(flnrtipll

Digitized

Kaui irlynnl Bjibrarg

by Microsoft

Cornell University Library

KD 691.M46
On

1920

the interpretation of statutes

3 1924 021

Digitized

652 189

by Microsoft

This

book was

cooperation

digitized

witli

by Microsoft Corporation

Cornell University Libraries, 2007.

You may use and print this copy in

for

your personal purposes, but

provide access to
for

it

in

limited quantity

may not distribute

or

(or modified or partial versions of it)

revenue-generating or other commercial purposes.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

BY THE LATE

Sir

^XWELL,

peter BENSON

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE BTRAITB SETTLEMENTS,

AND LEGAL ADMINISTRATOR IN EGYPT, 1883-4,

'*

Benigniaa leges interpretandsB sunt, quo voluntas carum conaervetur.*'

Dig.

1, 3.

18

SIXTH EDITION

W. WYATT-PAINB,
OF THB INNEB TEMPLE AND NORTH EASTERN CIRCUIT, BARBISTER-AT-LAW.
ATTTHOK OF

"A COMMENTARY ON THE LAW

OF BAILMENTS," ETC., KTC.

EDITOR OF THE 4TH EDITION OF "MACQUEON'S LAW OF HUSBAND AND WIFE,*

THE 16th and 16TH EDITIOSS OP ''CHITTY ON CONTRACTS," AND TKE 3RD,
4lH, 5TH, AND 6TH EDITIONS OF "CLEITK AND LINDSELL ON TORTS.*'

LONDON
SWEET AND MAXWELL, LTD.,

3,

GHANOBEY LANE,

Xaw iPublfsbers
TORONTO

THE CAESWBLL

CO., LTD., 19,

DUNCAN STREET.

1920

Digitized

by Microsoft

....

1st Edition

2nd

Srd

*tli

5tt

1883

By

A. B.
J. A.

..

,,

F.

Digitized

1875

Kbkpe

1896

Theobald 1905

Stboud

by Microsoft

1912

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

The present

edition

is

an

at't'empt to

make one

of

the greatest authorities on the Interpretation of

To do
Statutes worthy of its classic reputation.
this something more was needed than the mere
addition of modern cases. It was essential that
the Statutes themselves should be considered in
order that the precise legal signification of the
words employed therein might be ascertained.
For though very many of the Acts of Parliament
discussed by the learned author have either fallen
into temporary or complete disuse, or have been expunged from the Statute Book, the principles of
Interpretation, slowly crystallised by generations
of eminent jurists, still constitute the canons by
which the construction and sense of Acts of Parliament are to be determined, and form no mean part
of the inheritance bequeathed to this generation by
the great lawyers of the past.
In the present edition, the Editor has endeavoured to retain the original style of the work in
spite of the fact that very many emendations in
the text were essential. Every living system of
jurisprudence is necessarily in a constant state of

Digitized

by Microsoft

IV

PEEFACB.

flux; the needs of each, generation are not those

Conof that which either precedes or follows it.
sequently in preparing a new edition of a work like

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes two

seemed necessary ^first, to retain the
style of the original author, and second, to make
the work of real utility to the practitioner of the

essentials

present day.

How far the Editor has succeeded in combining

these desiderata it is for the reader of the present
edition to determine, although no trouble has been
spared in the attempt to make the book worthy of
its high reputation. Valuable assistance in the
preparation of the Index, Table of Statutes and
Table of Cases has been given to the Editor by his
friend,

Mr.

J.

and Northern

E. Macllraith, of the Middle Temple

Circuit, barrister-at-law.

W. WYATT-PAINE.
Inker TbmfiiB,
1920.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONTENTS.
FAGE

Table of Cases

Table of Statutes

CHAPTEE

ix

olv

I.

PBELIMINAEY SUBVET.
Sect.

I.

Iniaroductory

II. Literal construction

III.

...

....

External circumstances
Earlier and later Acts Analogous Acts.
Preamble Marginal notes Schedule

The context

rV. The context

V. The

title

Bules and orders

3
35
54

72

CHAPTEE

II.

TEEATMENT OF GENERAL WOBDS.

Sbct.

I.

Words understood according

II. Beneficial

to the subject-matter

construction

95

123

CHAPTEE

III.

EESTRICTION TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECT IN VIEW.

Presumption against

Consequences to be considered

any alteration of the law beyond the

of the Act
Mens rea in criminal law

specific object
.

1*

Digitized

by Microsoft

148

VI

CONTENTS.

OHAPTEE

IV.

EXTENSION OF THE LBTTEB TO PREVENT EVASION

OR ABUSE.
Sect.

II.

Construction to prevent abuse of powers

CHAPTER

PAGE

....

Construction to prevent evasion

I.

206

226

V.

RESTRICTION OF THE LANGUAGE TO BE IN HARMONY

WITH OTHER PRESUMPTIONS.

Sect.

I.

Presumptions against ousting established, and creating

new, jurisdictions
II.

The Crown not

affected

if

not

CHAPTER

named

....
....

235
244

VI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Sect.

I.

Presumption

intending an excess

against

of juris-

255

diction
II.

III.

Presumption against a violation

How far

of international

law

statutes conferring rights affect foreigners

CHAPTER

262

273

VII.

CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID COLLISION WITH OTHER

PROVISIONS.
Sect.

I.

EepugnancyRepeal by

implication

volving, the negative

II.

Consistent affirmative Acts

III. Generalia specialibus

Acts

non derogant

IV. Implied repeal in penal Acts

Digitized

in,

or in-

.'..

......
....
.....
.

by Microsoft

280
296
313

329

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER

Vli

VIII.

CONSTRUCTION MOST AGEEEABLB TO JUSTICE AND REASON.

PAGE

Sect.

I.

Presumption against intending what

is

inoonveaient

or Tinreasonable
II.

339

Presumption against intending injustice or absurdity

III. Construction

against impairing obligations,

2.

1.

As regards procedure

CHAPTEE

356

or per-

own wrong
As regards vested

mitting advantage from one's

rV. Eetrospeetive operation

869

rights

B81

IX.

EXCEPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.

I.

II.

Modification of the language to meet the intention

Equitable construction

...

CHAPTER

406
447

X.

STRICT CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.

I.

II.

Construction of penal laws

462

Statutes encroaching on rights, or imposing burdens

By-laws

501

CHAPTER

XI.

SUBORDINATE PRINCIPLES;
Sect.

I.

II.

Effect of usage

531

Construction imposed by statutes

III. Construction of

Effect

words in bonam partem

multiplicity of words

^Of

common

V. Generic words following more specific

some

particular expressions

by Microsoft

sense

Digitized

of

variation of language

IV. Associated words understood in a

VI. Meaning of

541

553
571

583

603

vm

CONTENTS.

CHAPTEE

XII.

WHEN

INTENTIONS ATTEIBUTED TO THE LEGISLATUKB

It
Sect.

I.

BXPEESSES NONE.

Implied enactments

PAGE

Necessary incidents

and conse-

quences
II.

Implied powers and obligations

III.

Imperative or directory

IV.

Lex non
juri

cogit ad impossibUia

647

615

623

Cuilibet Ucet renuntiare

673

pro se introducto

CHAPTEE

XIII.

THE SAME SUBJECT.

'

Sect.

I.

II.

III.

INDEX

Contracts connected with illegal acts

Public and private remedies

Kepeal

688

RevivalConamencement

705

727

748

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Aaronson, Exp. (1878), 7 Oh. D. 713 47 L. J. Bank. 60 38

227
L. T. 243 26 W. R. 470
Abbott, Exp. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 447 50 L. J. Ch. 80 43 L. T.
31,223
417 29 W. R. 143
28 L. J. Ch. 110
V. Middleton (1858), 7 H. L. Cas. 68
5,99
115 R.R. 38
24 L. J. C. P. 158 1 Jur.
V. Rogers (1855), 16 C. B. 277
690,694
N. S. 804 100 R. R. 725
Abel V. Lee (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 365 40 L. J. C. P. 154 23
447
L. T. 844 19 W. R. 625
Aberdare v. Hammett (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 162 ; 44 L. J. M. C.
184
49; 32L. T. 20
Aberdeen R. Co. v. Blaikie (1854), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 461
698
2 Eq. R. 1281, H. L
Abergavenny (Marquis) v. Bp. of Llandaff (1888), 20 Q. B. D.
642
460 57 L. J. Q. B. 233 58 L. T. 812 36 W. R. 859
26
V. Brace (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 145 ; 41 L, J. Ex. 120
321
L. T. 514 20 W. R. 462
Aberystwith Pier Co. v. Cooper (1865), 35 L. J. Q. B. 44 13
119
L. T.273; 14W. R. 28
Abley v. Dale (1851), 11 C. B. 378 2 L. M. & P. 443; 21
6
L. J. C. P. 104 16 Jur. 427
.
(1850), 10 C. B. 62 1 L. M. & P. 626 20 L. J. C. P.
644
33; 14 Jur. 1069; 87 R.R. 697
680
Abrahams . Dimmook, [1914] W. N. 449
Acebal v. Levy (1834), 10 Bing. 376 ; 4 M. & Scott 217 38 R. R.
273
469
..
637, 663
..
Achers v. Howard (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 273
..
13, 458
Adam v. Bristol Inhabitants (1834), 2 A. & E. 889
V. British and Foreign Steamship Co. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B.
274,317
..
..
..
..
844
..
Adams v. Graham (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 71 10 Jur. N. S.
368
356 9 L. T. 606 12 W. R. 282
V. G. W. R. Co. (1861), 6 H. & N. 404 ; 30 L. J. Ex. 124
119
3 L. T. 631 ; 9 W. R. 254
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

PAGE

297
..
(1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 17 Jur. 489
Aerated Bread Co. v. Gregg (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 355 ; 42
481,482
L. J. M. C. 117 ; 28 L. T. 816
619
Agricola, The (1843), 2
Rob. 10; 7 Jur. 157
A. 70 ; 52
Ahier v. Ahier (1885), 10 P. D. 110 ; 54 L. J. P. D.
677
L. T. 744 ; 33 W. R. 770
602
Ailesbury-B. PattiBon (1778), 1 Doug. 28
Akers V. Howard (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 739 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. 273
637,663
54 L. T. 651 ; 34 W. R. 609 ; 50 J. P. 519
44
Alabama Arbitration (1872), London Gazette, Sep. 20, p. 4135

Adey

d.

Trinity

House

W.

Albon

V.

Pyke

(1842),

4 M.

&

& G.

421

2 Scott N. R. 241

11

239
681
Alderson 1). PaUiser (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 935
Alexander, He, [1892] 1 Q. B. 216 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 677 ; 66 L. T.
97
133; 40W.B. 202; 9M.B. R. 13
1 Lut. Reg. Ca. 404 ; 15
V. Newman (1846), 2 C. B. 141
74
L. J. C. P. 134; 10 Jur. 313 ; 69 R. R. 398
267
D. Vaughan (1776), 1 Cowp. 409
401
Alexander Larsen, The (1841), 1 W. Rob. 288
Alina, The (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227 ; 49 L. J. P. D. & A. 40 ; 42
6, 34, 244
L. T. 517 ; 29 W. R. 94
AUcroft V. London (Bp.), [1891] A. C. 666 61 L. J. Q. B. 62 ;
432
65 L. T. 92 ; 55 J. P. 773
Allen V. Flicker (1839), 10 A. & E. 640 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 42 4
283,545
P. & D. 735 ; 3 Jur. 1029
130
V. Gold Reefs Synd., [1900] 1 Ch. 656 ; 69 L. J. Ch 266
474
V. Small, [1904] 2 L R. 705, Ir
V. Thompson (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 336 ; 39 L. J. M. C.
490
102; 22L. T. 472; 18W. R. 1196
AUiance Bank of Simla v. Carey (1880), 5 C. P. D. 429 ; 49
278
L. J. C. P. 781 ; 29 W. R. 306 ; 44 J. P. 735
AUkins V. Jupe (1877), L.R. 2 C. P. D.'375 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 824 ;
11
36L. T. 851
Allsopp V. Day (1862), 7 H. & N. 457 ; 31 L. J. Ex. 105 ; 8 Jur.
212
N. S. 41 ; 5 L. T. 320
Alma Spinning Co., Be (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167 ;
202
43 L. T. 620 ; 29 W. R. 133
..
..
Alresford v. Scott (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 210 50 L. J. M. C. 103
45L. T. 73; 29W.R. 741; 45J.P. 619
621
Alton Wood's Case (1600), 1 Rep. 47
282
Altrrncham Union Assesst. Com. v. Cheshire Lines Com. (1885),
15 Q. B. D. 597 ; 50 J. P. 85 ..
529
Amalia, The (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 471 ; B. & L. 151
9 Jur. N. S. 1111 ; 12 W. R. 24 8 L. T. 679 ; 32 L. J. P. M.
&A. 191
257,272,277
Ambergate Ry. Co. v. Midland Ry. Co. (1853), 2 El. '& Bl. 793 ;
23L.J.Q. B. 17; 18Jur. 243..

307
Ambler v. Bradford Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch. 594
..
75
..
Amedie, The (1810), 1 Acton, 240
266
American Fur Co. v. U. 8. (1829), 2 Peters 367
464
L. J. C. P. 266

."

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OP CASES.

XI
PAGE

Amherst

Amos

;.

v. Sommers (1788), 2 T. R. 372 ; 1

Duflfy (1890), 6 T. L. R. 339, C.

R. R. 497

..

246
628

Ancketill v. Baylis (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 577 52 L. J. Q. B. 104

48 L. T. S142 ; 31 W. R. 233 ; 47 J. P. 356 1 Colt. 289
..
361
Andalusian, The (1878), 3 P. D. 182 ; 47 L. J. P. D.
A. 65 ;
39 L. T. 204 ; 27 W. R. 172
653
Anderson v. Anderson, [1895] 1 Q. B. 749 64 L. J. Q. B. 457 ;
72 L. T. 313 ; 43 W. R. 322
590
1). Bank of Columbia (1876), 2 Ch. D. 654
543
V. Hamlin (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 221; 59 L. J. M. C. 151
63
L. T. 168 54 J. P. 757
706,718
Anderson's Estate, i?e, [1916] P. 49
127
Andrew, J?e(1876), 1 Ch. D. 358 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 57 ; 33 L. T.
556 ; 24 W. R. 197
65
V. Handcock (1819), 1 B.
B. 37 3 Moore 278 21 R. R.
;

&

&

569
Anglo-Greek Steam Co., Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 1 35 Bea. 399
Anna, The (1876), 1 P. D. 253 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 16 34 L. T.
895
Annapolis, The (1861), Lush. 295
Anon. (1464), Jenk. 120, 3rd Cent. Case 41
(1584), Skinn. 110
(1675), 1 Ventr. 267
;

622
592

(1703), 6 Mod. 27
(1774), Lofft. 465
Anstee v. Nelms (1856), 1

H. & N. 225 26 L. J. Ex. 5

R. R. 536 ..
..
Anstey v. Edwards (1855), 16 C. B. 212; 100 R. R. 700
Antelope, The (1825), 10 Wheat. 66
Antony V. Cardenham (1700), 2 Bott. 194
;

108

..

Apothecaries' Co. v. Jones, [1893] 1 Q. B. 89

67 L. T. 677 41
W.R. 267; 57 J. P. 56; 17 Cox C. C. 588
Appleby ^;. Myers (1867), L. R. 1 0. P. 615 L. R. 2 C. P. 651
36 L. J. C. P. 331 ; 16 L. T. 669
Archer v. James (1862), 2 B. & S. 61 10 W. R. 565 31 L. J.
Q. B. 153
8,
Argos, Cargo ex (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 134
Armagh Union Guardians v. Bell, [1900] 2 Ir. R. 371 ; Ir.
..
;

532
263
314
446
663
715
304
41
510
266
126

474

Armour

v.

Walker

L. T. 292

32

(1883), 25 Ch. D. 673

53 L. J. Ch. 413

501
244
632

50

W. R. 214

430

Lewis (1834), 2 C. & M. 274 4 M. & Scott 1

..
..
..
3L. J. Ex. 359; 41R. R. 10
..
Armytage iJ. Williamson or Wilkinson (1878), 3 App. Cas. 355
..
..
47 L. J. P. C. 31 38 L. T. 185 26 W. R. 559
Arnold V. Arnold (1837), 2 M. & Cr. 256 1 Jur. 255 39 R. R.

Armstrong

674

v.

693

222
V.

V.

Cheque Bank, Ltd. (1876), 45 L. J. C. P. 562

Dimsdale (1853), 2 E. & B. .580 22 L. J. M.
;

507

..

C. 161

..
;

270
201

17

644

Jur. 1157

Digitized

by Microsoft

XU

TABLE OF OASES.
PAGB

Arrow Shipping Co.

Tyiie Commiasioners, [1894] A. C. 508

A. 146 ; 71 L. T. 346, H. L

v.

356
63 L. J. P. D. &
..149
Arthuri;.Bokenham(1708), UMod. 150
Average Association, Se (1876), L. R. 10 Ch. 642 44 L. J.
51?
Ch. 569 32 L. T. 713 23 W. R. 939
,
244, 24o
Ascough's Case (1638), Cro. Car. 526
49,384,511
Ash V. Abdy (1678), 3 Swanst. 664
35 L. J. M. C. 159 14
V. Lynn (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 270
300
L. T. 224; 14W. R. 583; 7B. &S. 255
384
Ashbumham v. Bradshaw (1740), 2 Atk. 36
298
Ashbiirton, Lord v. Nocton, [1915] 1 Ch. 274, C. A
Ashbury &c. Co. v. Riche (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 653 44 L. J.
577, 619, 620, 671
Ex: 186; 33 L. T. 451, H. L
..
..
714
Ashby V. White (1703), 1 Sm. L. C. (12th ed.) 266
Ashdown v. Curtis (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 216 8 Jur. N. S. 511
677
6 L. T. 331
10 W. R. 667
736
..
Ashford v. Thornton (1818), 1 B. <S; Aid. 405 19 R. R. 349
Ashton-under-Lyne v. Pugh, [1898] 1 Q. B. 45 67 L. J. Q. B.
..
314
..
32; 77L. T. 583; 46 W. R. 100; 61J. P. 788
Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Lennard's Carrying Co., [1914] 1 K. B.
..
276,677
..
419, C. A
Aspinall v. Sutton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 349 63 L. J. M. C. 205 58
6o6
J. P. 622
391
Athlumney, iJe, [1898] 2 Q. B. 551
Atkins V. Kilby (1840), 11 A. & E. 777 9 L. J. M. 0. 52 52
679
R. R. 503..
Atkinson, Re (1882), 21 Ch. D. 100 51 L. J. Ch. 452 46 L. T.
270
850 30 W. R. 562
59 L. J.
V. Bradford Bldg. Soc. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 377
454
Q. B. 360; 62L. T. 857; 38W. R. 630
46 L. J.
V. Newcastle Waterworks Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 441
715,721,722
..
Ex. 775 36 L. T. 761 25 W. R. 794
28 L. J. M. C. 12
V. Sellers (1859), 5 C. B. N. S. 442
121
5 Jur. N. S. 21 116 R. R. 720
Attorney-General v. Alexander (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 20 44 L. J.
119
Ex. 3 31 L. T. 694 23 W. R. 255
244
1). Allgood (1743), Parker 3
107
V. Bailey (1847), 1 Ex. 281
17 L. J. Ex. 9 74 R. R. 672
V. Barker (1872), L R. 7 Ex. 177
41 L. J. Ex. 57 26 L. T.
249
34; 20 W. R. 509
24 W. R. 817
709
V. Basingstoke (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 726
..
V. Bradbury (1851), 7 Ex. 97
21 L. J. Ex. 12 16 Jur. 130 507
54 L. J. Q. B. 205;
V. Bradlaugh (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 667
52 L. T. 589; 33 W. R. 673
568, 708
V. Brecon (1878), 10 Ch. D. 204; 48 L. J. Ch. 153
40 L.T.
626
52; 27 W. R. 332
u. Bristol (1820), 2 Jac. & W. 321
533
22 R. R. 136 ..
..
22 W. R. 37
530
V. Cambridge (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 303
41 L. J. Ch.
v.- Campbell (1872), L. R.
5 H. L. 524
611; 21W. R. 34n
270
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Xlii
PAGE

Attorney-General . Capell (1686), 2 Show. 481

610
v. Chelsea Waterworks (1731), Fitzg. 195
281
V. Conduit Colliery Co. (1894), 64 L. J. Q. B. 207, C. A. ..
59
V. Constable (1879), 4 Ex. D. 172 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 455
27
W. R. 661
249
V. Davies (1802), 9 Ves. 535
7 R. R. 295
216
V. Day (1794), 1 Ves. Sen. 221
454, 455
V. Donaldson (1842), 10 M. & W. 117
11 L. J. Ex. 338
62R. R. 540
244,248
V. Dorking (1882), 20 Oh. D. 595
51 L. J. Ch. 585
..
170
w. Dorin (1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 225
..
527
V. Edison Telephone Co.
(1881), 6 Q. B. D. 244 ; 50
L. J. Q. B. 145 43 L. T. 697 29 W. R. 428
..
..
140
w. EUis (1895). 64 L. J. Q. B. 813
508
V. Emerson (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 56
59 L. J. Q. B. 192 62
L. T. 21 ; 38 W. R. 102
232
V. Exeter Corp., [1911] 1 K. B. 1092 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 636
104 L. T. 212 ; 75 J. P. 280
150,324,706
. Forster (1805), 10 Ves. 338
532
V. Furness Ry. Co. (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 776
38 L. T. 555 ;
26W. R. 650
529
B. 267
V.
508
, [1899] 2 Q.
v.a. E. Ry. Co. (1879), 11 Ch. D. 449; 48 L. J. Ch. 428
40L. T. 265
76,619
V.
L.
6 H. L. 367
(1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 475
41
L. J. Ch. 505
26. L. T. 749 ; 20 W. R. 599, H. L
328
V. Hackney Board (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 626
44 L. J. Ch.
545 ; 33 L. T. 244
360
V. HaUett (1857), 2 H. & N. 368 ; 27 L. J. Ex. 89
115
R. R. 594
97
69 L. J. Ch. 626 ; 82 L. T.
V. Hanwell, [1900] 2 Ch. 337
778 ; 48 W. R. 690
231
V. Hill (1836), 2 M. & W. 160 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 105 ;
46
R. R. 542
248
V. Hooper, [1893] 3 Ch. 483 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 18
69 L. T.
340; 57 J. P. 564
641
V. Horner (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 254 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 33
W. R. 93 ; 49 J. P. 326
502
V. Jones (1863), 2 H. & C. 347
33 L. J. Ex. 249 ; 6 L. T.
655
532
V. Kwok-a-Sing (1873), L. R. 5 P. 0. 179 ; 42 L. J. P. C.
64 29 L. T. 114 ; 12 Cox C. C. 565, P. 0. .. 45, 123, 159, 255,
407, 468
47 L. J. Ex. 555 ; 38
V. Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214
L. T. 87 ; 26 W. R. 323
68,728
V. Leicester Corp., [1910] 2 Ch. 359; 83 L. J. Ch. 21 ; 103
L. T. 214 ; 74 J. P. 385
231
V. Lewes Corp. (1911), 81 L J. Ch. 40
414
. Hloyd (1747), 3 Atk. 5.51
384
-^^

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XIV

PAGB

Attorney-General v. Lockwood (1842), 9 M. & W. 378 10 Id.

464 6 Jur. 171
10, 140, 301, 333, 406, 479
V. L. & N. W. Ry. (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 216 ; 50 L. J. Q. B.
509
..
..
170 44 L. T. 236 29 W. K. 346 ; 45 J. P. 390
620
u. L.C.C. (1901), 70 L. J. Ch. 367, 0. A
47
50 L. J. Ch. 562
V. Manchester (1881), 18 Ch. iD. 609
V.
75 L. J. Ch. 330 ; 54 W. R. 307 ;
-, [1906] 1 Ch. 643
620
70J. P. 201
69 L. J. Ch. 331
V. Margate Pier Co., [1900] ] Ch. 749
75
82 L. T. 448 48 W. R. 518 64 J. P. 405
I). Mersey
Ry., [1907] lA. C. 415; 76 L. J. Ch. 568; 97
231,619
L. T. 524 71J. P. 449
42
V. Metrop. Ry. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 ; 69 L. T. 811
628
W. R. 381 58 J. P. 342
15 Jur.
V. Napier (1851t, 6 Ex. 217 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 173
271
253; 86 R. R. 247
V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and N. E. Ry. Co.
(1889), 23
620
Q. B. D. 492 58 L. J. Q. B. 558
740
u. Panter (1772), 6 Bro. P. C. 486
. Parker (1747), 3 Atk. 576
116,532
V. Pontypridd, [1906] 2 Ch. 257
75 L. J. Ch. 578 ; 95
231
L. T. 224 ; 70 J. P. 394 4 L. G. R. 791
V. Richmond (Duke), [1909] A. C. 466 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 1,
220
998 101 L. T. 241, H. L
. Saggers (1814), 1 Pri. 182
480
218
V. Seacombe (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 913
1 Tyr. 41 35 R. R. 701
189
V. Siddon (1830), 1 Or. & J. 220
10 Jur. N. S. 262 33
V. Sillem (1863), 2 H. & C. 431
11 L. T. 223
..
..
L. J. Ex. 93 12 W. R. 257
43, 51
V.
(1864), 10 H. L. Cas. 704 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 209; 10
10 L. T. 434
Jur. N. S. 446
400, 519
62 L. J. Q. B. 288 ; 68 L. T.
V. Smith, [1893] 1 Q. B. 239
6 41 W. R. 245 57 J. P. 389
505
V. Southampton (1849), 17 Sim. 6 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 393
..
236
V. Theobald (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 557 ; 62 L. T. 768 ; 38
W. R. 527
395,400
. Tyndall (1764), Ambl. 614
215
u. Tynemouth Corp. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 489
..
..
620
V. West Gloucestershire Water Co., [1909] 2 Ch. 338 ; 78
L. J. Ch. 746 101 L. T. 258 73 'J. P. 453
.
..
231
V. Westminster Chambers Association (1876), 1 Ex. D.
469 45 L. J. Ex. 886 ; 35 L. T. 224 24 W. R. 996
.. 4, 71
v. Weymouth (1743), Ambl. 22
74
Attorney-General of British Columbia v. Ostrum, [1904] A. C
144 73 L. J. P. C. 11 ; 89 L. T. 509 20 T. L. R, 64, P. C. 505
Attorney-General (Ontario) v. A.-G. Dominion of Canada
(1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 26
524
Attree v. Hawe (1878), 9 Oh. D. 337 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 863 ; 38 L, T.
..
733; 26W. R. 871
.,
216
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XV
PAGE

A ttwater, Ux p.

27 46 L. J, Bank. 41; 35
206
...
..
..
...
8,298,543
Auckland, Lord v. Westminster Board of Works (1872), L. R.
7 Ch. 697 41 L. J. Ch. 723 26 L. T. 961 20 W. R. 845
58
Austen v. Howard (1816), 7 Taunt. 28, 327 ; 2 Marsh. 352
..
307
Austerberry v. Oldham Corp. (1885), 29 Ch. D. 750, C. A.
..
685
Austin . Bowley (1913), 108 L. T. 920
47
34 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; 11
V. Bunyard (1865), 6 B. & S. 687
Jur. N. S. 879 12 L. T. 452 13 W. R. 773
..
226, 351
V. Mills (1854), 9 Ex. 288
2 C. L. R. 411 1 23 L. J. Ex. 40
18 Jur. 16 96 R. R. 717
238
Avanzo v. Mudie (1854), 10 Ex. 203 102 R. R. 533
..
..
651
Avery v. Wood, [1891] 3 Ch. 115 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 75 65 L. T. 122
39 W.R, 577
..
..
543
Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Oswald (1883), 8 App. Cas. 623, H. L.
528, 633
L. T. 682

(1877), 5 Ch. D.

25

W. R.

B.
Backwell's Case (1683), 1 Vernon 152
427,428
Badcock V. Hunt (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 145 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 134
60 L. T. 314 ; 37 W. R. 205 ; 53 J. P. 340
98
Baddeley v. Earl Granville (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 423 ; 56 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
682
501 ; 57 L. T. 268 ; 38 W. R. 63 ; 51J. P. 822
Badische Anilin und Soda Pabrik v. Hickson, [1906] A. C. 427 ,
;

H.L
165
Bagg's Case (1616), 11 Rep. 99
639
Bagge V. Whitehead, [1892] 2 Q. B. 355 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 778
66 L. T. 815 ; 40 W. R. 472 56 J. P. 548
167, 188
Bailey v. Harris (1849), 12 Q. B. D. 905 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 115
13 Jur. 341
107,699
V. Sweeting (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 843 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 150
9W. R. 273
513
Baily v. De Crespigny (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 180 ; 38 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
..
..
687
98; 19 L. T. 681; 17 W.R. 494
Bainbridge v. Postmaster-General, [1906] 1 K. B. 186, C. A. ..
145
Baines v. Wormsley (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 844 39 L. T. 85 ; 27
W.R. 36
429
Baird v. Tunbridge WeUs, [1894] 2 Q. B. 867 64 L. J. Q. B.
314
151 ; 71 L. T. 211 59 J. P. 36
..
Bake v. French, [1907] 2 Ch. 215 ; 76 L. J. Ch. 605
..
347
N. 219
Baker, Ee (1857), 2 H.
334
62 L. T. 817 ;
, Be (1890), 44 Ch. D. 262 ; 59 L. J. Ch. 661
436
38 W.R. 417
563
i;. Berkeley (1827), 3 C. & P. 32
702
u. Hedgecock (1888), 39 Ch. D. 520
193
u. Herd (1894), 58 J. P. 413
Balaghat Gold Co., Be, [1901] 2 K. B. 665; 70 L. J. K. B. 866 ;
617
85.L. T. 8; 49W. R..625
;

. .

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF

XVI

CASES.,
FAGE

Baldwin, Ei: p. (1858), 2 De G. & J, 230 ; 27 L. J. Bank. 17

112
4 Jur. N. S. 522
Ball, Ms p. (1882), 20 Ch. D. 670; 51 L. J. Ch. 911
47 L. T.
227
213 ; 30 W. R. 738
240
Balls t>. Attwood (1791), 1 H. Bl. 546
Bancroft v. Mitchell (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 549 36 L. J. Q. B.
100
..
257 16 L. T. 558 15 W. R. 1132 8 B. & S. 558 ..
Bane v. Methuen (1824), 2 Bing. 63 ; 9 Moore 161 ; 27 R. R. 546 624
Bank of Bengal v. Ramanahan Chetty (1916), L. R. 43 Ind.
135
App.48, P. C
Bank of England v. Anderson (1837), 3 Bing. N. C. 589, 666 ;
213,531
7 L. J. Ch. 265 44 R. R. 271
V. Vagliano, [1891] App. Cas. 107 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 145 ; 64
47, 109
L. T. 353 ; 39 W. R. 657, H. L.
Bank of N. S. Wales v. Piper, [1897] A. C. 383 66 L. J. P. C.
195
73; 76L. T. 572; 61J. P. 660, P. C
627
..
Bank of Scotland v. Stewart (1891), 28 Sc. L. R. 735, Sc.
277
Bank of U. S. D. Donnally (1834), 8 Peters 361
Bankes v. Small (1887), 36 Ch. D. 716 56 L. J. Ch. 832 ; 57
160
L. T. 292 35 W. R. 765
Bankruptcy Notice, Be A, [1895] 1 Q. B. 609 64 L. J. Q. B.
..
97
429 ; 43 W. R. 305 ; 72 L. T. 312 ; 2 Mans. 164 ..
Banks v. Hollingsworth, [1893] 1 Q. B. 443 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 239
171
68 L. T. 477 41 W. R. 225 57 J. P. 436
431
Barber V. Gamson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 281
V. Waite (1834), 1 A. & E. 514 ; 3 N. & M. 611 ; 3 L.J. M. C.
98
101
Barclay, Exp. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 567 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 449; 30
L. T. 479 ; 22 W. R. 608
174
u. Pearson (1893), 62 L. J. Ch. 636
..
199
Barker v. Edgar, [1898] A. C. 749; 67 L. J. P. C. 115 69 L. T.
151
315
V. Palmer (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 9 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 110
45
L. T. 480 ; 30 W. R. 59
656
Barkworth v. Young (1856), 4 Drew. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 3 ,Jur.
N. S. 34 ; 5 W. R. 156
512
Barlow v. Ross (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 381 59 L. J. Q. B. 183 62
L. T. 552 38 W. R. 372 ; 54 J. P. 660
123, 128
V. Teal (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 403; 54 L. J. Q. B. 400 ; 53
L.T. 52
543,604
V. Terrett, [1891] 2 Q. B. 107 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 104
65 L. T.
148 39 W. R. 640 55 J. P. 632
475
Barnacle v. Clark, [1900] 1 Q. B. 279 69 L. J. Q. B. 15 81 L. T.
484 48 W. R. 336 64 J. P. 87
496
Barnardo v. Ford, [1892] A. C. 326 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 728: 67
L. T. 1; 56 J. P. 629, H. L
..
371
Barnes u Ackroyd (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 474; 41 L. J. M. C. 110;
26 L. T. 692 ; 20 W. R. 671
137,189
V. Glenton, [1899] 1 Q. B. 885
68 L. J. Q. B. 502 8 L. T.
606 47 W. R. 435
303
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Xvii
PACE

Barnes v. Shore (1846), 8 Q. B. 640 15 L. J. Q. B. 296 10 Jur.

688
Barraclough v. Brown, [1897] A. C. 615 66 L. J. Q. B. 672
;

161

243, 550
Barrack v. McCuUooh (1857), 26 L. J. Ch. 105 3 Kay & J. 110
146
3 Jur. N. S. 180 112 B. R. 60
Barrow, JSi). (1797), 3 Ves.Jun. 554
153
V. Wadkin (1858), 24 Beav. 327; 27 L. J. Ch. 129; 116
R. R. 1
76
Bartlett v. Kirwood (1853), 2 E. & B. 771 2 C. L. R. 253
23
642
L. J. Q. B. 9 ; 18 Jur. 173
v. Vinor (1692), Carth. 252
688,690
Barton v. Piggott (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B. 86 44 L. J. M. C. 5
31 L. T. 404 23 W. R. 233
230, 426, 691
V. Port Jackson Co. (1853), 17 Barbour N. York R. 397 ..
698
V. Taylor (1886), 11 App. Cas. 203
632
55 L. J. P. C. 1
Barton Regis v. Liverpool (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 295 47 L. J. M. C.
38C
62; 37 L. T. 713; 26 W. R. 382
Barwick v. English J. S. Bank (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 259 36 L. J.
138
Ex. 147 16 L. T. 461 15 W. B. 877
Bastable v.. Little, [1907] 1 K. B. 59 ; 76 L. J. K. B. 77 96 L. T.
489
115; 71 J. P. 52; 5 L. G. R. 279
Bateman and Parker, Re, [1899] 1 Ch. 599 68 L. J. Ch. 330 80
125
L. T. 469 47 W. R. 516
63 J. P. 345
V. Mid Wales Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 499
35 L. J. C. P.
632
205; 12 Jur. N. S. 453 14 W. R. 672
V. Service (1881), 6 App. Cas. 386
50 L. J. P. C. 41
..
267
Bates V. Bates (1888), 14 P. D. 17 58 L. J. P. 85 60 L. T. 125
37W. R. 230
100,101
V. Winstanley (1815), 4 M. & S. 429
293
Bath V. Berwick, [1892] 1 Q. B. 731 61 L. J. M. C. 136 66 L. T.
258 40 W. R. 414 56 J. P. 296
383
Bathishill v. Reed (1856), 18 C. B. 696; 25 L. J. C. P. 290; 107
R. R. 465
611
Batt V. Metropolitan Water Board, [1911] 2 K. B. 966 ..
393
..
V. Price (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 264
45 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 33 L. T.
711
808 24 W. R. 318
Battersby v. Kirk (1835), 1 Hodges 451 2 Bing. N. C. 584 3
Scott 11 5 L. J. C. P. 166
80
Battersea Vestry v. Provincial Electric Co., [1899] 1 Ch. 474 68
L. J. Ch. 238 80 L. T. 31
170
Batthyany V. Boiich (1881), 50 L. J. Q.< B. 421
569
Battye v. Gresley (1807), 8 East 319
645
Baum, Be (1878), 7 Ch. D. 719 47 L. J. Bank. 48 38 L. T. 367
228
26W. R. 568
..
;

Baumann v. James
W. B. 877
Baxendale

(1868), L.

R. 3 Ch. 508

18 L. T. 424

16
41

G. E. Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 244

Q. B. 137 17 W. R. 412
v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

38 L.

J.

36?

XVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Baxendale

Hart (1852), 6 Ex. 769 21 L. J. Ex. 123

126 86 R. R. 465
Baxter v. Langley (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 21 38 L. J. M.
v.

16 Jur.

419

0. 1

19

L. T. 321 17 W. R. 254
575
Beal, Exp. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 387 37 L. J. Q. B. 161; 18
L. T. 285.; 16 W. R. 852 9 B.
481,491
..
S. 395
..
V. Ford (1878), 3 C. P. D. 59
47 L. J. C. P. 56 37 L. T.
408 ; 26 W. R. 146 2 Hop.
116
C. 374
V. Town Clerk. of Exeter (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 300
57 L. J.
Q. B. 128 ; 58 L. T. 407 ; 36 W. R. 507 1 Fox 31
117
Beard v. Knight (1858), 8 B.
B. 865 27 L. J. Q. B. 359 4 Jur.
;

&

&

&

N.

S. 782

112 R. R. 810

553

Rowan

79
(1835), 9 Peters 317
Beardsley v. Giddinga, [1904] 1 K. B. 847 73 L. J. K. B. 378 ;
90 L. T. 651 ; 53 W. R. 78 20 T. L. R. 315 68 J. P. 222
101
Beaufort v. Swansea (Mayor) (1849), 3 Ex. 413 67 R. R. 677
541
Beoke v. Smith (1836), 2 M.
W. 191 6 L. J. Ex. 54 ; 46 R. R.
567
4, 406, 411
Beckett v. Midland Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 94 36 L. J. C. P.
40 ; 15 L. T. 572 15 W. R. 404
172,724
V. Tower Assets Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 638
60 L. J. Q. B. 493
55 J. P. 438; 64L. T. 497; 39 W. R. 438 ..
..
211
..
Beckford v. Hood (1798), 7 T. R. 620 4 R. R. 527
..
..
716
V. Wade (1805), 17 Ves. 91
11 R. R. 20
157
Beckham ?;. Drake (1841), 2 H. L. 579 11 M.
W. 315 12 L. J.
..

&

&

Ex. 486

13 Jur. 921 ; 81 R. R. 301

Beckwith j;. Talbot (1877), 5 Otto 289
Beddow v. Beddow (1878), 9 Oh. D. 89 47 L. J. Ch. 558 ; 26 W. R.
570
Bedo . Sanderson (1617), Cro. Jac. 440
Beds V. St. Paul (1852), 7 Ex. 650 21 L. J. M. C. 224 86 R. R.
777
Beer v. London and Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 412 32
L. T. 715
:
..
..
..
..
Beeston v. Beeston (1875), 1 Ex. D. 13 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 230 33 L. T.
700; 24W. R. 96
Behn v. Bumess (1861), 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 207 ; 8
L. T. 207 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 620
Belasco v. Hannant (1862), 3 B. & S. 13 31 L. J. M. C. 225 ; 9
Cox C. C. 203 10 W. R. 867 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 1226 ..
..
Bell 1^. BUton (1828), 4 Bing. 615
V. Crane (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 481
42 L. J. M. C. 122 29
L. T. 207; 21 W. R. 911
V. Dudley (Earl), [1895] 1 Ch. 182 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 291
72
L. T. 14 43 W. R. 122
..
v.
Debenham
Bellamy
(1890), 45 Ch. D. 481 ; 63 L. T. 220
V. Hoyle (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 220 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 169 : 33
L. T. 21 ; 23 W. R. 754
V. SauU (1863), 4 B. & S. 265 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 366 ; 8 L. T.
534; 11 W. R. 800
;

349
512

151
210

247

511

694

42

81
395

438

Digitized

by Microsoft

627
612

625
668

TABLE OP CASES.

XIX
PAGE

&ij. (1887), 20 Q. B.D. 1

Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 506

51

Bell-Cox,
V.

L. T. 392

39

W. R.

145

60 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; 63
54 J. P. 820 ; 17 Cox C. C. 158
;

49,

446
V. Busby, [1899] 2 Q. B. 380
68 L. J. Q. B. 859 ; 81
L. T. 196 47 W. R. 636 63 J. P. 709
600
Bence, Be, [1891] 3 Ch. 242 60 L. J. Ch. 636 65 L. T. 530 .. 559
Beneficed Clerk v. Lee, [1897] A. C. 226 ; 66 L. J. P. C. 8 ; 75
489
L..T. 461
Benfieldside Local Board v. Consett Iron Co. (1878), 3 Ex. D. 54
59
47 L. J. Ex. 491 ; 26 W. R. 114 38 L. T. 530
..
Benjamin v. Storr (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 400 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 162
724
30 L. T. 362 22 W. R. 631
Bennett v. Atkins (1879), 4 C. P. D. 80 48 L. J. C. P. 95 40
684
L. T. 66 27 W. R. 231
V. Brumfitt (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 28 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 25
17
L. T. 213 ; 16 W. B. 131 1 H. & P. 407
70
V. Daniel (1830), 10 B.
C. 500
378, 567
;;. Edwards (1839), 7 B.
C. 586 7 L. J. M. C. 49 ; 8 Id.
..
145,494
71 1 M. & R. 482 6 Ring. 230 31 R. R. 403
. Tatton, [1918] W. N. 291
728,732

Belton

&
&

153
Watson(1814), 3M. &S. 1
696
24 R. R. 401
v. Bignold (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 335
Bent V. Roberts (1878), 3 Ex. D. 66; 47 L. J. Ex. 112 37 L. T.
120
673 26 W. R. 128
Bentham v. Hoyle (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 289 47 L. J. M. C. 51 37
523
L. T. 753; 26 W. R. 314
74, 82
Bentley v. Rotherhani (1876), 4 Ch. D. 588 46 L. J. Ch. 284
42
Bentson I'. Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 274
Benwell, Ex p. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 301 54 L. J. Q. B. 53 51
577
L. T. 677 33 W. R. 242
Beresford-Hope v. Sandhurst (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 79 58 L. J. Q. B.
..
153, 155
316 61 L. T. 150 37 W. R..548 53 J. P. 805
Berkeley w.Elderkin (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 805 22 L. J. Q. B. 281
238
l7Jur. 1153
54 L. J. M. C. 57 52
V. Thompson (1884), 10 App. Cas. 45
259
L. T. 1 33 W. B. 525 49 J. P. 276
Berkeley Peerage (1861), 4 H. L. Cas. 21 8 Jur. N. S. 21 4 L. T.
369
686 4 Camp. 419, H. L
449
Berwick ;. Andrews (1703), 2 Ld. Raym. 971
23 L. J. Q. B. 321 1 Jur.
V. Oswald (1853), 3 E. & B. 678
N. S. 395 5 H. L. Cas. 856 25 L. J. Q. B. 383 2 Jur. N. S.
686
743 101 R. R. 416 H. L
Bessey v. Windham (1844), 6 Q. B. 166 14 L. J. Q. B. 7 66
376
R. R. 336
683
Best, Exp. (1881), 18 Ch. D. 488 45 L. T. 95
V. Pembroke (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 363; 42 L. J. Q. B. 212;
65
29 L. T. 327 21 W. R. 919
Beta, The (1869), 3 Moo. P. C. N. S. 23 38 L. J. P. M. & A. 76
416
12 L. T. 1
a;.

