A barman sold beer at a bar in House of Commons run by the Kitchen Committee. There was no licence. He was convicted of an offence under section 3 of the which provided ‘No person shall sell . . any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same. ‘On reading that section I think it is impossible not to see that, in order to bring the innocent act of a waiter or a barman within the penal clause, it is necessary to put a strong gloss on the words of the section. I am of opinion that the true meaning of the section is that the sale which is prohibited must be a sale by the person who ought to be licensed. Everyone knows that a barman or a waiter is not a person licensed. The sales struck at is a sale by the master or the principal. It is contended for the appellant that section 3 ought to be read as if the words ‘without being duly licensed’ were ‘ without being protected by a licence’; but that would be putting a violent gloss upon the words, and to do so is not necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the Act.’
Wills J said:’The construction contended for by the appellant requires that ‘authorised by his licence’ should be read as equivalent to ‘acting under the authority of someone else having a licence’. It is a great straining of language.’
Judges:
Lord Russell CJ, Wills J
Citations:
(1899) 1 QB
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188663