The keeper of a beer-shop, licensed under statute is liable to the penalties imposed by 56 Cleo. 3, e. 58, s. 2, for having in his possession any of the prohibited articles therein specified, or any other article or preparation to be used as a substitute for malt or hops. –In order to render such a person liable to those penalties, for having in his possession any of the articles enumerated in the 56 Geo. 3, e. 58, s. 2, it is unnecessary to aver or prove, either that the party had them in his possession to be used as a substitute for malt or hops, or that he had them in his possession with any criminal intent. But where the information is for having in his possession any article not designated by name in that section, it is necessary to shew that it was intended to be used as a substitute for malt and hops in the making of beer,
[1842] EngR 164, (1842) 9 M and W 378, (1842) 152 ER 160
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Lockwood v The Attorney-General 28-Jun-1842
Alderson B said: ‘The rule of law, I take it, upon the construction of all statutes . . is, whether they be penal or remedial, to construe them according to the plain, literal, and grammatical meaning of the words in which they are expressed, unless . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 October 2021; Ref: scu.307119
