A byelaw provided: ‘if any person shall stock or depasture, inter alia, a vicious horse on any part of the common pastures, then, and in every such case, the person or persons so offending, and the owner or owners of the said stock and cattle, shall respectively forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of andpound;5.’ The defendant said it was void.
Held: The byelaw was valid as against a person responsible for depasturing a vicious horse on the common notwithstanding that it might be unreasonable and therefore ultra vires as against an innocent owner. Cockburn CJ said: ‘It has been contended that this byelaw is unreasonable, because the owner of such an animal might innocently, and without knowledge or intention, be brought within its scope, and become liable to the penalties thereby imposed. But, admitting so far the justice of this objection, it seems to me that we may, consistently with the authorities, reject this portion, and act upon the remainder of the byelaw, which is perfectly good and reasonable. I think, therefore, the conviction should stand.’
(1862) 8 Jur NS 640
England and Wales
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Local Government, Crime
Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.259756