 3 of the which provided "No person shall sell . . any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same. "On reading that section I think it is impossible not to see that, in order to bring the innocent act of a waiter or a barman within the penal clause, it is necessary to put a strong gloss on the words of the section. I am of opinion that the true meaning of the section is that the sale which is prohibited must be a sale by the person who ought to be licensed. Everyone knows that a barman or a waiter is not a person licensed. The sales struck at is a sale by the master or the principal. It is contended for the appellant that section 3 ought to be read as if the words 'without being duly licensed' were ' without being protected by a licence'; but that would be putting a violent gloss upon the words, and to do so is not necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the Act."
Wills J said:"The construction contended for by the appellant requires that 'authorised by his licence' should be read as equivalent to 'acting under the authority of someone else having a licence'. It is a great straining of language."
Licensing Act 1872 3
1 Citers


 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.