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: 1930 To: 1959

This page lists 4 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Rex v Graham-Campbell, Ex parte Herbert [1935] 1 KB 594
1935

Lord Hewart CJ, Avory, Swift JJ
Constitutional, Licensing
Mr A P Herbert had laid two informations at Bow Street Police Station for summonses against fifteen named Members of Parliament, who were members of the Kitchen Committee of the House of Commons and the manager of the Refreshment Department of the House alleging the unlawful sale of alcohol without a licence contrary to the 1910 Act. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held that the Members of Parliament were not susceptible to the jurisdiction of the court because they were protected by the privileges of the House. Mr Herbert sought an order of mandamus. The Attorney General argued in reply:- "The House sits for long periods and arrangements have to be made for heating the House when the weather is cold and the provision of refreshment for the mind in the library and refreshment for the body in suitable places. The regulation of those matters is clearly within the area of the internal affairs of the House and connected with the affairs of House." Held: The request was rejected. Lord Hewart CJ accepted the AG's argument and upheld the magistrate's decision and the reasoning of the magistrate. Only as an afterthought did he express the view that the majority of the provisions of the 1910 Act were inapplicable to the House of Commons. Avory and Swift JJ agreed, albeit that Avory J devoted most of his judgment to the question of whether the Act on its true construction applied to the House of Commons.
Lord Hewart said: "the magistrate was entitled to say, on the materials before him, that in the matters complained of the House of Commons was acting collectively in a matter which fell within the area of the internal affairs of the House, and, that being so, any tribunal might well feel, on the authorities, an invincible reluctance to interfere."
Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910
1 Citers


 
Harman v Butt [1944] KB 491
1944

Atkinson J
Licensing
A condition imposed on a cinema license not allowing children under a certain age was intra vires the Act. The licence to open on Sundays originated in a representation by the commanding officer of forces stationed in the neighbourhood. Held: Atkinson J said: "I am satisfied that the defendants were entitled to consider matters relating to the welfare, including the spiritual well-being, of the community and of any section of it, and I hold that this condition that no child under the age of sixteen should be admitted to this cinematograph theatre on Sunday is not ultra vires on the ground that it is not confined to the user of the premises by the licensee, but relates to the interest of a section of the community." and as to the authorities: "It is apparent that there are at least three totally different occasions on which licensing justices may be called on to exercise their discretion to issue a licence and to determine on what conditions the licence shall be issued. The application may be under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, relating to six days of the week, excluding Sundays. It may be one relating solely to Sundays under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, where in the case of a borough the majority of the local government electors have expressed a desire for Sunday performances. Thirdly, it may be one where the local government electors have expressed no such wish, but where the application is made for the benefit of those members of the forces who are stationed in the neighbourhood for the time being."
Cinematograph Act 1909 - Sunday Entertainments Act 1932
1 Citers



 
 Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation; CA 10-Nov-1947 - [1947] 2 All ER 680; [1948] 1 KB 223; 1947 WL 10584; (1948) 92 SJ 26; [1948] LJR 190; [1948] 45 LGR 635; (1948) 112 JP 55; 63 TLR 623; [1947] EWCA Civ 1
 
Hill v William Hill (Park Lane) Limited [1949] 2 All ER 452; [1949] AC 530
1949
HL
Viscount Simon
Negligence, Licensing
The policy behind the 1845 Act was to discourage gambling.
Viscount Simon said: "it is to be observed that though a Parliamentary enactment (like Parliamentary eloquence) is capable of saying the same thing twice over without adding anything to what has already been said, the repetition in the case of an Act of Parliament is not to be assumed. When the legislature enacts a particular phrase in a statute the presumption is that it is saying something which has not been said immediately before. The rule that a meaning should, if possible, be given to every word in the statute implies that, unless there is good reason to the contrary, the words add something which would not be there if the words were left out"
Gaming Act 1845 18
1 Citers


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