The appellant brewers owned a public house, whose licencee was their manager. He supplied beer to the respondent, and the appellants were then convicted under the section which, provided that a person ‘shall not sell . . any intoxicating liquor unless he holds a justices licence’
Held: The appeal was allowed, but with differing reasons.
Lord Reading CJ: ‘On behalf of the appellants it was contended that there had been no sale by them within the meaning of the words in section 65, and that in any event their servant, for whose act it was sought to make them responsible under the statute, was the holder of a justices licence, and, therefore, that the requirements of the statute had been met.’ and ‘If it were right to construe the section as if we were determining the rights and obligations of the parties to a contract of sale it could not be doubted, as a general principle of law, that a sale by a servant authorised in that behalf is a sale by the principal, at least to the extent of imposing upon the latter the burdens and advantages of the contract. But I cannot think that when the Legislature enacted that a justices licence should be required as a condition precedent to the right of selling intoxicating liquor by retail on the licensed premises it intended that every person who might be made liable as a contracting party to a contract of sale must hold a justices licence for such sale notwithstanding that he took no part in the actual conduct of the sale on the premises.’
Judges:
Lord Reading CJ
Citations:
(1914) 3 KB 1141
Statutes:
Licensing (Consolidation) Act 1910 65(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Holt Brewery Co Ltd v Thompson 1920
The appellants owned a public house from where their licensed manager sold spirits at an excess price. They contended that as they were not the licensees there was not sale by them, but, Lord Reading CJ said: ‘The language of the Order contains . .
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Licensing, Consumer
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.188664