Bensley

Digitized

by Microsoft

XX

TABLE OP OASESPABE

Betham

i;.

Gregg

(1834), 10 Bing. 352

3 L. J. C. P. 121

4 M.

&

Scott, 230; 38 R. R. 449

Betts V. Armstead (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 771 57 L. J. M. C. 100 58
L. T. 811; 36 W. R. 720; 52 J. P. 471
V. Stevens, [1910] 1 K. B. 1 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 17 ; 101 L. T.
564; 73 J. P. 486
Beven v. Welsbach Incandescent Gas Light Co., [1902] 20 R. P. C.
69
Bidden V. Leeder (1823), 1 B. & C. 327
Biddulph V. St. George's Vestry (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 411 9 Jur.
N. S. 434; 8 L. T. 44 ; 11 W. R. 524
Biffin V. Yorke (1843), 5 M. & Gr. 428 12 L. J. C. P. 162 6 Scott

381

N. R. 234; 63R. R. 337

Biggar v. Eastwood (1886), 19 L. R. Ir. 65, Ir
Biggs V. Mitchell (1862), 2 B. & S. 523 31 L. J. M. C. 163 8 Jur.
N. S. 817; 6 L. T. 242; 10 W. R. 559
Bill V. Bament (1841), 9 M. & W. 36
11 L. J. Ex. 81 ; 60 R. R.
658
Billings t;. Prinn (1775) 2 W. Bl. 1017
34 L. J. Q. B. 68 11 Jur.
Bills V. Smith (1865), 6 B. & S. 314
N. S. 154; 12 L. T. 22 13 W. B. 407
Binns v. Hey (1843), 1 D. & L. 661 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 28 7 Jur.
1154
Binstead, Be, [1893] 1 Q. B. 199 62 L. J. Q. B. 207
68 L. T.
31 41 W. R. 452 9 M. B. R. 319
Birch ?). Lake (1674), 1 Mod. 185
Birchall v. Bullough, [1896] 1 Q. B. 325 65 L. J. Q. B. 252 74
L. T. 27 ; 44 W. R. 300
Bird V. Adcock (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 123 26 W. R. 634
328,
V. Davey, [1891] 1 Q. B. 29
63 L. T. 741 60 L. J. Q. B. 8
39W. R. 40
Birkenhead Docks v. Laird (1853), 4 De G. M. & G. 732 ; 23
L. J. Ch. 457 ; 18 Jur. 883
Birkmyr v. Darnell (1704), 1 Sm. L. C. 299
Birley v. Chorlton (1841), 3 Beav. 499 ; 52 R. R. 202
..
..
Birmingham?). Shaw (1849), 10 Q. B. 868 3 New Seas. Cas. 445
18 L. J. M. C. 89 13 Jur. 357 74 R. R. 523
..
..
Birnie u. Marshall (1876), 35 L. T. 373
Bishop i;. Bryant (1834), 6 C. & P. 484
V. Curtis (1852), 18 Q. B. S78
21 L. J. Q. B. 391 ; 17
Jur. 23 ; 88 R. R. 819
. Duffy (1894), 22 R. 192
Soo
Bishops, Case of (1606), 12 Rep. 7
Blackburn v. Parkinson (1858), 1 E. & E. 71 28 L. J. M. C. 7 ;
117R. R. 145
Blackburn (Mayor) v. Sanderson, [1902] 1 K. B. 794 71 L. J
K. B. 590 86 L. T. 304 66 J. P. 452
Blackmore v. Mile End Vestry (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 451 51
L. J.Q. B.496; 46L. T. 869; 30W. R. 740
..
..

7,8

186

489
593
702

227

215

581

512
045

214

97
291

204
734

402

16

328
273
2.36

341
646
679

156
121
727

240

348

Digitized

by Microsoft

726

TABLE OF CASES.

XXI
PA.OS

Blackpool Motor Car Co., JSe, [1901] 1 Ch. 77

114
Blackwood v. R. (1882), 8 App. Cas. 81 ; 52 L. J. P. C. 10
48 L. T. 441 31 W. R. 645
57,271
52 L. J. Ch. 461 49
Blaiberg, Ex p. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 254
379
L. T. 16 ; 31 W. R. 906
41 L. T. 46 ; 28 W. R. 334 267
Blain, Ex p. (1879), 12 Ch. D. 512
582
Blake . AttersoU (1824), 2 B. & C. 875
Blakemore v. Glamorganshire Canal Co. (1832), 1 M. & K. 154
528
36R. R. 289
Blaker v. Tillstone, [1894] 1 Q. B. 345 63 L. J. M. C. 72 70
186
L. T. 31 ; 42 W. R. 253 58 J. P. 184
532
Blankley v. Winstanley (1789), 3 T. R. 279 ; 1 R. R. 704
..
Blithman, Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 23 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 255 12
269
Jur. N. S. 84 ; 14 L. T. 6 35 Beav. 219
Bloxam v. Favre (1883), 9 P. D. 130 ; 53 L. J. P D. & A. 26;
268
50 L. T. 766 ; 32 W. R. 673
Bloxsome v. Williams (1824), 3 B. & C. 232 5 D. & R. 82
379,691
1 C. & P. 294 ; 27 R. R. 337
Blundell v. Gladstone (1841), 3 McN. & Gor. 692 12 L. J. Ch.
41
.
.
225
.
Blunt V. 'keslop (1838), 3 N."& P. 553; 7 L. J.Q. B. '216 ; 47
606
R. R. 664
Blyth V. Birmingham Waterworks (1856), 11 Ex. 781 ; 25 L. J. Ex.
628
212 ; 2 Jur. N. S. 333 105 R, R. 791
Boast V. Firth (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 1 38 L. J. C. P. 1 19
674
L. T. 264 17 W. R. 29
118
Boddington, 5e, [1915] H. B. R. 183
209
Boldero w. Jackson (1809), 11 East, 612
466
Bolina, The(1812), lGallison75
Bolton V. Bolton (1876), 2 Ch. D. 217 ; 34 L. T. 123 24 W. R.
681
426
348
Bolton Corporation v. Scott (1913), 77 J. P. 193, C. A
Bonaker v. Evans (1850), 16 Q. B. 163 ; 20 L. J. Q. B. 137 ; 15
642
Jur. 460 ; 83 R. R. 409
672
..
Bonar v. MitcheU (1850), 5 Ex. 415 19 L. J. Ex. 302 ..
Bond V. Bond (1860), 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 143 ; 2 S. & T. 93 8
261
W. R. 630
67 L. J. M. C. 105 59
V. Evans (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249
191, 192, 490
..
36 W. R. 767 ; 52 J. P. 612
L. T. 411
455
. Hopkins (1802), 1 Sch. & Lef. 433
V. Rosling (1860), 1 B. & S. 371 ; 30 L. J. Q. B. 227 ; 4 L. T.
569
442; 9W. B. 746
40 L. J. 0. P. 47
V. St. George's (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 314
..
117
..
23 L. T. 494 ; 19 W. R. 101 1 Hop. & C. 427
Bonella v. Twickenham Bd. (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 63 57 L. J. M. C.
366
1; 58L. T. 299; 36W. R. 50; 52J.P. 356
560
Bones ?;. Booth (1778), 2 W. Bl. 1226
..
1.50, 272, 459, 461
Bonham's Case (1609), 8 Rep. 118a
Bonner v. G. W. R. (1883), 24 Ch. D. 1 ; 48 L. T 619 32 W. R.
526
190 ; 47 J. P. 580
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXll

PAGE

Jenkins (1878), 8 Ch. D. 70 47 L. J. Ch. 758

38 L. T. 81 26 W. R. 294
Bonomi v. Backhouse (1856), 9 H. L. 503 E. B. & E. 622 27
L. J. Q. B. 378 28 Id. 380 34 Id. 181 7 Jur. N. S. 809
9 W. R. 769 113 R. R. 799
Boodle V. Davis (1853), 8 Ex. 351 22 L. J. Ex. 69
Boon V. Howard (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 277 43 L. J. C. P. 115
357,
29 L. T. 382 22 W. R. 535 2 Hop. & C. 208
Booth V. Bank of England (1840), 7 CI. & F. 509 ; 2 Scott N. R.
..
701 6 Bing. N. C. 415 4 Jur. 762 44 R. R. 272
20
V. Olive (1851), 10 0. B. 827
2 L. M. & P. 283
L. J. 0. P. 151 15 Jur. 563
u. Ibbotson (1827), 1 Yo. & J. 360
V. Trail (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 8
53 L. J. Q. B. 24 49 L. T.
471- 32 W. R. 122
..
..
..
Boothroyd, i?e"(1846), 15 m! & W. 1 15 L. J.' M. 0. 57 io

Bonnewell

v..

. .

. .

12
402

512

447
213

414
531

711

446

Jur. 117

&

M. 419 ; 13
(1843), 5 Q. B. 310 D.
669
L. J. Q. B. 93 8 Jur. 242 64 R. R. 504
Bosley v. Davies (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 84 45 L. J. M. 0. 27 ; 33
191, ,351, 565
L. T. 528; 24 W. R. 140
Bostock V. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1852), 3 Sra,
G. 283 ; 25
526
..
L. J. Ch. 325 3 Jur. N. S. 245 ; 107 R. R. 89

V. Ramsey U. D. C, [ISOO] 2 Q. B. 616

69 L. J. Q. B. 945
..
359
83 L. T. 358 ; 64 J. P. 660 ; 16 Times R. 520
..
Bottoraley v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1916), 84
210
L. J. K. B. 354, D. C
Bottomley's Case (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167 43
654
L. T. 620 29 W. R. 133
Boucicault v. Chatterton (1877), 5 Ch. D. 275 46 L. J. Ch. 305 ;
35,L. T. 745 25 W. R. 287
99
Bound V. Lawrence, [1892] 1 Q. B. 226 61 L. J. M. C. 21
65 L. T. 844 40 W. R. 1 56 J. P. 118
585
Bourke i;. Nutt, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725
9
Bower D. Peate (1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 446
633
Bowlby V. Bell (1846), 3 C. B. 284 4 Rly. Cas. 692 16 L. J. C. P.
18; 10 Jur. 669
575
Bowman v. Blyth (1857), 7 E. B. 26, 47 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 57 10
Jur. N. S. 359
167,649,664
Bows V. Fenwick (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 339 43 L. J. M. C. 107
30 L. T. 524 ; 22 W. R. 804
129,599
Bowyerw. Bampton(1741), 2 Stra. 1155,
372
Boyce v. Higgins (1854), 14 C. B. 1 23 L. J. C. P. 5 18 Jur.
Bosanquet

v.

Woodford

&

&

333
Boydell

v.

98 R. R. 510

Druramond

345
(1809), 11 East 142

2 Campb. 157

R.R.45Q

10

455,512

Boyle V. Smith, [1906] 1 K. B. 432

Brace v. Abercarn Colliery Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 699
706; 40 W.R. 3; 56 J. P. 20
Bracy's Case (1696), 1 Salk. 348

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ill
;

60 L.

J. Q.

B.

564
465

TABLE OP CASES. ^

xxn
FAGE

Bradbury

v.

HoUen

(1872), L.

R. 8 Ex. 1

42 L. J. Ex. 28

27

L. T. 450
21 W. R. 126
350
Bradford Corporation ?;. Myeis, [1916] 1 A. C. 242, 11. L.
..
109
Bradford Union v. Wilts (1868), L. R. 3. Q. B. 604 37 L. J. M. C.
129 18 L. T. 514 ; 16 W. R. 1197
365
Bradlaugh, Exp. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 509 47 L. J. M. C. 105 38
L. T. 680; 26W. R. 758
237
V. Clarke (1883), 8 App. Cas. 354
52 L. J. Q. B. 505 48
L. T. 681 47 J. P. 405
31 W. R. 677, H. L. 3, 4, 39, 68, 110,
453, 561, 706
Bradley v. Baylis (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 195 51 L. J. Q. B. 183 46
L. T. 253 30 W. R. 823
45 J. P. 847
1 Colt. 163
..
121
V. Greenwich Board of Works (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 384
47
L. J. M. C. Ill
38 L. T. 849 26 W. R. 693
,.
V. Newcastle (1854), 2 E. & B. 427
23 L. .J. Q. B. 35 95
R. R. 620
541
Bradshaw v. Lane. & York. Ry. Co. (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 189
44 L. J. C. P. 148 31 L. T. 847
449
Brain?;. Thomas (1881), 50 L. J. Q.B. 662
714
BraU, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 62 L. J. Q. B. 457 69 L. T. 323
41 W. R. 623 10 M. B. R. 166
377, 568
Bramston v. Colchester (1856), 6 El. & Bl. 246 25 L. J. M. C.
S. 809
326
73 2 Jur.
106 R. R. 587
Brand v. Hammersmith Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 H. L. 171
L. R. 2 Q. B. 241 38 L. J. Q. B. 265 21 L. T. 238 18
W.R. 12
368
Brandling v. Barrington (1827), 6 B. & C. 475
457
Brandon, Re (1884), 9 App. Cas. 589 53 L. J. P. C. 84
..
386
Brandon Hill, Ltd. v. Lamb, [1915] 1 K. B. 250 59 Sol. Jo. 75
118, 380, 703
Braneth v. Havering (1639), Duke on Charit. uses, p. 83
156
..
Brantom v. Griffits (1877), 1
P. D. 349 2 C. P. D. 212 46
L. J. C. P. 408 36 L. T. 4 29 W. R. 313
212
BranweU v. Penneck (1827), 7 B. & C. 536 1 M. & R. 409 .. 585
Bray v. Lancashire JJ. (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 484 58 L. J. M. C.
54 37 W. R. 392 53 J. P. 499
246, 247
482
Bread Co. v. Stubbs (1896), 74 L. T. 704
Brenan'a Case (1847), 10 Q. B. 492 11 Jur. 755 16 L. J. Q. B.
661
285 74 R. R. 409
Breslauer V. Brown (1878), 3 A. C. 689
158
Brett V. Brett (1826), 3 Add. 210
82
43
Breull, Ex p. (1880), 16 Ch. D. 484
50 L. J. Ch. 384
119
L. T. 580 29 W. R. 299
169
Brewer t. McGower (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 259
Brewster V. Kitchell (1698), 1 Salk. 198
685,686
Bridge v. Branch (1876), 1 C. P. D. 633 34 L. T. 905 ..
237, 553
V. Parsons (1863), 3 B. & S. 382
32 L. J. M. C. 95 9
474
Jur. N. S. 796 7 L. T. 784 11 W. R. 424
590
Bridgeman v. Fitzgerald (1881), 50 L. J. Ch. 9
;

..29

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XXIV

63 L. J. Ch. 186
R. 179
15 R.
V. Richardson (1814), 2 M, & S. 568
54 L. J.
V. Savage (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 363
L. T. 129 33 W. R. 891 49 J. P. 725
Brierley Hill Local Board v. Pearsall (1884), 54
Bridger, Ee, [1894] 1 Ch. 297

70 L. T. 204

386
581

42W.

R. 355
Q. B., 464

53

692

L. J. Q. B. 25,

242
II. L
740
Brig Ann, The (1812), 1 Gallison, 62
Brigden v. Heighes (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 330 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 58 ; 34
221,350
L. T. 242 24 W. R. 272
Brighton Guardians v. Strand-Guardians, [1891] 2 Q. B. 156 60
55 J. P. 743 556
It. J. M. C. 105 ; 64 L. T. 722 ; 39 W. R. 581
Brighton Marine Co. v. Woodhouse, [1893] 2 Ch. 486 ; 62 L. J.
46
Ch. 697 68 L. T. 669 41 W. R. 488
Brighty v. Norton (1862), 3 B. & S. 305 32 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 9
608
Jur. N. S. 495 7 L. T. 422 11 W. R. 167
576
Brindle, ^x^. (1887), 66L. T. 498
Bristol Aerated Bread Co. v. Maggs (1890), 44 Ch. D. 610 ; 59
L. J. Ch. 472 ; 62 L. T. 416 38 W. R. 574; 2 Meg. 150,
512
205
522
City, The (1901), 71 L. J. P. 5
342
Corporation v. Sinnett, [1918] 1 Ch. 62, C. A
Tramways Co. v. Fiat Motors, [1910] 2 K. B. 831 ; 79
..
48
L. J. K. B. 1109; 103L. T. 443; 26T. L. R. 629 ..
121
Bristow . Piper, [1915] 1 K. B. 271
Britain v. Rosaiter (1879), 11 Q. B. D. 128 48 L. J. Ex. 362 40
455
L. T. 240 27 W. R. 482
British Farmers, &c. Co., Be (1878), 48 L. J. Ch. 56 ; 38 L. T.
6
757; 26 W. R. 839
Insulated Wire Co. v. Prescot U. D. C, [1896] 2 Q. B. 463
671
..
64 L. J. Q. B. 811 73 L. T. 383 44 W. R. 224
..
Linen Co. . Drummond (1830), 10 B. & C. 903 34 R. R.
278
595
South Africa Co. v. De Beers Mines, [1910] 2 Ch. 502; 79
L. 'J. Ch. 345 ; 80 li. J. Ch. 65
103 L. T. 4 ; 54 S. J. Ii79
620
revsd., [1911] W. N. 245, H. L
Salicyclates, iJe, [1919]2Ch.l55
60
Britt V. Robinson (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 503
39 L. J. C. P. 265
23 L. T. 188 18 W. R. 866
495
Britton i;. Ward (1619), 2 Rol. 127
464
Broadbent v. Imperial Gas Co. (1867) 9 De G. M. & G. 436 26
L. J. Ch. 276 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 221
92
-^
V. Shepherd, [1901] 2 K. B. 274
70 L. J. K. B. 628 84
L. T. 844; 49 W. R. 521; 65 J. P. 499
655
Broadhead v. Holdsworth (1877), 2 Ex. D. 321 ; 46 L. J. M. C.
484
172; 36L. T. 320
Brockbank v. Whitehaven Ry. Co. (1847), 7 H. fc N. 834 31
L.J. Ex. 349
437
Brockelbank, Be (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 58 L. J. Q. B. 375
61 L. T. 543 37 W. R. 537 ; 6 M. B. R. 138
..
358, 421
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

XXV

v. Lawe (1857), 7 E. c& B. 176

26 L. J. Q. B. 107
3 Jur. N. S. 436
162
Brockwell v. Bullock (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 667 58 L. J. Q. B.
289 37 W. R. 455 53 J. P. 405
305
Brodie v. Chandos (1773), 1 Bro. C.C. 444 n
215
Bromley v. Holden (1828), Moo. & M. 175 ; 31 R.R. 727
714
Brook V. Brook (1858), 9 H. L. Gas. 193 27 L. J. Ch. 401 7
Jur. N. S. 422 9 W. R. 461 4 L. T. 93
..
256 261
V. Inland Revenue, [1896] 2 Q. B. 356
65 L. J. Q. B. 657
44W.R. 670
128
Brooke v. Shadgate (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 352 42 L. J. M. C. 98
29L. T. 90
168
Brooker v. Wood (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 1052 3 L. J. K. B. 96
3N. &M. 96
694
Brooks V. Bookett (1847), 9 Q. B. 847 16 L. J. Q. B. 178 11
Jur. 284
402
V. Cock (1835), 3 A. & E. 138
4 N. & M. 652 1 H. & W.
129 42 R. R. 348
651
u. Hamlyn (1899), 79 L. T. 734
288,646
c. Mason, [1902] 2 K. B. 743
72 L. J. K. B. 19
..
..
187
Jenkins & Co. v. Torquay, [1902] 1 K. B. 601 71 L. J. K. B.
109 85 L. T. 785 ; 66 J. P. 293
626, 671
Bros, Re, [1911] 1 K. B. 159; 80 L. J. K. B. 147
103 L. T. 728
74J. P. 483
150
Broughton v. Manchester Waterworks (1819), 3 B. & A. 1 22
R. R. 278
619
Brown, Re (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 545 47 L. J. M. C. 108 38 L. T.
682 26 W. R. 757
520
Re (1864), 5 B. & S. 280 33 L. J. Q. B. 193
165, 6.32
V. Duncan (1829), 10 B. & C. 93
5 M. & R. 114 39 R. R.
698
699
66 L. T. 649 56 J. P.
V. Foot (1892), 61 L. J. M. C. 110
581 17 Cox C. C. 509
190
46 L. J. M. C. 231
V. G. E. Ry. Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 406
36 L. T. 767 25 W. R. 792
634
51 L. J. Q. B. 529;
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1882), 9Q. B. D.744
47 L. T. 216 30 W. R. 671 46 J. P. 803 ..
.. 97, 281, 293
V. Holyhead Board (1863), 1 H. & C. 601 ; 32 L. J. Ex. 25
11 W. R. 71
7 L. T. 332
705
4 Moore .508
..
V. Howard (1820), 2 B. & B. 73
..
12
SOL. J. C. P.
V. London (Mayor) (1862), 9 C. B. N. S. 726
225 7 Jur. N. S. 755 3 L. T. 813 9 W. R. 336; & 13
C. B. N. S. 828 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 280 8 Jur. N. S. ll03
10
W. R. 522
687
& N. W. Ry. Co. (1863), 4 B. & S. 326; 32
-w. London
10 Jur. N. S. 234 11 W. R. 884 ..
L. J. Q. B. 218
119, 318
42 L. J. P. C. 18
V. McLachlan (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 643
21 W. R. 277 9 Moo. P. C. N. S. 384
571
8 D. P. C. 852 4 Jur.
V. McMillan (1846), 7 M. <fc W. 196
1090
325

Brooklehurst

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XXVI

PAGE

Brown

Patch, [1899] 1 Q. B. 892 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 588

716; 47 W. R. &23; 63 J. P. 421
..
..
v.

Shaw

80 L. T.

129,600

..

656, 677
Ex. D. 425
v.-Skirrow, [1902] P. 3; 71 L. J. P. D. & A. 19 ; 85 L. T.
14
645
V. Tombs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253
60 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 64 L. T.
139
114 ; 55 J. P. 359 1 Fox 196
487
Brown's Case (1799), 2 East P. C. 487
Browne w. La Trinidad (1887), 37 Ch. D. 1
655
Browning, Ex p. (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 583 ; 43 L. J. Bank. 129
30 L. T. 481 22 W. R. 638
702
Brownrigg v. Pike (1882), 51 L. J. P. 29
384
Brownscombe v. Johnson (1898), 78 L. T. 265 ; 62 J. P. 326 .. 523
Bruce, iJe (1832), 2 Or. & J. 436 ; 2 Tyr. 475
270
Brumfitt V. Bremner (1860), 9 C. B. N. S. 1 ; K. & G. 352 ; 30
L. J. C. P. 33 7 Jur. N. S. 371 3 L. T. 375
9 W. R. 144 660
V. Roberts (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 224 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 22
L. T. 301 ; 18 W. R. 678 1 Hop. & C. 387
169, 674
Bruner I). Moore, [1904] 1 Ch. 305
43
Brunsfcill v. Watson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 418
37 L. J. M. C.
103; 18L. T. 432; 16 W. R. 1009
515
Bruyeres v. Halcomb (1835), 3 A. & E. 381 4 L. J. K. B. 228
554
Bryan v. Child (1850), 5 Ex. 368 1 L. M. & P. 429 ; 19 L. J. Ex.
264 14 Jur. 510 82 R. R. 710
..
75, 79, 92, 377, 567
Buccleuch (Duke of) v. Metrop. B. of Works (1870), L. R. 5 Ex.
221 39 L. J. Ex. 130 23 L. T. 255 & L. R. 5 H. L. 418
41 L. J. Ex. 137 27 L. T. 1
538
Buokhurst Peerage, The (1881), 2 App. Cas. 1
704
Buckle V. Wrightson (1864), 5 B. & S. 854 ; 34 L. J. M. C. 43
11 Jur. N. S. 280 11 L. T. 341 13 W. R. 92
..
300
Bulkeley v. Schutz (1871), L. R. 3P. C. 764 6 Moo. P. C. N. S.
481
267,268
Bull V. Chapman (1853), 8 Ex. 444; 22 L. J. Ex. 257 91 R. R.
577
690
BuUi Coal-Mining Co. v. Osborne, [1899] A. C. 351 68 L. J. P. C.
49; 80L. T. 430; 47 W. R. 545
12
Bullivant v. A.-G. Victoria, [1901] A. C. 196 ; 70 L. J. K. B.
T.
50W.
R.
645; 84L.
IP. C...
737;
218
Bulteel & Colmore v. Trustee in Bankruptcy (1916), 32 T. L. R.
661
114
Bunny, Hx p. (1857), 1 De G. & J. 119; 26 L. J. Bank. 83;
3 Jur. N. S. 1141
612
Burbury v. Jackson, [1917] 1 K. B. 16
..
..
..
259
Burden, Be (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 24 57 L. J. Q. B. 570 59 L. T.
149; 36 W. R. 896; 5M. B. R. 166 ..
..
470
. Kennedy (1757), 3 Atk. 739
250
Burdett, 5e (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310 57 L. J. Q. B.263 ; 58L T
708 ; 36 W. R. 345 ; 5 M. B. R. 32, C. A
702 703
Burge V. Ashley and Smith, [1900] 1 Q. B. 744 69 L. J Q B '
..
538; 82L. T. 518; 48 W. R..438
..
199
V.

(1876), 1

. .

....

Digitized

by Microsoft

'

TABLE OF CASES.

Xxvii
FACE

Burgess v. Wickham (1863), 3 B. & S. 698 33 L. J. Q. B. 17 ..

42
Burgess v. Clark (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 735 33 W. E. 269 49 J. P.
388
496
Burgess's Case (1880), 15 Ch. D. 507 49 L. J. Cli. 541 43 L. T.
45;28W. K. 792
876
Burkill V. Thomas, [1892] 1 Q. B. 312 61 L. J. Q. B. 322 66
L. T. 150 ; 40 W. R. 250
411
Burkinshaw V. Nicolls (1878), 3 A. C. 1004
6
BurUngv. Harley (1858), 3 H. & N. 271 27 L. J. Ex. 258 4
Jur. N. S. 789
414
Burn V. Carvalho (1834), 4 N. & M. 889 1 A. & E. 883
..
740
Burnby 1). BoUett (1848), 16 M. & W. 644 17 L. J. Ex. 190 11
Jur. 827
184
Burnett v. Berry, [1896] 1 Q.'B. 641 65 L. J. M. C. 118; 74
L. T. 494 44 W. R. 512
60 J. P. 375
523
Burnley, &c. Society v. Carson, [1891], 1 Q. B. 75
..
..194
Burns, The, [1907] P. 137
108,109
Bums V. Nowell (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 444; 49 L. J. Q. B. 468; 43
L. T. 342 29 W. R. 39 44 J. P. 828
385
Burton v. Henson (1842), 10 M. & W. 105 11 L. J. Ex. 348 62
R. R. 531
624
and Blinkhorn, Be, [1903] 2 K. B. 300 72 L. J. K. B.
752 89 L. T. 549 51 W. R. 668
437
Turnpike Trs. v. Wincanton Highway Board (1870), 39
L. J.M. C. 155
91
Bury V. Cherryholm (1876), 1 Ex. D. 457 35 L. T. 403
..
306
Busfield, Be (1886), 32 Ch. D. 123
55 L. J. Ch. 467 54 L. T.
220 34 W. R. 372
271,518
BusheU V. Hammond, [1904] 2 K. B. 563 73 L. J. K. B. 1005
91 L. T. 1 52 W. R. 453 68 J. P. 370
..
..
76, 77
Bustros V. White (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 423 45 L. J. Q. B. 642 34
L. T. 835
24 W. R. 721
543
Butcher v. Henderson (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 335 37 L. J. Q. B.
139 16 W. R. 855 9 B. & S. 403
730, 7.33
Bute V. Grindall (1786), 1 T. R. 338 2 H. Bl. 265 1 R. R. 220 247
Butterknowle Colliery Co. y. Bishop Auckland Socy., [1906] A. C.
627
305 75 L. J. Ch. 541 ; 94 L. T. 795 70 J. P. 361 ..
Butterley Co. v. New Hucknall Colliery Co., [1909] 1 Ch. 37
79 Id. 411 99 L. T.
[1910] A. C. 381 78 L. J. Ch. 63
818 102 L. T. 609 ; H. L
41
Buxton V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 549 37 L. J. Q. B.
258 18 L. T. 795 16 W. R. 1124 9 B. & S. 824
..
720
41 L. J. Ex. 1, 173 26
V. Rust (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 1, 279
..
513
L. T. 502 27 L. T. 210 20 W. R. 100, 1014
..
Byerley u. Prevost (1868) L. R. 6 C. P. 144
212
Byrne Exp. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310
702, 703
;

. .

C.

Cable V. Marks (1882), 52 L. J. Ch 107 47 L. T. 432 31 W. R. 221

Caistor v. N. Kelsey (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 102; 62 L. T. 731 ..
.

Digitized

by Microsoft

131
365

XXVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAOB

384
359
50 R. R. 1
and Hebble Nav. Co. v. Pilling (1845), 14 M. & W. 76 3
525
Rly. Cas. 735 14 L. J. Ex. 223 9 Jur. 377 69 R. R. 660
Caldow V. Pixell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 562 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 541 36
L. T. 469 ; 25 W. R. 773
650,661
192
CaldweU . Bethell, [1913] 1 K. B. 119
Caledonian Ry. Co. v. N. Brit. Ry. Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 114
36
29 W. R. 685, H. L
V. "Walker's Trustees (1882), 7 App. Cas. 259 ; 46 L. T. 826 ;
172
30 W. R. 569 46 J. P. 676
Californian Fig Syrup Co., Be (1889), 40 Ch. D. 620 ; 58 L. J. Ch.
272
341; 60 L. T. 590; 37 W. R. 268
Calthorpe v. Treachraann, [1906] A. C. 24 ; 75 L. J. Ch. 92 ; 94
717
L. T. 68 54 W. R. 365
Cambridge Union v. Parr (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 991 30 L. J. M. C.
67
241
Cameron v. Cameron (1834), 2 M. & K. 289 4 L. J. Ch. 28 ..
52
Caminada v. Hulton (1891), 60 L. J. M. C. 116 64 L. T. 572
210
39 W. R. 540 55 J. P. 727
Campbell, Ex p. (1871), L. R. 5 Ch. 703
23 L. T. 289 18
W. R. 1056
543
V. Im Thuru (1876), 1 C. P. D. 267
45 L. J. C. P. 482 35
L. T. 265 ; 24 W. R. 675
158
V. Strangeways (1877), 3 C. P. D. 105 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 6
37L. T. 672
610
Canada Shipping Co. v. British Shipowners' Mutual Protection
Society (1889), 58L. J. Q. B. 462
124, 517
Canada Sugar Refining Co. v. Reg., [1898] A. C. 735; 67
L. J. P. C. 126 79 L. T. 146
40
Canadian Pac. Ry. v. Parke, [1899] A. C. 535 ; 68 L. J. P. C. 89 ;
81 L. T. 127 48 W. R. 118
630
V. Roy, [1902] A. C. 220 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 51
86 L. T. 127 ;
SOW. R. 415
628,630
Candy v. Maugham (1844), 6 M. & Gr. 710 1 D. & L. 745 ; 7
Scott N. R. 401 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 17 7 Jur. 1040
..250
Oannan v. Abingdon, [1900] 2 Q. B. 66 69 L. J. Q. B. 517 ; 82
L. T. 382 ; 382 48 W. R. 470 ; 64 J. P. 504
..
595
..
Canterbury's (Archbp.) Case (1596), 2 Rep. 46b
601
Capel V. Child (1832), 2 Cr. & J. 558 1 L. J. Ex. 205 2 Tyr.
689; 37R. R. 761
642
Capson . Capson (1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 677
384
Cargo ea; Argos (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 134
244
CarlJohann, The (1821), cited 1 Hagg. Adm. 113
..
..276
Carlton Illustrators v. Coleman, [19111 1 K. B. 771 ; 80 L. J. K. B.
..'
510; 104 L.T. 413
..
708,709
Carmania, The (1916), 32 T. L. R. 395
102
Carpue v. Lond. and Bright. Ry. Co. (1844), 5 Q. B, 747 ; D. & M.
608 3 Rly. Cas. 692; 13 L. J. Q. B. 133 ; 8 Jur. 464 90
R. R. 911
414

Calder

V.

Bull (1872), 3 Dallas 390

Halket (1840), 3 Moo, P. C. 28

Digitized

by Microsoft

'J^ABLE

OF CASES,

xxix
I'AGK

Carr W.Dougherty (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 371

201
V. Fowle, [1893] 1 Q. B. 251
62 L. J. Q. B. 177 ; 68 L. T.
123 ; 41 W. R. 365 ; 57 J. ?. 136
..
..
..
..
504
V. Fracis Times & Co., [1902] A. C. 176
264
V. Royal Exch. Ass. Co. (1864), 5 B. & S. 433, 941 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 316; 33 L. J. Q. B. 63 ; 10 L. T. N. S. 265 ; 12 W. R.
127
82
Carron Iron Co. v, MacLaren (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 459; 24
L. J. Ch. 620 ; 101 R. R. 229 ; H. L.
119
Carruthersu. Sydebotham (1815), 4 M. & 8. 77 ; 16 R. R. 392 ..
619
Carter v. Boehm (1766), 3 Burr. 1918 1 W. Bl. 593
..
454
..
-y. Murcot (1768), 4 Burr. 2163
180
V. Thomas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 673 ; 62 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 69 L. T.
436 ; 41 W. R. 510 ; 57 J. P. 438
630
and Kenderdine, Be, [1897] 1 Ch. 776 ; 66 L. J. Ch. 408 ;
44 W. R. 484 ; 76 L. T. 476
377,568
Caruthers, a; p. (1807), 9 East 44
291
Case V. Story (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 319 ; 38 L. J. M. C. 115 20
L. T. 618 ; 17 W. R. 802
574
Casher v. Holmes (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 592 36 R. R. 680
..
601
Casswell v. Worth (1856), 5 El. & B. 849 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 121 2
Jur. N. S. 116 ; 103 R. R. 780
..
307
Castelli V. Groom (1852), 18 Q. B. 490 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 308 ; 16
Jur. 888
430,442
Castioni, Re, [1891] 1 Q. B. 149; 60 L. J. M. C. 22 ; 64 L. T.
344 ; 39 W. R. 202 ; 55 J. P. 328 ; 17 Cox C. C. 225
..
39
Castle, Be, [1917] 2 K. B. 725 ; 87 L. J. K. B. 753
203
Cates t). Knight (1789), 3 T. R. 442
..
..
238,240,556
Cathcart V. Hardy (1814), 2 M. & S. 534 ; 5 Taunt. 2
..
609
..
Catling V. King (1877), 5 Ch, D. 660 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 384 36 L. T.
514
526 ; 25 W. R. 550
..
26
Catlow i;. Catlow (1877), 2 C. P. D. 362
455
Caton v. Caton (1867), 35 L. J. Ch. 292
Cator V. Cator (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 139
70
Cave V. Hastings (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 125 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 575; 45
512
L. T. 348
Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson (1876), 1 Ex. D. 428; 45
..
..
..
120
L. J. Ex. 821 35 L. T. 275 ; 25 W. R. 71
Chadwick v. Ball (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 855 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 396 ; 52
237, 238
L. T. 949 ..
..
V. Pearl Life Assrce. Co. [1905] 2 K. B. 507 ; 74 L. J, K. B.
500, 505
671 ; 93 L. T. 25 ; 54 W. R. 78
126
Challeston u. Parker, [1914] W. N. 200
54
Chamber Colliery Co. v. Rochdale Canal Co., [1895] A. 0. 564
510
Chamberlain v. Bradford (1901), 83 L. T. 518 ; 64 J. P. 806
V. King (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 474 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 273 ; 24
414
L. T. 736 ; 19 W. R. 931
V. West End and Crystal Pal. Ry, Co. (1863), 2 B. & S.
617 ; 32 L. J. Q. B 173 j 9 Jur. N. S. 1051 ; 8 L. T. l49
172
IJ W. R,472
;

'

. .

'

. .

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXX

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Chamberlaine v. Chester and 'Birkenhead Ry. Co. (1848), 1 Ex.

716,718,723
370; 18 L. J. Ex.494 ..
237
Chambers v. Green (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 552 44 L. J. Ch. 600
33 L. J. Q. B.
V. Manchester Ry. Co. (1864), 5 B. & S. 588
523,655
268 10 Jur. N. S. 700
Champion v. Plummer (1805), 1 N. R. 252 5 Esp. 240 8 R. R.
513
..
..
..
795
..
74
Chancer. Adams (1696), ILd. Raym. 77
Chapman v. Chapman (1877), 4 Ch. D. 800 46 L. J. Ch. 104 .. 590
V. Milvain (1850), 5 Ex. 61
19 L. J. Ex. 228 1 L. M. &
294
P. 209 82 R. R. 564
V. Robinson (1858), 1 E. & B. 25
28 L. J. M. C. 30 5
344
Jur. N. S.434
V. Shepherd (1867), L. R. 2 0. P. 228
36 L. J. C. P. 113 ;
203
15 L. T. 477 15 W. R. 314
Chappell V. North, [1891] 2 Q. B. 252; 60 L. J. Q. B. 554 65
46
L. T. 23; 40W. R. 16
13
V. Purday (1843), 12 M. & W. 303
1 D. & L. 458
396
L.J. Ex. 7; 67 R. R. 357
Charles v. Blaokwell (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151 46 L. J. C. P. 368
135
36 L. T. 195 25 W. R. 472
513
Charlewood v. Bedford (Duke) (1738), 1 Atk. 497
..
..
Charlotta, The (1810), 1 Dods. 387
194
Charlton v. Hay (1875), 31 L. T. 437 23 W. R. 129
.:
717
Charrington v. Meatheringham (1837), 2 M. & W. 228 6 L. J.
Ex 23
729
Charters. Charter (1874), L."r. 7 H. L. 364 43'l. J. P. & M.
43
73
Chartered Bank of India v. Netherland S. N. Co. (1883), 10
Q. B. D. 521 52 L. J. Q. B. 220 48 L. T. 546 31 W. R.
445 47 J. P. 260
277,368
Chartered Merc. Bank v. Wilson (1878), 3 Ex. D. 106 47
L. J. Ex. 153 38 L. T. 254 26 W. R. 265
577, 578
Chasteauneuf v. Capeyron (1882), 7 App. Cas. 3 27 ; 51 L. J. P. C.
37 46 L. T. 65 4 Asp. M. C. 489
653
Chatterton v. Cave (1877), 2 C. P; D. 42 46 L. J. C. P. 97 35
L. T. 587 ; 25 W. R. 102 & 3 App. Cas. 483 ; 47 L. J. C. P.
545 38 L. T. 397 26 W. R. 498
350
w, Parker (1914), 78 J. P. 339
497
Chell v. Hall (1896), 12 T. L. R. 408
..
..
.,
..
704
Chelsea Vestry v. King (1865), 17 C. B. N. S. 625 34 L. J. M. C.
9 10 Jur. 1150 11 L. T. 419 13 W. R. 157
..
475
Waterworks v. Bowley (1851), 17 Q. B. 358 20 L. J. M. C.
482
85R.R.
520;
691
Cherry's Estate, i?e (1862), 31 L. J. Ch. 351
25
" Chic" IM.,Be, [1905] 2 Ch. 345-; 74 L. J. Oh. 597 93 L. T.
301 53W. R. 659
592
Chick ?;, Smith (1840), 8 D. P. C. 337 4 Jur. 86
..610
..
Child V. Hearn (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 176 43 L. J. Ex. 100; 22
W.R. 864
603
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASKS.

XXXl
PA GE

Chillington Iron Co., Be (1885), 29 Ch. D. 159 ; 54 L. J. Ch.

624 52 L. T. 504 33 W. R. 442
Chilton V. London and Croydon R. Co. (1847), 16 M.
W. 212
16 L. J. Ex. 89 11 Jur. 149 73 R. R. 460
China, The (1868), 7 Wallace 53
Chinery, Exp. (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 342 53 L. J. Ch. 662 50
L. T. 342 ; 32 W. R. 469 1 M. B. R. 31
Ching V. Surrey C. C, [1910] 1 K. B. 736 78 L. J. K. B. 927
79 L. J. K. B. 481 ; 102 L. T. 414 74 J. P. 187 8 L. U. R.
;

&

155

526
619

477

369
Chinnery

634
v.

Evans

11 L. T. 68

13

H. L. Cas. 115

(1864), 11

W.

10 Jur. N. S. 855

R. 20

218

Doulton (1889), 22 Q. B. T>. 726 58 L. J. M. C.

133
60 L. T. 966 16 Cox C. C. 675 37 W. R. 749 53
J. P. 550
Cholmeley School v. Sewell (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 820 ..
..
Chorlton v. Lings (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 374; 38 L. J. C. P. 25
19 L. T. 534 17 W. R. 284 1 Hopw. & C. 1
..
.Christ's Hospital v. Hawes (1640), Duke on Charifc. Uses, p. 84
Chisholm

v.

189
412

Christie v. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q. B. 522 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 708 ; 83

L. T. 54; 49W. R. 46; 64 J. P. 692
Christophersen v. Lotinga (1864), 15 C. B. N. S. 809; 33
L. J. C. P. 121 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 180 9 L. T. 688 12 W. R.
;

155
156

191

410
24,141,447
272
Church u. Hubbard (1804), 2 Cranch 87
Churchill v. Crease (1828), 5 Bin^. 180 2 M. & P. 415
301, 728
Cigala's Settlement, Be (1878), 7 Ch. D. 351
47 L. J. Ch. 166
38L. T. 439
270
205
Citizen Insurance Co., Canada v. Parsons (1881), 7 A. C. 125 ..
Citizens Life Assurance Co. v. Brown, [1904] A. C. 423, P. C. ..
138
City & S. London Ry. v. London C. C. [1891] 2 Q. B. 513 60
L. J. M. C. 149 65 L. T. 362 40 W. R. 166 56 J. P. 6
285, 286
113
City of Westminster Council v. Watson, [1902] 2 K. B. 717
..
Clack V. Sainsbury (1852), 11 C. B. 695 21 L. J. C. P. 41 2
L. M. &P. 627
303,304
Clan Gordon^ The (1882), 7 P. D. 190 4 Asp. M. C. 513 46
L. T. 490 30 W. R. 691
619
Clapham v. Langton (1864), 5 B. & S. 729 34 L. J. Q. B. 46
10 L. T. 875 12 W. R. 1011
42
Clarence R. Co. v. G. N. of England R. Co. (1845), 13 M. & W.
706 3 Rly. Cas. 426 7 Jur. 55 3 G. & D. 389 4 Q. B.
627
46 12 L. J. Q. B. 145
Clark, Be, [1894] 2 Q. B. 393 63 L. J. Q. B. 806
70 L. T. 751
lManson207
349
V. Bury St. Edmunds (1857), 1 C. B. JST. S. 23
26 L. J. C. P.
120
12; 107 R. R. 561
. Denton (1830), 1 B. & A. 92
705
v: Gaskarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431
2 Moore 491
20 R R.
587
516
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXU

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGl.

