A borough police constable sued the watch committee to recover his pay for a period during which he had been suspended by the defendant from duty, for an offence against discipline. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff was properly suspended during that period, and was therefore not entitled to pay. The plaintiff contended that defendant had no power to suspend him because the power of suspension conferred upon them by the 1882 Act section 191(4) was impliedly repealed by the 1919 Act and the regulations made thereunder by the Secretary of State.
Held: There being nothing in the 1919 Act and regulations thereunder which dealt in any way with suspension, the power conferred by the 1882 Act upon the Watch committee or two Justices was not impliedly repealed, and the defendants had power to suspend and stop the plaintiffs pay during the period of suspension.
The point at issue turned on the proper interpretation of a provision in the Municipal Corporation Act of 1882. In the course of his judgment in the Court of Appeal, Warrington LJ said, apparently in an obiter dictum, that:
‘The relations are those of employer and employee.’
In order that a subsequent statute not expressly repealing a previous Act or the provisions of a previous statute may operate by implication as a repeal it must be found that the provisions of the subsequent statute are so inconsistent with those of the previous one that the two cannot stand together.
 2 KB 66,  All ER 298, 91 LJKB 568, 127 LT 133, 86 JP 133, 38 TLR 441, 66 Sol Jo 366, 20 LGR 618
England and Wales
Distinguished – Fisher v Oldham Corporation KBD 1930
On Officer was subject to a claim for false imprisonment on an unlawful arrest, and it was asserted that the Watch Committee of the local authority were vicariously liable. The plaintiff pointed to his Oath of Office: ‘I . . . . . . . . . of . . . . . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Police, Local Government, Employment
Updated: 03 February 2022; Ref: scu.655362