Clark V. Molyneux (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 237 ; 47 L. J. Q. B. 230;

415
..
..
37 L. T. 694 26 W. R. 104 ; 14 Cox C. C. 10
52 L. T.
V. R. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 92 ; 54 L. J. M. C. 66
474
136 J 33 W.R. 226; 49 J. P. 246
V. Wallond (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 48 L. T. 762 ; 31
542
W. R. 551 ; 47 J. P. 551
Clarke v. Bradlaugh (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 63 51 L. J. Q. B. 1
610
46 L. T. 49; 30 W.R. 63; 46 J. P. 278
V. Crowder (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 638; 38 L. J. M. C. 118 ;
420
17W. R. 857
283,
V. Gant (1853), 8 Ex. 252; 22 L. J. Ex. 67; 17 Jur. 239
'
"
659
;

'

Powell (1833), 4 B. <& Ad. 846 1 N. & M. 492 2

64
L.J. K. B. 145
V. Roche (1877), 3 Q. B. B. 170; 47 L. J. Q. B. 147 ; 37
226,351
L.T. 633; 26 W.R. 112
694
Clay . Ray (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 188
535
. Sudgrave (1700), 1 Salk. 33
Claydon v. Green (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 511 37 L. J. C. P. 226
74,76
18 L. T. 607 16 W. R. 1126
609
Clayton's Case (1585), 5 Rep. 1 b
Clegg . Earby Gas Co., [1896] IQ. B. 592 65 L. J. Q. B. 339;
723
44W. R. 606
Clelland v. Ker (1843), 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. 35 affirmed 6 Ir. Eq. Rep.
282
288 Ir
Clementson v. Mason (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 217 44 L. J. C. P.
22
171; 32 L. T. 325; 23 W.R. 620
Clerke v. St. Helen's Corporation (1916), 85 L. J. K. B. 17,
V.

C.

414

Clerkenwell Vestry v. Peary (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 703; 59

641
L. J. M.C. 82; 62 L.T. 697; 54 J. P. 676
Cliflford V. Watts (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 577
40 L. J. C. P. 36 ;
22 L. T. 717 ; 18 W. R. 925
674
Climpson v. Coles (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465 58 L. J. Q. B. 346 ;
61 L. T. 116 ; 38 W. R. 110
173
Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh Water Trustees, [1904] A. C. 64
73 L. .T. P. C. 32 ; 89 L. T. 589
627
Cliquot's Champagne (1865), 3 Wallace 114
509
Cloete V. R. (1854), 8 Moo. P. C. 484, P. C
87
Clothier v. Webster (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 750 ; 31 L. J. C. P.
216 ; 10 W. R. 624
173,630
;

V. Harper (1878), 3 Ex. D. 198 ; 47 L. J. Ex. 393 ; 38 L. T.

269 ; 26 W. R. 364
Clowes V. Staffordshire Potteries (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 125 ; 42
L. J. Oh. 107 ; 27 L. T. 521 21 W. R. 32
Clyde Navigation v. Barclay (1877), 1 App. Cas. 790
..
..
V. Laird (1883), 8 App. Cas. 658
..
..
131, 538, 539,
Coalheavers' Case (1768), 1 Leach 66
Coatsworth -e. Johnson (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 220
,.
..

Clow

Digitized

by Microsoft

538

529
517
540
616
569

TABLE OF

CASES.

xxxiii
PAGE

Cobb,

Ex

p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 727

42 L. J. Bank.

6.3

29

21 W. R. 777
Mid-Wales R. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 342 35 L. J. Q. B.
117 12 Jur. N. S. 228 14 W. R. 775
Gobbett V. Grey (1850), 19 L. J. Ex. 137 4 Ex. 729
..
..
Cooh V. AUoook (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 1 57 L. J. Q. B. 489
..
L. T. 123

V.

228

510
736
430

Cochrane v. Entwistle (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 116 59 L. J. Q. B.

418 62 L. T. 852 38 W. R. 587
703
V. Matthews (1879), 10 Ch. D. 80 n
212
Cockerell w. Dickens (1840), 3 Moo. P. C. 133
269
Cocking V. Ward (1845), 1 C. B. 858 15 L. J. C. P. 245 68 R. R.
831
455
Codd ;. Cabe (1876), 1 Ex. D. 352, C. A
232
Coe V. Lawrance (1853), 1 El. & Bl. 516 22 L. J. Q. B. 140 17
Jur. 1115
10
Coggins w. Bennett (1877), 2 C. P. D. 568
611,612
Cohen, Exp. (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 20 41 L. J. Bank. 17 25
L. T. 473 20 W. R. 69
225
V. Arthurs (1912), 56 Sol. Jo. 344
47
V. Kittell (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 680
58 L. J. Q. B. 241 60
L. T. 932 37 W. R. 400 53 .1. P. 469
692
59 L. J. Q. B. 409
V. Mitchell (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 262
349
63 L. T. 206 38 W. R. 588 54 J. P. 804
Colbron v. Travers (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 181 31 L. J. C. P.
..
223
257 6 L. T. 287 10 W. R. 603 8 Jur. N. S. 1105
Colchester v. Brooke (1846), 7 Q. B. 339 15 L. J. Q. B. 59
724
9 Jur. 1090 68 R. R. 458
2 Id. 253 36 L. J.
V. Kewney (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. 368
..
Ex 172 ; 12 Jur. N. S. 743 16 L. T. 463 ..
99, 248
Cole V. Coulton (I860), 2 E. & B. 695 29 L. J M. C. 125 6
333
Jur. N. S. 698
V. Greene (1843), 6 M. & G. 872
7 Scott New Rep. 682
667,671
13L. J. C. P. 30
44 L. J. C. P.
V. N. W. Bank (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 354
162
233 32 L. T. 733
Colebrook ?;. Layton (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 578 2 L. J. K. B. 95
225
1 N. & M. 374 38 R. R. 314
Coleman v. Birmingham (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 615 50 L. J. M. C.
..
..
154
92 44 L. T. 578 29 W. R. 715 45 J. P. 521
512
17
i;. Upcot (1706), 5 Yin. Ab. 527, pi.
203
Coles V. Bristowe (1868), L. R. 6 Eq. 160
..
..480
Collier V. Worth (1876), 1 Ex. D. 464 35 L. T. 345
..
208
1 Sm. L. C. 369
Collins V. Blantern (1767), 2 Wils. 341
51
2 M. & Scott 640
V. Gwynne (1833), 9 Bing 544
702
R.R. 43
V. Middle Level Commrs. (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 279
630
..
38 L. J. C. P. 236 20 L. T. 442 17 W. R. 929 ..
8 L. J. Ex. 270 7 D. 0. P.
V. Rose (1839), 5 M. & W. 194
611
796
..714
..
Collinsonv, NewcastleR. Co. (1844), IC. &K. .546
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

XXXIV

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE
481
Cater (1898), 78 L. T. 613
CoUtnan v. Mills, [1897] 1 Q. B. 396 66 L. J. Q. B. 170 ; 75
187
L. T. 590 61J. P. 102
18 C. C. C. 481
- V. Roberts, [1896] 1 Q. B. 45 65 L. J. M. C. 63; 74
125
L. T. 198 44 W.R. 445 18 C. C. C. 273 60 J. P. 184 ..

Colls V. Home and Colonial Stores, [1904] A. C. 179

17
..
Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886), 11 App. Cas. 426 ; 30 Ch. D.
261 56 L. J. Ch. 43 ; 55 L. T. 362 ; 34 W. R. 705 ; 3
70,543
M. B. R.207
..
.;
43
of Australia v. Willan (1874), L. R. 5 P. C. 417
237
L. J. P. C. 39 P. C
Colquhoun v. Brooks (1887), 14 App. Cas. 493 49 L. J. Q. B.
270
53; 61L. T. 518
V. Heddon (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 129
59 L. J. Q. B. 465
268, 274
62 L. T. 853 38 W. R. 545
45 L. T.
Coltman, In re (1881). 19 Ch. D. 64 51 L. J. Ch. 3
655
392 30 W. R. 342
Colvill V. Wood (1846), 2 C. B. N. S. 210
1 Lut. Reg. Cas.
71
483 15 L. J. C. P. 160 10 Jur. 336 69 R. R. 473
Colvin V. Buckle (1841), 8 M. & W. 680 11 L. J. Ex. 33 58
12
R. R. 834
Colyer, Be (1880), 50 L. J. Ch. 79 43 L. T. 454
..
522
..
610
Combe u. Pitt (1763), 3 Burr. 1434
Commins Scott (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 11 44 L. J. Ch. 563 32
512,514
L. T. 420 23 W. R. 498
Commissioner for Stamp Duties v. Byrnes, [1911] A. C. 386 ; 80
L.. J. P. C. 114
104 L. T. 515
218
of Police V. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B. 655 ; 65 L. J. M. C.
113
187
Commissioners of Metropolitan Police v. Hancock, [1916] 1 K. B.
190
624
of Public Works V. Logan, [1903] A. C. 355
72 L. J. P. C.
91;88L. T. 779
501,502
of Trade, &c. I;. Bell (1902), 71 L. J. P. C. 109
..
..184
Companhia de Mocambique v. British South Africa Co., [1892]
2Q. B. 358
7
Cone u. Bowles (1690), 1 Salk. 205
510
Connan, Bb (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 690 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 472 59
L. T. 281 5 M. B. R. 89
685
Constable v. Constable (1879), 48 L. J. Ch.621
384
Constantine i). Constantine (1801), 6 Ves. 100
..
..
..
281
Constitution, The (1879), 4 P. D. 39 ; 48 L. J. P. D. & A, 13
40 L. T. 219 27 W. R. 739
203
Continental Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Heath (1913), 29 T. L. R.

CoUis

V.

. .

i'.

308
..
..
..
..
Conybeare v. L. School Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 118; 60 L. J. Q. B.
44; 63 L. T. 651 39 W. R. 288 55 J. P. 151 17 Cox C. C.

191

Cook

Vr

702

261

Loveland (1799), 2 Bos.

Digitized

&

P. 31

5 R. R. 533

by Microsoft

..

..

645

TABLE OF CASES.

XXXV
I'AGK

Cook

N. Metropolifcan Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 683

56 L. J. Q. B. 309 56 L. T. 448 ; 57 L. T. 476 35 W. R.
577;51J.P. 630
585
Cooke V. Vogeler, [19011 A. C. 102 70 L. J. K. B. 181 84 L. T.
10; 8 Mans. 113
267,339
Cockney v. Anderson (1863), 1 De G. J. & S. 365 32 L. J. Ch.
427
518
Coomber v. Berks Justices. (1884), 9 Q. B. D. 26 10 Id. 267 9
App. Cas. 61 53 L. J. Q. B. 239; 47 L. T. 687 47 J. P.
164 31 W. R. 356
247
Coope . Cresswell (1866), L. R. 2 Ch. 112
89
Cooper, JJe (1918), 119 L. T. 303
102
V. Hawkins, [1904T 2 K. B. 164
73 L. J. K. B. 113 89
L. T. 496 52 W. R. 233 68 J. P. 25 1 L. G. R. 833
..
251
V. Hubbuck (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 456
31 L. J. C. P. 323 ..
17
V. Prichard (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 351
52 L. J. Q. B. 526 48
L. T. 848
31 W. R. 834
33
V. Simmons (1862), 7 H. & N. 707
31 L. J. M. C. 138 8
Jur. N. S. 81 5 L.T. 712
10 W. R. 270
194
V. Wandsworth Board (1863). 14 C. B. N. S. 180
32
L. J. C. P. 185; 9 Jur. N. S.. 1155 11 W. R. 646 ..
..
641
V. Whittingham (1880), 15 Ch. D. 501 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 752
43 L. T. 16 28 W. R. 720
708
V. WooUey (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 88
36 L. J. M. C. 27 15
L. T. 539 15 W. R. 4.W
366
Coosaw Mining Co. v. South Carolina (1891), 144 U. S. 550
..
92
Cope V. Barber (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 393 41 L. J. M. C. 137
26 L. T. 891 20 W. R. 885
601
V. Doherty (1858), 4 K. & J. 367
27 L. J. Ch. 600 4 Jur.
..
N. S. 541 116 R. B. 370
..
61, 257, 274, 276, 543
6 L. J. Ex. 63 2
-V. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149
Gale 231 46 R. R. 532
697
1)." Thames Haven
R. Co. (1849), 3 Ex. 841 6 Rly. Cas.
654
83 18 L. J. Ex. 345; 77 R. R. 859
Copeland, Ex p. (1853), 2 De G. M. & G. 914 22 L. J. Bank.
17 Jur. 121 95 R. B. 371
66, 479, 494, 570
17
..
..
Copeman v. Gallant (1716), 1 P. Wms. 320
83, 91
82
Copland v. Davies (1872), L. R. 5 H. L. 358 21 W. R. 1, H. L.
?). Powell (1823), 1 Bing. 373
601
V.

V. Moore (No. 2), |1898] 2 Q. B. 306; 67 L. J. Q.

689 78 L. T. 520 46 W. B. 620 62 J. P. 453
Corbet v. Haigh (1879), 5 C. P. D. .50 42 L. T. 185 28 W.
430; 44 J. P. 39
Corbet's Case (1600), 1 Rep. 88
Corbett, Ex. p. (1880), 14 Ch. D. 122 49 L. J. Bank. 74
L. T. 164 28 W. R. 569
Corbyn . French (1799), 4 Ves. 418
Core V. James (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 135 41 L, J. M. C. 19
L. T. 593 20 W, R. 201

Coppen

. .

B.
184, 191

R.

350
448
42

357
215

Digitized

by Microsoft

25
137

XXXVX

TABLE OF CASES.
tko*

Cork and Bandon Ry. Co.

v.

Goode

B. 837

(1853), 13 C.

22

583

..
17 Jur. 555 93 R. R. 655
and Youghal Ry. Co., Be (1866), L. R. 4 Ch. 748 39 L. J.
Ch. 277 21 L. T. 735
655,690
..
..
Cornell v. Hay (1873), L. R. 8 C..P. 328 42 ,L. J. C. P. 136
204
28 L. T. 475 21 W. R. 580
Cornill v. Hudson (1857), 8 E. & B. 429
27 L. J. Q. B. 8 3
Jur. N. S. 1257 112 R. R. 636
399, 564
Cornish v. Hocking (1853), IE. & B. 602 22 L. J. Q. B. 142
401
17 Jur. 1049; 93 R.R. 304
Cornwall Mining Co. v. Bennett (1860), 5 H. & N. 432; 29 L. J.
654
Ex. 157 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 539
Cortis V. Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. &C. 314
..
143, 293
Cory m. Prance, [1911] 1 K. B. 114 80 L. J. K. B. 346 103
L. T. 649 11 Asp. M. C. 499
149, 339, 406
Costa Rica v. Erlanger (1874), 3 Ch. D. 62 45 L. J. Ch. 743
400
35 L. T. 19 24 W. R. 955
Costarw. Hetherington (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 198
608
..
..
Cother D. Merrick (1657), Hard 94
282
Cotton V. James (1830), Moo. & Mai. 273 3 C. & P. 505 8
L. J. K. B. 345 35 R. R. 244
576
w. Vogan, [1896] A. C. 457
..
..107
65 L. J. Q. B. 486
Couch V. Steel (1854), 3 E. & B. 402 2 C. L. R. 940 23
L. J. Q. B. 121 18 Jur. 515 97 R. R. 555 .. 709, 715, 717, 718,
720, 727
Coulbert v. Troke (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 1 45 L. J. M. C. 7 33
L. T. 340; 24 W. R. 41
612
County Theatres v. Knowles, [1902] 1KB. 480 71 L. J. K. B.
46
351; 86L. T. 132
L. J. C. P. 198

The (1891), 61 L. J. P. 11
607
Courtauld v. Legh (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 130 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 45
19 L. T. 737 ; 17 W. R. 466
556
Courteen's Case (1618), Hob. 270
1 Hale P. C. 542
..
..Ill
Coverdale v. Charlton (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 104 48 L. J. Q. B.
128 ; 40 L. T. 88 ; 27 W. R. 257
38, 170, 545
Cowen, Ex p. (1867), L. R. 2 Ch. 563 36 L. J. Bank. 41
16 L. T. 469 ; 15 W. R. 859
227
V. Kingston-upon-HuU, [1897] 1 Q. B. 273
66 L. J. Q. B.
185 ; 75 L. T. 693 ; 45 W. R. 413 61 J. P. 356
..
..
577
Cowley V. Byas (1877), 5 Ch. D. 944 37 L. T. 238 26 W. R. 1 294
V. Newmarket Loc. Bd., [1892] A. C. 345 ; 62 L. J. Q. B.
65 ; 67 L. T. 486 56 J. P. 805, H. L
726
Cowper-Essex v. Acton (1889), 14 App. Cas. 153 ; 58 L. J. Q. B.
594; 61L. T. 1; 38 W. R. 209; 53 J. P. 756, H. L.
..
172
Cox, a; p. (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 532
283
V. Ambrose (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B. 114 ; 55 J. P. 23
496
V. Cannon (1838), 4 Bing. N. C. 453 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 288
..
685
V. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 606 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; 63
L. T. 392
39 W. R. 145 ; 54 J. P. 820
..
4, 49, 110, 166
D. Hill (1892), 67 L. T. 26
200

Courier,

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xxxvii
PAGE

Cox Ws-Lawrance

(1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 140
V. Leigh (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 333
43 L. J. Q. B. 123
L. T. 494
22 W.
730
V. Rabbits (1878), 3 App. Cas. 473
47 L. J. Q. B. 385
L. T. 430; 26 W. R. 483
Cox's Trusts, Be (1878), 9 Ch. D. 159 47 L. J. Ch. 735

30

38

27

W.R.
Coxhead

53

..

483

537
506
592

.:

Mullis (1878), 3 C. P. D. 439 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 761

39 L. T. 349 27 W. R. 136
Crabtree I). Hole (1879), 43 J. P. 799
Cracknell v. Thetford (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 629 38 L. J. C. P. 353
Craft u Boite (1669), 1 Saund. 247
Craig & Sons, 5e, [1916] 2 K. B. 497
Craig's Claim, Se, [1895] 1 Ch. 267
63 L. J. Ch. 859 ; 71 L. T.
v.

11
191
628
459

390

101
705 ; 43 W. R. 244
Crake v. Powell (1852), 2 E. & B. 210 21 L. J. Q. B. 183 95
R. R. 498
428
Crane v. Lawrence (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 152 59 L. J. M. C. 110
63 L. T. 197 38 W. R. 602 54 J. P. 471 ..
..
474, 475
V. Powell (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 123
38 L. J. C. P. 43 20
L. T. 703
17 W. R. 161
512
Craven v. Smith (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 146 38 L. J. Ex. 90 20
L T. 400 17 W. R. 710
200
Crawford v. Spooner (1846), 6 Moo. P. C. 1
6
Crawley r. Philips (1664), Sid. 220
159
Crawshaw v. Harrison, [1894] 1 Q. B. 79 63 L. J. Q. B. 94 69
L. T. 860 1 Manson 407
378
Crayford v. Rutter, [1897] 1 Q. B. 650 66 L. J. Q. B. 506 76
L. T. 392
45 W. R. 542 61J. P. 134
572
Credits Gereundeuse v. Van Weede (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 171 53
..
271
L. J. Q. B. 142 32 W. R. 414 48 J. P. 184
Cree v. St. Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 68 L. J. Q. B.
414
389; SOL. T. 388
Crespigny V. Wittenoom (1792), 4 T. R. 793
582
Crigglestone Co., Be, [1906] 2 Ch. 327 75 L. J. Ch. 662 95 L. T.
592
510 13 Manson 233
1 L. J. C. P. 112
1
Crisp ,v. Bunbury (1832), 8 Bing. 394
238
M. & Scott 646 34 R. R. 747
693
V. Churchill (1794), cited 1 B. &. P. 340
42 L. J. Bank. 65
Crispin, Ex p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 374
267
28 L. T. 483 21 W. R. 491
Crocker v. Knight, [1892] 1 Q. B. 702 61 L. J. Q. B. 466 66
299
L. T. 596 40 W. R. 353 56 J. P. 420
27 L. J. Q. B. 321
Croft V. Lumley (1858), 6 H. L. Cas. 672
213,214
108R. R. 252
Crofts V. Haldane (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 194 36 L. J. Q. B. 85;
175
16 L. T. 116 8 B. & S. 194
111, 682
Croker v. Marquis of Hertford (1844), 4 Moo. P. C. 339
Crooke v. De Vandes (1803), 9 Ves. 197 11 Ves. 330 45 R. R.
558
343 n.
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXXVUl

PAGE

245
Crboke's Case (1691), Show 208
Cross Be; Exp. Payne (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A
8
V. Watta (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 239 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 9
221
Jur. N. S. 776; 7. L. T. 463
11 W. E. 210
Croysdale v. Sunbury, &c. Urban Council (1898), 67 L. J. Ch.
364
585
Crumble v. Wallsend Loc. Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 503 60 L. J. Q. B.
611
392 ; 64 L. T. 490 ; 55 J. P. 421
Cuckfield Board, Re (1854), 19 Beav. 153 24 L. J. Ch. 585
245,321,325
105R. R. 104
..
Cull V. Austin (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 234 41 L. J. 0. P. 153
..
4
26 L. T. 767 ; 20 W. R. 863 1 Hop. & C. 741
..
CuUen V. Trimble (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 416 ; 41 L. J. M. C.
132 26 L. T. 691 20 W. B. 691
242,625
CuUerne v. London Bldg. Socy. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485 ; 59
554
..
L. J. Q. B. 525
..
39 W. R. 88 63 L. T. 511
Culverson v. Melton (1840), 12 A. & E. 753 2 M.
Rob. 200 ;
22
4 P. & D. 445 ; 4 Jur. 1130
Cumberland v. Copeland (1862), 1 H. & C. 194; 31 L. J. Ex.
353 ; 9 Jur. N. S. 253 ; 7 L. T. 334
291, 311
Cuming v. Toms, or Jones (1844), 7 M.
Gr. 29, 288 8 Scott
N. R. 827 ; 1 Lut. Reg. Gas. 151 ; 8 Jur. 1052 ; 14 L. J. C. P.
;

&

&

54; 66R. R. 653

Cunard v. Hyde (1858), E. B. & E. 670; 27
Jur. N. S. 40
113|R. R. 824

136
L. J. Q. B. 408; 5

(1859), 2. E. &. E. 1 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 6 Jur. N. S.14

Cundell v. Dawson (1847), 4 C. B. 376 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 311; 72
V.

694
694

696,701
D. 210 52 L. J. M. C. 125
51 L. T. 265 32 W. R. 769 48 J. P. 599 ,. 125, 179, 181, 186
Cureton . R. (1861), 30 L. J. M. C. 149
241
Curlewis v. Mornington (1857), 7 E. & B. 283 26 L. J. Q. B. 181
3 Jur. N. S. 660 & 27 L. J. Q. B. 269 4 Jur. N. S, 535
llOR. R. 594
454,531
Curry w. Edensor (1790), 3 T. R. 524
507
Curtis V. Embery (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 369 42 L. J. M. C. 39
21W. R. 143
566
V. Mundy, [1892] 2 Q. B. 178
40 W. R. 317
..
166
..
V. Stovin (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 513
58 L. J. Q. B. 174 60
L. T. 772 37 W. R. 315
411,419
Cusack . L. & N. W. Ry., [1891] 1 Q. B. 347 60 L. J. Q. B.
208 64 L. T. 45 39 W. R. 244 55 J. P. 341
..
..
676
Gushing V. Dupuy (1880), 5 App. Gas. 409 49 L. J. P. G. 63
R. R. 621

Cundy

v.

Le Cocq

(1884), 13 Q. B.

42L.

T. 445

252

Ginkes (1651), Styles 283

154
Cybele, The (1878), 3 P. D. 8 47 L. J. P. D. & A. 86 37 L. T.
773 26 W. R. 345
112
Czech V. Gen. St. Nav. Go. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 14; 37
L. J. C. P. 3 17 L. T. 246 16 W. R. 130 ..
..
367, 368
Gustodes

u.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XXXIX

D.
PAGE

Daglish, Ex p. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 1072

42 L. J. Bank. 102 ;
29 L. T. 168 21 W. R. 893
173
Dakins v. Seaman (1842), 9 M.
W. 777 11 L. J. Ex. 274 6
Jur. 783 ; 60 R. R. 883
309
Dale's Case (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 376; 7 App. Gas. 240; 50
L. J. Q. B. 234 43 L. T. 786 45 J. P. 284, H. L. ..
321, 542,
646, 657
D'Allax . Jones (1856), 26 L. J. Ex. 79
701
D'Almaine v. Boosey (1835), 1 Yo.
C. 301 ; 4 L. J. Ex. Eq. 21
;

&

&

41R. R.

273

350
517
710
Daniel v. Janes (1877), 2 0. P. D. 351
167, 193
Daniels v. Trefusis, ri914] 1 Ch. 788
515
Dannebrog, The (1874), L. R. 4 A. & E. 386 44 L. J. Adm. 21
31 L. T. 759 23 W. R. 419
580
D'Arcy v. Tamar Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 2 Ex. 158 36 L. J. Ex.
645
37; 4H. &C. 463
Dargan v. Davies (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 118 46 L. J. M. C. 122
35 L. T. 810 25 W. R. 230
361
Darlaston Loc. Bd. v. L. & N. W. Ry., [1894] 2 Q. B. 694 63
L. J. Q. B. 826
71 L. T. 461 43 W. R. 29 8 Rly. &
Canal Cas. 216
436
.,
Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1886), 11 App. Cas. 127
55 L. J. Q. B. 529 54 L. T. 882 51 J. P. 148 32 W. R.
947
12,59,611
Darlington Wagon Co. v. Harding, [18911 1 Q- B. 245 60
201
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 110 64 L. T. 409 39 W. R. 167
69 L. T. 251
Dart, The, [1893] P. 33 62 L. J. P. D. & A. 32
292
41W. R. 153
376
30 L. J. Ex. 355
..
Darvill v. Terrv (1861), 6 H. & N. 807
383, 401
Dash V. Van Kleek (1811), 7 Johnson 477
Dashwood v. Magniac, [1891] 3 Ch. 306 60 L. J. Ch. 809 65
41
L. T. 811
Davenports. R. (1877), 3 App. Cas. 115; 47 L. J. P. C. 8; 37
L. T. 727
375, 643
116
Daventry Union v. Coventry Union (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 276
David V. Ackland, Ee, [1914] 2 K. B. 691
145
Davidson v. Burnand (1868), L. R. 4 C. P. 117 38 L.J. C. P. 73;
19 L. T. 782 17 W. R. 121
577
Davidsson v. HUl, ri901] 2 K. B. 606 70 L. J. K. B. 788 85
R. 630 9 Asp. M. C. 223 .. Ill, 244, 261, 275
L, T. 118 49
Davies v. Berwick (Lord) (1861), ,3 E. & E. 549 30 L. J. M. C.
..
..
585
84 7 Jur. N. S. 410 3 L. T. 697 9 W. R. 334
90 R. R. 885 ..
..
223
V. Eitton (1842), 2 Dr. & War. 225
45 L. J. Q. B. 137 33
V. Garland (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 260
27
L. T. 727 24 W. R. 252

Damodhar )..Deoram (1876), 1 App. Cas. 332, P. C

Danby v. Watson (1877), 46 L. J. M. C. 181

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

xl

PAGE

Davies v. Griffiths (1837), 4

D. P.O. 204
V.

Harvey

(1874), L.

30 L. T. 629

M.

& W.

377

8 L. J. Ex. 70

313

R 9 Q. B. 433

43 L. J. M. C. 121

W.

.337,496
R. 733
29 Ch. D. 596 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 1148 53
L. T. 314 ; 33 W. E. 668 ; 50 J. P. 5
689
V. Rees (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 408
55 L. J. Q. B. 363 54
L. T. 813 34 W. R. 573
380
Davis, ^x ^. <1872), L. R. 7 Cii. 526; 41 L. J. Bank. 69; 27
L. T. 53 ; 20 W. R. 791
523
V. Bryan (1827), 6 B. & C, 651
..
..
378
30 R. R. 491
V. Comitti (1885), 54 L. J. Ch. 419
131
52 L. T. 539 ..
..
V. Curling (1846), 8 Q. B. 286
15 L. J. Q. B. 56 10 Jur. 69 ' 134
v. Curry,
67
[1918J 1 K. B. 109
u. Hardacre (1810), 2 Camp. 375
209
V. Harris, [1900] 1 Q. B. 729; 69 L. J. Q. B. 232
81 L.T.
780 48 W. R. 445 ; 64 J. P. 136
130
u. Jeans (1904), 41 So. L. R. 426, Sc
474
;;. Marlborough (Duke)
25
(1819), 1 Swan. 74 ; 53 R. R. 29
V. Park (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 862 n.; 42 L. J. Ch. 673
28
L. T. 295 21 W. R. 301
267
V. Strathmore (1810), 16 Ves. 419; 90 R. R. 846
..
456
V. Taff Vale Ry [1895] A. C. 542
64 L. J. Q. B. 488 ; 72
L. T. 632 44 W. R. 172
53
V. Treharne (1881), 6 App. Cas. 463
50 L. J. Q. B. 605 29
W. R. 869
627
Davison v. Farmer (1851), 6 Ex. 252 20 L. J. Ex. 177 ; 86 R. R.
266
294
Davys v. Douglas (1859), 4 H. & N. 180 28 L. J. M. C. 193;
118R. R. 377
574
Daw V. L. C. C. (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 112 62 L. T. 937 ; 54 J. P.
302
423
V. Metrop. Board of Works (1862), 12 C. B. TST. S. 161
31
L. J. C. P. 223
293,322,329
Dawdy, Re (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 426 ;. 54 L. J. Q. B. 474
646
Dawes v. Painter (1674), Freem. K. B. 175
465, 477
1). Thomas, [18921 1
Q. B. 414 61 L. J. Q. B. 482 ; 66
L. T. 451 40 W. R. 305 56 J. P. 326
622
Dawson, Ex p. (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 433 44 L. J. Bank. 49 ;
32 L. T. 101 23 W. R. 354
392,403
V. Fitzgerald (1876), 1 Ex. D. 257
45 L. J. Ex. 893 ; 35
L. T. 220 ; 24 W. R. 773
235
. Meuli (1918), 16 L. G. R. 308
267
V. Midland Ry. Co. (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. 8
42 L. J. Ex. 49
21W. R. 56
129
Day V. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294 48 L. J. Ch. 173 39
W.
L. T. 553 ; 27
R. 217
151
. Savadge (1614), Hob. 87
272,459,461
V. Simpson (1865), 18 C. B. N. S. 680
34 L. J. M. C. 149
11 Jur. N. S. 487 12 L. T. .386 13 W. R. 748
..
211, 591
V.

Makuna

22

(1885),

. .

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

xU
PAGE

Deal

V. Scliofield

(1867), L. R. 3 Q. B. 8

L. T. 143; 16

Dean

37 L.

M.

J.

0. 15

17

W. R. 77; 8B. &S. 760

222

Bennett (1870), L. R. 6 Ch. 489 40 L. J. Ch. 452 24

L. T. 169 19 W. R. 363
526
1). Green (1882), 8 P. D. 79
283
V. Mallard (1863), 15 C. B. N. S. 19
32 L. J. C. P. 282
10 Jur. N. S. 346 11 W. R. 913
731
Dean of York's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 57 R. R. 545 ..
52
De Beauvoir v. Welch (1827), 7 B. & C. 266 1 M. &. R. 81 .. 438
De Beers Mines v. Howe, [1906] A. C. 455 75 L. J. K. B. 858
95 L. T. 221 ; 13 Mans. 394
271
De Begnis v. Armistead (1833), 10 Bing. 107 2 L. J. C. P. 214
692
3 M. & Scott 511 38 R. R. 406
De Bode v. R. (1849), 13 Q. B. 364 14 Jur. 970 ; 78 R. R. 407 253
Debtor, e A, [1903] 1 K. B. 705 72 L. J. Q. B. 382 88 L. T.
43
401 ; 51 W, R. 370 10 Mans. 130
Deck V. Deck (1860), 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 2 Sw. & Tr. 90 ;
261
8 W. R. 666 2 L. T. 542
Deere, Be (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 658 44 L. J. Bank. 120 ; 33 L. T.
303
115 ; 23 W. R. 866
210
Deerhurst, Be (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 411 64 L. T. 118 ..
..
Delano, The, [1895] P. 40; 64 L. J. P. 8 71 L. T. 544 43
292
W. R. 66
De la Vega v. Vianna (1830), 1 B. & A. 284 35 R. R. 298 .. 278
582
De Londo's Case (1765), 2 East P. C. 1098
De Mattos v. Benjamin (1894), 03 L. J. Q. B. 248 70 L. T. 560
693
42W. R. 284
504

Denn v. Diamond (1825), 4 B. & C. 243 28 R. R. 237 ..

t). Reid (1836), 10 Peters 524
7
Dennis v. Tovell (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 10 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 33 27
8,175
L. T. 482 21 W. R. 170
112, 145
Denny's Trustee v. Denny, [1919] 1 K. B. 583
,.
Denny v. Thwaites (1876), 2 Ex. D. 21 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 141 35
414
L. T. 628
221
Dent w. Allcroft (1861), 30 Beav. 335
V. Clayton (1864), 33 L. J. Ch. 503
10 Jur. 671 ; 10 L. T.
444
865 ; 12 W. R. 903
v.

. .

. .

Derby

Bury Commissioners

38 L. J.
(1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 222
291, 310
20 L. T. 927; 17 W. R. 772
..
..
De Rosaz,
(1877), 2 P. D. 66 ; 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 6 36 L. T.
41
263 ; 25 W. R. 352
527
..
Devonport Corporation v. Tezor, [1902] 71 L. J. Ch. 754
Devonshire (Duke) v. Barrow Steel Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 286;
686
..
.,
46 L. J. Q. B. 435 ; 36 L. T. 355 25 W. R. 469
V. O'Connor (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 468; 59 L. J. Q. B. 206
.
76, 502, 547
62 L. T. 917 38 W. R. 420 ; 54 J. P. 740
Dewhurst v. Feilden (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 187 8 Scott N. R. 1013
1 Lut, Reg. Cas. 274 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 126 9 Jur. 376 ; 66
70, 72
R. R. 696
v.

Ex. 100

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

xlii

PAGE

Dewsbury Waterworks Board

Penistonc Union (1885), 16

v.

529
302

Q. B. D. 585
..
De Winton v. Brecon Corporation (1859), 28 L. J. Ch. 600
De Wolf V. Lindsell (1868), L. R. 5 Eq. 209 37 L. J. Gli. 293
;

17 L. T. 487

Dews

V.

RUey

16

392

W. B. 324

(1851), 11 C. B.

434

20 L. J. C. P. 264

15 Jur.

555

1159; 87.R. R. 718

Diamond Coal Cutter

Co.

Mining Appliances

v.

340

Co., [1915]

W. N.

..

Diana, The (1842), 4 Moo. P 0. IJ P. C.

Dick, Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 426 60 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 64 L. T. 32 ; 39
W. R. 225
48
V. Badart (1883), 10 Q, B. D. 387 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 49
L. T. 391 ; 47 J. P. 422
Dickins v. Gill, [1896] 2 Q. B. 310 65 L.J. M. C. 187 ; 75 L. T.
32; 44 W. R. 686; 30 J. P. 488
Dickinson, Be (1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 736; 20 Ch. D. 315; 47 L. T.
266; 30W. R. 667
V. Barrow, [1904] 2 Ch. 339
73 L. J. Ch. 701 ; 91 L. T. 161
1). Ead (1914), 78 J
P. 326
..
V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1864), 2 H. & C. 735 ; 33 L. J. Ex. 91
Dicks V. Brooks (1880), 15 Ch. D. 22 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 812,; 43 L. T.
,

593
517

123

523

71.;29W. R.87
v. Neath and Brecon Ry.

Dickson

486
648
455
182
106
481

Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 87

17 W. R. 501

38

24
L. J. Ex. 57 ; 19 L. T. 402
199
Diggle t) Higgs (1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 721, C. A
V. London and Blackwall Ry. Co. (1850), 5 Ex. 442 ; 6 Rly.
Cas. 590 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 308 ; 14 Jur. 937
654
Dimmock V. Allenby (1811)cited 2 Marsh 582
563
Dingley w. Moor (1600), Cro. Eliz. 750
734
Direct U. S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-Amer. Tel. Co. (1877), 2 App.
Cas. 394 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 71
36 L. T. 265 ..
..
.36,515
Diss V. Aldrich (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 179 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 183 ; 36
L..T. 663
517
Ditcher v. Denison (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 324 ; 117 R. R. 32,
P. C
101
Ditton's Case (1701), 2 Salk. 490
370,676
Dixon V. Wells (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 249 59 L. J. M. C. 116 62
L. T. 812
38 W. R. 606 54 J. P. 725 17 Cox C. C.
;

48

681, 684

White (1883), 8 App. Cas. 833

Dobbs . Grand Junction Waterworks
.

627

App. Cas. 49
53 L. J. Q. B. 50 49 L. T. 541 32 W. R. 432 48 J. P. 5
Dobell V. Hutchinson (1835), 3 A. & E. 355 4 L. J. K. B. 201;
5 N. & M. 251
1 H. & W. 394 42 R. R. 408
..
..
Dobson V. Eesti, [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 481 64
L. T. 551 39 W. R. 481
Dodd . Dodd, [1906] P. 189
Dodds V. Shepherd (1876), 1 Ex. D. 75 45 L. J. Ex. 457 34
;

(1883), 9

71

512

L. T. 358

24

W.

R. 322

Digitized

..

267
152

..

..

by Microsoft

..

..

..

314

TABLE OF CASES.
Doe

xliii

PAGE

&

Allaop (1821), 5 B.
Aid. 142
V. Bancks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 401

V.

318..

456

Gow. 220

23 R. R.
373
157

..

&

Bartle (1822), 5 B.
Aid. 492 ; 1 D. & R. 81
..
V. Beynon (1840), 12 A.
E. 431
9 L. J. Q. B. 359
4 P. & D. 193 54 R. R. 592
V. Bold (1847), 11 Q. B. 127
13 Jur. 871 75 R. R. 304 ..
V. Brandling (1828), 7 B.
C. 643
1 M. & R. 600
..
V. Bridges (183i), 1 B.
Ad. 847 9 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 9
V.

&

41
384
83

&

&

35R. R. 483

708,709

- V. Carter (1798), 8 T. R. 57, 300 ; 4 R. R. 586

..
213, 225
. Chambers (1814), 4 Camp. 1
209
. Gooch (1820), 3 B.
Aid. 664
209
V. Gwinnell (1841), 1 Q. B. 682 ; 10 L. J.
Q. B. 212

&

IG.
.
.

&D.

180

616
99
730

Harvey (1825), 4 B. & C. 610

Holt (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 335

Jessep (1810), 12 East 288

5
Jesson (1805), 2 Bligh, 2 ; 21 R. R. 1
99
V. Olley (1840), 12 A. & E. 481 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 379
4
P. & D. 275 ; 4 Jur. 1084 54 R. R. 607
58
V. Owens (1842). 9 M. & W. 455
1 D. N. S. 404
12
L. J. Ex. 53
2D. N. S. 426 ; 7 Jur. 91 10 M. & W. 521
62R. R. 691
531
V. Page (1844), 5 Q. B. 767 ; D. & M. 601 ; 13 L. J. Q. B.
.384
153; 8 Jur. 999
-y. Pitchers (1815), 6 Taunt. 359
381
. Powell a839), 7 Dowl. 539
142
V. Ries (1832), 8 Bing. 178 ; 1 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 1 M. & Scott
259..
541
.,
w. Roe (1852), 22 L. J. Ex. 17
730
V. Rugeley (1844), 6 Q. B. 107 ; 13 L. J. M. C. 137
8 Jur.
..
..
686
615 ; 66 R. R. 305
. Snaith (1832), 8 Bing. 152
1 M. & Scott 230
..
..504
V. Waterton (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 149 ; 22 R. R. 328 ..
56, 144
23
Doey V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., [1919] 1 K. B. 623
Doggettu. Catterms (1864), 19 C. B. N. S. 765 34 L. J. C. P.
129, 598
46 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 243 ; 12 L. T. 355 ; 13 W. R. 390 ..
Doherty v. Allman (1879), 3 A pp. Cas. 728 ; 39 L. T. 129 26
..
228
W. R. 513 ..
.
..
..
.
Don V. Lippmann (1837), 5 Cl'.' & F. 1 ; 47 R. R. i,' H. L.'
278
Donkin v. Pearson, [1911] 2 K. B. 412 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 1069 .. 171
116
Donne V. Martyr (1828), 8 B. & C. 62
Donoghue v. Brook (1888), 57 L. J. Q. B. 122 58 L. T. 411
117
1 Fox 100..
544
Dore 1). Grey (1788), 2 T. R. 358 1 R. R. 494
Dorin . Dorin(1876), L. R. 7 H. L. 568 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 652 ; 23
106
W. R. 570 ; 33 L. T. 281, H. L
Dormont v. Furness Ry. Co. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 496 52 L. J.
429
Q, B. 331 49 L. T. 134 ; 47 J. P. 711 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 127 ..
.

V.

.'.'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xliv

PA 01!

Capel (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 461 ; 36 L. J. M. 0. 97 ;

*14
16 L. T. 323 ; 15 W. R. 747
Doyle V. Falconer (1866), L. R. 1 P. 0. 328 36 L. J. P. C. 34;
632
15 W. R. 366 ; 4 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 203
315
Dragoman, The (1895), 11 T. L. R. 428
Drake v. Pootitt (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 201 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 141 ; 45
*97
L. T. 42 ; 45 J. P. 798
154
Draper V. Glenfield (1631), 2 Bulstr. 345
Driffield Co. ;;. Waterloo Co. (1886), 31 Ch. D. 638 ; 55 L. J. Ch.
586
391 ; 54 L. T. 210 ; 34 W. R. 360
Drover v. Beyer (1879), 13 Ch. D. 242 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 37 ; 41
100
L. T. 393 28 W. R. 110
Drucker (No. 2), Be, [1902] 2 K. B. 210; 71 L. J. K. B. 688 ;
258
86 L. T. 692 ; 50 W. R. 592 ; 9 Mans. 241
Drummond, Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 524 60 L. J. Ch. 258 ; 64 L. T.
285
246 39 W. R. 445
V. Drummond (1866), L. R. 2 Ch. 32
36 L. J. Ch. 153 15
51,91,518
L. T. 337 15 W. R. 267
189
i;. Nicholson (1915), 79 J. P. 525
379
Drury i;. Defontaine (1808), 1 Taunt. 131
271
Dubout V. Maopherson (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 496
645
..
Duck V. Tower Galvanizing Co. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 625
Dudgeon v. Pembroke (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 581 ; 1 Q. B. D. 96
34 L. T. 36 & 2 App. Cas. 284 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 409 ; 36 L. T.
694
382 ; 25 W. R. 499
Duignan v. Walker (1859), Johns. 446 28 L. J. Ch. 867 ; 5 Jur.
612
N. S. 976 33 L. T. O. S. 256 ; 7 W. R. 562
419
Duke of Buccleuch, The, (1889), 15 P. D. 86
359
A. C. 310
, [1891]
-277,400
..
Dumfries, The (1856), Swab, 63
Dunbar Corporation v. Roxburgh (1835), 3 CI. & F. 335, H. L. .. 533
Duncan v. Dowding, [1897] 1 Q. B. 575 66 L. .J. Q. B. 362 ; 76
61 J. P. 280
18 C. C. C.
L. T. 294 ; 45 W. R. 383
342
527
V. Lawson (1889), 41 Ch. D. 394
58 L. J. Ch. 502 ; 60
269
L.T. 732; 37 W. R. 524; 53 J. P. 532
317
V. Scottish N. E. Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 2 Sc. Ap. 20, H. L.
V. Tindal (1853), 13 C. B. 258; 22 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 17 Jur.
347 ; 93 R. R. 525
570
,
Dundalk Ry. Co. v. Tapster (1841), 1 Q. B. 667 10 L. J. Q. B.
186 ; 1 G. & D. 657 2 Rly. Cas. 686 5 Jur. 699 ..
239, 710
Dundas v. Dutens (1790). 1 Ves. Jun. 196 1 R. R. 112
..
112
Dunelm, The (1884), 9 P. D. 171 ; 53 L. J. P. D. & A. 81 51
98
L. T. 214 ; 39 W. R. 970; 5 Asp. M. C. 304
J}xmn,Mp.(1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 58 L. J. Q. B. 375; 61
L. T. 543; 37 W. R. 537; 6M.B. R. 138
357
V. Birmingham Canal Co. (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 42 ; 42 L. J.
Q. B. 34 ; 27 L. T. 683 ; 21 W. R. 266
628
Dunston v. Paterson (1859), 5 C. B. N. S. 267 28 L. J. C. P,
185
5 Jur. N. S. 516 ; 33 L. T. 0. S. 222 ; 7 W. E. 163 ..
117

Downing

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.
_

xlv
I'AGB

Durant

v.

Withers (1874), L. R. 9 0. P. 257

43 L.

W. R. 156 9 Hop. & C. 202

Durham C. C. v. Chester-le-Street, [1891] 1 Q.
M. C. 9; 63L. T.461; 39 W. R. 188; 54
22

P. 113

J. C.

217

B. 330 60 L. J.
J. P. 759
..
;

Dutton,^a;^. (1911), 75J. P. 558

V. Atkins (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 373
40 L. J. M. 0. 157
24 L. T. 507 19 W. R. 799
..
Dyer v. Best (1866), L. R. 1 Ex. 152 35 L. J. Ex. 105 12 Jur.
N. S. 142 13 L. T. 753 14 W. R. 336 4 H. & C. 189 ..
Dyke v. Elliot (1872), L. R. 4 P. C. 184 41 L. J. Adm. 65 20
L. T. 45 20 W. R. 497
V. Gower,[1892] 1 Q. B. 220
61 L. J. M. C. 70 65 L. T.
760 56 J. P. 168 ; 17 Cox. 421
58,
;

247
150

371

534

494

186

E.

Earbly's Case (1637), 2 Bulstr. 354

229
Earl of Auckland, The (1861), 30 L. J. Adm. 121 ; Lush. 164 ..
522
Earle v. Roworoft (1806), 8 East 126 ; 9 R. R. 385
..190
..
East and West India Dock Co. v. Shaw (1888), 39 Ch. D. 531
57 L. J. Ch. 1053 ; 60 L. T. 142 ; 6 N. & M. 94
..
74
East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (1852), 11
C. B. 775 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 23 16 Jur. 249 87 R. R. 783 619, 672
East Fremantle Corporation v. Annois (1901), 71 L. J. P. C.
;

39
630
East Gloucestershire Ry. Co. v. Bartholomew (1868), L. R. 2 Ex.
168,374
16 ; 37 L. J. Ex. 17 ; 17 L. T. 256
East India Co. w.Paul (1849), 7 Moo. P. C. 85 14 Jur. 253, P. C. 408,
678
East India Ry. Co. v. Secy, for India, [1905] 2 K. B. 413 ; 74 L. J.
K. B. 779 ; 93 L. T. 220 ; 54 W. R. 4, C. A.
500, 505
East London Ry. Co. v. Whitechurch (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 81 43
L. J. M. C. 159 ; 30 L. T. 412 ; 22 W. R. 665
..
32, 72, 417
East London Waterworks Co. . Bailey (1827), 4 Bing. 283
163
..
East V. Pell (1839), 4 M. & W. 665 ; 8 L. J. M. C. 33 1 H. & H.
622
421
Eastern Archipelago Co. v. R. (1853), 1 B. & B. 310 2 E. & B.
573,574
857 ; 23 L. J, Q. B. 82 j 18 Jur. 481 95 R. R. 856
Eastern Counties Ry., Be (1856), 5 E. & B. 974 ; 25 L. J. M. C.
342
49 ; 103 R. R. 828
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. v. Marriage (1862), 9 H. L. Cas. 32 ; 31
92
..
L. J. Exch. 73 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 53 ; 8 W. R. 748, H. L.
Eastman Photographic Co. v. Compt. of Patents, [1898] A. C. 571
36,40
67 L. J. Ch. 628 ; 79 L. T. 195 47 W. R. 152, H. L.
Easton & Co. v. Nar Valley Drainage Com. (1892), 8 T. L. R. 649 365
Eaton V. Basker (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 529 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 444 44
671
L. T. 703 29 W. R. 597 45 J. P. 616
Ebbs V. Boulnois (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 479 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 691 ; 33
412
L. T. 342 ; 23 W. R. 820
;

. .

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

xlvi

PAGE

105,106
Eccles V. Cheyne (1856), 2 K. & J. 681
Eceles Corp. v. S. Lancashire Tramways Co., [1910] 2 Ch. 263
231, 633
.
79 L. J. Ch. 759 ; 103 L. T. 158 ; 74 J. P. 345
252
..
.
Ecclesiastical Persons, Case of (1601), 5 Rep. 14a
547
Ecroyd v. Coulthard (1898), 67 L. J. Oh. 458
317
Eddington ?;. Borman (1790), 4 T. R. 4
Edgware Highway Board v. Harrow Gas Co. (1874), L. R. 10 Q. B.
554
92 44 L. J. Q. B. 1 31 L. T. 402
Edinburgh Street Tramways Co. v. Edinburgh, []!894] A. C. 456,
231,633
..
489 63 L. J. Q. B. 769 ; 71 L. T. 301
..
..
36
..
V. Torbain (1878), 3 App. Oas. 68
37 L. T. 288
Edleston v. Barnes (1875), 1 Ex. D. 67 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 73 34
338,497
L. T. 497 ..
..
146
Edmunds w. Edmunds, [1904] P. 362
Edward v. Trevellick (1855), 4 E. & B. 59; 2 0. L. R. 1605 24
177
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 9; 1 Jur. N. S. 110; 99 R. R. 345
Edwards v. Aberayron Insurance Society (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 563
235,512
34L. T. 457
..
V. Coombe (1872), L. R. 7 0. P. 519
41 L. J. 0. P. 202 27
238
L. T. 315 21 W. R. 107
372
V. Dick (1821), 4 B.
Aid. 212 ; 23 R. R. 255
V. Edwards (1876), 2 Ch. D. 291
45 L. J. Ch. 391 ; 34 L. T.
212,458
472; 24 W. R. 713
u. Hall (1856), 6 De G. M.
G. 74; 25 L. J. Ch. 82 1 Jur.
N. S. 1189; 106 R. R. 32
206, 218, 221
60
V. Islington (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 338 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 165
134
L. T. 851 37 W. R. 753
V. Roberts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 302 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 6
55 J. P.
;

&

. .

. .

&

439
V.

L.

677

Rusholme (1869), L: R. 4 Q. B. 554; 17 W. R. 821; 38

J. M. 0. 153
10 B. & S. 526
;

Walters, [1896] 2 Ch. 157

Eede, JJe (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 228 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 376
v.

683
Eggington

38

81
25

W. R.
713

v.

Lichfield (1855), 5 E.

&

B. 100

1 Jur. N. S. 908; 103 R. R. 387

Eilbeck, Be, [1910] 1 K. B. 136 ; 79 L. J.
688 17 Mans. 1

24 L.

J. Q. B.

360

611

K. B. 265

101 L. T.

133

Elder v. Carter (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 194 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 281 62

L. T. 516 38 W. R. 612 ; 54 J. P. 692
Eliott V. Majendie (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 429 ; 41 L. J. M. 0. 147 ;
26 L. T. 504 ; 20 W. R. 721
EUerton, Exp. (1864), 33 L. J. Bank. 32 ; 10 Jur. 502; 10 L. T.
317, 722
;

EUiott,

Ee

(1891),

39

W. R. 297

Richardson (1870), L. R. 5 0. P. 744 39 L. J. C. P. 340

T. 858; 18 W. R. 1157 ..
..
Ellis V. Kelly (1861), 6 H. & N. 222 ; 30 L. J. M. C. 35 ; 6 Jur.
N. S. 113
V.

22L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

155

476
309
269

692
193

TABLE OF CASES.
_

xlvii
TAOB

McCormick

R. 4 Q. B. 271 ; 38 L. J. Q. B. 127
20 L. T. 223 17 W. R. 506 10 B. & S. 83
..
465
V. McHenry (1871), 40 L. J. C. P. 109
272
Elstone and Rose, Re (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 4 38 L. J. Q. B. 6
19L. T. 280; 17 W. R. 62; 9B. &S. 509
69
Elve V. Boyton, [1891] 1 Ch. 501 60 L. J. Oh. 383 64 L. T.
482
107
Ely (Dean) v. Bliss (1852), 2 De G. M. & G. 459 95 R. R. 169 297
V. Oash (1846), 15 M. & W. 617
15 L. J. Ex. 341
..
297
Emanuel V. Constable (1827), 3 Russ. 436
82
Emary v. NoUoth, [1903] 2 K. B. 264 72 L. J. K. B. 620 89
L. T. 100 52 W. R. 107 67 J. P. 354
188
Emerson v. Newfoundland Judges (1854), 8 Moo. P. 0. 157 97
R. R. 39, P. C
639
Emmerson V. Oliver (1905), 43 Sc. L. R. 291 Sc.
..
..607
Enderby . Gilpin (1821), 5 Moo. 0. P. 571
210
English, Scottish, &c. Bank, Be, [1893] 3 Oh. 385 62 L. J. Ch.
826 69 L. T. 268 42 W. R. 4
457
Englishman, The (1878), 3 P. D. 18 47 L. J. Adm. 9 27 L. T.
412
359
Enraght v. Lord Penzance (1882), 7 App. Gas. 240 51 L. J. Q. B.
506 46 L. T. 779 30 W. R. 753 46 J. P. 644 ..
..
321
ErdaUe V. Payne (1886), 52 L. T. 530
52
Esher Urban Council w. Marks (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 309
..
533
Eslick, Be (1877), 4 Ch. D. 496 46 L. J. Bank. 30
35 L. T. 914
25W. R. 260
173
Evans v. Davies, [1893] 2 Ch. 216 62 L. J. Ch. 661 68 L. T.
244 41 W. R. 687
127,575
?/. Duncan (1831), ITyrw. 283'
455
V. Hoare, [1892] 1 Q. B. 593
61 L. J. Q. B. 470 66 L. T.
345 ; 40 W. R. 442 56 J. P. 664
515
w. Oakley (1843), 1 Car. &K. 125
100
V. Rees (1861), 9 0. B. N. S. .391
30 L. J. C. P. 16
313, 510
V. Stevens (1791), 4 T. R. 224, 459
98,602
and Fynch's Case (1638), Oro. Car. 473
71
Evatt V. Hunt (1853), 2 E. & B. 374 22 L. J. Q. B. 348 17 Jur.
582
1028; 95 R.R. 611
Everard v. KendaU (1870), L. R. 5 0. P. 428 39 L. J. C. P. 234
244
22 L. T. 408 18 W. R. 892
Everett v. Wells (1841), 2 M. & Gr. 269 10 L. J. 0. P. 81 9
25
D. P. C. 424 2 Scott. N. R. 525
Everingham v. Ivatt (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 685
156
Eversfield v. Mid Sussex Ry. Co. (1858), 3 De G. & J. 286 ; 28
528
..
..
L. J. Ch. 107 5 Jur. N. S. 776 114 R. R. 389
Ewart V. Graham (1859), 7 H. L. 0. 331 29 L. J, Ex. 88 5 Jur.
N. S. 773 33 L. T. 0. S. 349 ; 7 W.R. 621 ; 115 R. R. 177,
Ellis V.

(1869), L.

. .

H. L
Eyre v. WaUer
253

547

(1860), 5 H. <&
6 Jur. N. S. 512 8
;

Digitized

N. 460

W.

29 L. J, Ex. 247
R. 450
;

by Microsoft

2 L. T.

70

TABLE OF OASES.

xlviii

PAGE

Eyre

& Leicester Oorpn., Be,

[1892] 1 Q. B. 136 ; 61 L. J. Q. B.
409, 428
40 W. R. 203 ; 56 J. P. 228

438 65 L. T. 733
Eyston v. Sfcudd (1574), Plow. 459
;

. .

177

F.
Fairley

Boosey

v.

273

(1879), 48 L. J. Ch. 697

Falkland Islands Battle, Be; Ex p. H.M.S. Canopus (1917), 86

L.J. P. 47
Fanny Carvill, The (1875), 13 App. Cas. 455 n. ; 32 L. T. 646 2

102

Asp.

359

M. 0.565
Bonham (1861),

2 Johns. & H. 177 30 L. J. Ch; 239 ;

52,324
..
7 Jur. N. S. 232 ; 3 L. T. 806 ; 9 W. R. 299
12, 14
..
..
Farrell v. Tomlinson (1761), 5 Bro. P. C. 438
Fearnside v. Flint (1883), 22 Ch. D. 579 52 L. J. Ch. 479 48
303
L. T. 154 ; 31 W. R. 318
Feather v. R. (1865), 6 B.
S. 257 35 L. J. Q. B. 200 12 L. T.

Farley

v.

&

114..
..
Fellowes v. Clay (1843), 4 Q. B. 313
1). Clay (1848), 18 L. J. Ex. 89

12 L.

J.

Q. B. 212

539,573
83, 89
89

Felsted v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1914), 83 L. J. K. B.

134
1192
280
Felton . Bowers, [1900] 1 Q. B. 598
Fbnnell v. Ridler (1826), 5 B. & C. 406 8 D. & R. 204 4 L. J.
501, 691
O. S. K. B. 207 ; 29 R. R. 278
Fenton v. Hampton (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 0. 347 ; 6 W. R. 341
632
117R. R. 32
V. Thorley, [1903] A. C. 443
72 L. J. K. B. 787 ; 89 L. T.
75
314; 52 W. R. 81
Fenwick v. E. London Ry. Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 544 ; 44 L. J.
Ch". 602 ; 23 W. R. 901
104,529
V. Schmaltz (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 313
37 L. J. 0. P. 78 18
584
L. T. 27 ; 16 W. R. 481
Ferguson and Hutchinson, Ex p. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 280 40
..
131,485
L. J. Q. B. 105 24 L. T. 96 19 W. R. 746
Fergusson v. Norman (1838), 6 Scott 749 5 Bing. N. C. 76 1
Arm. 418 ; 3 Jur. 10 50 R. R. 613
700
Ferrand v. Hallas Land Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 135 62 L. J. Q. B.
364, 366
479; 69 L. T. 8 41 W. R. 580; 67 J. P. 692
..
Fielden v. Morley Corporation, [1900] A. C. 133 [1899] 1 Ch.
1 67 L. J. Ch. 611 ; 69 L. J. Ch. 314 ; 79 L. T. 231 ; 47
W. R. 295, H. L.
75,104,510
Fielding r. Thomas (1896), 65 L. J. 0. P. 103
632
Filburn v. People's Palace Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 268 ; 69
L. J. Q. B. 471 ; 38 W. R. 706 ; 55 J. P. 181
..
..
474
Filby D. Hounsell, [1896] 2 Ch. 737
514
Finch V. Finch (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 816 ; 35 L. T. 235 ..
..
278
Finchley Electric Light Co. v. Finchley U.D.C., [19031 1 Ch.
437 72 L. J. Ch. 297 88 L. T. 215 51 W. R. 375 ; 67
J. P. 97 ; 1 L. G. R. 244, C.
171 546
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

xlix
PAGE

Fine Art Society

v.

Union Bank

of

London

(1886), 56 L. J. Q. B.

201
70, C. A
Firebrace v. Firebrace (1879), 4 P. D. 63 ; 47 L. J. P. D. & A. 41
256
39 L. T. 94 26 W. R. 617
Firth V. McPhail, [1905] 2 K. B. 300 ; 74 L. J. K. B. 458 ; 92
69 J. P. 203 20 Cox. C. 0. 821
..
475
L. T. 567
..
6
Fisher D. Blight (1803), 2 Cranch 399
V. Bridges (1854), 3 E. & B. 642 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 276
1 Jur.
094
N. S. 157
V Howard (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 42 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 304; 11
121
L. T. 373 13 W. R. 145
Fishmongers' Co. v. Dimsdale (1852), 12 C. B. 557; 22
506
L. J. C. P. 44
Fitzgerald v. Champneys (1861), 2 Johns. & H. 31 ; 30 L. J. Ch.
777 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1006 5 L. T. 233 5 W. R. 850 315, 321, 325
Fitzmaurice v. Heaketh, [1904] A. C. 266 73 L. J. P. C. 53
489
90 L. T. 216 ; 20 T. L. B. 302
Fitzpatrick v. Kelly (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 337 ; 42 L. J. M. C.
..
.
58, 186, 562
132 28 L. T. 558 21 W. R. 681
Flannigan v. Bishopwearmouth (1857), 8 E. & B. 451 27
470
..
L. J. M. C. 46; 3 Jur. N. S. 1103; 112R. R. 639 ..
124
..
Fleming v. Lochgelly Iron & Coal Co. (1902), 4 F. 890, Sco.
V. SeK (1855), 3 De G. M. & G. 997 ; 3 Bq. 14 ; 24 L. J. Ch.
164
29; 1 Jur. N. S. 25
84
V. Smith (1861), 12 Jr. C. L. R. 404, Ir
Fletcher v. Birkenhead Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B. 218 76
75,92,93
L. J. K. B. 218
9 Jur.
V. Calthrop (1845), 6 Q. B. 880 ; 14 L. J. M. C. 49
241,464
205 ; 1 New. Sess. Cas. 529
64 L. T.
V. Fields, [1891] 1 Q. B. 790 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 102
473
472 ; 39 W. R. 655 ; 55 J. P. 502
51 L. J. Q. B. 48 46
V. Hudson (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 611
466
L. T. 125 ; 30 W. R. 349 46 J. P. 372
30
V. Sondes (1826), 3 Bing. 580 ; 1 Bligli N. S. 144
465,603
R.R. 32
224
A. 673 35 R. R. 413
Flight V. Salter (1831), 1 B.
58 L. J. Q. B. 53 37
Flint V. Barnard (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 90
101
W. R. 185
;

&

Flower v. Lloyd (1877), 6 Ch. D. 297 46 L. J. Ch.

454 25 W. R. 793
V. Low Leyton L. B. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 347
621 36 L. T. 760 25 W. R. 545
Floyd V. Lyons, [1897] 1 Ch. 633 66 L. J. Ch.
251 45 W. R. 435
Floyer i;. Edwards (1774), 1 Co wp. 112
Foat V. Margate (Mayor) (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 299

838

35 L. T.
517

46 L. J.

Ch
360

350

70 L. T.
98
209

711 47 J. P. 535
Foley V. Fletcher (1858), 3 H. & N. 769
117 R. R. 967
Jur. N. S. 342

52 L. J. Q. B.

360

28 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Ex. 100

5
464, 500

TABLE OP CASES.

PAGE

Foley V. Inland Revenue (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 263 37 L. J. Ex. 109 311

Folkestone Corp. v. Woodward (1872), L. R. 15 Eq. 159 42
487
L. J. Ch. 782 27 L. T. 574
666
Foot u. Prowse (1725), 1 Stra. 625
Forbes v. Cochrane (1824), 2 B.& C. 448: 2 D. & R. 679 26
266
R. R. 402 ..
V Eccles Com. (1873), L. R. 15 Eq. 51 42 L. J. Ch. 97
157
27 L. T. 611 21 W. R. 169
V. Lee Conservancy Board (1879), 4 Ex. D. 116
48 L. J.
634
Ex. 402 27 W. R. 688
W.Smith (1855), 11 Ex. 161; 24 L. J. Ex. 299; 1 Jur.
409
N. S. 503; 105R. R. 467
Ford and Hill, Be (1879), 10 Ch. D. 365 48 L. J. Ch. 327 ; 40
539
L. T. 41 27 W. R. 371
Ford V. Drew (1880), 5 C. P. D. 59 49 L. J. C. P. 172 41
L. T. 478
116
28 W. R. 137
..
.V. Hart (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 273; 43 L. J. C. P. 24; 29
L. T. 685; 22 W. R. 159
..
..
117
2 Hop. & C.167 .,
V. Kettle (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 139
51 L. J. Q. B. 558 46
L. T. 666 30 W. R. 741
15,369
V. Pye (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 269
43 L. J. C. P. 21 29
L. T. 684 22 W. R. 159 2 Hop. & C. 157
117
V. Wiley (1883), 23 Q. B. D. 203
58 L. J. M. C. 145 60
L. T. 74 37 W. R. 709 53 J. P. 485 16 Cox. C. C. 683 ..
196
Fordham v. Sheis (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 67
288
Fordyce v. Bridges (1847), 1 H. L. C. 1 11 Jur. 157 ..
..
1
Ford's Hotel Co. v. Barlett, [1896] A. C. 1
65 L. J. Q. B. 166
73 L. T. 665 44 R. R. 241
46
Foreman v. Canterbury (Mayor of) (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 214 40
L. J. Q. B. 138 24 L. T. 385 19 W. R. 719
..
725, 726
Forsdike v. Colquhoun (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 71 49 L. T. 136 47
J. P. 393
147
V. Stone (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 607
37 L. J. C. P. 301
..
608
Forster V. Taylor (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 887 3 L. J. K. B. 137
39R. R. 698
696,701
Fortescue v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, [18911 2 Q. B. 170 60
L. J. M. C. 172 63 L. T. 443 39 W. R. 31
335, 336
Forth w. Chapman (1720), 1 P. Wms. 663
558
Foster v. Diphwys Casson Slate Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 429 56
L. J. M. C. 21
51 J. P. 470
128, 579
V. Gt. W. Ry. Co. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 515
51 L. J. Q. B. 233
46L. T. 74; 30W. R. 398
151
i) L. C. & D. Ry. Co., [1895] 1 Q. B. 711
64 L. J. Q. B. 65 526
D. Oxford, c%c. Ry. Co. (1853), 13 C. B. 200
22 L. J. C. P.
99 17 Jur. 167 93 R. R. 494
698
Foster's Case (1590), 5 Rep. 59
285
i). Case (1614), 11 Rep. 63 a
296
Fotherby v. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1866), L B. 2 C. P. 188 36
L. J. C. P. 88 12 Jur. N. S. 1005 15 L. T. 243 15 W. R.
;

. .

112

716

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
,

li

v. Taylor (1860), 5 H. & N. 202

29 L. J. Ex. 154 ; 8
R. 279
Foulger v. Steadraan (1873), L. K. 8 Q. B. 65 42 L. J. M. 0. 3
26L. T. 395
Foveaiix, Re, [1895] 2 Ch. 501 64 L. J. Oh. 856
73 L. T. 202 ;
43W. R. 661
..
..
Fowler v. Barstow (1882), 20 Ch. D. 240 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 45
L. T. 603 30 W. R. 113
. Padget (1798), 7 T. R. 509 ; 4 R. R. 511
Fox V. Wallis (1877), 2 C. P. D. 45 ; 35 L. T. 690 25 W. R. 287
Foxon V. Goscoigne (1874), L. R. 9 Ch. 654 43 L. J. Ch. 729 ;
31 L. T. 289 22 W. R. 939
Frame u. Dawson (1807), 14 Ves. 387
France v. Button, [1891] 2 Q. B. 208 60 L. J. Q. B. 488 64
L. T. 793 39 W. R. 696
Francis, Ex p., [1903] 1 K. B. 275 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 120; 88
L. T. 176 51 W. R. 267
67 J. P. 153 20 C. C. C. 381 ..
v. Maas (1888), 3 Q. B. D. 341 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 83
38
L. T. 100 ; 26 W. R. 422
Franconia, The (1877), 2 P. D. 163 46 L. J. P. D. & A. 33 36
L. T. 640 ; 25 W. R. 796
,.
..
Frankland, Re (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 18; 42 L. J. Q. B. 13 28
L. T. 18
Franklin v. B. of England (1826), 1 Russ. 575 ; 9 B. & C. 156
4 M. & R. 11 32 R. R, 611
. Godfrey (1894), 63 L. J. M. C. 239
Fraser v. Hill (1853), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 392 1 C. L. R.

Foulgar

PACE

W.

553

194

448
518
422
655

24
455

135

610

90

556

65

457
193

7,

H.

693

Frederici i;. Vanderzce (1877), 46 L. J. C. P. 194

..
..141
C. 381 31 L. J. M. C. 249
Fredericks v. Howie (1862), 1 H.
..591
8 Jnr. N. S. 750 6 L. T. 544 10 W. R. 796
..
C. 400 6
Free v. Burgoyne (1826), 2 Bligh N. S. 78 5 B.
B. &C. 27, 538; 9D. &R. 14; 31R. R. 2
161
Freeman v. Appleyard (1862), 32 L. J. Ex. 175 7 L. T. 282

&

&

IN.

R. 30

3 N. & M. 883
..
30 L. J. M. C. 123
S. 301
V.
..
..
289, 606,
9 W. R. 141 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 846
Freemantle v. London and N. W. Ry. Co. (1861), 10 C. B. N. S.
..
89; 31L. J. C. P. 12; 9 W. R. 611; 2F. &F. 337
Freestone, Ex p. (1856), 1 H. & N. 93 25 L. J. M. C. 121
2 Jur. N. S. 525 108 R. R. 471
Freke i;. Carbery (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 461
Fremington School, Be, Ex p. Ward (1846), 10 Jur. 512
Frend^;. Dennett (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 576; 27 L. J. C. P.
..
..
654,
314 4 Jur. N. S. 897 114 R. R. 859
..
Fricke v. Poole (1829), 9 B. & 0. 543 ; 4 M. & R. 48 ..
Fritz V. Hobson (1880), 14 Ch. D. 542 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 735 42
28 W. R. 722
L. T. 677
Frost, 5e (1893), 67 L. J. Ch. 691
V.

Moyes (1834), 1 A, &

Read (1860), 9 C. B.

E. 338

575
403

680
628

574
269
643
671
464

Digitized

by Microsoft

321
511

TABLE OF CASES.

lii

PAGE

Fry

V.

Cheltenham Corporation

(1911), 81 L. J.

K. B. 41

..

414

Fuller V. Redman (1859), 26 Beav. 600 ; 29 L. J. Ch. 324 ; 5

29, 727
Jur. N. S. 1045
Fumivalli;. Coombes (1843)^ 5 M.
G. 736 ; 12 L, J. 0. P. 265

&

283

63R. R. 455
Hudson, [1893]

V.

378
Fusilier,

27

W.

41

1 Ch.

335

62 L. J. Ch. 178

R. 358

The (1865), 3 Moo. P.

11 Jur. N. S. 289

C. C. N. S. 51
12 L. T. 186 ; 13

68 L. T.

135
34 L. J. P. M. & A.
W. R. 592, P. C. 98, 112

G.

653
w. McDaid, [1898] W. N. 104
Gale V. Laurie (1826), 5 B. & C. 156 29 R. R. 199
..
516, 564
441
Galena i;. Amy (1866), 5 Wallace 705
Gallagher v. Rudd, [1898] 1 Q. B. 114 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 65 77
351
L. T. 367 ; 46 W. R. 108 ; 61 J. P. 789 18 C. C. C. 654 ..
692
Gallini v. Laborie (1793), 5 T. R. 242 2 R. R. 581
Galloway v. London (Mayor) (1864), L. R. 1 H. L. 34 ; 35 L. J.
530
Ch. 477 12 Jur. N. S. 747 14 L. T. 865
V. Maries (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 275
51 L. J. M. C. 53 ; 45
L. T. 763 ; 30 W. R. 151 ; 46 J. P. 326
600
Gallsworthy v. Selby Commissioners, [1892] 1 Q. B. 348 ; 61
L. J. Q. B. 372 66 L. T. 17 56 J. P. 356
629
Gambart i). Ball (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 306 32 L. J. C. P. 166
8 L. T. 426 9 Jur. N. S. 1059
11 W. R. 699 ..
146, 481, 491
V. Sumner (1859), 5 H. & N. 5
29 L. J. Ex. 98 ; 5 Jur.
N. S. 1109 8 W. R. 27
290
Gambler v. Lydford (1854), 3 E. & B. 346; 23 L. J. M. C. 69 ;
2 C. L. R. 951 18 Jur. 352 ; 97 R. R. 518
247
Gapp V. Bond (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 200 56 L J. Q. B. 438 ; 57
L. T. 437; 35W. R. 683
131
Garby v. Harris (1852), 7 Ex. 591 21 L. J. Ex. 160 ; 16 Jur.
456
410
Gardiner, Re (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 249 57 L. J. Q. B. 149 ; 58
L. T. 119; 36 W. R. 142; 5M. B. R. 1
476
Gardner u. Lucas (1878), 3 App. Cas. 582
386,401
V. Mansbridge (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217
57 L. T. 265 35
\V. R. 809 ; 51 J. P. 612
16 Cox C. C. 281
348
w. Whitford (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 665
..
..
289,325
Garland r. Mead (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 411 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 179
24 L. T. 421 ; 19 W. R. 1156
156
Gamett v. Bradley (1878), 3 App. Cas. 944 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 186 ;
39 L. T. 261; 26 W. R. 698
285, 289, 314, 315
Gaskell and Walters' Contract, Re, [1906] 2 Ch. 10 C. A.
144
Gaskell v. King (1809), 11 East 165 ; 10 R. R. 462
564, 704
Gaslight & Coke Co. v. Hardy (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 619 56 L. J.
Q. B. 168; 55L. T. 585; 35W. R. 50; 51 J. P. 6
..
108

Gage

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

liii

TAQE

&

Coke Co. li. St. Mary Abbott's (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 1 ;

Gaslight
54 L. J. Q. B. 414 33 W. R. 892
V. Turner (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 324
9 L. J. Ex. 336 8
Scott 609 ; 54 R. R. 808
Gatty V. Fry (1877), 2 Ex. D. 265 46 L. J. Ex. 605 36 L. T.
;

182

Gatward

W. R. 305
Knee, [1902] P. 99

694

25
v.

632

226,351
;

&

71 L. J. P. D.

A. 34

86

L. T. 119

127

Brown

R. 5 P. C. 134 ; 42 L. J. Adm. 1
28 L. T. 77 21 W. R. 420
34,244
Gauntlet, The (1871), L. R. 4 P. C. 184 41 L. J. Adm. 65 26
L.T. 45
465

..
..
..312
Gay w. Matthews (1863), 4 B. & S. 425
Geams v. Baker (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 355 44 L. J. Ch. 334 33
L. T. 86 23 W. R. 543
631
Geddis v. Bann Reservou- Co. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430 ..
628, 630
Geere v. Mare (1863), 2 H. & C. 339 33 L. J. Ex. 50 8 L. T.
463
694
General Auction Co. v. Smith, [1891] 3 Ch. 432 60 L. J. Ch.
626, 655
723; 65 L. T. 188 40 W. R. 106
General Iron Screw Co. v. Schurmanns (1860), 1 John. & H.
180 29 L. J. Ch. 877 6 Jur. N. S. 883 8 W. R. 732 4
L. T. 138
277
General St. Nav. Co. v. Brit. Col. St. Nav. (1869), L. R. 4 Ex.
..
563
238 38 L. J. Ex. 97 20 L. T. 581 17 W. R. 741
13 L. J. Ex. 168 63
V. Guillon(1843), 11. M. & W. 877
278
R. R. 807
Gentel v. Rapps, [1902] 1 K. B. 160 71 L. J. K. B. 105 85
523
L. T. 683 50 W. R. 216 66 J. P. 117
George, Me (1890), 44 Ch. D. 627 59 L. J. Ch. 709 63 L. T.
25
49; 38 W. R. 617
Gerard's Estate, Re, [1893] 3 Ch. 251; 63 L. J. Ch. 23; 69
..
70
L T 393
German Date Coffee Co., Re (i882),"20 Ch!'D. 169 51 L. J. Ch.
592
564; 46L. T. 327; 30W. R. 717
212
Gibbons . Hickson (1885), 55 L. J. Q. B. 119
Gibbs V. GuUd (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 59 51 L. J. Q. B. 313; 46
12
L. T. 248 30 W. R. 591
589
V. Lawrence (1860), 30 L. J. Ch. 170
27 L. J. Ex.
V. Liverpool Docks (1858), 3 H. &. N. 164
173
321 4 Jur. N. S. 636 117 R. R. 636
608
2 M. & R. 457
..
..
V. Stead (1828), 8 B. & C. 528
Giblett V. Hobson (1833), 3 M. & K. 517 4 L. J. Ch. 41 ; 41
215
R. R. 114
Gibson v. Holland (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 8 1 H. & R. 1 11 Jur.
N. S. 1022 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 5 14 W. R. 86 13 L. T.
273,513
293
39 L. J.
V. Preston Corporation (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 219
10 B. & S.
22 L. T. 293 ; 18 W. R. 689
Q. B. 131
306,726
942

Gaudet

v.

(1872), L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

liv

PAGE

Chelsea (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 141 ; 59 L. J.

653
Q. B. 612; 61 L. T. 388 54 J. P. 104
and Bury, Ee (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 368 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 181
657
58 L. T. 522 ; 36 W. R. 468 52 J. P. 119
Gilbert . Gosport & Alverstone U. D. C, [1916] 2 Ch. 587
510
..
u. Jones, [1905] 2 K. B. 691
133
Gildarfc v. Gladstone (1810), 11 East 675
528
12 East 439, 668
..
Giles V. Grover (1832), 1 CI.
F. 74 2 M. & Scott 197 ; 9 Bing.
128 ; 36 B. R. 27
250,610
Gillow V. Durham C. C, [1911] 1 K. B. 222 80 L. J. K. B. 380 ;
104 L. T. 36 75 J. P. 33 ; 8 L. G. R. 1059
634
Gilmore v. Shuter (1678), 2 Lev. 227 ; 2 Mod. Rep. 310
384
..
Girdlestone v. Allan (1822), 1 B. & C. 61
431
Glasbrook t>. Owen (1890), 7 T. L. R. 62
201
Glasgow Ry. Co. v. Hunter (1871), L. R. 2 Sc. App. 78, H. L. 172
Glass . Patterson, [1902] 2 Ir. R. 660
1
Glassington I). Rawlins (1800), 3 East 407
606
Gleaves v. Marriner (1876), 1 Ex. D. 107 ; 34 L. T. 496 24
VV. R. 639
661
Glossop V. Heston Local Board (1879), 12 Ch. D. 102
49 L. J.
Ch. 89 40 L. T. 736 ; 28 W. R. Ill
723, 724
Glynn v. Margetson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 337 61 L. J. Q. B. 186 62
L. J. Q. B. 466 ; 66 L. T. 142 ; 40 W. R. 264 ; 7 Asp. M. C.
148
368
Goddard, Be (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 25 19 L. J. Q. B. 305 87
R. R. 522
705
Godlonton v. Fulham, &c. Property Co., [19051 1 K. B. 431 ;
74 L. J. K. B. 242 ; 92 L. T. 362
652
Godman V. Croftor, [1914] 3 K. B. 803
675
Godwin v. Walker (1896), 12 T. L. R. 367
523
Goerz v. Bell, [1904] 2 K. B. 136; 73 L. J. K. B. 448 ; 90 L. T.
675; 53 W. R. 64
..
..
271
Goldberg v. Liverpool Corporation (1900), 82 L. T. 362
231
Golding V. Stocking (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 516 ; 38 L. J. M. C.
122 ; 20 L. T. 479 ; 17 W. R. 722 ; 10 B.
S. 348
67, 492
Goldshede v. Swan (1847), 1 Ex. 154 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 284 74 R. R.
623
43
Goldsmid, Be (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 295 56 L. J. Q. B. 195 35
W. R. 148
214
Giflford V. St. Luke's,

&

&

V. Hampton (1858), 5 C. B. N. S. 94
27 L. J. C. P. 286
4 Jur. N. S. 1108 116 R. R. 578
66, 542
Goldsmiths Co. v. West Metro. Ry., [1904] 1 K. B. 1 72 L. J.
K. B. 931 89 L. T. 428 52 W. R. 21 ; 68 J. P. 41 20
T. L. R.7
607
V. Wyatt, [1907] 1 K. B. 95
76 L. J. K. B. 166 ; 95
L.T. 855; 71J. P. 79
62,539
Goldson V. Buck (1812), 15 East 372
323
Goodman's Trusts, Ee (1881), 17 Ch. D. 266 50 L. J. Ch. 425
44 L. T. 527 29 W. R. 586
256

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Iv
PAGE

Goodwin

Corporation, [1902] 1 K. B. 629 ; 71

86 L. T. 682; 66 J. P. 533
Gordon, JfiB p. (1875), 44 L. J. Bey. 97
Gordon d. G.W.R.|(1881), 8 Q. B. D. 44 51 L. J. Q. B. 58;
45 L. T. 509 ; .30 W. R. 230 ; 46 J. P. 294
v. Howden (1845), 12 CI. & F. 237, H. L
v. Jennings (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 45 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 417
;
46 L. T. 534 ; 30 W. R. 704 ; 45 J. P. 519 ..
..
..
V. London City & Midland Bank (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 215
v.

Sheffield

K. B. 492

L. J.

326
309

C.

Gore

370
693
585

201

Grey

(1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 138 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 100

..
287
Gorely, Exp. (18B5), 4 De G. J.
S. 477 ; 34 L. J. Bank. 1
10 Jur. N. S. 1085 ; 11 L. T. 319 ; 13 W. R. 60
..
86, 564
Gorham v. Exeter (Bp.) (1850), Moore, 462 ; 2 Rob. Ec. Rep. 1
V.

&

13 Jur. 238

43

15Q.B.73; 10C.B.102; 5Ex. 630; 19L.J.Q.B.

V.

279; 19 L.J. C. P. 200; 19 L. J. Ex. 376 14 Jur. 480,

89 Id. 725
..
..
535
522, 876 81 R. R. 504; 82 Id. 797
Gorman, Ex p., [1894] App. Cas. 28 63 L. J. M. C. 84 70
L. T. 46 ; 58 J. P. 316
^31
V. Waterford, &e. Ry. Co., [1900] 2 Jr. R. 341, Ir
636
Gorris v. Scott (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 125 43 L. J. Ex. 92 30 L. T.
354,725
431 ; 22 W. R. 575
Gough V Davies (1856), 2 K. & J. 623 25 L. J. Cli. 677 110
84
R. R. 402
..
723
Gould V. Birkenhead Corporation (1910), 8 L. G. R. 395
61 L. T. 732; 54 J. P.
V. Haynes (1890), 59 L. J. M. C. 9
210
405 16 Cox C. C. 732
V. Stuart, [1896] A. C. 575; 65 L. J. P. C. 82; 75 L. T.
254
110
Goulder v. Rook, [1901] 2 K. B. 290 70 L. J. K. B. 747 84
186
L. T. 719 ; 49 W. R. 684 65 J. P. 646
Gover's Case (1876), 1 Ch. D. 182 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 83 33 L. T. 619
717
24W.R. 125
Gowan v. Wright (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 201 56 L. J. Q. B. 131
378,567
35W. R.297
147
Gower I). Tobitt (1891), 39 W. R. 193
Gower's Walk Schools v. London T. & S. Ry. Co. (1890), 24
Q. B. D. 326 59 L. J. Q. B. 162 62 L. T. 306 38 W. R.
172
343
Grace v. Bishop, (1856) 11 Ex. 424 25 L. J. Ex. 68 105 R. R.
114, 358
606
Graham v. Ingleby (1848), 1 Ex. 651 5 D. & L. 737 74 R. R.
683
808
58 L. J. Q. B. 117
37
V. Lewis (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 1
118
W. R. 73 ; 53 J. P. 166 59 L. T. 35, C. A
Grainger v. Gough, [1896] A. C. 325 65 L. J. Q.B. 410 74 L. T.
271
435 44 W. B. 561 60 J. P. 692
Gramophone Co. v. Stanley, [1908] 2 K, B. 89 77 L. J. K. B.
271
834 99 L. T. 39 15 Manson 251
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ivi

PAGE

Grand Junction W. W. Co.

67 L. J. Ch. 603

Grant

Anderson

v.

78 L.

& Co.,

Hampton U.C, [1898] 2 Ch. 331

..
46 W. B. 644
T. 673

v.

708

61 L. J. Q. B.

[1892] 1 Q. B. 108

& W.

J.

267

107;66L.
V.

T. 79
Ellis (1841), 9

R.R. 694
V.

Kemp

M.

113

[11 L.

Ex. 228

60

297
403

..

(1834), 2 Or.

&

M. 636

V. Langaton, [1900] A. C. 383; 69 L, J. P. 0. 66 ; 82 L. T.

71
..
.;
629; 64J. P. 644
Graves v. Ashford (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 410 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 139
146,481
16 L. T. 98 15 W. R. 498
23 L. J. Ex.
V. Legg (1854), 9 Ex. 642
2 C. L. R. 1266
41
228; 96 R. R. 931
Graves' Case (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 715 ; 20 L. T. 877 ; 17 W. R.
345
1018
.330,376
Gray w. Cookson (1812), 16 East 13
11
V. PuUen (1864), 5 B. & S. 970 ; 34 L, J. Q. B. 265
633
L. T. 669 ; 13 W. R. 257
..
V. Smith (1889), 43 Ch. D. 208
59 L. J. Ch. 145 ; 62 L. T.
512
335; 38 W. R.310
..
523
V. Sylvester (1897), 61 J. P. 807
46 W. R. 63
Graydon, Be, [1896] 1 Q. B. 417 65 L. J. Ch. 328 ; 44 W. R.
576
495 74 L. T. 175 ; 3 Mans. 5
Great Australian Co. v. Martin (1880), 5 Ch. D. 1 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
518
289; 35L. T. 874; 25 W. R. 246
Great Central Gas Co. v. Clarke (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 838 ; 32
327
L. J. C. P. 41 ; 11 W. R. 123
150
Great Charte v. Kenniugton (1743), 2 Stra. 1173
Great Eastern Ry. Co. v. Goldsmid (1884), 9 App. Cas. 927 ; 54
L. J. Ch. 162 ; 52 L. T. 270 ; 33 W. R. 81 ; 49 J. P.
260
480,682,683
Great Northern Committee v. Inett (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 284 46
L. J. M. C. 237 ; 25 W. R. 584
684
Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Winder, [1892] 2 Q. B. 595 61
L. J.Q. B. 608
712
Great Northern Steamship Co. v. Edgehill (1883), 11 Q. B. D.
225
715 ' 722
Great WesternRy. Co. v. Bailie (1864)," 5 B. '& S. 928 34
L. J. M. C. 31 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 264 ; 11 L. T. 418 ; 13 W. R.
203
196
V. Bishop (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 550; 41 L. J. M. C. 120
26 L. T. 905 20 W. R. 969
475
V. Rly. Commrs. (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 182 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 483 ;
45 L. T. 206 29 W. R. 901 56 J. P. 35
520
V. Solihull Rural Council (1902), 86 L. J. Q. B. 852, C. A.
633
V. Swindon and Cheltenham Ry. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 809
58 L. J. Ch. 1075 ; 51 L. T. 798 ; 32 W. R. 957 48 J. P.
820
296
Great Yarmouth Union v. Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L. T.
440
116, 117
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
Morley (1841), 3 M. & G. 139
SScottN. R. 638; 60R. R. 479

Greathead

v.

Greaves

Tofield (1881), 14 Ch. D. 563

v.

L. T. 100

Green

28

Ivii
PAGE

10 L. J. C. P. 246

547

50 L. J. Oh. 118

43

W. R. 840

542

Gray

(1832), 1 Dowl. P. C. 850

377
V. Jenkins (1860), 1 De G. F.
J. 454 ; 28 Beav. 87 ; 29
L. J. Ch. 505 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 515 ; 8 W. R. 380
..
313,654
V. R. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 513 ; 35 L. T. 495
294, 329, 502
V. Wood (1845)j 7 Q. B. 178; 14 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; 9 Jur.
w.

&

756

35,

Greenaway

Greener, Ex.
899

Hurd

(1792), 4 T. R. 553
p. (1880), 15 Ch. D. 457 ;

43 L. T. 184

28

447
414

W. R.

685
Parker (1861), 6 H. & N. 882; 31 L. J Ex. 4; 4
L. T. 473 9 W. R. 578
496
..
Greenwood, Ex. p. (1857), 27 L. J. Q. B. 28 8 E. & B. 605 112
R. R. 706
418
V. Greenwood (1877), 5 Ch. D. 954; 47 L. J. Ch. 298; 37
L. T. 712
26 W. R. 5
444
1). London (Bp.) (1814), 5 Taunt. 727
704
Gregory's Case (1596), 6 Rep. 19b
315
Gregson v. Potter (1879), 4 Ex. D. 142; 48 L. J. M. C.-86; 27
W. R. 840
651
Greig V. Bendeno (1858), E. B. & E. 133 27 L. J. M. C. 294 113
R. R. 576
81,474
Grenfell v. Inland Rev. (1876;, 1 Ex. D. 242 45 L. J. Ex. 465
270
34 L. T. 426 24 W. R. 582
Greves v. Wimborne (Lord) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 862 633, 722, 725
Grey v. Pearson (1857), 6 H. L. Cas. 61 26 L. J. Ch. 473 5
W. R. 454 108 R. R. 19
5
53
Grieves i;. Case (1792), 4 Bro. C. C. 67
52 L. J. Ch. 717 48 L. T.
Griffith, Ex. p. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 69
214
450 31 W. R. 878
V. Taylor (1876), 2 C. P. D. 194
46 L. J. C. P. 15 36
415,608
L. T. 5 25 W. R. 196
35
Grill V. General Screw Collier Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 600
14 L. T. 711 14 W. R.
L. J. C. P. 321 17 Jur. N. S. 727
'
65.200
..
893
Grimes, Ex. p. (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 153 2 E. & B. 546 17
126
Jur. 554
Grimwade, Ex. p. (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 357 55 L. J. Q. B. 495
97
3M. B. R. 166
645
..
Grindley v. Barker (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 229 4 R. R. 787
210
..
Grizewood v. Blane (1852), 11 C. B. 538 21 L. J. C. P. 46
Grocers' Co. v. Donne (1836), 3 Bing. N. C. 34 5 L. J. C. P.
630
..
..
2 Hodges 120 43 R. R. 591
307 ; 3 Scott 356
259
Grocock 4). Grocock, [1919] W. N. 163
75, 123
Gross, In the goods of (1904), 73 L. J. P. 82
Groves v. Wimbourne, [1898] 2 Q. B. 402 67 L. J. Q. B. 862 79
633, 722, 725
L. T. 284 ; 47 W. R. 87

Greenhow

v.

.-.

...

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Iviii

PAGE

Guerin, iJe (1888), 53 J. P. 468

Gully V. Smith (1884), 12 Q. B. D, 121 53 L. J. M. C. 35 ; 48
J. P. 309
Gundry v. Pinniger (1852), 1 D. G. M. & G. 502 ; 21 L. J. Oh.
405
Giinnestad v. Price (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 65 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 44
32 L, T. 492 ; 23 W. B. 470
Guthrie v. Fisk (1824), 3 B. & C. 178 ; 3 Stark. 153 ; 5 D. & R.
24 ..
..
Gutteridge v. Munyard (1834), 1 Moo. & R. 336
Gwyn V. Hardwicke (1856), 1 H. & N. 49 ; 25 L. J. M. 0. 97
108R.R. 448
Gwynne v. BumeU (1839), 6 Bing. N. C. 453 2 Bing. N. C. 39
2 Soott N. R. 711 1 West 342 ; 7 CI. & F. 572 ; 51 R. R.

150

489
5

34
623
42

533

43,H.L

7,11,452,662

V Drewitt, [1894] 2 Ch. 616

63 L. J. Ch. 870
190..
..
Gye . Fulton (1813), 4 Taunt. 876

71 L. T.

732
380

H.

Habergham v. Vincent (1793), 1 Ves. Jun. 68, 410 2 Ves. Jun.

204; 5T. R. 92
Hack V. London Prov. Bldg. Socy. (1883), 23 Ch. D. 103 52 L. J.
;

682

Ch. 541

48 L. T. 250

31

W.

R. 393

..

..

Hacking v. Lee (1860), 2 E. & E. 906 ; 29 L. J. Q. E. 204

N. S. 952 8 W. R. 495
Hackney Furnishing Co. v. Watts (1912), 28 T. L. R. 417

164,238
6 Jur.

523
652
74

Hadden

I).

The

..

Collector (1866), 5 Wall. 107

Haddon's Estate Act, [1889] W. N. 96, C. A

Hadfleld's Case (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 306 42 L. J. C. P. 146
28
L. T. 901 21 W. R. 637
Hadji All Akbar v. Anglo Arabian Persian S.S. Co. (1906), 11

621

Com. Cas. 219

Hadley v. Perks (1866), L. R.

368

12 Jur. N. S. 662

1 Q. B. 444

35 L. J.
14 L. T. 325; 14 W. R. 730
;

M.
;

C. 177

6 B.

63

& S.

375

564,581
Oomptoir d'Escompte (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 519 58 L. J.
Q. B. 508 37 W. R. 703
119
Haigh V. Kaye (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 469 41 L. J. Ch. 567 26 L.T.
675 20 W. R. 597
454
V. West, [1893] 2 Q. B. 31, C. A
144
Haldane v. Beauclerk (1849), 6 D. & L. 642 3 Ex. 658 18 L. J.
Ex. 227 13 Jur. 326
566
Hale, ife, [1915] 2 Ir. R. 362, Ir
127
Hall V. Knox (1863), 4 B. & S. 515 33 L. J. M. C. 1 9 L. T.
380 12 W. R. 103
420
Nixon (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 152 44 L. J. M. C. 51 32
L. T. 87; 23W..R. 612
625,704

Haggin

v.

-tf.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

lix
PAGE

(1859), E. B. & E. 765 ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 43 ; 6 Jur.

193 ; 8 W. JR. 160 113 R. E. 874
674
HaU Dare v. Hall Dare (1886), 81 Ch. D. 251 ; 55 L. J. Oh. 154 ;
54 L. T. 120 34 W. R. 82
ICO
Hallett w. Andrews (1897), 42 L. J. 68
141
Halsey . Hales (1797), 7 T. R. 194
105
y. Lowenfeld, [1916] 2 K. B. 707
12
Halton V. Cove (1830), 1 B. & A. 538 ; 35 R. R. 373
..
78
Hamilton, ife (1878), 9 Ch. D. 696
61
Hammersmith Ry. Co. v. Brand (1868), L. R. 4 H. L. 171 ; 18 W. R.
12; 21 L. T. 238 38 L. J. Q. B. 265, H. L.
92, 172, 628
Hammersmith Bent Charge, Ke, (1849), 4 Ex. 87; 19 L. J. Ex.
66
642,644
Hammond v. Pulsford, [1895] 1 Q. B. 223 64 L. J. M. C.'63; 71
L. T. 767 ; 43 W. R. 236
623
Hampden v. Walsh (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 189 45 L. J. Q. B. 238 33
199
L. T. 852 ; 24 W. R. 607
Hampton v. Rickard (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 133; 30 L. T. 636
276
Hancock v. Somes (1859), 1 E. & E. 795 ; 28 L. J. M. C. 196 7
608
W. R. 422 ; 8 Cox C. C. 172
Hancocks v. Labache (1878), 3 C. P. D. 197 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 514
30,445
38L. T. 753; 26W. R. 402
Haney's Trusts, Re (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 275 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 272
.
. .
277
23 W. R. 662
Hanfstaengl v. Baines,'il895] A. C. 20 64 L. J. Ch. 81 ;'72 L. T.
60
1, H. L
-y. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch.
1 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 417 ; 70
60,146
L. T. 459 ; 42 W. R. 454
V. Newnes, [1894] 3 Ch. 109 63 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 70 L. T. 854 ;
146
42W. R. 681
Hann, iJe (1886), 18 Q. B. D. 393 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 161 55 L. T.
519
820 ; 35 W. R. 370 4 M. B. R. 16
Harben v. Phillips (1883), 23 Ch. D. 14 ; 48 L. T. 334 ; 31 W. R.
655
173
149,315
Harbert's Case (1584), 3 Rep. 13b
Hardcastle v. Bielby, [1892] 1 Q. B. 709 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 101 66
189
L. T. 343 ; 56 J. P. 549
Harden v. Hesketh (1859), 4 H. & N. 175 28 L. J. Ex. 137 118
T> T> QI7Q
297
_
^
Harding v. Headington'(1874J,' L.R."9 Q. B. 157 ;"43 L.J. M. C.
222
59 ; 29 L. T. 833 ; 22 W. R. 262
V. Queensland Commissioner of Stamps (1898), 67 L. J. P. C.
270
144, P. C
294
Hardyw. Bem(1794), 5T. R. 538 ..
V. Fothergill (1888), 13 App. Cas. 351 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 44 ; 59
101
L. T. 659 ; 36 W. R. 629
611
..
V. Ryle (1829), 9 B. & C. 603 ; 4 M. & R. 295
550
Hardy's Case (1794), 24 State Trials 200
353
Hardymann v. Whiteker (1749), 2 East. 573 n
139
Harford V. Linskey, [1899] I Q. B. 852

Halll.

N.

Wright
S.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES,

Ix

PAGE

Harford's Trusts,

Be

D. 135

(1879), 13 Ch.

28

W. R.

238

41

522
L.T.382 ..
..
Hargreaves v. Diddams (1875), L. K. 10 Q. B. 582 ; 44 L. J. M. 0.
194
178 32 L. T. 600 ; 23 W. R. 828
Harlock v. Ashberry (1882), 19 Ch. D. 539 51 L. J. Ch. 96 ; 45
218
L. T. 602 30 W. R. 112
Harman v. Ainslie, [1904] 2 K. B. 698 ; [1903] 2 K. B. 241 73
134
L. J. K. B. 533 ; 88 L. T. 770
641
..
Harper v. Carr (1797), 7 T. R. 270, 448 ; 4 R. R. 440 ..
450
. Taswell (1833), 6 C. & P. 166
Harrington v. Ramsay (1853), 8 Ex. 879 ; 22 L. J. Ex. 326 ; 2 E.
424
&B. 669; 22L. J. Q. B.460
Harris v. Birch (1842), 9 M. & W. 594 11 L. J. Ex. 219 1
504
..
..
D. N. S. 899 60 R. R. 834
210
w. Boston (1810), 2 Camp. 348
688
u. De Pinna (1886), 33 Ch. D. 238
265
46 L. J. C. P. 363 ..
V. Franconia (1877), 2 C. P. D. 173
V. Jenns (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 152
30 L. J. M. C. 183 3
295,594
9 W. R. 36
L. T. 408
!;. Lucas, [1919] 2 K. B. 291
290
Harrison, Exp. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 753 ; 53 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 51
97
L. T. 878
674
, ^a;^. (1858), 2DeG. & J. 229
V. Blackburn (1864), 17
B. N. S. 678 34 L. J. C. P. 109 ;
..
689
10 Jur. N. S. 1131 ; 11 L. T. 453 13 W. R. 135 ..
46 L. J. C. P. 57 35 L. T.
V. Carter (1876), 2 C. P. D. 26
511 25 W. R. 182 ; 2 Hop. & C. 324
577
V. London and Brighton Ry. Co. (1862), 2 B. & S. 122 ; 29
L. J. Q. B. 209 ; 31 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; 8 Jur. 740 ..
..
417
62 L. J. Q. B. 117
V. Rutland, Duke of, [1893] 1 Q. B. 142
68L. T. 35; 41W.R. 322; 57 J. P. 278
..
..
492,547
V. Stickney (1847), 2 H. L. Cas. 108
81 R. R. 61
365
Harrison's Case (1777), 1 Leach 180
573
Harrod v. Worship (1861), 1 B. & S. 381 30 L. J. M. C. 165 8 Jur.
153 ; 9 W. R. 865
502
Harrop v. Ossett (Mayor), [1898] 1 Ch. 525 67 L. J. Ch. 347 ;
78 L. T. 387 ; 46 W. R. 391 ; 62 J. P. 297 ..
..
104,510
Hart V. Herwig (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 860 42 L. J. Ch. 457
..
269
V. Marylebone Borough Council (1912), 76 J. P. 257
414
..
Hartley (Goods of), [1899] P. 40 68 L. J. P. 16 ; 47 W. R. 287 245
!;. Elnor (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 938
67
w. Hooker (1777), 2 Cowp. 524
616
Hartnall v. Ryde Commissiooers (1863), 4 B. & S. 361 33 L. J.
..
Q. B. 39 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 257 ; 11 W. R. 763
..
726
Harvey v. Axchbold (1825), 3 D. & C. 626 ; 5 D. & R. 500 ; R. &
M. 184
209
W.Lyme Regis (1869), 38 L. J. Ex. 141
222
Hasker v. Wood (1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 419 ; 33 W. R. 697
..
316
Haslett V. Sharman, [1901] 2 L R. 433, Ir.
98
;

'

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixi
PAGK

Pedley (1874), L. R. 19 Eq. 271 44 L. J. Ch. 143 23

W. R. 155
385
Hastings, Be (1877), 6 Ch. D. 610 47 L. J. Ch. 137
25 W. R.
842
303
Haw u. Planner (1665), 1 Saund. 10
624
Hawes v. Paveley (1877), 1 C. P. D. 418 46 L. J. C. P. 18 34
L. T. 835 24 W. R. 895
237
Hawkins v. Gathercole (1854), 6 De G. M. & G. 1 24 L. J. Ch.
332 1 Jur. N. S. 481 106 R. R. 1
298,314
61 L. J. Q. B. 146 40 W. R.
V. Rutter, [1892] 1 Q. B. 668
238
128
45 L. J. C. P. 772 35
V. Walrond (1876), 1 C. P. D. 280
L. T. 210 24 W. R. 824
300
Hawthorne, Be (1883), 23 Ch. D. 743 52 L. J. Ch. 750 58 L. T.
701 32 W. R. 147
269
Hawtry v. Butlin (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 290 42 L. J. Q. B. 163
28 L. T. 532 21 W. R. 633
173
Hay u. Ayling (1851), 20 L. J. Q. B. 171
373
59 L. J. M. C. 79 62
V. Tower JJ., [1898] 24 Q. B. D. 561
L. T. 290 13 W. R. 414 54 J. P. 500
396
Haycraft Gold Reduction and Mining Co., Be (1900), 69 L. J. Ch.
645
497 ..
Hayes v. Stephenson (1860), 3 L. T. JST. S. 296 9 W. R. 53 .. 475
Haymani;. Flewker (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 526 32 L. J. C. P.
132 9 Jur. N. S. 895
91
Haynes v. Ford, [1911] 2 Ch. 237 80 L. J. Ch. 234, 490 104
683
L. T. 696 75 J. P. 401 9 L. G. R. 702
Hayward v. E. London Waterworks (1884), 28 Ch. D. 138 54
L. J. Ch. 523 52 L. T. 175
709
7 L. J. Ex. 256 6 D. P. C.
V. Giffard (1838), 4 M. & W. 194
510
699 51 R. R. 529
Heame v. Garton (1859), 2 El. & El. 66 28 L. J. M. C. 216
183
5 Jur. N. S. 648; 33 L. T. 256
Heath v. Heape (1856), 26 L. J. M. C. 49 1 H. & N. 478 108
470
R. R. 681
Heawood v. Bone (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 179 51 L. T. 125 32 W. R.
121
752; 48 J. P. 710
Hebbert v. Purchas (1871), L. R. 3 P. C. 605 40 L. J. Ecc. 33
50, 535, 536, 537, 735
19 W. R. 898 7 Moo. P. C. N. S. 468, P. C.
Hecquard, Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 71 38 W. R. 148 6 M. B. R.
71
282
51
Hed-worth u. Jackson (i662). Hard. 318
63
Heelis v. Blain (1864), 18 C. B. N. S. 90 34 J. L. C. P. 88
Heinemann v. Hale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 83 60 L. J. Q. B. 650 64
267
L. T. 548 39 W. R. 485
729
Helen, The (1810), 6 Cranch 203
Hemstead v. Phoenix Gas Co. (1865), 3 H. & C. 745 34 L. J. Ex.
52
108 11 Jur. N. S. 626 13 W. R. 662 12 L. T. 313
Henderson, Be (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 509 57 L. J. Q. B. 253 58
..
97, 477
L. T. 835 36 W. R. 567 5 M. B. R. 62

Hasluck

V.

<

. .

."

'..

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixii

PAGE

Henderson . Biae (1822), 3 -Stark. 168

V. Maxwell (1876), 4 Oh. D. 163
5 Oh. D. 892

478

W. R. 66
u-Eoyal British Bank

46 L.

Oh.

J".

651
E. & B. 356 1 H. & N.
685 n. 26 L. J. Q. B. 112 3 Jur. N. S. Ill 110 R. R. 629 669
y. Sherborne (1837), 2 M. & W. 236
6 L. J. M. 0. 28 333,
466, 500
Henley, Be (1878), 9 Oh. D. 469 48 L. J. Ch. 147 39 L. T. 53;
249
26W. R. 885
Henrette v. Booth|(1863), 15 0. B. N. S. 500 33 L. J. C. P. 61
9 Jur. N. S. 1293; 9 L. T. 392 12 W. R. 173
..
..
71
Henry v. Newcastle Trinity House (1858), 8 E. & B. 723 27
L. J. M. 0. 57 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 685 112 R. R. 743 ..
16
..
Herbert v. Sayer (1844), 5 Q. B. 965 ; 2 D. & L. 49 13 L. J.
349
Q. B. 209 8 Jur. 812
Hermann v. Seneschal (1862), 13 0. B. N. S. 392 32 L. J. C. P.
43 6 L. T. 646 11 W. R. 184
414
Herron v. Rathmines Improvement Commissioners, [1892] A. C.
498
527
Herschfield v. Clark (1856), 11 Ex. 712 ; 25 L. J. Ex. 113 2 Jur.
N. S. 239 105 R. R. 743
24,141
59; 25

(1857), 7

Hertford Union v. Kimpton (1855), 11 Ex. 255 ; 25 L. J. M. 0.

41 ; 105 R. R. 533
241
Hertfordshire C. 0. v. New River Co. (1904), 74 L. J. Oh. 49 ..
635
Heseltine v. Siggers (1848), 1 Ex. 856 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 166 74 R. R.
862
575
V. Simmons, [1892] 2 Q. B. 547
62 L. J. Q. B. 5 ; 67 L. T.
611;41W.B. 67
380
Hesketh v. Atherton, L. B. (1873), L. R. 9 Q. B. 4 43 L. J. M. 0.
37; 29 L. T. 530
644
Hewitt's Estate (1858), 6 W. R. 537 110 R. R. 962
..
..209
V. Price (1842), 4 M. & G. 355
11 L. J. C. P. 292 3 Railw.
Gas. 175
5 Scott N. R. 229
479,494
Hewlett V. AUen, [1894] A. C. 383 63 L. J. Q. B. 608 ; 71 L. T.
94; 42W. R. 670; 58 J. P. 700, H. L
138
Heydon's Case (1584), 3 Rep. 7b
39,123,486
Hey wood's Estate, Be, [1916] P. 47
127
Hickman -y. Maisey, [1900] 1 Q. B. 752
563
Hicks, Hxp. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 143 44 L. J. Bank. 106 32
L. T. 432; 23 W. R. 862
..
..
611
Hickson v. Darlow (1883), 23 Oh. D. 690 52 L. J. Ch. 453 48
L. T. 449 31 W. R. 417
386
Higginson v. Simpson (1877), 2 0. P. D. 76 46 L. J. 0. P. 192 ;
36 L. T. 17 ; 25 W. R. 303
210
Higgs V. Schroeder (1878), 3 C. P. D. 252 47 L. J. Q. B. 426 ;
26W. R. 831
26
Hilder v. Dexter, [1902] A. 0. 474 71 L. J. Oh. 781 ; 87 L "r
311 ; 7 Com. Cas. 268 9 Mans. 378, H. L. ..
50
Hill, Mx p. (1877), 6 Oh. D. 63
46 L. J. Bank. 116 37 L. T. 46'25 W. R. 784
97
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLK OF CASES.
Hill,

Ixiii

PAGE

33 E. R. 664
(1827), 3 0. & P. 225
Crook (1873), L. R. 6 H. L. 283 ; 42 L.
W. R. 137

Exp.

602

V.

Ch. 702

J.

22

East & West India Dock Co. (1884), 9 A. C. 456 j 53 L.

Ch. 842 ; 50 L. T. 163 ; 32 W. R. 925 ; 48 J. P. 788
V.

41,106
J.

203, 357, 457

Hall (1876), 1 Ex. D. Ill

860
V.

London

V.

45 L. J,

M.

C. 153

35 L. T.
306

& County Assrce. Co.

(1857), 1

H.

& N.

398

26

L. J. Ex. 89 108 R. R. 6
V. Settle, [1917] 1 Ch. 319, C.
Hilliard V. Lenard (1829), M.
M. 297
HUls u. Shepherd (1858), 1 F.
F. 191
Hinde v. Chorlton (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 104 ; 12 .Jur. N. S. 1008
15L. T. 472
Hinds V. Buenos Ayres Tramways Co. (1906), 76 L. J. Ch. 17
95L. T. 780
Hinks V. Safety Lighting Co. (1876), 4 Ch. D. 607 ; 36 L. T. 391
Hinton v. Dibbin (1842), 2 Q. B. 646 ; 2 G.
D. 36 ; 11 L. J. Q. B.
113 ; 6 Jnr. 601 ; 57 R. R. 754
Hipkins v. Birmingham Gas Co. (1861), 6 H.
N. 250; 30 L. J.
Ex. 60 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 213 ; 9 W. R. 168
..
.
188,
Hirst V. Molesbury (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 130 ; 23 L. T. 55 ; 19
;

&
&

440
412
397
198

169

626
653

&

23

&

W.

R. 246

529
588

West Riding Union Banking

Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560 ; 70

L. J. K. B. 828 ; 85 L. T. 3 ; 49 W. R. 715, C. A. . .
110, 138
Hiscock, Be, [1901] P. 78 ; 70 L. J. P. D.
A. 22 ; 84 L. T. 61
127
Hitchcock V. Way (1837), 6 A.
E. 943; 6 L. J. K. B. 215;
2 N.
P. 72 ; W. W.
D. 491 ; 45 R. R. 653
396, 733
Hobbs V. Henning (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 791 34 L. J. C. P.
V.

&

&

&

&

117
694,695
;;. Winchester Corp., [1910]
2 K. B. 271 ; 79 L. J. K. B.
1123; 102 L. T. 841 74 J. P. 413 ; 8 L. G. R. 1072
186, 475
Hobson V. Neale (1853), 8 Ex. 131 22 L. J. Ex. 175; 91 R. R.
396
404, 730
Hodgkinson v. Wyatt (1843), 4 Q. B. 749 13 L. J. Q. B. 54 . . 733
Hodgson V. Bell (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 525 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 231 62
L. T. 481 ; 38 W. R. 325
..
..
291
V. Carlisle, L. B. (1857), 8 E. & B. 116 ; 112 R. R. 469
..
247
V. Jex (1876), 2 Ch. D. 122
45 L. J. Ch. 388
.
590
14 R. R. 738
V. Temple (1813), 5 Taunt. 181 ; 1 Marsh 5
694, 699
..454
Hodsden u. Harridge (1669), 2 Wms. Saund. 64 a
..
Hodson V. Sharpe (1808), 10 East 350 ; "10 R. R. 324
..
198, 380
735
Hoggan V. Wood (1889), 16 R. (Justiciary) 96 Sco
Holborn Union v. St. Leonard, Shoreditch (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 145 ;
..
46 L. J. Q. B. 36 35 L. T. 400 25 W. R. 40
..
715
066
Holgate V. Slight (1852), 2 L. M. & P. 662 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 74 ..
513
Holland,^j;^. (1902), 71L. J. Ch. 518
HoUingworth v. Palmer (1849), 4 Ex. 281 ; 18 L. J. Ex. 409
36, 406
;

"

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixiv

FACE

Holman w. Johnson (1775), 1 Cowp. 341

Holme V. Guy (1877), 5 Ch. D. 901 46 L. J. Ch. 648 36
600 25 W. R. 547
Holmes v. Clarke (1861), 6 H. & N. 349 30 L. J. Ex. 135
;

,-

N.
i;.

V.

L. T.

47

'

-.

694,695

7 Jur.

&

9 L. T. 198
..
3 L. T. 675 9 W. R. 419
;
Pipers, [1914] 1 K. B. 57
Service (1854), 15 C. B. 293 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 24; 1 Jur.

S. 397

720
191

28
S. 258; lOOR. R. 357
Holt V. CoUyer (1881), 16 Ch. D. 718 50 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 44 L. T.
214 29 W. R. 502
107
Honeybone v. Hainbridge (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 418 56 L. J. Q. B.
130
46 ; 56 L. T. 365; 35 W. R. 520 51 J. P. 103 1 Fox 26
Hood . Barrington (1868), L. R. 6 Bq. 218
514
Hood Barrs v. Heriot, [1897] A. C. 177 66 L. J. Q. B. 356 ; 76
L. T. 299 45 W. R. 507, H. L
102
Hope V. Hope (1854), 4 De G. M. & G. 328 23 L. J. Ch. 682 ;
102R. R. 146
518
Hopkins v. Smethwick Local Bd. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 712 59 L. J.
641
Q. B. 250 62 L. T. 783 38 W. R. 499 54 J. P. 693
Hopper, Be (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 367 8 B. & S. 100 36 L. J.
646
Q. B. 97 15 L. T. 566 15 W. R. 443
Hopton V. Thirlwall (1864), 9 L. T. 327 12 W. R. 72 ..
..
184
Hordon D. Hesketh (1859), 4 H. & N. 175
297
Horn V. Ion (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 78 2 L. J. K. B. 153 1 N. &
M. 627
570
Homsey L. Bd. v. Monarch Building Society (1889), 24 Q. B. D.
B.
38
W.
1
29 L. J. Q.
105
R. 85 53 J. P. 774, C. A.
4, 372
Homsey U.D.C. v. Hennell, [1902] 2 K. B. 73 71 L. J. K. B.
479 86 L. T. 423 50 W. R. 521 66 J. P. 613
248, 549
Horsfall v. Davy (1816), 1 Stark, 169
714
Horton v. Colwyn Bay U. C, [1908] 1 K. B. 327 77 L. J. K. B.
215 98 L. T. 547 72 J. P. 57 6 L. G. R. 211
..
..
172
Hough V. Windus (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 224 53 L. J. Q. B. 165
50 L. T. 312 32 W. R. 452 1 M. B. R. 1
390, 501, 556
How V. L. & N. W. Rail. Co. (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 368
519
23
B.
D. 1
Howard, -w. Beall, [1889]
Q.
156
V. Bodington (1877), 2 P. D. 203
649, 656, 658
Howarth v. Sutcliie (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 729
128
Howe . Synge (1812), 15 East, 540
704
Howe Machine Co., JJe (1889), 41 Ch. D. 118
..
..
618
Howell V. Coupland (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 258 46 L. J. Q. B. 147
33 L. T. 832 24 W. R. 470
674
V. London Dock Co. (1858), 8 E. & B. 212
27 L. J.
C
4Jur.
N.
S.
112R.
205;
R.
524
177;
..
..
429
Howes V. Inl. Rev. (1876), 1 Ex. D. 385 45 L. J. M. C. 86
46 L. J. M. C. 15 35 L. T. 584 24 W. R. 897
..
..
574
Hoyland v. Bremner (1846), 2 C. B. 84 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 381
15 L. J. C. P. 133 10 Jur. 36 69 R. R. 417
165 374
Hoyle, Re, [1893] 1 Oh. 84; 62 L. J. Ch. 182 67 L. T. 674 41
W.R.81
512,513

N.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.
Hoyle

IxV

V. Hitchman (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 233

48 L. J. M. 0. 97 40
L. T. 252 ; 27 W. R. 487
Huber v. Steiner (1835), 2 Bing. N. 0. 202 ; 2 Scott 304 1

491

Hodges 206 ; 42 R. R. 598

Hubert v. Treherne (1842), 3 M. & G. 743
Hudson w. Bray, [1917] 1 K. B. 520

278
69
100

Ede

V.

(1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 412; 37 L. J. Q. B. 166

L. T. 764
V.

..

McRae

W.

940 8 B. & S. 640

..
..
(1863), 4 B. & S. 685
33 L. J. M. C. 65

16

W. R.

60 R. R. 600

..

18

12

42

R. 80
167, 180,194
Tooth (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 46 47 L. J. Q. B. 18 37 L. T.
462;26W. R. 95
51,521
Hudston V. Midland Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 366 38 L. J.
Q. B. 213; 20L. T. 526; 17 W. R. 705
565
Huggins K. Bambridge (1740), Willes 241
245,260
Hughes, Exp. (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 138 2 0. L. R. 1542 18
Jur. 447
685
[1893] 1 Q. B. 595 62 L. J. Q. B. 558 ; 68 L. T. 629
, Be,
41 W. R. 466; lOM. B.R. 91
99
V. Buckland (1846), 16 M. & W. 346
3 D. & L. 702
16 L. J. Ex. 233 10 Jur. 884 71 R. R. 701
..
..
413
V. Chatham (1843), 5 M. & Gr. 64
7 Scott N. R. 581
1
Lut. Reg. Cas. 51
13 L. J. C. P. 44 7 Jur. 1136 ..
217, 218
V. Chester Ry. Co. (1862), 1 Dr. & Sm. 524
3 De G. P. &
J. 352
8 Jur. 221 31 L. J. Ch. 97 7 L. T. 197 9 W. R.
760
91
V. Coed Talon Colliery Co., [1909] 1 K. B. 957
78 L. J.
K. B. 639 10 L. T. 565
55,346
V. Lumley (1854), 4 E. & B. 358
24 L. J. Q. B. 29 99
R. R. 609
404
V. Morris (1862), 2 De G. M. & G. 349
21 L. J. Ch. 761
16 Jur. 603
465,570
V. Smallwood (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 306
69 L. J. Q. B. 503
V.

63L. T. 198
Hull Dock Co. V. Browne

553
(1831), 2 B.

&

Ad. 59

36 R. R. 459
500, 504, 628

Mitchell (1839), 11 A. & E. 205 9 L. J. Q. B. 29 2

Rail. Cas. 70
3 P. & D. 141 62 R. R. 318 ..

70, 575
Hnmfrey v. Gery (1849), 7 C. B. 567 78 R. R. 762
..
..
303
Humphreys v. Green (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 148 52 L. J. Q. B. 140 ;
455
48 L. T. 60 ; 47 J. P. 244

Humble

V.

v. City Steam Bt. Co. (1860), 3 E & E.

..
30 L. J. Q. B. 25 7 Jur. N. S. 67 3 L. T. 732
Hunt V. G. Northern Ry. Co. (1851), 10 C. B. 900 2 L.M. & P.
..
268 20 L. J. Q. B. 349; 15 Jur. 400 84 R. R. 840
29 L. J. Ex. 222 6 Jur.
V. Hibbs (1860), 5 H. & N. 123
N. S. 78 ; 2 L. T. 379 8 W. R. 238
48 L. J. C. P.
V. Wimbledon Loc. Bd. (1878), 4 C. P. D. 48
207 ; 39 L. T. 35 ; 27 W. R. 123

Hungerford Market Co.

365

679

297

660

Digitized

by Microsoft

671

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixvi

PAGE
Clare, [1899] 1 Q. B. 635 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 278
197 ; 47 W. R. 394 ; 63 J. P. 308
V. Gibbons (1856), 1 H.
N. 459 ; 26 L. J. Ex. 1

Hunter .

&

80 L. T.

193
5 W..R.

12
10 Jur. N. S. 1249 108 R. R. 672
Nockolds (1850), 1 Mac. & G. 640; 1 H. & T. 644 19
..
74, 303
L. J. Ch. 177 14 Jur. 256
84 R. R. 217 ..
269
V. Potts (1791), 4 T. R. 182
2 H. Bl. 403 2 R. R. 353 ..
419
Hurcum u. Hilleary, [1894] 1 Q. B. 579, C. A
Hurlbatt v. Bamett, [1893] 1 Q. B. 77 62 L. J. Q. B. 1 67
561
L. T. 818 41 W. R. 33
Hussey v. Home Payne (1879), 4 App. Gas. 311 48 L. J. Ch.
512
846 41 L. T. 1 27 W. R. 585
153
Hussey's Case (1611), |9 Rep. 71, b
315,322
Hutching . Player (1663), Bridg. 272
Hutchinson, Be (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 521 55 L. J. Q. B. 582
31
34W. R. 476
.,
V. Gillespie (1856), 11 Ex. 798
25 L. J. Ex. 103 2 Jur.
711
N. S. 403 105 R. R. 799
3 C. L. R. 115 24
V. Greenwood (1855), 4 E. & B. 324
510
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 2
1 Jur. N. S. 329 99 R. R. 491
Huxham V. Wheeler (1864), 3 H. & C. 75 33 L. J. M. C. 153
322
..
..
10 Jur. N. S. 545 10 L. T. 342 12 W. R. 713
Hyams v. Stuart King, [1908] 2 K. B. 696 77 L. J. K. B. 794
210
99L. T. 424
Hyde v. Johnson (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 776 5 L. J. C. P. 291
..
..
69, 138
3 Scott 289; 2 Hodges 94; 42 R. R. 737
Hyman v. Van den Bergh, [1908] 1 Ch. 167 77 L. J. Ch. 154
17
98I^T. 478
91

V.

I.

West Ham Union (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 69 51 L. J. Q. B.

8 App.
17 ; 46 L. T. 149 30 W. R. 303 46 J. P. 660
928
Cas. 386 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 650 49 L. T. 205 ; 31 W.
47J. P. 708
Imperial Gas Co. v. London Gas Co. (1864), 10 Ex. 39 2 C. L. R.
102
1230 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 303
2 W. R. 627
18 Jur. 497

lies V.

&

350

12
Pemsel, [1891] App. Cas. 531 ; 61 L. J.
..
..
Q. B. 266 55 J. P. 806
1, 108, 448, 640, 544
India, The (1863), 32 L. J. P. M. & A. 185 ; 1 B. & L. 221 ; 12
L. T. 316
278
(No. 2) (1864), 33 L. J. P. M. & A. 193
296, 735
Indian Chief, The (1800), 3 Rob. C. 12
111,265
Industry, The (1812), 1 Gallison 114
..
..
338, 500, 501
Ingate^!. Austrian Lloyd's Co. (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 704
27 L. J.
C. P. 323 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 976 ; 114 R. R. 905
673
Inglis V. G.
Rail. Co. (1852), 16 Jur. 895, H. L. Sco. ..
138, 139
Ingliss ?;. Grant (1794), 5 T. R. 530
258

R. R. 466

Income Tax Commrs.

v.

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.
Ingram

&

TAGB

Royle

541, C.

Ings

V.

Ixvil

v.

London

C. P. 86

Services Maritimes du Tr^port, [1914] 1 K. B.

& S. W. Ry. Co. (1868), L.

17

W.

276,677
R. 4 C. P. 19

R. 120

38 L.

J.

..
398
Inland Revenue v. Angus (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 579 38 W. R. 3 504
V. Forrest (1891), 15 App. Cas. 334
60 L. J. Q. B. 281
63 L. T. 36 39 W. R. 33 ; 54 J. P. 772
508
V. Oliver, [1909] A. C. 427 ; 78 L. J. P. C. 146 ; 101 L. T.
140; 53 S. J. 649
509
V. Scott, [1892] 2 Q. B. 152
61 L. J. Q. B. 432 67 L. T.
173 ; 40 W. R. 632 56 J. P. 580, 632
544
Institute of Patent Agents v. Lockwood, [1894] App. Cas. 347
63 L. J. P. C. 74 71 L. T. 205
..
..
66,93,283,527
International Pulp Co., Jie (1876), 3 Ch. D. 594 ; 45 L. J. Ch.
446 35 L. T. 229 ; 24 W. R. 535
269
lona, The (1867), L. R. 1 P. 0. 426 ; 4 Moo, P. C. N. S. 336 ; 16
L. T. 158
517
lonides v. The Pacific Insurance Co. (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 517
41 L. J. Q. B. 190 ; 26 L. T. 738 21 W. R. 22
..
204
..
Irish Land Commission v. Brown, [1904] 2 Ir. R. 200, Ir.
..
457
V. Grant (1884), 10 App. Cas. 14
52 L. T. 228 33 W. R.
357
..
..
..
..
..
..
297
Irish Peat Co. v. Phillips (1861), 1 B. & S.'598
30 L. J. Q. B.
363 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1189 4L. T. 806 9 W. R. 873
654
..
Ironsides, The (1862), Lush. 458
31 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 6
401
L. T. 59
Irresistible, The (1822), 7 Wheat. 551
733
64 L. J. Q. B. 191 ; 71 L. T.
Isaacson, Re, [1895] 1 Q. B. 333
812 43 W. R. 278
702 703
..
Isherwood v. Oldkiiow (1815)'," 3 M.'& S. 382 ; leR. R."305 .. 539
38 L. J. Ex. 89 20
Isitt V. Beeston (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 159
576
L. T. 371 ; 17 W. R. 620
151
Ives, iJe (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 665
-y.lWillans, [1894] 2 Ch. 478; 63 L.J. Ch. 521 ; 70 L. T.
47
674 ; 42 W. R. 483
723
Iveson . Moore (1699), 1 Salk. 15
;

..

'

Jackson*. BarryRy. Co., [1893], ICh. 238,.C. A

24 L. J. Ex. 301 105
V. Beaumont (1855), 11 Ex. 300
R. R. 536
22 L. J. Ex. 13 91 R. R.
V. Burnham (1852), 8 Ex. 173
..
421
V. Roth (1918), 35 T. L. R. 59. D. C
39 L. J. C. P. 321
V. Spittall (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 542
22 L. T. 755 18 W. R. 1162
27 L. J. Q. B. 448 4
V. WooUey (1858), 8 E. & B. 778
Jur. N. S. 656 112 R. R. 774

683

by Microsoft

349
210

Digitized

151

277

391

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixviii

PAGE

Brett (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 1 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 377 ; 32

235,237,238
L. T. 522 23 W. R. 556
..
..
..
V Credit ILyonnais (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 589 53 L. J. Q. B.
156 50 L. T. 194 32 W. R. 761
277, 674
78
V. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Cas.) 33, Sco
James v. Buena Ventura Syndicate, [1896] 1 Ch. 457 65 L. J. Ch.
130
284 74 L. T. 1 ; 44 W. R. 372
. S. W. Ry. Co., (1872); L. R. 7 Ex. 287
41 L. J. Ex. 82
241,678
27 L. T. 382 20 W. R. 238
41
Jameson, Be, [1908] 2 Ch. Ill 77 L. J. Ch. 729 98 L. T. 745
39
V. Brick Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 208 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 249
349
..
L. T. 594 ; 27 W. R. 221
..
733
Jaques . Withy (1788), 1 H. Bl. 65
..
566
Jarman, Ex. p. (1877). 4 Ch. D. 835 46 L. J. Ch. 485 ..
Jarrett v. Hunter (1886), 34 Ch. D. 182
56 L. J. Ch. 141 ; 55
514
L. T. 727 35 W. R. 132 51 J. P. 165
652
Jarvis v. Hemmings (No. 1), [1912] 1 Ch. 462
Jay V. Johnstone, [1893] 1 Q. B. 25, 189 62 L. J. Q. B. 128
542
68 L. T. 129 ; 41 W. R. 161 57 J. P. 309
Affd.,
Jay's Furnishing Co. v. Brand & Co., [1914] 2 K. B. 132
652
[1915] 1K.B. 458
3 C. L. R. 625 24
JefiFerys v Boosey (1854), 4 H. L. Cas. 815
L. J. Ex. 81 1 Jur. N. S. 615
..
4, 74, 273, 274, 275, 291
Jeffreys v. Gurr (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 833
1 L. J. K. B. 23 ; 36
617
R. R. 769
Jeffries v. Alexander (1860), 8 H. L. C. 594 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 148
7
Jur. N. S. 221 ; 2 L. T. 768
208,210,216,225
Jenkins v. Gt. Central Ry. (1912), 81 L. J. K. B. 24
..
26
..
V. Jones (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 128; 51 L. J. Q. B. 438
46
L. T. 795
30 W. R. 668
310
Jenner v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1911), 105 L. T. 131 ; 75 J. P. 419 55
S.J. 553
635
Jennings v. Hammond (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 225 ; 51 L. J. Q. B.
493;31W. R.40
091
Jennings' Cabe (1838), 2 Lew. C. C. 1.30
582
Jesson V. Wright (1820), 2 Bligh 55 21 R. R. 1, H. L
369
Jestons D. Brooke (1778), 2 Cowp. 793
210
Jesus College Case (1616), Duke on Charit. Uses, p. 78
156
Jewel V. Stead (1856), 6 E. & B. 350 ; 25 L. J. Q. B. 294 ; 1 Jur.
N. S. 1136
612
Jeyes 1!. Booth (1797), 1 B. & P. 97
685
Johannes, The (I860), Lush. 182
268,272
Johannesberg Co., Be, [1892] 1 Ch. 583; 61 L. J. Ch. 284; 66
L. T. 605; 40 W. R. 456
436
Johns 1). Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. 359
174
Johnson, Ex p. (1863), 3 B. & S. 947 9 Jur. N. S. 1128 ; 32
L. J. M. C. 193; 11 W. R. 620; 8L. T. N. S. 275 ..
..
13
^tc^. (1839), 7Dowl. 702
585
V. Colam (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 544 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 185 ;
32 L. T. 725 23 W. R. 697
242

Jacobs

V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixix
PAGE

Johnson

M.
V.

Croydon (Mayor)
117 54 L. T. 295

55 L. J.
(1886), 16 Q. B. D. 708
C.
50 J. P. 487
;
;
Harris (1855), 15 C. B. 357 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 40 ; 100 R. R.
v.

523

386

104
52 L. J. Q. B. 343 ; 48
L. T. 435; 31 W. R. 768; 5Asp. M,C. 51
577
V. Hudson (1809), 11 East 180
699
10 R. R. 465
..
..
V. Johnson, [1900] P. 19
69 L. J. P. 13 81 L. T. 791 ; 64
J. P. 72
152,519
>. Rees(1915), 84L. J. K. B. 1276
211
i; Upham (1859), 2 E. & E. 250 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 252 ..
450
..
i;. WUson (1882), 46 L. T. 647
..319
..
..
..
Johnston v. Coal Consumers' Co. of Toronto, [1898] A. C. 447
67 L. J. P. C. 33 78 L. T. 270, P. C
721,722
Johnstone v. Abercrorabie (1892), 30 Sc. L. R. 260, Sc.
474
Jolly V. Hancock (1852), 7 Ex. 820 22 L. J. Ex. 38 16 Jur.
550
648
Jones, Ex. p. (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 663 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 124
33
502
L. T. 116 ; 23 W. R. 886
Be (1852), 7 Ex. 586 16 Jur. 801 21 L. J. M. C. 116 .. 574
Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 589 Affd. 59 L. J. Q. B. 331
..
358
Be, [1891] 2 Q. B. 231
60iL. J. Q. B. 751 ; 64 L. T. 804
40 W. R. 95 8 M. B. R.210
576, 579
u Badley (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 635
221
-v. Bird (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 837 ; 1 D. & R. 497 ; 24 R. R.
630
579
V. Carmarthen (1841), 8 M. & W. 605
10 L. J. Ex. 401 ;
621
58R. R. 826
V. Conway Water Supply, [1893] 2 Ch. 603; 62 L. J. Ch.
..
363
..
767 69 L. T. 265 41 W. R. 616 57 J. P. 501
126
V. Davies, [1901] 1 K. B. 118; 70 L. J. K. B. 38
..
..
..589
V.
..
[1898] 1 Q. B. 405 67 L. J. Q. B. 294
V. Eestiniog Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 733; 37
L. J. Q. B. 214
18 L. T. 902 17 W. R. 28 ; 9 B. & S. 835 632
428, 438
V. Harrison (1851), 6 Ex. 328 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 166
21 L. J. M. C. 102 ; 16 Jur.
V. Johnson (1852), 7 Ex. 452
365
840
80 L. J. Ch. 145 103
V. Llanrwst U. C, [1911] 1 Ch. 393
723
L. T. 751 75 J. P. 68 ; 9 L. G. R. 222
y.Mersey Docks Co. (1864), 11 H. L. Cas. 443; 35 L. J.
V.

Hogg

(1883), 10 Q. B. D. 432

"

. .

..
229,543
C. 1
..
Ogle (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 192 42 L. J. Ch. 332 28 L. T.
384
245; 21 W. R. 239
99
V. Shervington, [1908] 2 K. B. 539 ; 77 L. J. K. B. 771
75,187
L. T. 57 ; 72 J. P. 381
21
I'. Smart (1785), 1 T. R. 44
117
V. Taylor (1859), 1 E. & B. 20 ; 28 L. J. M. C. 204
194
R. R. 122
27 L. J. Q. B. 234 ; 4
V. Thompson (1858), E. B. & E. 63
101
Jur. N S. 338 113 R. R. 545

M.
V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

IXX

PAGE

Jones

Victoria Graving

V.

Dock Co.

314 46
R. 348,

(1877), 2 Q. B. D.
144, 347 ; 25 W.

L. J. Q. B. 219 ; 36 L. T.
273, 512, 515
501
513
Jones Bros. w. Joyner (1900), 82 L. T. 768
Jones Lloyd & Co., He (1889), 41 Ch. D. 159 58 L. J. Ch. 582 ;
..
129
61 L. T. 219 ; 37 W. R. 615 1 M. B. R. 161
..
Jordeson v. Sutton Gas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217 ; 68 L. J. Ch. 457 ;
630
80 L. T. 815 ; 63 J. P. 692
..
Jorgensen v. Neptune Steam Fishing Co. (1902), 4 Fraser 992,
..
268, 269
Sco
..
Jortin V. S. E. R. Co. (1855), 6 De 6. M. & G. 270 ; 24 L. J. Ch.
702
343 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 433 106 R. R. 95
Jubb V. Hull Dock Co. (1846), 9 Q. B. 443 3 Rly. Cas. 795 ; 15
406
L. J. 0. B. 403 ; 11 Jur. 15 72 R. R. 332
Julius V. Oxford (Bp. of) (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214 ; 49 L. J. Q. B.
427, 432, 433,
577 ; 42 L. T. 546 28 W. R. 726 ; 44 J. P. 600
;

434, 435, 438, 443

K.

Kaufman

v. Gerson, [1903] 2 K. B. 114

73 L. J. K. B. 320
Goodwin (1830), 6 Bing. 576 31 R. R. 500
..
Kearney v. Whitehaven Colliery Co., [1893] 1 Q. B. 700 62 L.

Kay

44

..

..728
J.

68 L. T. 690 ; 41 W. R. 594 57 J. P. 645

..
Reams v. Cordwainders' Co. (1859), 6 C. B. N. S. 388; 28
L. J. C. P. 285 5 Jnr. N. S. 1216
91,
Keates v. Lewis Merthyr Collieries, [1910] 2 K. B. 445 79 L. J.
K. B. 722 ; 102 L. T. 898 74 J. P. 292
Keen . Price, [1914] 2 Ch. 98
Keep V. St. Mary's, Newington, [1894] 2 Q. B. 524 63 L. J.
Q. B. 369 ; 70 L. T. 509 ; 58 J. P. 748
. Stevens (1909), 73 J. P. 112
Keighley's Case (1609), 10 Rep., 140a
Keilley v. Carson (1843), 4 Moo. P. C. 0. 63 7 Jur. 137, P. C.
Kelly, Be, [1895] 1 Q. B. 180 ; 64 L.J. Q. B. 129
71 L. T. 843
43W. R. 191
Kemp . Lewis, [1914] 3 K. B. 543
V. Neville (1861), 31 L. J. C. P. 158
V. Waddingham (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 358
Kennedy v. Cowie, [1891] 1 Q. B. 771 60 L. J. M. C. 170 64
L. T. 598 ; 39 W. R. 686 ; 65 J. P. 680 17 Cox C. C. 320
1). Gibson (1869), 8 Wallace 498
..'
..
..
445
Ketit C. C, Ex p., [1891] 1 Q. B. 725 60 L. J. Q. B. 435 65
L. T. 213 39 W. R. 465 55 J. P. 647
..
V. Gerrard, [1897] A. C. 625 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 077 ; 77 L. T
109 46 W. R. Ill ; 61 J. P. 804
Kenworthy v. Schofield (1824), 2 B. & C. 945 ; 4 D. & R. 556
26R. R. 600
Kenyon v. Eastwood (1888), 57 L. J. Q. B. 455

M.

C. 129

704
578

202
199

336
351
228
632

'

438
138
272
727

168
570

542
94

Digitized

by Microsoft

512
15

TABLE OF CASES.
Kenyon

v.

Jur. N.

Kerrison

PAGE

&

Hart

Ixxi

M.

S. 249
34 L. J.
(1865), 6 B.
S. 602
11 L. T. 733 ; 18 W. R. 406
;

C. 87

..

..

11

Cole (1807), 8 East 231

Keynaham v. Baker (1864), 2 H. tfc C. 729 33 L. J. Ex. 41 ; 9
Jur. N. S. 1346
12 W. R. 156 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 418 ..
..
Kibble, Exp. (1875), L. R. 10 Ch. 373 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 63 ; 32
L. T. 138 ; 23 W. R. 433
Kimberley W. W. Co. v. De Beers Mines, [1897] A. C. 515 ; 66
L. J. P. C. 108 ; 77 L. T. 117, P. C
Kimbray*. Draper (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 160 37 L. J. Q. B. 80
18 L. T. 540 ; 16 W. R. 539 9 B. & S. 80
..
..
401,
Kine V. Evershed (1847), 10 Q. B. 148 16 L. J. Q. B. 271 11
Jur. 673
King V. George (1877), 5 Ch. D. 627 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 670 36
L. T. 759 ; 25 W. R. 638
Kingsford v. G. W. Ry. Co. (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 761 33 L. J.
C. P. 307 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 804
10 L. T. 722 12 W. R.
1059
24,
Kingston-upon-HuU Dock Co. v. Browne (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 59
.

167
703

119

392
125

403

414

583

141

36R. R. 459
500,504,528
Rinning, Exp. (1847), 10 Q. B. 730 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 257
..
643
;;. Buchanan
18 L. J. C. P. 332 79
(1849), 8 C. B. 271
R. R. 490
643,644
Kippins, JUx p., [1897] 1 Q. B. 1 66 L. J. Q. B. 95 75 L. T.
421 45 W. R. 188 60 J. P. 791 18 0. C. C. 459
..
574
Kirk V. Todd (1882), 21 Ch. D. 484 52 L. J. Ch. 224 ; 47 L. T.
676; 31 W. R. 69
12, 369
Kirkland v. Peatfield, [1903] 1 K. B. 756 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 355 ;
88 L. T. 472 ; 51 W. R. 544
303
Kirkleatham Local Bd., Se, [1893] 1 Q. B. 375 62 L. J. Q. B.
293
180 ; 67 L. T. 811 57 J. P. 229
Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall (1845), 13 M. & W. 766 ; 1 C. & K.
69
577 ; 14 L. J. Ex. 209 9 Jur. 214
Kirkstall Brewery, Se (1877), 5 Ch. D. 535 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 424
37L. T. 312
..
556
Kirshenboim v. Salmon and Glucksteln, [1898] 2 Q. B. 19 67
L. J. Q. B. 601 78 L. T. 658 46 W. R. 573 62 J. P. 439 195
Kish V. Taylor, [1911] 1 K. B. 625 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 607 103 L. T.
785 ; 16 Com. Cas. 59
370
Kitchen, iJe (1919), 35 T. L. R. 612
127
V. Bartsch (1805), 7 East 53 j 3 Smith 58
532
V. Shaw (1837), 6 A. & E. 729
7 L. J. M. C. 14 ; 1 N. & P.
585
791 ; W. W. & D. 278
Kitson V. Ashe, [1899] 1 Q. B. 425 68 L. J. Q. B. 286 ; 80 L. T.
323 03 J. P. 325
..
523
..
..
Kittow v. Liskeard (1875), L.R. lOQ. B.'7 44 L. J. M. C. 23';
129
31 L. T. 601 ; 23 W. R. 72
Knight, Be (1848), 1 Ex. 802 17 L. J. Ex. 168 12 Jur. 101 ;
297
74R. R. 857
69
V. Crockford (1794), 1 Esp. 190 ; 5 R. R. 729
..
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixxii

PACK

Knight

459

Famaby

(1706), 2 Salk. 670

V. Lee, [1893J 1 Q. B. 41 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 28
41 W. R. 125 ; 57 J. P. 117
?;.

67 L. T. 688

385
107

Knight of St. Michael, The, [1898] P. 30

Knill '. Towse (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 186

J. Q. B. 136,
; 59 L.
61
..
..
38 W. R. 521 ; 54 J. P. 789
Knowles & Sons, Ltd. v. Bolton Corporation, [1900] 2 Q. B. 257 142
Kodak Lim. v: Clarke, [1903] 1 K. B. 505 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 369 ;
271
88 L. T. 155 ; 51 W. R. 459 ; 67 J. P. 213
102
Konigsberg, The, [19171 P. 174
Kronheim v. Johnson (1877), 7 Ch. D. 60 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 132 ; 37
512
26 W. R. 142
L. T. 751
Kruse v. Johnson, [1898] 2 Q. B. 91 67 L. J. Q. B. 782 ; 78
523, 525
L. T. 647 ; 46 W. R. 630 ; 62 J. P. 469
Kutner v. Phillips, [1891] 2 Q. B. 267 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 505 ; 64
280, 314
L. T. 628 ; 39 W. R. 526
291
Kyle 1). Jeffreys (1859), 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 611, H. L
Kynaston v. Mackinder (1878), 47 L. J. Q. B. 76 ; 37 L. T. 390 B08

697

63 L. T. 47

L.

678
D. Trill (1842), 6 Jur. 272
Lafone v. Smith (1859), 3 H. & N. 735 28 L. J. Ex. 33 4 Jur.
211
N. S. 1064 117 R. R. 9.59
35
Laird 1). Briggs (1881), 19 Ch. D. 22
Lake v. Butler (1855), 5 E. & B. 92 3 C. L. R. 1124 24 L. J.
612
..
..
Q. B. 273 1 Jur. N. S. 499 103 R. R. 383
Lakeman v. Stephenson (1868), L. R. 3Q. B. 192 37 L. J. M. C.
495
..
..
57; 18L. T. 539; 16 W. R. 509; 9B. &S. 54
Laker v. Hordern (1876), 1 Ch. D. 644 45 L. J. Ch. 315 34
43
L. T. 88 24 W. R. 543
223
..
Lamb v. Brewster (1879), 48 L. J. Q. B. 277, 421
..
21 L. T.98
V. N. London Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 4 Ch. 522
529
17W. R. 746
,
575
V. Stott (1899), 36 Sc. L. R. 913, Se
Lambert v. Hutchinson (1841), 2 M. & Gr. 858 3 Scott N. R.
142
^21
249
V. Taylor (1825), 4 B. & C. 138
..
..
6 D. & R. 188
152
Lambton i;. Parkinson (1887), 35 W. R. 545
Lamplough v. Norton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 452 58 L. J. Q. B.
279 37 W. R. 422 53 J. P. 389
40,708
Lancashire v. Stretford (1858), E. B. & E. 225 27 L. J. M. C.
247
209; 4 Jur. N. S. 1274; 113R. R. 613
Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry.'Co. v. Bury; (1889), 14 App. Cas.
417 61 L. T. 417 59 L. J. Q. B. 85
131,035
..
..
V. Knowles (1888), 14 App. Cas. 248
20 Q. B. D. 391 57
54
L. J. 0- B. 150 52 J. P. 340

Lade

^Brick, &c. Co.

651, C. A

v.

Lanes.

&

Yorks. Rail. Co., [1902] 1 K. B.

91

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxiii
PAGE

Lancaster, Be (1878), 3 Ch. D. 498 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 147 ; 35

L. T. 649; 24W. R. 1010
D. Greaves (1829), 9 B. fc C. 628
Lane v. Bennett (1836), 1 M. &. W. 70 1 Gale 368
..
..
V. Cotton (1701), 12 Mod. 485; 1 Ld. Raym. 746 ..
..
V. Lane, [1896 J P. 133 ; 65 L. J. P. D. & A. 63
74 L. T.
557; 60 J. P. 345
V. Rendall, [1899] 2 Q. B. 673 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 8 ; 81 L. T.
445 48 W. R. 153 ; 63 J. P. 757
V. Tyler (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 461
Lang . Kerr (1878), 3 App. Cas. 536, H. L
V. Walker (1902), 40 Sc. L. R. 284, Sc
Langham Rink Co., iJe (1877), 5 Ch. D. 669; 46 L. J. Ch. 345;
36L. T. 605
Langrish v. Archer (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 44 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 47
47 L. T. 548 31 W. R. 183 ; 47 J. P. 295 ; 15 Cox C. C.
;

135
585
30
145

397
196
198
92
474

592

194
v.

Larpent v. Bibby (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 481

101 R. R. 252, H. L

Latham v. Hide

492, 600
688, 694

&
&

Hughes

S. 593 ; 14 R. R. 531
(1855), 1 M.
W. 535 ; 6 L. J. Ex. 136
Lanman . Audley (1837), 2 M.
Lanston Monotype Coi'pn. v. Anderson, [1911] 2 K. B. 15
L. J. K. B. 951 ; 104 L. T. 503

Langton

(1832), 1 C. &JVI. 128

518

..
;

80
504

24 L. J. Q. B. 301

388

2 L. J. Ex. 72

D. P. C.

594; 3Tyr. 143

697
V. Lafone (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 115
36 L. J. Ex. 97
15
W.R. 453 15 L. T. N. S. 627
92
Latless V. Holmes (1792), 4 T. R. 660
740
Lauri v. Renad, [1892] 3 Ch. 402 61 L. J. Ch. 580 67 L. T.
275 40 W. R. 679
382,387
Lavy V. L. C. C, [1895] 2 Q. B. 577 ; 64 |L. J. M. C. 262 ; 73
58
L. T. 106 43 W. R. 677 ; 59 J. P. 630
Law V. Hodaon (1809), 11 East 300 2 Camp. 147 ; 10 R. R. 513 695
Law Society v. Shaw (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 1 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 249
46 L. T. 187 ; 30 W. R. 820 46 J. P. 308 and 8 App. Cas.
..
471
407 52 L. J. Q. B. 674 49 L. T. 141 31 W. R. 754
Lawrence v. G. N. Ry. Co. (1851), 16 Q. B. 643 20 L. J. Q. B.
..
630
293 15 Jur. 652 6 Rly. Cas. 656 83 R. R. 645 ..
37 L. J. M. C. 78 18
V. King (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 345
..
67,564
L.T. N. S. 356; 16W. R. 966; 9B. &S. 325
9 L. J. Q. B. 284
V. Wilock (1840), 11 A. & E. 941
683
3P. &D. 536; 8D. P. C.681
269
Laws . Smith (1883), 9 A. C. 356, P. C
Lawson v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1896] 2 Ir. R. 418, Ir. 270
-y. Reynolds, [1904] 1 Ch. 718
150
54 L. J. Ch.
V. Vacuum Brake Co. (1884), 27 Ch. D. 137
430
16 51 L. T. 275 33 W. R. 186
413
Lea u. Facey (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 354
Leach v. Jay (1878), 9 Ch. D. 42 47 L. J. Ch. 876 27 W. R.
106
99; 39L. T. 242
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxiv

PAGE

..572
Richardson (1762), 3 Burr. 1341 ,.
Leader V. DuflFey (1888), 13 A. C. 294
13,14
10
V. Yell (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 584
33 L. J. M. C. 231
..
L. T. 532
..
475
10 Jur.N. S. 731 12 W. R. 915
345
Learoyd, ^x p. (1880), 13 Ch. D. 321
69 L. T.
V. Bracken, [1894] 1 Q. B. 114; 63 L. J. Q. B. 96
700
668 42 W. R. 196
194
Leatt V. Vine (1861), 30 L. J. M. 0. 217 8 L. T. 581
64
Leconfield (Lord) v. Lonsdale (Lord) (1870), 39 L. J. C. P. 305
Lee V. Bude & Torrington Ry. Co. (1871"), L. R. 6 C. P. 576 40
228, 440, 460
L. J. C. P. 285
24 L. T. 827 19 W. R. 954
V. Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 337
61 L. J. Q. B. 780 66 L. T.
..
548 40 W. R. 469 56 J. P. 678
167, 188, 332, 473
4 D. & L. 666 16 L. J. C. P.
V. Simpson (1847), 3 C. B. 871
105 11 Jur. 127 71 R. R. 524
178, 575
V. Taylor (1912), 23 Cox C. C. 220
193
Leech v. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1860), 29 L. J. M. 0. 150 8
635
W. R. 216 5 H. & N. 160
Lees V. Newton (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 658 35 L. J. C. P. 285
14W. R. 938
100
. Summergill (1811), 17 Ves. 508
82
37 L. J. C. P. 157 ; 18
Leefce v. Hart (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 322
L. T. 292 16 W. R. 676
414
Le Eeuvre v. Miller (1857), 8 E. & B. 3^ 26 L. J. M. C. 175
122 R. R. 582
3 Jur. N. S. 1255
654, 667
Leggott V. G. N. Ry. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 599 45 L. J. Q. B.
657 35 L. T. 334 24 W. R. 784
449
Leicester Corporation v. Burgess (1833), 5 B. & A. 246 2 N. & M.
131 39 R. R. 450
321
Leigh V. Kent (1789), 3 T. R. 362 ..
..
240,532,534,735 738
Leith Council v. Leith Harbour Comm., [1899] A. C. 508 68
L. J. P. C. 109 81 L. T. 98, H. L
626
Leith Harbour Comm. v. Poor Inspector (1866), L. R. 1 Sc. App.
17
247
Le Louis (1817), 2 Dods. 229
263, 266, 272
Leman v. Houseley (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 66 44 L. J. Q. B. 22
31 L. T. 833 23 W. R. 235
..
394
Lemayne v. Stanley (1681), 3 Lev. 1
..
..
69, 514
Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier (1895), 64 L. J. P. C. 97 ..
256
Lemm v. Mitchell, [1912] A. C. 400 81 L. J. P. C. 173
..
9
Lemy V. Watson, [1915] 3 K. B. 731
191
Le Neve v. Le Neve (1747), Amb. 436
456
Leng, Re, [1895] 1 Ch. 652 64 L. J. Oh. 468 72 L. T. 407 43
W. R. 406
174
Lennox v. Stoddart, [1902] 2 K. B. 21 71 L. J. K. B. 747 87
L. T. 283 66 J. P. 469
600
Leominster Canal Co. v. Shrewsbury, &c. |Ry. Co. (1857), 3
K. & J. 654 26 L. J. Ch. 764 3 Jur. N. S. 930 112 R. R,
328
654
Lead Smelting Co.

v.

. .

.-.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

IxxV
PAGE

Leon, The (1881), 6 P. D. 148 50 L. J. P. D. & A. 59 44 L, T.

613 29 W. R. 916 4 Asp. M. C.404
..
..
277, 278
Leroux v. Brown (1852), 12 C. B. 801 22 L. J. C. P. 3 16 Jur.
263,273
1021 ; 92 R. R. 889
Leslie v. Richardson (1848), 6 C. B. 378
6 D. & L. 91 17
L. J. C. P. 324 12 Jur. 730
142
Lester, Ex. p., [1893] 2 Q. B. 113
62 L. J. Q. B. 372 ; 68 L. T.
739 41 W. R. 488
477
V. Foxcroft (1701), Colles 108
1 Wh. & T. L. Cas. 881 ..
455
V. Garland (1808), 15 Ves. 248
10 R. R. 68
605
V. Hickling, [1916] 2 K. B. 302
16,703
V. Torrens (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 403
46 L. J. M. C. 280 25
W. R.691
351,361
Le Sueur u. Le Sueur (1876), 1 P. D. 139 45 L. J. P. D. & A. 73 ;
34 L. T. 511 24 W. R. 616
256
Leverson v. R. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 394 18 W. R. 251
54, 538
Levet V. Gas Light & Coke Co, (1918), 35 T. L. R. 47
17
Levi V. Sanderson (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 330 38 L. J. Q. B. 135
17 W. R. 413 9 B. & S. 410
728,730
Levy ;. Warburton (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 708
693
V. Yates (1838), 8 A. & E. 129
7 L. J. Q. B. 138 3 N. & P.
692
249 ; 1 W. W. & H. 219
Lewes V. Barnett (1876), 6 Ch. D. 252 47 L. J. Ch. 144 26
W. R. 101
365,371
Lewis, Ex. j>. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 626 24 L. T. 785 19 W. R.
835
212
,Ex.'2>. (1888), 21 Q. B. D.
57 L. J.M. C."l08; 59
426
L.T. 338; 37 W.R. 13; 52J.P.773
Be (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 724 45 L. J. Q. B. 816 35 L. T.
347
859 ; 24 W. R. 1017
V. Carr (1876), 1 Ex. D. 484
46 L. J. Ex. 314 36 L. T.
500
44;24W.R.940
V. Davis (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 86
44 L. J. Ex. 86 23 W. R.
664
635
56 L. J. M. C. 45 56
V. Fermor (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 532
196
35 W. R. 378 51 J. P. 371 16 Cox C. C. 176
L. T. 236
47 L. J. Q. B. 133
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 195
41
37 L. T. 774 26 W. R. 255
732
. Hughes, [1916] 1 K. B. 831, C. A
;;. Roberts (1862), 11 C. B.
N. S. 23 31 L. J. C. P. 51
136
5 L. T. 351
S. 485
K. & G; 402 8 Jur.
V. Weston-Super-Mare Local Board (1888), 40 Ch. D. 55
140, 231, 530
58 L. J. Ch. 39 59 L-.T. 769 37 W. R. 121 ..
Lichfield Corporation v. Simpson (1845), 8 Q. B. 65 15 L. J. Q. B.
714,715
78;70R. R. 417
65 L. J. M. C. 64 74
Liddell v. Lofthouse, [1896] 1 Q. B.295
600
L. T. 139 44 W. R. 349 60 J. P. 264
..607
..
1 D. N. S. 767
Liffin . Pitcher (1842), 6 Jur. 537
695
Lightfoot V. Tenant (1796), 1 Bos. & P. 551 4 R. R. 735
177
Limland . Stephens (1801), 3 Esp. 269
;

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF OASES.

Ixxvi

PAGE

Lincoln College Case (1595), 3 Rep. 59 b

54, 375
454
Lincoln v. Wright (1859), 4 De G.
J. 16 ; 28 L. J. Oh. 705 ..
271
Lindsey i>. Barron (1848), 6 0. B. 291
V. Leigh (1848), 11 Q. B. 455 ; 3 New Sess. Cas. 99 ; 17
464
L. J. M. 0. 50 12 Jur. 286
Linton v. Blakeney Co-op. Soc. (1865), 3 H. &. C. 853 ; 34
731
ii. J. Ex. 211; 13L. T. 39; 13W. R. 843
Lion Insurance Co. v. Tucker (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 176 53
..
..
96
L. J. Q. B. 189 ; 49 L. T. 764 32 W. R. 546
683
Lismore V. Beadle (1842), 1 Dowl. N. S. 566
Little V. Poole (1829), 9 B. & C. 192
7 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 158
696
32R. R. 630
30
Littledale, Ex. p. (1873), L. R. 9 Ch. 257 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 529
202
L. T. 213
22 W. R. 443
Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner (1861), 2 De G. F. & J. 502 ;
569,649,653,667
SOL. J. Ch. 379
Llandaff Market Co. o. Lyndon (1861), 8 10. B. IST. S. 515 ; 30
..
322
L. J. M. 0. 105 6 Jur. N. S. 1344 ; 8 W. R. 693
..
Llanover, He, [1903] 2 Ch. 330 ; 72 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 88 L. T. 856
385
51W. R. 615
544
Lloyd, i;a!. ^. (1851), 1 Sim. N. S. 248
, Ex.
60 L. J. Q. B. 751 64 L. T.
p., [1891] 2 Q. B. 231
804 ; 40 W. R. 95 8 M. B. R. 210
576, 579
V. Lloyd (1885), 14 Q. B. D.' 725
53 L. T. 536 ; 33 W. R.
420
457 49 J. P. 630 15 Cox 0. 0. 767
Lloyd Italiano, Re (1885), 29 Ch. D. 219 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 748 33
\V.R.728
268
Lobb V. Stanley (1844), 5 Q. B. 574 D. & M. 635 ; 13 L. J. Q. B.
69
117; 8 Jur. 462
..
Lock, Re, Ex. p. Poppleton (1890), 63 L. T. 320 ; 39 W. R. 15 7
M. B. R. 184
28
Lockwood V. Att.-Gen. (1842), 10 M.
W. 464 ..
..
..
10
Lodge V. Huddersfield Corpn. (No. 1) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 568
314
v.\
(No. 2) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 571
314
Logsdon V. Booth, [1900] 1 Q. B. 401 69 L. J. Q. B. 131 ; 81
L. T. 602 ; 48 W. R. 266 ; 64 J. P. 165
133
V. Trotter, [1900] 1 Q. B. 617
69 L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 82 L. T.
151 48 W. R. 365 64 J. P. 421
133
Lolley's Case (1812), 1 R. & R. 236 ; 2 0. & F. 567 n. ; 37 R. R.
249
256
London and Blackwall Ry. Co. v. Lim'ehouse (1857), 3 K. & J.
123 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 164
314,322
and N. W. Ry. v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 1 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 1 ; 67
L. T. 630 41 W. R. 149
627
and N. W. Ry. Co. v. Ashton, [1919] 1 K. B. 623 ; W. N.
234
23,367
and S. W. Ry. Co. v. Flower (1876), 1 0. P. D. 77 45
L. J. 0. P. 54
33 L. T. 687
634
and S. W. Ry. Co. v. Hills, [1906] 1 K. B. 512 75 L. J.
K. B. 340 ; 94 L. T. 517 ; 70 J. P. 212
523

&

&

.'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxvii

London and Suburban Land

Co. v. Field (1881), 16 Ch. D. 645

50 L. J. Ch. 549 44 L. T. 444
and Yorks. Bank v. Belton (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 457 54
L. J. Q. B. 568 34 W. R. 31 50 J. P. 861
..
..
Association of Shipowners v. London and India Docks, [1892]
3 Ch. 242 ; 62 L. J. Oh. 294 67 L. T. 238 7 Asp. M. C.

107

129

195

550

Bank

Mexico

Apthorpe, [1891] 2 Q. B. 378 ; 60 L. J.

Q. B. 653 ; 65 L. T. 601 ; .39 W. R. 564
Brighton & S. C. Ry. v. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45 55
L. J. Ch. 354 ; 42 L. T. 250 ; 34 W. R. 657 ; 50 J. P. 388
Brighton & S. C. Ry. v. Watson (1879), 4 C. P. D. 118 ; 48
L. J. C. P. 316 ; 40 L. T. 183
711,
Chatham & Dover Ry. v. S. E. Ry. (1889), 40 Ch. D. 100
58 L. J. Ch. 75 ; 60 L. T. 370 37 W. R. 65
(City of) V. Wood (1701), 12 Mod. 669
272, 459,
(Corporation) v. G. W. Ry. Co. [1910] 2 Ch. 314
79
L. J. Ch. 622 ; 103 L. T. 20 54 Sol. J. 562
..
..
(Corporation) v. London Joint Stock Bank (1881), 50 L. J.
Q. B. 594, H. L
,.
Cotton Co., Be (1866), L. R. 2 Eq. 53 ; 35 L. J. Ch. 425 ;
14 L. T. 135 ; 12 Jur. 313 14 W. R. 575
C. C. V. Att.-Gen., [1902] A. C. 165 ; 71 L. J. Ch. 268 ; 86
L. T. 161 ; 50 W. R. 497 ; 66 J. P. 340
..
231, 619,
C. C. V. Aylesbury Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 106 ; 67 L. J. Q, B.
24 77 L. T. 440 ; 61J. P. 759
C. C. V. Bermondsey Bioscope Co , [1911] 1 K. p. 445 80
L. J. K. B. 144; 103 L. T. 760
75 J. P. 53 ; 9 E. G. R. 79
of

v.

270

630
712

680
461

. .

. .

. .

42

549

60
623
465

77,
0.

75,

524

Humphreys, [1894] 2 Q. B. 755 ; 63 L. J. M.

58 J. P. 734 ; 38 Sol. Journ. 632 ; 71 L. T. 201 43
W. R. 13
113
C. C. V. London School Board, [1892] 2 Q. B. 606
40 W. R.
..
604; 56 J. P. 791..
280
C. C. V. Payne (No. 2), [1905] 1 K. B. 410
196
C. C. V. S. Metrop. Gas Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 76
73 L. J. Ch.
136 89 L. T. 618 52 W. E. 161 ; 68 J. P. 5 ; 2 L. G. R.
161 ; 20 T. L. R. 83, C. A
108,611
C. C. V. Wandsworth & Putney Gas Co. (1900), 82 L. T. 562 286
, &c. Dairy Co. v. Morley & Lanceley (1911), 80 L. J. K. B.
908
446
Furnishing Co. v. Solomon (1912), 28 T. L. R. 265
..
652
Joint Stock Bank v. London (Mayor) (1875), 1 C. P. D. 1 ;
45 L. J. C. P. 213 ; 32 L. T. 781
549,574
School Board v. Wood (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 415 54 L. J. M. C.
145 ; 54 L. T. 88 ; 50 J. P. 54
371^
School Board v. Wright (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 578: 53
L. J. Q. B. 266 ; 50 L. T. 606 ; 32 W. R. 577
48 J. P. 484 371
Long V. Gray (1863), 1 Moore, P. C. C. N. S. 411 9 Jur. N. S.
805 8 L. T. 738 11 W. R. 900, P. C.
555
C. C. V.

215

I.S,

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxviii

PAGE

Long Eaton Recreation Grounds Co.

-y.

Midland Ry. Co.

(1902),

71 L. J. K. B. 837
Longford, The (1889), 14 P. D. 34 58 L. J. P. & A. 33 60 L. T.
108,
373 37 W. R. 372 ; 6 Asp. M. C. 371
Longman v. Bast (1878), 3 0. P. D. 142 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 211 ; 38
L. T. 1
26 W. R. 183
Looker . Halcomb (1827), 4 Bing. 188
Lopez V. Burslem (1843), 4 Moo. P. C. C. 300, P.
Lord, Be (1855), 1 K. & J. 90 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 145 103 R. R. 27
S. 269
37 L. J.
11. Lee (1868), L. R.
3 Q. B. 404 ; 9 B.
Q. B. 121 16 W. R. 856
Love V. Bell (1884), 9 App. Cas. 286 53 L. J. Q. B. 258 51
L. T. 1
32 W. R. 725 ; 48 J. P. 516
Lovering v. Dawson (1875), L. R. 10 0. P. 711 ; 44 L. J. C. P.

-.

..
..
321 32 L T 819
Low V. Routledge "(1868), 33 lV J. ChV 717 'lO JurV 922 'io L. T.
838 ; 12 W. R. 1069 and L. R. 1 Ch. 42 35 L. J. Ch. 114
11 Jur. N. S. 939 13 L. T. 421 14 W. R. 90 and L. R.
3 H. L. 100 ; 37 L. J. Ch. 454 ; 18 L. T. 874 ; 16 W. R.

687

. .

&

361
519
241
278
403

'.

142

627

644

1081,

H.L

111,651
63

..
Lowcock V. Broughton Overseers (1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 144
Lowe, E p., [1891] 1 Ch. 627 60 L. J. Ch. 292 64 L. T. 487
39 W. R. 369 2 Meg. 418
;

61
D. 667 54 L. J. Q. B. 561 53 L. T.
402, 608
886; 34 W. R. 144; 50 J. P. 244
V. Myers, [1906] 2 K. B. 265 ; 75 L. J. K. B. 651
95 L. T.
35
55,346
Lowther v. Bentinck (1875), L. R. 19 Eq. 166 44 L. J. Ch. 197 ;
31 L. T. 719 32 L. T. 156
597
V. Radnor (1806), 8 East 113
20 R. R. 542 n
585
Lucas V. Harris (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 127; 56 L. J. Q. B. 15 55
L. T. 658
35 W. R. 112; 51 J. P. 261
126
Lucey v. Ingram (1840), 6 M. & W. 302 ; 9 L. J. Ex. 196 55
R. R. 621
619
Luckraft v. Pridham (1877), 6 Ch. D. 205 46 L. J. Ch. 744 37
L. T. 208
26 W. R. 33
325
Ludlow V. Pike, [1904] 1 K. B. 531 73 L. J. K. B. 274 90 L. T.
458 ; 62 W. R. 475 ; 68 J. P. 243 20 T. L. R. 276 ..
224
..
Lumley, Be, [1894] 3 Ch. 135 63 L. J. Ch. 897 71 L. T. 7 ; 42
W. R. 633
402
Lundy Co., Be (1871), L. E. 6 Ch. 462 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 588 24
L. T. 922 19 W. R. 609
502
LuDt V. London and N. W. Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 277 35
L. J. Q. B. 105 12 Jur. N. S. 409 ; 14 L. T. 225 ; 14 W. R.
497
636
Lurcott V. Wakely, [1911] 1 K. B. 905 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 713 104
L. T. 290
42
Lyde V. Barnard (1836), 1 M. & W. 101 5 L. J. Ex. 117 ; 1 Gale
388 ; 46 R. R. 269
419,445
,,

V.

Fox

(1885), 15 Q. B.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Ixxix
PAGE

Lylea v. Southend-on-Sea, [1905] 2 K. B. 1 74 L. J. K. B. 484

92 L. T. 586 ; 69 J. P. 193
413,510
Lyme Regis v. Henley (1832), 1 Bing. N. C. 222 ; 5 Bing. 91 ; 3
B. &A. 77; 3M. &P. 278; 37R. R. 125
724
Lyn V. Wyn (1662), Bridg. Rep. by Bannister, 122
280, 314, 318
..
Lyne's Settlement Trusts, Re Gibbs, [1919] 1 Ch. 80
..
268
Lyon Fishmongers' Co. (1876), 1 App. Cas. 662 46 L. J. Ch.
..
68 35 L. T. 569 25 W. R. 165, H. L.
630, 578, 724
Lysaght, Re, [1898] 1 Ch. 115 ; 67 L. J. Oh. 65 ; 77 L. T. 637 ..
147
V. Clark, [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 ; 64 L. T. 776
267
Lysons i. Knowles, [1901] A. C. 79 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 170
..
124
;

!'.

M
Maas

V.

Pepper, [1905] A. C. 102

74 L. J. K. B. 462

92 L. T.

211
46 L. T. 907
131
(1880), 5 C. P. D. 194 49 L. J. C. P.
443 ; 42 L. T. 481 ; 28 W. R. 584
678
218, 233, 234
Macbeth v. Ashley (1874),"L. R. 2 Sc. App. 352, Sco.
..
V. Chislett, [1910] A. C. 220 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 376
..
94
MoCalmont v. Rankin (1853), 2 De G. M. & G. 403 ; 22 L. J. Ch.
570
554; 95R. R. 151
McCausland v. O'Callaghan, [1904] 1 Ir. R. 376, Ir
174
..
73
Macclesfield's (Lord) Case (1725), 16 State Trials 1389 ..
MaoDougall v. Paterson (1861), 11 C. B. 766 21 L. J. C. P. 27 ;
2 L. M. & P. 681 ; 6 Ex. 337 n. ; 15 Jur. 1108 ; 87 R. R.
4,117,428,437
869
86
Mace . Cadell (1774), Cowp. 232
33 L. J. C. P. 124 ; 10
V. Philcox (1864), 15 C. B. N. S. 600
633
Jur. N. S. 680 ; 9 L. T. 766 12 W. R. 670
187
Macey w. McKenzie (1903), 67 J. P. 261
McEwen v. West London Wharves, &c. Co. (1871), L. R. 6 Ch.
374
655
108
Macfarlane v. Lord Advocate [1894] A. C. 307
McGregor v. Deal, &c. Ry. Co. (1853), 18 Q. B. 618 22 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
672
69 ; 7 Rly. Cas. 227 17 Jur. 21 ; 88 R. R. 715
228
McHenry, .Ba;. JJ. (1883), 24 Ch. D. 35, C. A
M'Inany v. Hildreth, [1897] 1 Q. B. 600 66 L. J. Q. B. 376 ; 76
600
L. T. 463 ; 61 J. P. 325
682
Mcintosh, iJe (1892), 61 L.J. Q.B. 164
Maclver v. Burns, [1895] 2 Ch. 630 ; 64 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 73 L. T.
267
39;44W.R.40
Mackay, Exp. (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. 643 42 L. J. Bank. 68 ; 28
212
L. T. 828 21 W. R. 664
McKinnon v. Penson (1854), 9 Ex. 609 23 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 18
725
Jur. 513
60
Mackonochie v. Martin (1881), 6 A. C. 424, H. L
McLean v. Nichol (1861), 7 Jur. IS. S. 999 4 L. T. 863 ; 9 W. R.
513
11

371

Mac, The (1882), 7 P. D. 126

McAUisteru. Rochester (Bp.)

61 L. J.

Adm. 81

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

IXXX

PA&E

McLean

Prichard (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 285 ; 58 L. T. 337 ; 36

W. E. 508
Macleary D. Tate, [1906] A. C. 24
Macleod v. Att.-Gen. for N.S.W., [1891] A. C. 455 ; 60 L. J. P. C.
55 65 L. T. 321, P. C.
McManus v. Cooke (1887), 35 Ch. D. 681 56 L. J. Ch. 662 ; 56
L. T. 900 35 W. R. 754 51 J. P. 708
..
'Master v. Lomax (1835), 2 Myl. & K. 32 4 L. J. Ch. 28
v.

120
204
257

MacPhail

u.

McQueen

v.

R. 159, Ir

Phillips, [1904] 1 Ir.

455
51
590

Jackson, [1903] 2 K. B. 163 72 L. J. K. B. 606 ;

607
88 L. T. 871 ; 1 L. G. R. 601 ; 67 J. P. 353
..
..565
Macrow t. G-. W. Ry. Co. (1871), 40 L. J. Q. B. 300
..
374
McSlaraith v. Dublin, &c. Ry. Co. (1871), L. R. 7 Ch. 139
..
..
62
McAVilliam v. Adams (1852), 1 Macq. H. L. Cas. 136
;

100
McWilliams, Ex p. (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 169, Ir
Maddison v. Alderson (1883), 8 App. Cas. 473 52 L. J. Q. B.
454, 455
737 49 L. T. 303 31 W. R. 820 47 J. P. 821
Madell V. Thomas, [1891] 1 Q. B. 230 60 L. J. Q. B. 227 64
L. T. 9 39 W. R. 280
209,212
Madrazo v. Willes (1820), 3 B. & Ad. 353 22 R. R. 422
266
..
Magdalen College Case (1615), 11 Rep. 71b-73a ..
207, 245, 252
Hospital V. Knotts (1879), 4 App. Cas. 324 48 L. J. Ch.
373, 375
579 40 L. T. 466 27 W. R. 682
Maggi, Re (1882), 20 Ch. D. 545 51 L. J. Ch. 560 ; 46 L. T.
362; 30 W.R. 729
174
Magnet, The (1875), L. R. 4 A. & E. 417 44 L. J. Adm..l
359
..
Main v. Stark (1890), 15 A. C. 388 59 L. J. P. C. 68 63
L. T. 10
382
Makin V. Watkinson (1870), L. R. 6 Ex. 25 40 L. J. Ex. 33;
23 L. T. 592 ; 19 W. R. 286
634
Maleverer t;. Redshaw (1670), 1 Mod. 35
701
Malins v. Freeman (1838), 4 Bing. N. C. 395 7 L. J. C. P. 212 ;
44R. R. 737
373
Mallan v. May (1844), 13 M. & W. 511 14 L. J. Ex. 48 9 Jur.
19; 63R. R. 708
4
Manchester (Mayor) v. Lyons (1883), 22 Ch. D. 277
..
..295
Manley v. St. Helens Co. (1858), 2 H. & N. 840 27 L. J. Ex.
159 115 R. R. 842
635
Mann V. Nurse (1901), 17 T. L. R. 569
180
Manning i. Lunn (1845), 2 Car. & K. 13
622
V. Phelps (1854), 10 Ex. 59
24 L. J. Ex. 62 ; 102 R. R.
475
297
Mansel v. Cogham, [1905] 1 Ch. 568 74 L. J. Ch. 327 92
L. T. 230
626
Mansell v. R. (1857), 8 E. & B. 54 27 L. J. M. C. 4 Dears. &
B. C. C. 375; 112R. R. 468
543
Mantle v. Jordan, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 66 L. J. Q. B. 284; 75
L. T. 552 61 J. P. 119
18 C. C. C. 467
523
Manton v. Tabois (1885), 30 Ch. D. 92 54 L. J. Ch. 1008 53
L. T. 289 33 W. R. 832
..
..
..
..
..
59Q
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxi
PAGE

& Co. V.

Junior A. & N. Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D. 369; 52

L. J. Oh. 67 47 L. T. 589 ; 31 W. R. 70
March, Re, Manderw. Hams (1884), 27 Ch. D. 166 54 L. J. Ch.
143; 51 L. T. 380 32 W. R. 241
155,
Margate Pier Go. v. Hannam (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 266 22 R. R.
378
Maria, The (1839), 1 W. Rob. 95

Maple

131

385

Marianna Flora, The (1826), 11 Wheat. 1

Marine Mansions Co., Re (1867), L. R. 4 Eq. 601

665
619
272

37 L. J.

Ch. 113

669
Kettering (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 308 ; 42
L. J. M. C. 137 ; 28 L. T. 446 ; 21 W. R. 737
..
..
90
Markham v. Stanford (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 376 8 L. T. 277 .. 678
Marks v. Benjamin (1839), 5 M. & W. 565 ; 9 L. J. M. C. 20
3 Jur. 1194 52 R. R. 839
499
Marlborough, Re Duke of, [1894] 2 Ch. 133 63 L. J. Ch. 471 ;
70 L. T. 814 ; 42 W. R. 456
454
Marsden, Ex p. (1876), 2 Ch. D. 786 45 L. J. Bank. 141 34
L. T. 700 ; 24 W. R. 714
645
V. Meadows (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 80
50 L. J. Q. B. 536 ; 45
L. T. 301; 29W. R. 816
174,212
V. Saville Foundry (1878), 3 Ex. D. 203; 26 W. R. 784
..
17
Marsh v. Higgins (1850), 9 C. B. 551 ; 1 L. M. &
253 19
L. J. C. P.297; 82R. R. 436
388,397
MarshaU v. Berridge (1882), 19 Ch. D. 233 51 L. J. Ch. 329;
511
45 L. T. 599 ; 30 W. R. 93 46 J. P. 279
V. Bowen (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 188
899 1
8 Scott N.
Lut. Reg. Cas. 278 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 9 Jur. 164 ; 66
R. R. 700
165, 374
V. Exeter (Bp.) (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 820; 31 L. J. C. P.
532
262
610
i;. James (1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 281
21
V. Martin (1870), L. R. 5 Q. B. 239 ; 39 L. J. Q. B. 85
313
L. T. 788 ; 18 W. R. 378
16
V. NichoUs (1852), 18 Q. B. 882 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 343
238
Jur. 1155 ; 88 R. R. 822
V. Pitman (1833), 9 Ring. 601 ; 2 M. & Scott 745 ; 35
229
R. R. 630
V. UUeswater Co. (1863), L. R. 7 Q. B. 171 ; 41 L. J. Q. B.
724
41 ; 25 L. T. 793 20 W. R. 144
39
Marshalsea Case (1613), 10 Rep. 73a
428
Marson V. Lund (1849), 13 Q. B. 664
Martin, Ex p. (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 212, 491 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 667 ;
624
28W. R. 143
494
w. Ford (1793), 5 T. R. 101
V. Hemming (1854), 10 Ex. 478 ; 24 L. J. Ex. 3 ; 102
52
..
R. R. 686 ..
38 L. J. Ex. 1 ;
V. Maoonochie (1868), L. R. 2 P. C. 365
647
19 L. T. 503 17 W. R. 187, P. C

Market Harborough

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxii

Mary Clark Home

v. Anderson, [1904] 2 K. B. 645 ; 73 L. J.

99
91 L.>T. 457 20 T. L. E. 626
..
414
Mason v. Aird (1882), 51 L. J. Q. B. 244 30 W. R. 522
j;. Barker (1843), 1 C; & K. 100
670
Masper v. Brown (1876), 1 C. P. D. 97 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 203 ; 34
L. T. 254 24 W. R. 369
..
362
Masserene (Viscount) v. Inland Revenue, [1900] 2 Jr. R. 138, Ir. 509
Massey v. Burton (1858), 2 H. & N. 597 27 L. J. Ex. 101 ; 3
217
Jur. N.S. 1130; 115 R. R. 714
611
I). Johnson (1810), 12 Bast 67
V. Morris, [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 185
70 L. 'I'.
873 42 -W. R. 638 58 J. P. 673
192, 490
608
V: Sladen (1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 13
38 L. J. Ex. 34 ..
..
Masters, Re (1869), 33 L. J. Q. B. 146 9 L. T. N. S. 733
..
82
V. Child (1698), 3 Salk. 66
216
Mather v. Brown (1876), 1 C. P.'D. 596 45 L. J. C. P. 547
34 L. T. 869 ; 24 W. R. 736 '
30,651
V. Fraser (1856), 2 K. & J. 536
25 L. J. Ch. 361 2 Jur.
N. S. 900; 110 R. R. 350
174
V. Scott (1837), 2 Keen 172
6 L. J. Ch. 300 ; 44 R. R. 229 215
Mathers u. Penfold, [1915] 1 K. B. .514
96
Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R. 7 Eq. 270 38 L. J. Ch. 139
19 L. T. 629 ; 17 W. R. 99
651
Mattison v. Hart (1854), 14 C. B. 385 2 C. L. R. 314 23 L. J.
C. P. 108 ; 18 Jur. 380 98 R. R. 668
5
Maurice v. Marsden (1850), 19 L. J. C. V\ 152
711
May, Ex p. (1862), 2 B. & S. 426 31 L. J. M. C. 161
342
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1873), L. R. 7 Q. B. 364
L. R. 8 Q. B.
26 41 L. J. Q. B. 104 42 L. J. Q. B. 6 26 L. T. 17 ; 27
L. T. 620
7,501
Mayer -y. Harding (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 410 16 L. T. 429 15
W. R. 813; 9B. &S. 27n
674
Mayfair Property Co., Be, [1898] 2 Ch. 28 67 L. J. Ch. 337 ..
39
Mayhew v. Wardley (1803), 14 C. B. N. S. 550 8 L. T. 504

K. B. 806

. .

353 492 547

Mayor

t;.

Collins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 361

59

L. J.

B. 199; 62

L. T. 326
88 W. R. 349
166
Mecca,- The (1894), 64 L.J. P. D.
A. 40
278
Meeking w. Meekiug, [1916] W. N. 367
..
..
..
..160
Meggeson V. Groves, [1917] 1 Ch. 158
70
Melliss V. Shirley Loc. Bd. (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 446 55 L. J.
Q..B. 143 4 53 L. T. 810 ; 24 W. R. 187
50 J. P. 214
..
671,
688, 697
Melson, Be, [1906] 1 Ch. 841 75 L. J. Ch. 509 ; 94 L. T. 641
;

&

54 W. R. 468 ; 13 Mans. 190

Mercantile Bank v. Gladstone (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 233

Ex.130
Mercer v. Denhe, [1904] 2 Ch. 534

592
;

37 L. J.

678
;

[1905] 2 Ch. 538

74 L.

J.

Ch. 723
V.

Liverpool, &c. Ry. (1903), 72 L. J.

Digitized

K. B. 128

by Microsoft

..

..

55
172

TABLE OF CASES.

'

Ixxxiii

Mercers' Co. . Bowker (1725), 1 Stra. 639

:
Merchant Taylors v. Truscott (1856), 11 Ex. 855 ; 25 L. J. Ex.
173 2 Jur. N. S. 356
Meredith v. Holman (1847), 16 M. & W. 798 ; 16 L. J. Ex. 126 ;

4^59

823

73R. R. 718
469
Merle, The (1874), 31 L. T. 447
8
Merrick v. Liverpool Corp., [1910] 2 Ch. 449 79 L. J. Ch. 751;
103 L. T. 399; 74 J. P. 445 ; 8 L. G. R. 966
708
Merry weather w. Nixon (1799), 8 T. R. 186
354
Mersey Docks w. Cameron (1864), 11 H. L. C. 443 35 L. J. M. C.
22 12 L. T. 643 ; 13 W. R. 1069 ; 20 C. B. N. S. 50 ; 11
Jur. N. S. 746
246,247
V. Gibbs (1866), L. R. 1 H. L. 93
35 L. J. Ex. 225 ; 12
Jur. 571 ; 14 L. T. 677, H. L
145,629
V. Henderson (1888), 13 App. Gas. 595 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 152 ;
59 L. T. 697 37 W. R. 449
'
..
..
423
V. Lucas (1883), 8 App. Cas. 891
53 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; 51
L. J. Q. B. 116 49 L. T. 781
32 W. R. 34; 48 J. P. 212
246, 289, 325
V. Turner, [1893] A. C. 468, H. L
6
Messon v. Alcard (1853), 8 Ex. 260 22 L. J. Ex. 45
..
19
..
Metrop. Asylums District v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193 50
L. J. Q. B. 353 44 L. T. 653
29 W. R. .617 45 J. P. 664,
;

H. L
589,630
Metrop. Board . MacCarthy (1874), L. R. 7 H. L. 243 43 L. J.
31 L. T. 182 23 W. R. 115, H. L
C. P. 385
172
V. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 192
38 L. J. C. P.
631
172 19 L. T. 744 17 W. R. 416
51 L. J. M. C. 24 45 L. T.
V. Steed (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 447
423
612 30 W. R. 891
Metrop. Ry. v. Fowler, [1893] A. C. 416 62 L. J. Q. B. 553 69
591
L. T. 390 42 W. R. 270 57 J. P. 756, H. L
Metrop. Water Board v. Solomon, [1908] 2 Ch. 214 77 L. J. Ch.
630
..
520 98 L. T. 712 72 J. P. 259 6 L. G. R. 594 ..
256
..
Mette V. Mette (1859), 1 Sw. &jTr. 416 28 L. J. P. 117
..
51
Mew, Re (1862), 31 L. J. Bank. 89 10 W. R. 790
..
28 L. J. M. C. 53
5
Michell V. Brown (1858), 1 E. & E. 267
117 R. R. 206
334,335
Jur. N. S. 707
Micklethwait, lie (1855), 11 Ex. 452 25 L. J. Ex. 19 105 R. R.
504
614
Middlesex JJ. v. R. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 757 53 L. J. Q. B. 509
75
51 L. T. 513 48 J. P. 104 33 W. R. 49 15 Cox C. C. 542
Middleton v. Chichester (1871), L. R. 6 Ch. 152 40 L. J. Ch. 237
371
24 L. T. 173 19 W. R. 299, 369
Midland Ry. Co. v. Pye (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 179 30 L. J. 0. P.
9,382
314 4 L. T. 510 9 W. R. 658
52 L. J. Q. B.
V. Withington Loc. Bd. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 788
414
689 49 L. T. 489 47 J. P. 789
..
263
Mighell V. Sultan of Johore (1893), 63 L. J. Q. B. 593
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLl; OV CASES.

Ixxxiv

PJGK

Migotti

V.

4C. P. D. 233 48 L. J. C. P. 695

..
27 W. K. 744 14 Cox C. C. 305 ..

Colvill (1878),

L. T. 747

40

606, 610

Milch V. Frankau, [1909] 2 K. B. 100

Mile End Guardians v. Hoare, [1903] 2 K. B. 483 73 L. J. K. B.
..
651 89 li. T. 276 67 J. P. 395 1 L. G. R. 732 ..
Miles V. Bough (1843), 3 Q. B. 845 3 G. & D. 119 3 Bly. Cas.
668 12 L. J. Q. B. 74 61 R. R. 409
V. Hatchings, [1903] 2 K. B. 715
72 L. J. K. B. 775 89
L. T. 420
MUl V. Hawker (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 92 44 L. J. Ex. 49 33 L. T.
177 ; 24 W. R. 348
Miller, He, [1893] 1 Q. B. 327
62 L. J. Q. B. 324 68 L. T. 367
..
..
41 W.R. 243f57 J. P. 469; lOM.B. R.21
. Dudley JJ. (1898), 46 W. R. 606
21 L. J. Ex. 197
6, 8, 20,
V. Salomons (1853), 7 Ex. 475

608

492

138

167

555

133
81

369
406, 452, 552
729
Miller's Case (1764), 1 W. Bl. 451
28
42 L. J. Q. B. 57
Mills V. Scott (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 202
617
L. T. 265 21 W. R. 438
. Wilkins (1703), 6 Mod. 62
74
Mills' Estate, Se (1887), 34 Ch. D. 186
56 L. J. Ch 118 55 L. T.
151,152
665 35 W. R. 133
56
Milnes v. Huddersfield (Mayor of) (1886), 11 App. Cas. 511
528
L. J. Q. B. 1 55 L. T. 617 34 W. R. 761 50 J. P. 670 ..
480
Milton V. Faversham (1867), 10 B. & S. 548 n
Minehead Loc. Bd. v. Luttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 178 63 L. J. Ch.
364
497; 70L. T. 446; 42 W. R. 667
Minet v. Leman (1855), 20 Beav. 278
24 L. J. Ch. 547
7 De
G. M. & G. 340 1 Jur. N. S. 410, 692
109 R. R. 155 150, 324
Minor v. London & N. W. Ry. Co. (1857), 1 C. B. N. S. 325 ; 26
L. J. C. P. 39
2 Jur. N. S. 1168 28 L. T. O. S. 104 107
R. R. 681
119,580
Minty V. Sylvester (1916), 84 L. J. K. B. 1982, D. C
210
Mirehouse v. Rennell (1833), 1 CI. & F. 527
8 Bing. 490 1
M. & Scott 683 7 Bligh N. S. 241 36 R. R. 139 ..
..
7
Mirfin v. Attwood (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 330 38 L. J. Q. B. 181
20 L. T. 778 17 W. R. 820 9 B. & S. 414
728
Mist V. Metropolitan Water Board (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 2041 ..
393
Mitchell V. Aberdeen Insurance Committee, [1918] W. C. & Ins. C.
206, Ct. of Sess., Sco
109
V. Crawshaw, [1903] 1 K. B. 701
72 L. J. K. B. 389 88
L. T. 463 67 J. P. 179; 20 Cox C. C. 395
187
V. Simpson (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 183
59 L. J. Q. B. 355
63 L. T. 405 .38 W. R. 565
109
Mitford Union v. Wayland Union (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 164
59
L. J. M. C. 24
63 L. T. 299 38 W. R. 632 54 J. P. 757 314
Mobbs V. Vandenbrande (1864), 4 B. & S. 904 33 L. J. Q. B.
177 10 Jur. N. S. 745 9 L. T. 760 12 W. R. 405
.,
510
Mogg . Hodges (1750), 2 Ves. Sen. 52
638
Mohummud e;. Bareilly (1874), L. R. 1 Ind. App. 167 ..
;

..14

Digitized

by Microsoft

* *

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxvi

PAGE

Palmer (1824), 2 B. & C. 729 ; 4 D. & R. 283

26 R. R. 537
(0. S.) K. B. 145
V. Parry (1856), 17 0. B. 334
25 L. J. 0. P. 141
N. S. 285 104 R. R. 715

Morgan

v.

2 L. J.

2 Jur.

415

660

;;.

Thome

(1841), 7

M.

& W.

400

10 L. J. Ex. 125

728,730
D. P. C. 228 5 Jur. 294
Morish v. Harris (1865), L. R. 1 C. P. 155 35 L. J. C. P. 101
12 Jur. N. S. 627 14 L. T. 764 14 W. R. 479 1 H. & R.
590,594
358; IH. &P.305
Morisse v. Royal Brit. Bk, (1856), 1 C. B. N. S. 67 26 L. J. C P.
283, 440
62 3 Jur. N. S. 137 107 R. R. 582
;

9 Jur.
Morrall v. Sutton (1844), 1 Phil. 533 ; 14 L. J. Ch. 266
98,281
637 ; 65 R. R. 434
43
Morrell u. Studd & Millington, [1913] 2 Ch. 648
70
Morris u. Baron, [1918] A. C. 1, H. L
V. Carnarvon C. C, [1910] 1 K. B. 840
79 L. J. K. B. 670
634
..
102 L. T. 524 74 J. P. 201 8 L. G. R. 485
..
496
v.Howden, [1897] 1Q.B. 378
..
V. Mellin (1827), 6 B. & C. 446
378, 542, 567
!;. Wilson (1859), 5 Jur. N. S. 168
512
326
Morrison v. Gen. Steam Navig. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. Ex. 233
..
164
19 L. J. Ex. 20 80 R. R. 645
V. Glover (1850), 4 Ex. 430
Morritt V. N. E. Ry. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 302 ; 45 L. J. Q. B.
23
289 34 L. T. 940 24 W. R. 386
Morton v. Copeland (1855), 16 C. B. 517 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 169 ; 1
135
Jur. N. S. 979
V. Palmer (1882), 51 L. J. Q. B. 7
45 L. T. 426 ; 30 W. R.
121
115
Mosdel v. Middleton (1673), 1 Vent. 237
701
Moses V. Parker, [1896] A. C. 245 65 L. J. P. C. 18 ; 74 L. T.
252
112
..
"
Mostyn v.' Fa.hiigB.s (1770), Cowp. 161 1 Sm. L. C. 591
273
Motteram v. E. C. Ry. Co. (1859), 7
B. N. S. 58 29 L. J. M. C.
446
59 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 583
Mouflet V. Cole (1872), L. R. 8 Ex. 32 42 L. J. Ex. 8 ; 27 L. T.
612
678 21 W. R. 175
Moul V. Groenings, [1891] 2 Q. B. 443 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 715 65
556
L. T. 327 ; 39 W. R. 691
Mounsey v. Ismay (1865), 3 H. & C. 486 34 L. J. Ex. 52 11
Jur. K. S. 141
51,579
Mount V. Taylor (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 645 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 325;
18 L. T. 476 16 W. R. 866
728
Mountcashel v. O'Neill (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 937 2 Jur. N. S.
1030 101 R. R. 458, H. L
136
Mountifield v. Ward, [1897] 1 Q. B. 326 66 L. J. Q. B. 246 76
L. T. 202 45 W. R. 288 61 J. P. 216 18 C. C. C. 515 ..
222
Mountjoy v. Wood (1856), 1 H. & N. 58 ; 108 R. R. 453
249
..
Mousell Bros. v. L. & N. W. Ry. Co., [1917] 2 K. B. 837 ; 87
L. J. K. B. 82
1.35,182,183,184,604,613
.... ..
Mouysv. Leake (1799), 8 T.R. 411
..
..
703
;

'.'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxvii
PAGE

Moxon

Sheppard (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 627 59 L. J. Q. B. 286

62 L. T. 726 38 W. R. 704
24,25
Moyle V. Jenkins (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 116 51 L. J. Q. B. 112 ; 30
W. R. 324
55
Much Waltham i-. Peram (1696), 2 Salk. 474
217
Muggeridge, iJe (1860), Johns. 625 29 L. J. Ch. 288 ..
..112
Muir V. Hore (1877), 47 L. J. M. C. 17 .37 L. T. 315 ..
..
304
V. Keay (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 594
44 L. J. M. C. 143 23
W. R.700
574
Mulkem v. Lord (1879), 4 App. Cas. 182 48 L. J. Ch. 745 40
L. T. 594 27 W. R. 510
164,239
Mullett V. Huchison or Hutchinson (1828), 7 B. & C. 639
..
506
Mulliner v. Midland Ry. Co. (1879), 11 Cli. D. 611 48 L. J. Ch.
258 40 L. T. 121 27 W. R. 330
633
MuUins V. Collins (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 292 43 L. J. M. C.
67 29 L. T. 838 22 W. R. 297
178,190
Mumford v. Collier (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 279 59 L. J. Q. B. 552
38W. R. 716
703
Munday v. Asprey (1880), 13 Ch. D. 855 49 L. J. Ch. 216 28
W. R. 471
512
Municipal Bldg. See. v. Kent (1884), 9 App. Cas. 260; 53
L. J. Q. B. 290 51 L. T. 6 32 W. R. 681 48 J. P.
352
164,238
Munro V. Butt (1858), 8 E. & B. 738 4 Jur. N. S. 1231 112
R. R. 752 ..
368
Murphy, Be (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 397 46 L. J. M. C. 193 36
L. T. 698; 26 W. R. 536
298
Murray V. Charming Betsy (1804), 2 Cranch 64
263
V. E. I. Co. (1821), 5 B. & Ad. 204
24 R. R. 325..
571
..
V. Epsom Local Board (1896), 66 L. J. Ch. 107
..
698
..
V. Thomiley (1846), 2 C. B. 217
1 Lut. Reg. Cas. 496
1 Bar. & Am. 742 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 155
10 Jur. 270 09
R. R. 477
64
Murtagh v. Barry (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 632 59 L. J. Q. B. 388
38W. R. 526
152,519
685
Musgrove, ^x ^. (1843), 3 M. D. & D. 386
86
w. PandeUs, [1919] 2 K. B. 43, 0. A
Mussell V. Burch (1876), 35 L. T. 486
180
Musurus Bey v. Gadban, [1894] 2 Q. B. 352 63 L. J. Q. B. 621
264
71 L. T. 51 42 W. R. 545
Mutter V. Eastern and Midlands Ry. (1888), 38 Ch. D. 92 57
617
L. J. Ch. 315
59 L. T. 117 36 W. R. 401
Myers v. Bradford Corporation (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 306
413, 414
V. Veitch (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 649
38 L. J. Q. B 316
567
20 L. T. 847 17 W. R. 918
V.

N.

Nance, Be, [1893] 1 Q. B. 590

733 41 W. R. 370

62 L. J. Q. B. 500

Digitized

by Microsoft

68 L. T.
023

TABLE OF CASES.

Ixxxviii

PAGE

523
Finlay (1902), 85 L. T. 682
National Merc. Bank, Ex p., Be Haynes (1880), 15 Ch. D. 42
49 L. J, Bank. 62 ; 43 L. T. 36 28 W. B 848 44 J. P.
31,484
780
National Telephone Co. v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch. 186 62 L. J. Ch.
628
699 68 L. T. 283 57 J. P. 373
;;. Kineston-upon-HuU (1903), 89 L. T. 291
52 W. R. 26 ;
413
IL. G. R. 777
Nelson v. Anglo- American Land Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 130; 66
617
L. J. Ch. 112 ; 75 L. T. 482 45 W. R. 171
577
Nesbitt V. Lushington (1792), 4 T. R. 783 ; 2 R. R. 519
Netherlands Steamboat Co. v. London Corporation (1904), 68 J. P.
527
.;
377, C. A. ..
NethersoU v. Indig. Blind Schoor(1870), L. R. 11 Eq. 1 ; 40
:.
638
..
..
L. J. Ch. 26 ; 23 L. T. 723 19 W. R. 174
Nettleton v. Burrell (1844), 8 Scott N. R. 738 7M. & Gr. 35
1 Lut. Reg. Cas. 157 ; 14
8 Jur. 1033 ; 2 D. & L. 598
26
L. J. C. P. 37 66 R. R. 658
New Eberhardt Co., Be (1889), 43 Ch. D. 118 59 L. J. Ch. 73 ;
16
62 L. T. 301 38 W. R. 97 1 Meg. 441
New River Co. v. Johnson (1860), 2 El. & El. 435 29 L. J. M. C.
172
93; 6Jur. N. S. 374; 8W. R. 179
New Sharlston Collieries v. Westmorland, [1904] 2 Ch. 443 n. ;
627
73L. J. Ch. 341n
New Windsor Corporation v. Taylor, [1899] A. C. 41 ; 68 L. J.
295
Q. B. 87 ; 79 L. T. 450 ; 63 J. P. 164
Newby v. Colt's Arms Co. (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 293 41 L. J. Q. B.
119
148 26 L. T. 164 ; 20 W. R. 383
V. Sims, [1894] 1 Q. B. 478 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 229
70 L. T.
463
105; 58 J. P. 263
Newcastle Corporation v. A.-G. (1845), 12 CI. & F. 402 ; 69
R. R. Ill, H. L
156,532
V. Morris (1870), L. R. 4 H. L. 661 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 4 ; 23
L. T. 569 ; 19 W. R. 26
320,546
Newington v. Cottingham (1879), 12 Ch. D. 725 ; 48 L. J. Ch.
687
226; 40L. T. 58
Newman v. Hardwioke (1838), 3 N. & P. 368 7 L. J. M. C. 101
8 A. &E. 124; 1 W. W. &H. 284
605,606
;;. Jones (1886), 17
55
Q. B. D. 137 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 113
L. T. 327
50 J. P. 373
190,192
Newport Bridge, Be (1859), 2 E. & E. 377 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 52
6 Jur. N. S. 97 ; 1 L. T. 131
4.30
Trustees, Hx p. (1849), 16 Sim. 346
12
18. L. J. Ch. 49
Jur. 932 80 R. R. 88
617
New's Trustee v. Hunting, [1897] 1 Q. B. 607 66 L. J. Q. B.
554, C. A
214
Newson,i?e, ife Two Solicitors (1909), 53 Sol. Jur. 342 ..
438
..
Newton v. Boodle (1847), 3 C. B. 795 4 D. & L. 664 16
L. J. C. P. 135 ; 11 Jur. 148
26
V. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing. 234 ; 12 Moore 457 ; 29 R. R. 541
651

Nash

u.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.
Newton

v.

Ellis (1855), 5 E.

Jur. N. S. 850

&

B. 115

24 L.

Ixxxix
J. Q. B.

103 R. R. 396

Young (1805), 1 B.
Nga Hoong v. R. (1857),
.

& P.

PAGE
1
134, 413, 586

337

N. R. 187

7 Cox. 489

365

7 Moo. Ind. App. 72,

111,265
Niboyet (1879), 4 P. D. 1 48 L. J. P. D. & A. 1 39
L. T. 486 27 W. R. 203, C. A
256,261
NichoU V. Allen (1862), 1 B. & S. 934 31 L. J/ Q. B. 283
6 L. T. 699 10 W. R. 741
436, 634
Nicholls V. Hall (1873), L. R. 8 0. P. 322 42 L. J. M. C. 105
21W. R. 579 28 L. T. 473
182
Nichols V. Marsland (1876), 2 Ex. D. 1 46 L. J. Ex. 174 35
L. T. 725 25 W. R. 173
674
Nicholson v. Ellis (1859), E. B. & E. 267 28 L. J. Q. B. 238
5 Jur. N. S. 385 113 R. R. 639
348
V. Fields (1862), 7 H. & N. 810
31 L. J. Ex. 233 10
W. R. 304
76, 464, 466, 500, 504
V. Holborn Assessment Committee (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 161
56 L. J. M. C. 54 55 L. T. 775 35 W. R. 230 51 J. P.
341
247
NicoU V. Fenning (1882), 19 Ch. D. 258 51 L. J. Ch. 166 45
107
L. T. 738 30 W. R. 95
Nina, The (1867), L. R. 2 P.^C. 38 37 L. J. Adm. 17 17 L. T.
278
585 5 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 60
26
Nind w. Arthur (1849), 7 D. & L. 252
Nitro-phosphate Co. v. London, &c. Docks Co. (1878), 9 Ch. D.
724
503 39 L. T. 433; 27 W. R. 267
Nixon V. Phillips (1852), 7 Ex. 192 21 L. J. Ex. 88 ..
9, 304
540
Noble . Durell (1789), 3 T. R. 271
388
- u. Gadban (1855), 5 H. L. Cas. 504
Norcutt. Dodd (1841), Cr. & Ph. 100 10 L. J. Ch. 296; 64
112, 146
R. R. 224
258
Norden . James (1777), 2 Dick. 533
Nordenfelt, Ee, [1895] 1 Q. B. 151 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 182 71 L. T.
71
565
Norman, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 369 63 L. J. Q. B. 34 69 L. T.
405
674..
Normandy, The, [1904] P. 187 73 L. J. P. D. & A. 65 ; 90
113
L. T. 351 52 W. R. 634; 20 T. L. R. 239
267,580
Norris, iJe (1888), 5 Morrell 111
674
V. Carrington (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 10
333
. Crocker (1851), 13 Howard 429
North, Be, [1895] 2 Q. B. 264 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 694 72 L. T. 854
608,610
59 J. P. 724 2 Mans. 326
N. Central Wagon Co. v. Manchester S. & L. Ry. Co. (1888), 32
Ch. D. 477 35 Ch. D. 191 13 App. Cas. 554 55 L. J. Ch.
59 L. T. 730 37 W. R. 305,
780 56 Id. 609 58 Id. 219
P.

Niboyet

v.

-^

HI

...
N. Eastern Breweries ^'. Gibson (1904), 68 J. P. 356
N. Eastern Ry. v. Hastings (Lord), [1900] A. C. 260, H. L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

..97
..
..

195
132

TABLE OP OASES.

XC

FAGE

R. 7 H. L. 12; 43
L. J. Q. B. 185;, 30 L. T. 275 ; 22 W.R. 56
N. London Ry. Oo. v. Metrop. B. of Works (1859), Johns. 405 ;
..
28 L. J. Oh. 909; 5 Jur. N. S. 1121
..
..
,.
N. Metrop. Tramways Oo. v. London C. 0., [1898] 2 Oh. 145 ;
67 L. J. Ch. 449 ; 78 L. T. 711 46 W. R. 554 62 J. P. 488
..
N. of England Ry. ;;. Langbaurgh (1871), 24 L. T. 544 ..
N. StaflFordshire Ry. Oo. v. Dale (1858), 8 E. & B, 836 27 L. J.
..
..
M. 0. 147 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 631 112 R. R. 800
V. Waters (1913), L. G. R. 289
N. Wales Gunpowder Oo., Be, [1892] 2 Q. B. 220 ; 61 L. J. Q. B.
625 67 L. T. 178 40 W. R. 561
Northampton Oorporation v, Ellen (1904), 70 L. J. K.B. 329 ..
Northumberland (Duke) v. Inl. Rv., [1911] 2 K. B. 343; 80
reversed on appeal, 81
L. J. K, B. 875 ; 104 L. T. 506
N. Eastern Ry. Co.

v.

Wanless

(1874),. L.

635
530
510
131

635
719

289
679

504
Northwich v. St. Pancras (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 164 58 L. J.M. 0.
..
73 60 L. T. 444 37 W. R. 206 53 J. P. 196
313,314
Norton v. Lond. & N. W. Ry. Oo. (1879), 9 Ch. D. 623 11 Ch. D.
118 13 Oh. D. 268 40 L. T. 597 27 W. R. 773 ..
..
526
701
u. Simmes (1614), Hob. 12
Noseworthy v. Buckland (1873), L. R. 9 0. P. 233; 43 L. J. 0. P.
22 W. R. 155 2 Hop. & 0. 127 ..
27; 29 L. T. 675
..
653
Notley ;. Buck (1828), 8 B. & 0. 164
7
Novello V. Sudlow (1852), 12 0. B. 177
21 L. J. 0. P. 169
16
92 R. R. 674
Jur. 689
716
V. Toogood (1823), 1 B. & 0. 554
2 D. & R. 833
25 R. R.
507
205
Nowell V. Worcester (Mayor) (1854), 9 Ex. 457 ; 2 p. L. R. 981
23 L. J. Ex. 139 18 Jur. 64 96 R. R. 793
672
Nugent V. Smith (1876), 1 0. P. D. 423 44 L": J. 0. P. 697 34
L. T. 827 25 W. R. 117
672
Nunn V. Fabian (1865), L. R. 1 Oh. 35 35 L. J. Ch. 140
..
455
K.
B.
V. Tyson, [1901J 2
487 70 L. J. K. B. 854; 85 L. T.
123; 50W. R. 16
102
Nunn's Estate, ^e, [1894] llr. R. 252, Ir
505
Nuttall ^;. Pickering, [1913] 1 K. B. 14
125
Nutter u. Moorhouse (1904), 68 J. P. 134
13
Nutton V. Wilson (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 744 58 L. J. Q. B. 443 37
W. R. 522 53 J. P. 644
496
L. J. K. B. 240, 0.

O.
v. Turquand (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 325
36 L. J. Oh. 949 ;
16 L. T. 808, H. L
Oaten v. Auty, [1919] 2 K. B. 278
Oath before Justices (1611), 12 Rep. 131
O'Connor v. Bradshaw (1850), 5 Ex. 882 ; 20 L. J. Ex. 26
..
Odell, Ex p^ (1879), 10 Oh. D. 76
48 L. J. Bank. 1 ; 39 L. T
W.
333 ; 27
R. 274
,

Oakes

376
676
624
213

Digitized

by Microsoft

21?

talBle of cases.

xcii

PAOE

Owens

Jones (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 469 37 L. J. Q. B. 159;

..
308, 334
18 L. T. 357 16 W. E. 932 9 B. & S. 243
389
Owen's Patent, 5e (1898), 79 L. T. 458
..
Oxford Corporation v. Wildgoose (1690), 3 Lev. 293
62
..
V.

&

The (1864), 33 L. J. P. M.
Jur. N. S. nil 10 L. T. 541
67 L. J. P. D.
, [1898] P. 170

Pacific,

& L.

243

10

79 L. T. 125

46

A. 120; B.

99

W.

&

A. 65

R. 686

..

268

.-

Revenue Commissioners

Paddingfcon Burial Board v. Inland

(1884), 53 L. J. Q. B. 224

246
Paddington Union v. Westminster Union, [1915] 2 K. B. 644 .. 383
51 L. J. Ch.
Padstow Assur. Assoc, He (1882), 20 Ch. D. 137
555,091
344 45 L. T. 774 30 W. R. 326
34 L. T. 638
Page, lie (1876), 2 Ch. D. 323 45 L. J. Bank. 1
227
24W. R. 502
29 L. J. Ch. 398 6 Jur. N. S.
V. Bennett (1855), 2 GiflF. 117
392
419;8W. R. 339
10 L. J. Ex. 434
..
609
V. Pearce (1841), 8 M. & W. 667
Paget V. Foley (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 679; 5 L. J. C. P. 258 ; 3
303
Scott 120 2 Hodges 32 42 R. R. 698
Pain V. Boughtwood (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 353 59 L. J. M. C. 45
54 J. P. 469
62 L. T. 284 ; 38 W. B. 428
16 Cox C. C.
747
137, 186
Paine, Be, Ex p. 'Read, [1897] 1 Q. B. 122; 66 L. J. Q. B. 71
75 L. T. 316 45 W. R. 190; 3 Mans. 309
114
Painter v. Liverpool Gas Co. (1836), 3 A. & E. 433 5 L. J. M. C.
108; 6N. &M. 736; 2H. & W. 233; 42R. R. 423
..
641
Palliser v. Dale, [1897] 1 Q. B. 257
66 L. J. Q. B. 236 76 L. T.
14 45 W. R. 291, C. A
164,239
Pallister v. Gravesend (1850), 9 C. B. 774
19 L. J. C. P. 358
82R. R. 522
530,704
Palmer v. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. Q. B. 259 ..
..
680
V. Snow, [1900] 1 Q. B. 725
69 L. J. Q. B. 356
82 L. T.
199 48 W. R. 351 64 J. P. 342
584
V. Thatcher (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 346
47 L. J. M. C. 58
37
L. T. 784 26 W. R. 314
11,301
Palmer's Trade Mark, In re (1882), 21 Ch. D. 47
51 L. J. Ch.
673 46 L. T. 787 46 J. P. 772
369
Pape V. Pape (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 76 57 L. J. M. C. 3 58 L. T.
399 36 W. R. 125 52 J. P. 181
470
Paradine v. Jane (1647), Aleyn 26
674
Parbury, Ex p. (1861), 3 De G. F. & J. 80 30 L. J. Ch. 513
7
Jur. N. S. 503 ; 4 L. T. 62 9 W. R. 470
..
..
19, 374
Pardo V. Bingham a869), L. R. 4 Ch. 735 39 L. J. Ch. 170 20
L. T. 464 17 W. R. 419
399
Parish . Sleeman (1860), 29 L. J. Ch. 96
622
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

xem

TABLE OF CASES.

PAGE

Park Gate Iron Co.

Coatea (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 634 39 L. J.

C. P. 317 ; 22 L. T. 658
18 W. R. 928
680, 683, 684
..
Parker, Be (1888), 21 Ch.D. 408 52 L. J. Ch. 159 47 L. T. 63 ;
31 W. R. 212 ; 47 J. P. 36, 516
692
V. Adler, [1899] 1 Q. B. 20 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 7
79 L. T. 381
..
..
186
47 W. R. 142 ; 62 J. P. 772 19 C. C. C. 191
V. G. W. Ry. Co. (1844), 7 M. & G. 253
7 Scott N. R. 835
13 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 8 Jur. 194
528
V. Inge (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 584
55 L. J. M. C. 149 55 L. T.
555
300; 51J. P. 20
V. London C. C, [1904] 2 K. B. 501
73 L. J. K. B. 561
90 L. T. 415 ; 52 W. R. 476 68 J. P. 239 2 L. G. R. 662 ;
20T. L. R. 271
413
V. Talbot, [1905] 2 Ch. 643
75 L. J. Ch. 8 ; 93 L. T. 522
54W. R. 132; 4L. G. R. 27; 70 J. P. 43
133
569
V. Taswell (1858), 2 De G. & J. 559
27 L. J. Ch. 812
..
47
Parker, Gaines & Co. v. Turpin, [1918] 1 K. B. 358
..
..
205
Parkinson V. Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. I). 161
Parkyns v. Preist (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 313 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 148 50
481
L. J. Q. B. 648; 30 W. R. 13; 45 J. P. 751
42 L. T. 273
28
Parlement Beige, The (1880), 5 P. D. 197
W. R. 642
263,264
558
Parrish . Hackney Corp. (1912), 55 S.J. 670
Parry v. Croydon Gas Co. (1863), 15 C. B. N. S. 568 9 L. T.
..
327, 335, 504
694 ; 12 W. R. 212 ; 11 C. B. N. S. 579
Parsons v. Brand (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 110 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 189
16
62 L. T. 479 38 W. R. 388
631
Partheriche V. Mason (1774), 2 Chit. 658
Partington V. A.-G. (1869), L. R. 4 H. L. 100 38 L. J. Ex. 205,
504
H. L
..
354, 356, 717, 718
Partridg v. Naylor (1596), Cro. Eliz. 480 ..
Partridge v. Mallandaine (1880), 18 Q. B. D. 276 56 L. J. Q. B.
555
251 ; 56 L. T. 203 35 W. R. 276
34 L. T.
Pascal, Bx p. (1876), 1 Ch. D. 509 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 81
267
10; 24W. R. 263
Pasmore v. Oswaldtwistle U. D. C, [1898] A. C. 387 ; 67 L. J.
.
709, 723
Q. B. 635 ; 78 L. T. 569 ; 62 J. P. 628
589
Passey v. Oxford L. B. (1879), 43 J, P. 622
Patent Bread Co., Be (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 289 ; 26 L. T. 228 ; 20
669
W. R. 347
394
Paterson . Poe (1883), 8 App. Cas. 678
Pathe Freres Cinema, Ltd. v. United Electric Theatres, Ltd.,
141
B. 1253, C. A
[1914] 3
271
Patorni v. CampbeU (1843), 12 M. & W. 277 ; 13 L. J. Ex. 85 ..
Patten v. Rhymer (1860), 3 E. & E. 1 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 189 ; 6
..
350, 361
Jur. N. S. 1030 ; 2 L. T. 352 ; 8 W. R. 496 ..
M. 189 ; 40 L. J. P. & M.
Patterson v. Patterson (1870), 2 P.
100
5 23 L. T. 568 19 W. R. 232
82
Pattison D. Bankes (1777), Cowp. 543
694
Paxton V. Popham (1808), 9 Bast 408
v.

. .

&

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XCIV

PAGE

Payne, Ex p. (1849), 5 D.
634; 79R. R.892

&

L. 679

18 L. J. Q. B. 197

Cross (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, C. A

V. Cork Co., Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 308
V. Regem, [1902] A. C. 552 ; 71 L. J. P. C. 128 ;
84; 51 W. B. 351
63 L. T. 456
V. Thomas (1891), 60 L. J. M. C. 3
,

13 Jur.

318
8
523

Ex p., Re

87 L. T.
218
;

54 J. P.

- 23
Reg. (1858)," 4 C. B. N. S. 264 ;" 27 L.'j. O.P. 224";
611,656,684
114R. R. 707
53 L. J. Ch. 977 ; 51 L. T.
Peake, Re (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 753
878
97
112,145
Pearoe w. Bulteel, [1916] 2 Ch. .544
66 L. J. Q. B. 457 ; 76
V. Gardner, [1897] 1 Q. B. 688
L. T. 441 ; 45 W. R. 518
513
46 L. T. 342
46 J. P.
V. Scotcher (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 162
248
194
Pearks Gunston V. Ward, [1902] 2 K. B. 1
186
Pearlmoor, The, [1904] P. 286
368
Pearse v. Morrice (1834), 2 A. & B. 84 4 L. J. K. B. 21 ; 4 N. & M.
48
380
61 L. J. Q. B. 585 ; 67 L. T.
Pearson, Re, [1892] 2 Q. B. 263
367 40 W. R. 532 9 M. B. R. 185
267
V. Holborn Union, [1893] 1 Q. B. 389
62 L. J. M. C. 77 ;
68 L. T. 351 ; 57 J. P. 169
247
V. Kingston-on-Hull (1865), 3 H. & C. 921 ; 35 L. J. M. C.
36;13L. T. 180
476,594
32 L. J. M. C. 121 ; 9
Pease v. Chaytor (1863), 3 B. & S. 620
11 W. R. 563 ..
Jur. N. S. 664 8 L. T. 613
..
..
611
V. Norwood (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 235
38 L. J. C. P. 161
17W. R. 320
611
Peate v. Dickin (1834), 1 C. M. & R. 422 ; 4 L. J. Ex. 28 5Tyr.
116
584
Peerless, iJe (1841), 1 Q. B. 143
150
Pelham v. Pickersgill (1787), 1 T. R. 660 ; 1 R. R. 348 ..
..
711
Pelham Clinton v. Newcastle, Duke (1901), 71 L. J. Ch. 53, C. A.
99
(1902), 72 L. J. Ch. 424, H. L
Pellew V. Wonsford (1829), 9 B. & C. 134 ; 4 M. & R. 130 ; cited
49R. R. 693
12,606
Pendlebury v. Greenhalgh (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 36
45 L. J. Q. B.
3; 33L. T. 472; 24W. R. 98, C. A
189,726
Penn v. Alexander, [1893] 1 Q. B. 522 62 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 68
L. T. 355 ; 41 W. R. 392 17 Cox C. C. 815 57 J. P. 118 ..
121
Penny & S. E. Ry. Co., Re (1857), 7 E. & B. 660 ; 26 L. J. Q. B.
225 5 Jur. N. S. 957 ; 110 R. R. 773
237
Penstred v. Payer (1639), Duke on Charitable Uses, p. 381
..
53
People, The K. Tibbetts. (1825), 4 Oowen 358
401
V. Utica Insur. Co. (1818), 15 Johns. N. Y. Rep. 352
..
92
Pepin v. Bruyfere (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 39
269
Peppin V. Cooper (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 431
307

824
Peacock

. .

r."

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

XCV
PAGE

Perchard

Heywood

R. 468 53 R. R. 128
317, 527
Perkins, Be (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 613
59 L. J. Q. B. 226
38
W. R. 710 2 Meg. 197 7 M. B. R. 32
..
...
..
369
V. L. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1874), 1 Ry. & Can. Traffic Gas. 327
617
w.Sewell (1766), IW.Bl. 659 ..
..
82
Perks V. Severn (1806), 7 East 194 3 Smith K. B. 339 ..
..
464
Perring v. Trail (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 88
43 L. J. Ch. 775
30
L. T. 248 22 W. R. 572
638
Perry V. Clements, [1901] 49 W. R. 669
346
V. Eames, [1891] 1 Ch. 658
60 L. J. Oh. 345 64 L. T. 438
39W. R. 602
..
..
245,252
V. Skinner (1837), 2 M. & W. 471
6 L. J. Ex. 124 M. & H.
122 1 Jur. 433 46 R. R. 656
369, 389, 417
PeshaU . Layton (1788), 2 T. R. 712
362
Peters v. Cowie (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 131
46 L. J. M. C. 177
36
L. T. 107
67, 154
V. Sheehan (1842), 10 M. & W. 213
1 D.N. S. 943
6 Jur.
739 12 L. J. Ex. 177
684
Peto V. West Ham Overseers (1859). 2 E. & E. 144 28 L. J. M. C.
240 5 Jur. N. S. 1209 7 W. R. 586
572Pettamberdass v. Thackoorseydass (1850), 7 Moo. P. C. 239 5
Moo. Ind. App. 109 15 Jur. 257, P. C
385
Pharmaceutical Society v. Armson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 720
64 L. J.
..
558
Q. B. 32 71 L. T. 315 42 W. R. 662 59 J. P. 52 ..
V. Jacks (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 767
689
49
V. London, &c. Supply Assoc. (1880), 5 App. Cas. 857
28 W. R. 957
45 J. P. 20,
L. J. Q. B. 736.; 43 L. T. 389
H. L
110,573,689
V. Nash,. [1911] 1 K. B. 520
80 L. J. K. B. 416
103 L. T.
802 75 J. P. 151
140,689
62 L. J. Q. B. 305 68 L. T.
V. Piper, [1893] 1 Q. B. 686
490 41 W. R. 447 57 J. P. 502
558
V. Wheeldon (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 683
59 L. J. Q. B. 400
140
62 L. T. 727 54 J. P. 407
70 L. J. K. B. 386 84 L. T.
V. White, [1901] 1 K. B. 601
188 -49 W. R. 407 65 J. P. 340
140
Philipps V. Rees (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 17
59 L. J. Q. B. 1
61
43
L. T. 713 .38 W. R. 53 54 J. P. 293
643
Phillipp's Charity, i?e (1845), 9 Jur. 959
Phillips, i?e (1861), 30 L. J. Bank. 1
210
26 L. J. C. P. 168
3
V. Clark (1857), 2 C. B. N. S. 156
5 Jur. N. S. 1081 109 R. R. 646 ..
..
367
Jur. N. S. 467
R. 6 Q. B. 1
40 L. J. Q. B. 28
11. Eyre (1871), L.
10
384
B. &S. 1004
55 L. J. Q. B. 512
V. Goff (1886),. 17 Q. B. D. 805
35
W. R. 197 50 J. P. 614
663
5 M. & R. 15 ..
V. Hopwood (1829), 10 B. & C. 39
..
727
4 T. R. 182 2 R. R. 353 269
V. Hunter (1795), 2 H. Bl. 402
u. Poland (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 204
35 L. J. C. P. 128 12
358
Jur. N. S. 260
v.

(1800), 8 T.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xcvi

PAGE
27
Phillpott V. St. George's Hospital (1857)', 6 H. L. Cas. 338
208, 215, 221
L. J. Ch. 70
3 Jur. N. S. 1269 108 R. R.
20 L. J. C. P. 11
PhiUpotfcs V. Phillpotts (1850), 10 C. B. 85
;

WO

165,374,376
Phipson V. Harvett (1835), 1 C. M. & R. 473 4 L. J. Ex. 36 6
2"^' ^^
Tyr 54
Phoenix Bessemer Co., Re (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 11 33 L. T. 403
388,404
24W. R. 19
Phythian v. Baxendale, [1895] 1 Q. B. 768 64 L. J. M. C. 174

84R. R. 460

125
Marriage (1876), 1 Ex. D. 364 ; 45 L. J. Ex. 594 ; 35
212
L. T. 343 24 W. R. 88
37
Pickering v. llfraoombe Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 2.35
,.
702
.
L. j! C. p. 118 16 L. T. 650 16 W. R. 458
42 L. J. C. P. 217 ; 21
V. James (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 489
637,716
W. R. 786 29 L. T. 210
343
22 W. R. 798
.
V. Marsh (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 143
7 D. & R. 49 28 R. R. 430 546
V. Noyes (1825), 4 B. & C. 639
..403
Pickup V. Wharton (1834), 2 Cr. & M. 405 3 L. J. Ex. 97
Picton (Municipality) v. Geldert, [1893] A. C. 524 ; 69 L. T. 510 ;
726
42 W. R. 114 ; 63 L. J. P. C. 37
19,242
Pierce V. Hopper (1720), 1 Stra. 249
Piggott V. Rush (1836), 4 A. & E. 912 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 272 ; 6
454
N. &M. 376; 2H. &W. 29
7
Pike . Hoare (1783), Eden, 184
39 L. J. Ch. 435 ; 18
V. Nicholas (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 251
350
W. R. 321
PJlcher V. StaflFord (1864), 4 B. & S. 775 ; 33 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 10
497
Jur. N. S. 651 ; 9 L. T. 759 12 W. R. 407
301
Pilkington v. Cooke (1848), 16 M. & W. 615 ; 17 L. J. Ex. 141 ..
188
u. Rois, [1914]3K.B.321
Pinhorn v. Sonster (1853), 8 Ex. 138 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 336 ; 22
..
403,404
L. J. Ex. 18
..
Pinkerton v. Easton (1873), L. R. 16 Eq. 490 42 L. J. Ch. 878 ;
24
29 L. T. 364 ; 21 W. R. 943
255
Piot,
p. (1883), 48 L. T. 120
544
Pitman . Maddox (1699), 2 Salk. 690
450
Pitt V. Shew (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 208
30
Pitts V. Millar (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 380
43 L. J. M. C. 96
98 ' 474
L. T. 77 377
..
.
.
Planche v. Braham (1837), 4"Bing. N. C. 17 ; 8*0. & P. 68 ; 6
Scott 242 3 Hodges 288"; 1 Jur. 823 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 44
350
R. R. 642
Plant V. Potts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 33
63 L. T.
419
730 ; 55 J. P. 277 1 Fox 206
Plasterers Co. v. Parish Clerks Co. (1851), 6 Ex. 630 ; 20 L. J. Ex.
362 ; 15 Jur. 965 ; 86 R. R. 413
8
Piatt V. Sheriffs of London (1550), Plowd. 35
.
316, 452
. .
Pletts V. Campbell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 ; 64 L. J. M. C. 225 ; 73
490
L. T. 344 ; 43 W. R. 634 ; 59 J. P. 502

72L.

Pickard

T. 465

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

XCVll
PAGE

Plumstead Bd. of Works v. Spaokman (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 878

53 L. J. M. C. 142 51 L. T. 760 49 J. P. 132
..
..
Plymouth, &c. Tramway Co. v. General Tolls Co. (1897), 75 L. T.
;

467
Pointon

357

595

Hill (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 306

53 L. J. M. C. 62
50
L. T. 268 32 W. R. 478 48 J. P. 341
15 Cox C. C. 461 ..
Poland, Re (1866), L. R. 1 Ch. 356 35 L. J. Bank. 19 14 L. T.
v.

474

502 12 Jiir. 425

..
..
114,358
Pole t). Bright (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 139
519
Poll V. Dambe, [1901] 2 K. B. 579 70 L. J. K. B. 721 84 L. T.
870 50 W. R. 28 65 J. P. 774 9 Asp. M. C. 220
..
257
Pollard, Re (1868), L. R. 2 P< C. 106
5 Moo. P. C. N. S. Ill,
P. C
639
Pollock V. Lands Imp. Co. (1888), 37 Ch. D. 661
57 L. J. Ch.
853 ; 58 L. T. 374 ; 36 W. R. 617
314
Pommery v. Apthorpe (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 155 ; 56 L. T. 24 35
W. R. 307
271
Ponsford V. Walton (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 167 37 L. J. C. P. 113 ;
17 L. T. 511 16 W. R. 363
204
Pope V. Tearle (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 499 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 129 30
L. T. 789 22 W. R. 950
562
..
Porter v. Bradley (1789), 3 T. R. 143 1 R. R. 675
..
559
Portingell, Exp., [1892] 1 Q. B. 15 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 65 L. T.
603 40W. R. 102 ; 56 J. P. 276
55
Portsmouth (Mayor of) v. Smith (1885), 10 App. Cas. 364 ; 54
61
L. J. Q. B. 473 ; 53 L. T. 394 ; 49 J. P. 676
Postmaster-General, Ex p. (1879), 10 Ch. D. 595 48 L. J, Bank.
84 40 L. T. 16 27 W. R. 325
249,252
V. Early (1827), 12 Wheat. 136
551, 552
V. Nail Telephone Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 621
146
22
Potter V. Duffield (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 4 ; 43 L. J. Ch. 472
W. R. 585
514
5 L. J. Ex. 93 n. ; 4
V. Newman (1836), 2 C. M. & R. 742
142
D. P. C. 504; IT. &G. 29
Poulsum V. Thirst (1867), L. R. 2 C. P. 449 36 L. J. C. P. 225
134
16 L. T. 324 15 W. R. 766
Poulters' Co. v. Phillips (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 314 9 L. J. C. P.
62,357
190;4Jur. 124
PowdreU v. Jones (1855), 2 Sm. & G. 407 ; 24 L. J. Ch. 123 ; 18
56,616
Jur. 1111 ; 97 R. R. 273
PoweU V. Boraston (1864), 18 C. B. N. S. 175 1 H. & P. 179
34 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 160 11 L. T. 734 ; 13 W. R.
590
465
49 h. J. Q. B. 428 ; 43
V. Fall (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 597
628, 632
L. T. 562
13
- V. Guest (1865), 18 C. B. N. S. 72 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1238
W. R. 274 34 L. J. C. P. 69 1 H. & P. 149 11 L. T. 599 117
[1897] 2 Q. B;
v. Kempton Racecourse Co., [1899] A. C. 143
63
47 W. R. 585
242 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 392 80 L. T. 538
'.

J.P. 260, H.

Digitized

73,92,129,599,600

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

xcvui

PAGE

Powell V. Main Colliery Co., [1900] A. C. 366 69 L. J. Q. B.

346
758 83 L. T. 85 49 W. R. 49
74
Powlter's Case (1610),
Rep. 33b
105 L. T.
Pratt V. Martin, [1911] 2 K. B. 90 80 L. J. K. B. 711
353
49; 75 J. P. 328
522
Preece u. Pulley (1880), 49 L. J. C. P. 686
Prentice v. London (1875), L. R. 10 C. P. 679 44 L. J. C. P. 353
164,239
33 L. T. 251 25 W. R. 695
Price V. Union Lighterage Co. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 374
65, 200
545
Prices of Wine (1618), Hob. 215
388
Prince t). U. S. (1814), 2 Gallison 204
..
215
Pritchard v. Arbouin (1827), 3 Russ. 456 27 R. R. 106
153
..
V. Bangor Corporation (1888), 13 A. C. 241, H. L.
Proctor V. Manwaring (1819), 3 B. & Aid. 145
..
299, 466, 490
517
Protector, The (1839), 1 W. Rob. 45
Pryce v. Monmouthshire Canal Co. (1879), 4 App. Cas. 197
49
504
L. J. Ex. 130 40 L. T. 630 27 W. R. 666
63
Pulborough School Board Election, He, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725
L. J. Q. B. 497
70 L. T. 639 42 W.R. 388 58 J. P. 572
;

lMansonl72

384,389,396

Pulbrook, JEx p., [1892] 1 Q. B. 86 61 L. J. M. C. 91 66 L. T.

134
..
159 ; 40 W. R. 175 56 J. P. 293 17 Cox C. C. 464
449
Pulling V. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 110
..
..
Pulsford u. Devenish, [1903] 2 Ch. 634
.714
Purdy V. Smith (1859). 1 E. & E. 511 5 Jur. N. g. 912 28
542
L. J. M. C. 150
117 R. R. 314
;

Q.

Quartz Hill Co., Se (1882), 21 Ch. D. 642 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 940 ; 31

W. R. 173
Queensland Industrial Soey. v. Pickles (18651, 35 L. J. Ex. 1 ..
Quilter v. Mapleson (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 672 ;' 52 L. J. Q. B. 44 ;
47 L. T. 562 31 W. R. 75
Quin V. O'Keefe (1859), 10 Ir. C. L. R. 393
Quinn V. McKinlay, [1902] 2 K. B. Jr. 315
Quinton v. Bristol (Mayor) (1874), L. R. 17 Eq. 524 ; 43 L. J. Ch.
783 30 L. T. 112 22 W. R. 434
;

105
731

393
35
316
530

R.
Radcliffe v. Bartholomew, [1892] 1 Q. B. 161 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 63
65 L. T. 677 40 W. R. 63 56 J. P. 262
607
Radford v. Williams (1914), 78 J. P. 90
125, 490
Radnorshire Bd. v. Evans (1863), 3 B.
S. 400
32 L. J. M. C.
;

&

100

9 Jur. N. S. 890

7 L. T. 677
Raebum v Andrews (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 118
30 L. T. 15 22 W. R. 489
;

588

Digitized

by Microsoft

43 L.

J. Q.

B. 73

618

TABLE OF CASES.

xcijc
PAGE

Railton V. Wood (1890), 15 App. Cas. 363 59 L. J. P. 0. 84 63

L. T. 13, H. L
162,357
Railway Sleepers Co., Re (1885), 29 Ch. D. 204 54 L. J. Ch. 720
52 L. T. 731 33 W. R. 595
607
Ramsden v. Lupton (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 17 43 L. J. Q. B. 17 ;
29 L. T. 510 22 W. R. 129
226
Ramshay, Ex p. (1852), 18 Q. B. 173 21 L. J. Q. B. 238 ; 16
Jur. 684
639
Randall, Ltd. v. British & American Shoe Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch.
;

683
Randleson, ^a;

Randolph

17W.

v.

p. (1828), 1

Mont.

MUman (1868),

c&

669
213

M'Arth. 86

L. R. 4 C. P. 107

38 L. J. C. P. 81

R. 262

502
Rapier v. London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588 63 L. J. Ch.
36; 69L.T. 361
630
Rashleigh, Kx p. (1875), 2 Ch. D. 9
45 L. J. Bank. 29 34 L. T.
193 24 W. R. 496, C. A
398,406
Raven, iJe (1915), 111 L. T. 938
147
Rawley v. Rawley (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 466 46 L. J. Q. B. 675 36
L. T. 191 24 W. R. 995
74,101
Rayuer v. Rayner, [1904] 1 Ch. 176 73 L. J. Ch. 114 ..
..
99
Rayson v. South London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304
62
L. J. Q. B. 693 69 L. T. 491 42 W. R. 21 ..
92
.,
..
Read v. Anderson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 779 52 L. J. Q. B. 219
53 L. J. Q. B. 532 51 L. T. 55 32 W. R. 590 49 J. P. 4 ..
210,
693
V. Edwards (1864), 17 C. B. N. S. 245
34 L. J. C. P. 31 .. 563
V. Joannon (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 300
69 L. J. Q. B. 544
63
L. T. 387
38 W. R. 734
61
V. Lincoln (Bp.), [1892] A. C. 644
62 L. J. P. C. 1 67 L. T.
128 56 J. P. 725
43, 50, 108, 736
V. Storey (1861), 6 H. & N. 433
30 L. J. M. C. 110
284, 645
Beade v. Conquest (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 479
178
Readshaw . Balders (1811), 4 Taunt. 57
704
Rebeckah, The (1799), 1 C. Rob. 230
529
Receiver of Police District v. Bell (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 433
41
L. J. M. C. 163
328
Recker v. N. British & Mercantile Insurance Co. (1915), 84
538
L. J. K. B. 1813
Rede i;. Farr (1817), 6 M. & S. 121 18 R. R. .329
..
..373
Redfem, Re (1878), 6 Cli. D. 133 47 L. J. Ch. 17
..
..
444
64 L. T. 68
V. Redfem, [1891] P. 139
60 L. J. P. 9
39
W. R. 212 55 J. P. 37
166
Redgate v. Haynes (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 89 45 L. J. M. C. 65 33
L. T. 779
191, 490
..
180
Reece v. Muller (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 626 51 L. J. M. C. 64
Reed v. Ingham (1854), 3 E. & B. 889 32 L. J. M. C. 156 2
1 Jur, N. S. 61
97 R, R, 821
,,
515, 587
C. L. R. 1496
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

'

FAGE

Reed V. Nutt (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 669 59 L. J. Q.

;

B. 311

62 L. T.

362

38 W. R. 621 54 J. P. 599
Wiggins (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 220 32 L. J. C. P. 131
11 W. R. 148
7 L. T. 423
Reeve v. Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B. 652 60 L. J. Q. B. 451 64 L. T.
141; 39 W. R. 420
635

V.

388

316
10
31 L. J. M. C. 241
Yeates (1862), 1 H. & C. 435
470
W. R. 779
26
Regent U. S. Stores, Re (1878), 8 Ch. D. 75 38 L. T. 84
680
W. R. 425
668
Reid V. Croft (1839), 5 Bing. N. C. 68 8 L. J. C. P. 22
54 L. T.
55 L. J. Ch. 294
V. Reid (1886), 31 Ch. D. 402
382,387
100 34 W. R. 332
71 L. T. 299 43 W. R.
V. Wilson (1895), 64 L. J. M. C. 60
574,575
47;58J. P. 544
Reigate Rural Council v. Sutton District Water Co. (1908), 99
83, 94
L. T. 168
59
Reigate Union v. Croydon Union (1889), 14 App. Cas. 465
126
L. J. M. C. 29 53 J. P. 580
Rein v. Lane (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 144 36 L. J. Q. B. 81 8
507
B. &S. 83
63
59 L. J. Ch. 641
Rendall v. Blair (1890), 45 Ch. D. 139
502
L. T. 265 38 W. R. 698
112
Renpor, The (1883), 8 P. p. 115, C. A
Republic of Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, Re, [1914] 1 Ch. 139
205,264
83L. J. Ch. 226
Restall V. L. and S. W. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ex. 141
37 L. J.
730
Ex. 89 18 L. T. 331 16 W. R. 872
237,328
R. B.Abbot (1780), Doug. 553
Adams (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 66 58 L. J. M. C. 1 59 L. T.
903 53 J, P. 377 16 Cox C. C. 544
488, 501
33
Adamson (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 201
45 L. J. M. C. 46
L. T. 840 24 W. R. 250
426, 439, 441, 442
115
Adlard 1825), 4 B. & C. 772
681
Aikin (1765), 3 Burr. 1785
645
Aldborough (1849), 13 Q. B. 190 18 L. J. M. C. 81
..
Allan (1864), 4 B. & S. 915
33 L. J. M. C. 98
10 Jur.
674
N. S. 796 9 L. T. 761 12 W. R. 422
Ailday (1837), 7 E. & B. 799
26 L. J. Q. B. 292
3 Jur.
N. S. 961 110 R. R. 835
621
Allen (1812), 15 East 333
248
41 L. J. M- C. 97
26
(1872), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 367
L. T. 664 20 W. R. 756 12 Cox C. C. 193
558
Allendale (1789), 3 T. R. 382
217
All Saints (Derby) (1810), 13 East 143
522
All Saints (Wigan) (1876), 1 App. Cas. 611
L. R. 9 Q. B.
327 35 L. T. 381 25 W. R. 128
365
Ampthill (1824), 2 B. & C. 847
675
Anderson (1869), L. R. 1 C. C. 161 38 L. J. M. C. 12 19
L. T. 400 17 W.
208 11 Cox C. C. 198
264
V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

ci
PAGE

R.

61 L. J. M. C. 143
Anglesey JJ., [1892] 2 Q. B. 29
67
L. T. 322 ; 56 J. P. 440
Antonelli (1906), 70 J. P. 4
Arkwright (1848), 12 Q. B. 960 18 L. J. Q. B. 26 13 Jur.

V.

656
489

76 R. R. 442
658
Armagh (Archbp.) (1722), Stra. 516
252,253
Armitage (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 773
42 L. J. M. 0. 15 27
L. T. 41 ; 20 W. R. 1015
18,676
Ashburton (1846), 8 Q. B. 871 ; 15 L. J. M. C. 97 ..
26
..
Astley (1785), 4 Doug. 389
216
Aston (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 491 ; 4 New Sess. Gas. 283 19
L. J. M. C. 236 14 Jur. 1045
608, 676
Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144
82,91
Atkins (1765), 3 Burr. 1706
708
Audly (1700), Salk. 526
229
Bacon (1870), 11 Cox C. 0. 540
497
Badger (1856), 6 E. & B. 137
25 L. J. M. C. 81
2 Jur.
N. S. 419 ; 106 R. R. 547
167, 179
BaUey (1800), Rus. & Ry. 1
740
Baines (1706), 2 Lord Raym. 1267
241
(1840), 12 A. & E. 227 ; 10 L. J. Q. B. 34 4 P. & D.
283
362; 5 Jur. 337
Ball (1834), 6 C. & P. 563 40 R. R. 819
85
Balme (1777), 2 Cowp. 648
707
Banbury (1834), 1 A. & E. 136 3 L. J. M. C. 76 3 N. & M.
292
6
Bank of England", [1891] 1 Q. B. 785 60 L." J. Q. JS. 497";
164
64 L. T. 468 39 W. R. 558 55 J. P. 695
Barclay (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 306 51 L. J. M. C. 27 46 L. T.
102
30 W. R. 472 46 J. P. 167 & 8 Q. B. D. 480
51
L. J. M. C. 47 ; 46 L. T. 335 30 W. R. 672 46 J. P. 693 ..
504
10
Barham (1828), 8 B. & C. 99
Barlow (1693), Garth. 293 2 Salk. 609
..
425, 441, 707
Bamet Sanitary Auth. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 558 45 L. J. M. C.
13
105; 35L. T. 362
Barret (1708), 1 Salk. 383
681
Bateman (1858), 8 B. & B. 584 4 Jur. N. S. 301 27 L. J.
80
M. C. 95 ; 112 R. R. 705
466
Baude (1603), Cro. Jac. 41
..
Bawbergh (1823), 2 B. & G. 222 3 D. & R. 338
..380
642
Bayly, [1898] 2 Ir. R. 335, 347, Ir
Beadle (1857), 7 E. & B. 492 ; 26 L. J. M. G. Ill ; 3 Jur.
249
N. S. 863 110 R. R. 694
467
-^ Beaney (1820), R. & R. 416
499
Beecham (1851), 5 Cox G. C. 181
12
Bellamy (1823), 1 B. & C. 500
Belton (1848), 11 Q. B. 388 3 New Sess. Cas. 77 17 L. J.
M. C. 70 ; 75 R. R. 423
521,678
98 L. T.
Benson, [1908] 2 K. B. 270
77 L. J. K. B. 644
493
933; 72 J. P. 286

300

Digitized

by Microsoft

CU

TABLE OF CASES.
FAGE

R.

Berkley (1754), 1 Ken. 80

249
Berkshire Jus. (1878),. 4 Q. B. D. 469
48 L. J. M. C. 137
27W. R. 798
608,609
Berry (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 86 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 320 32 L. T.
O. S. 323 7 W. R. 229 1 Bell C. C. 46
681
Bertrand (1867), L. R. 1 P. C. 520
36 L. J. P. C. 51 ; 16
L. T. 752 ; 16 W. R. 9
683
..
4 Moore P. C. C. N. S. 460
Beverley Gas Co. (1837), 6 A. & E. 645 6 L. J. M. C. 84 ..
110
Bewdley (1712), 1 P. Wms. 223
538
Bigg (1717), 3 P. Wms. 434 2 East P. C. 882
92
Bird (1898), 42 Sol. J. 397
480
Birmingham (1846), 8 Q. B. 410
106
216
(1828), 8 B. & C. 29 ; 32 R. R. 332
Bishop (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 259 14 Cox C. C. 404 ; 49 L. J.
M. C. 45 42 L. T. 240 44 J. P. 330 ; 28 W. R. 475
..
187
Biswell (1847), 2 Cox C. C. 279
..
..
..487
Bjomsen (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 180 10 Cox C. C. 74 ; L. &
C. 545 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 589
13 W. R. 664 12 L. T. 473 ..
265
Blaby, [1894] 2 Q. B. 170 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 133
..
..
396
Blane (1849), 13 Q. B. 769 3 New Sess. Cas. 597 ; 18 L. J.
M. C. 216 13 Jur. 854
43,275,276
Bleasdale (1792), 4 T. R. 809
353
Bloomsbury C. C. Judge (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 778 ; 55 L. J.
Q. B. 443 ; 56 L. T. 321 51 J. P. 212
674
Bloxham (1844), 6 Q. B. 528 14 L. J. Q. B. 13 ; 1 New
Sess. Cas. 370 2 D. & L. 168
8 Jur. 1117
683
Blues (1855), 5E. & B. 291
521
Board of Education, [1910] 2 K. B. 165 ; 79 L. J. K. B.
595 102 L. T. 578 74 J. P. 259 8 L. G. R. 549
..
229
Boiler Explosion Commrs., [1891], 1 Q. B. 703 j 60 L. J.
131
Q. B. 544 64 L. T. 674 39 W. B. 440
Bond (1837), 6 A. & E. 905
..
655
Boteler (1864), 4 B. & S. 959 33 L. J. M. C. 101 ; 12 W. R.
466 ..
..
441
Boultbee (1836), 4 A. & E. 498
6 N. & M. 26
5 L. J.
M. C. 57 43 R. R. 412
248
Boulton (1850), 1 Den. C. C. 508
2 C. & K. 517 ; 3 Cox
19 L. J. M. C. 67 13 Jur. 1034
C. C. 576
499
Bowerman, [1891] 1 Q. B. 112 60 L. J. M. C. 13 63 L. T.
532 ; 39 W. R. 207 55 J. P. 373 17 Cox C. C. 151
472
Bowman, [1898], 1 Q. B. 663
233
Bowyer (1831), 4 C. & P. 559
485
Brackenridge (1868), L. R. 1 C. C. 133 37 L. J. M. C. 86
18 L. T. 369 16 W. R. 816 ; 11 Cox C. C. 96
..
343
Bradford (1860), Bell C. C. 268 8 Cox C. C. 309 29 L. J.
M. C. 171 6 Jur. N. S. 1102 ; 2 L. T. 392 8 W. R. 531 .. 489
Bradford Navigation (1865), 6 B. & S. 631
34 L. J. Q B
191 11 Jur. N. S. 769 ; 13 W. R. 892
..
..
632
Bradlaugh (1883), 2 Q. B. D. 569 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 286 and 3
Q. B. D. 607 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 5
346

w.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

ClU
PAGE

R.

Bradshaw (1860), 2 E. & E. 836 29 L. J. M. C. 176 6 Jur.

N. S. 629 8 W. R. 435
341,342
Brice (1821), R. & R, 450
487
Bridge (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 609 59 L. J. M. 0. 49 62 L. T,
297 38 W. R. 464 54 J. P. 629 17 Cox C. C. 66
326
Bridgewater (1774), 1 Cowp. 139
153
(1790), 3 T. R. 550
217
Bridgnorth (1839), 10 A. & E. 66 8 L. J. M. C. 86 ; 2 P. &
D. 317 ; 3 Jur. 384 50 R. R. 334
217
Brighton (1861), 1 B. & S. 447 30 L. J. M. C. 197 5 L. T.
56; 9 W. R. 831
106
Bristol Dock Co. (1810), 12 East 429; 11 R. R. 440
..
723
Brixton Prison (Governor), Slattmann, Ex p., [1912] 3 K. B.
424
159
Brodribb (1816). 6 C. & P. 571
85
Brooks (1847), 2 C. & K. 402
101
Brown (1800), 2 East P. 0. 1007
470
..
..
(1852), 17 Q. B. 833 ; 21 L. J. M. C. 113
574
Buchanan (1846), 8 Q. B. 883 ; 15 L. J. Q. B. 227 10 Jur.
736
708, 712, 713
Buck (1726), 2 Stra. 679
709
Bucks JJ. (1803), 3 East 342
19,370
17 Jur.
(1853), 2 E. & B. 447 ; 22 L. J. M. C. 139
295
530; IC.L. R. 443
Burnaby (1703), 2 Lord Rayni. 900
179
Butler (1685), 1 W. Bl. 649
153
Byrde (1890), 60 L. J. M. C. 17 63 L. T. 645 39 W. R.
426
171 ; 55 J. P. 310 17 Cox C. C. 187
Cambridge JJ. (1835), 4 A. & E. Ill
5 L. J. M. C. 6
5
N. & M. 440 1 H. & W. 600
237, 645
426, 439, 441
(1839), 8 Dowl. 89
639
Cambridge University (1722), Stra. 557
Canterbury (Archbp.) (1848), 11 Q. B. 483
17 L. J. Q. B.
532
252 ; 12 Jur. 862 75 R. R. 458
28 L. J. Q. B. 154 5 Jur. N. S.
(1859), 1 E. & E. 545
643
958; 117R. R. 331
72 L. J. K. B. 188 ; 88 L. T. 150
, [1903] 1 K. B. 289 ;
254
51W.R.277
135
Carew (1851), 20 L. J. M. C. 44 n
22 R. R. 333
330
Carlile (1819), 3 B. & AM. 161
655
Carnarvon (1820), 4 B. & Aid. 86 ; 22 R. R. .636
681
(1835), 5 N. & M. 364
Carr (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 76 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 12 ; 47 L. T. 451
31 W. R. 121 ; 47 J. P. 38 ; 15 Cox C. C. 129 4 Asp. M. C.
264
604
43 L. J. Q. B. 105 ; 30
Castro (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 360
4
L. T. 32U ; 22 W. R. 187 ; 1 Hopw. & C. 741
..
..
333
Cator (1802), 4 Burr. 2026
Champneys (1871), L. R. 6 C. P. 384 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 95 24
314
L. T. 181 ; 19 W. R. 386

V.

. .

^-

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CIV
R.

Chantrell (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 587 44 L. J. M. C. 94 ; 32

18>637
..
L. T.305 ..
..
232
Chapman (1838), 8 C.
P. 558
116
Charles (1772), Burr. Set. C. 706
20 L, J. M. C. 181
P. 117
Charlesworth (1851), 2 L. M.

V.

&

&

574
501
B. 447
Cheltenham (1841), 1 Q. B. 467 1 G. & D. 167 ; 10 L. J.
150,237
M. C. 99 ; 55 R. R. 321
636
Chertsey J J. (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 104
Cheshire Lines Comm. (1873), L.R. 8 Q. B. 344; 42 L. J.
640
M. C. 100; 28L. T. 808
29 L. J. Q. B.
Chichester (Bishop of) (1859), 2 E. & E. 209
432
23 6 Jur. N. S. 120

468,469
..
..
..
Child (1830), 4 C. & P. 442
42 L. J. M. C. 34 659
Chorlton Union (1872), L. R. 8 Q. B. 5
Christchurch (1849), 12 Q. B. 149 ; 18 L. J. M. C. 28 ; 83
392
R. R. 863
55 L. J. M. C.
Cinque Ports JJ. (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 191
371
156 34 W. R. 789
244
..
Cityof London Court Judge (1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 28
63 L. T.
(1890), 25 Q. B. D. 339 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 429
168
..
492 38 W. R. 638
..
66 L. T. 135
61 L. J. Q. B. 337
, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273
6, 244
40 W. R. 215 7 Asp. M. C. 140
52 L. T.
(1885), 14 Q. B. D. 905 54 L. J. Q. B. 330
710
537 33 W. R. 700 ; 49 J. P. 407
352,354,355
Clark (1777), 2 Cowp. 610
Clear (1825), 4 B. & C. 899 7 D. & R. 393 28 R. R. 498 714
Cleworth (1864), 4 B. & S. 927 9 L. T. 682 33 L. J. M. C.
584
79 10 Jur. N. S. 360 ; 12 W. R. 375
522
Clifton (1794), 2 East 168
Coaks (1864), 3 E. & B. 249 ; 23 L. J. Q. B. 133 2 C. L. R.
153
947; 18 Jur. 378
16 W. R.
18 L. T. 489
Cohen (1868), 8 Cox C. C. 41
184
941
468
Coke (1721), 1 East P. C. 400
CoUingwood (1848), 12 Q. B. 681 3 New Sess. Cas. 252 ;
..
126
17 L. J. M. C. 168 12 Jur. 750
Commanding Officer Middlesex Regiment, [19171 2 K. B. 129 267
Consistory Court (1862), 2 B. & S. 339 31 L. J. Q. B. 106
..
..509
5 L. T. 795 8 Jur. N. S. 1131 10 W. R. 343
248
,
..
Cook (1790), 3 T. R. 319
572
(1774), 2 East P. C. 616
Corfe Mullen (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 211
663, 666
Cornforth (1742), 2 Stra. 1162
106,486
Cottle (1851), 16 Q. B. 412 ; 20 L. J. M. C. 162
15 Jur.
480
721 83 R. R. 519
5 Jur.
Cotton (1859), 1 E. & E. 203
28 L. J. M. C. 22
241
N. S. 311 7 W. R. 62

90R. R. 816

Charretie (1849), 13

'

'.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CV
PAGB

R.

522
Cousins (1864), 4 B. & S. 849 ; 33 L. J. M. 0. 87
.
118
(1851), 20 L. J. Q. B. 359
59 L. J. Q. B. 228 62
(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533
70
L. T. 583 ; 38 W. R. 408
450
Cox (1759), 2 Burr. 785
Crawshaw (1860), 30 L. J. M. C. 58 ; 3 L. T. 51 ; 9 W. R.
713
68 ; Bell C. C. 303 ; 8 Cox C. C. 375
342,528
Croke (1774), 1 Cowp. 26
Crowan (1850), 14 Q. B. 221 3 New Sess. Cas. 663 ; 19
404
L. J. M. C. 20 ; 13 Jur. 1099
Cubitt (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 622 ; 58 L. J. M. C. 132 ; 60
706
L. T. 638
248
Cumberland (1803), 3 B. & P. 354
438
(1836), 4 A. & B. 696
528
Cumberworth (1836), 4 A. & E. 731
572
Cunningham (1804), ,5 East 478
526
Cutbush (1768), 4 Burr. 2204
538
(1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 379
22
DamareU (18671, 37 L. J. M. C. 21
.
526, 642
DarUngton School (1845), 14 L. J. Q. B. 67 .
114, 122, 532
Davie (1837), 6 A. & E. 374
332
Davis (1783), 1 Leach 271
2 N.
M. 349 3 L. J. M. C.
(1833), 5 B. & Ad. 551
464
29;39R. R. 563
22
(1853), 22 L. J. M. C. 143
31,484
(1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 272
354,356
Dean (1843), 12 M. & W. 39
600
Deaville (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 272
118
Deighton (1844), 13 L. J. Q. B. 241
196
De Mamey, L1907] 1 K. B. 388
265
De Mattos (1836), 7 C. & P. 458
663
Denbyshire JJ. (1803), 4 East 142
729
Denton (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 207
265
Depardo (1807), 9 R. R. 693
425
Derby (1694), Skin. 370
424
Derby JJ., [1917] 2 K.B. 802
13
Derbyshire JJ. (1845), 7 Q. B. 193
237
(1758), 2 Ken. 299
Dickenson (1857), 7 E. & B. 831 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 204 ; 3 Jur.
588
N. S. 1076 ; 110 R. R. 852
96
Dickinson, 1917] 2 K. B. 393
184,
S, 11 ; 4 Camp. 12 ; 15 R. R. 381 ..
Dixon (1814), 3 M.

V.

Coward
Cowper

&

&

Dobbins (1883), 48 J. P. 182

Doherty (1887), 16 Cox 306
Doubleday (1861) 3 E. & E, 501
Dove (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 596
Dowling (1857), 8 E. & B. 605 27
;

342
178
595
283
L.'J. Q. B.

706

Downes

(1789), 3 T. R. 660

Digitized

by Microsoft

28

112 R. R.

418
300

TABLE OF CASES.

CVl

PAGE

R, w.D'Oyly (1840), 12 A.
54R. R. 553

& E. 139

&

Dunne

(1813), 2 M.
S. 201
Unrsley (1832), 5 A.
E. 10
Dyott (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 47 ;
799; 47 J. P. 54

&

4 Jur. 1056

& D.

4 P.

52

6 N. & M. 333
H. & W. 9
61 L. J. M. 0. 104 30 W. R.

155
100
365

28
Dyson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 176
58 J. P.
63 L. J. M. C. 124
528 70 L. T. 877 42 W. R. 526 1 Mansou 283 ..
..
197
275
Eastbourne (1803), 4 East 103
East London W. W. Go. (1852), 17 Q. B. 512 21 L. J. M. C
591
49; 2E. &E. 447
217
Eaton (1-787), 2 T. R. 472 1 R. R. 436
Edmundson (1859), 2 E. &E. 77 8 Cox C. C. 212 28 L. J.
597
M. C. 213 5 Jur. N. S. 1351
100
Edwards (1829). 9 B. & C. 652
2
23 L. J. Ex. 42
18 Jur. 384
(1853), 9 Ex. 628
C. L. R. 590
96 R. R. 886
250,610
53 L. J. M. C. 149 51 L. T.
(1884), 13 Q. B. D. 586
398
586 ..
Effls (1854), 6 Q. B. 501
27
Blmsly (1834), 2 Lew. 0. C. 126
467
Ely (1850), 15 Q. B. 827
4 New Seas. Cas. 222
19 L. J.
M. C. 223 14 Jur. 966 81 R. R. 822
635
Erdheim (1896), 65 L. J. M. C. 176
618
13 W. R.
Essex (1864), 34 L. J. M. C. 41
11 L. T. 486
186
345
2 R. R. 470
..
..
(17-92), 4 T. R. 591
535, 626
C. C. Judge (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 704
56 L. J. Q. B.
315 57 L. T. 643 35 W. R. 511 51 J. P. 549
..
708, 710
Evans (1890), 54 J. P. 471
439
65 L. J. M. C. 29 44 W. R. 271
[1896] 1 Q. B. 228
60 J. P. 39
259
Everdon (1807), 9 East 101
421
Everett (1852)i 1 E. & B. 273 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 93 R. R.
..
133..
297
Eye Corporation (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 271
2 D. & R. 172
IB. &C. 85; 23R. R. 270
438
Eyre (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 487
37 L. J. M. C. 159
18
16 W. R. 754 9 B. & S. 329
L. T. 511
603
Farewell (1744), 2 Stra. 1209
249
Farmer,- [1892] 1 Q. B. 637
61 L. J. M. C. 65
65 L. T.
736 40 W. R. 228 56 J. P. 341 17 Cox C. C. 413
259
Farrow (1857), D. & B. C. C. 164 3 Jur. N. S. 167
..
490
Faversham Fishery Co. (1799), 8 T. R. 352 4 R. R. 691 .. 704
Fawcett (1868), 11 Cox C. C. 305
426,442
Fell (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 380
240
Ferrall (1850), 2 Den. C. C. 51
T. & M. 390
20 L.J. M. C
..
..
39; 15 Jur. 42
707
Finnis (1859), 1 E. & E. 935
28 L. J. M. C. 201
5 Jur

..
N-.-S. 791; 117R. R.-530
..
..
..
342,441
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
R.

V.

CVli

Fitchie (1857), 1 D. & B. C. C. 175 ; 7 Cox 0. C. 257

26
L. J. M. C. 90 3 Jur. N. S. 413
..
Fitzroy-Cowper (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 533 59 L. J. Q. B. 265
62 L. T. 583 ; 38 W. R. 408
Fletcher (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 320
40 L. J. M. C. 123
24 L. T. 742 19 W. R. 781 12 Cox C. C. 77
..
Ford (1907), 12 Canada Or. Cas. 555
Fordham (1839), 11 A.
E. 73 3 P. & D. 95 ; 9 L. J. M. C.

PAGE

499

139

&

681
179

3; 52R. R. 281

667
Forrest (1789), 3 T. R. 38 1 R. R. 628
645
Foulkes (1875), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 150 ; 44 L. J. M. 0. 65 32
L. T. 407 ; 23 W. R. 696
494
FranciB.(1735), 2Stra. 1015
466
French (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 507
10
Fretwell (1862), L. & C. 161
31 L. J. M. C. 145
9 Cox
C. C. 152 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 466
6 L. T. 333 ; 10 W. R. 545 .. 490
Frost (1839), 9 C. & P. 129
564
Fylingdales (1827), 7 B. & C. 438
150
Gale (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 141
46 L. J. M. C. 134 ; 35 L. T.
526 13 Cox C. C. 340
491
Ganz (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 93 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 419 46 L. T.
592
265
Gardner (1774), Cowp. 79
110
Garrett (1853), Dears. C. C. 233 ; 6 Cox C. C. 260 ; 2 C. L. R.
106 ; 23 L. J. M. C. 20 ; 17 Jur. 1060
472
Giles (1820), 8 Pri. 293 36 R. R. 27
610
Gillyard (1848), 12 Q. B. 527 ; 17 L. J. M. C. 153 12 Jur.
655 ..
J.
..
..
.,
..
..
.
237
Glamorganshire (1850), "i L. M. & P."336 'i9 L. J. M. C.
232
172 15 Jur. 679
Glover (1814), R. R. 269
492
Gompertz (1847), 9 Q. B. 824 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 121 ; 11 Jur.
204
204; 72 R. R. 458
Gordon (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 354 58 L. J. M. C. 117 60 L. T.
493
872 ; 53 J. P. 807 ; 16 Cox C. C. 622
Gould (1704), 1 Salk, 381
712
689,690
Gravesend (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 240
Great Bolton (1828), 8 B. & C. 71
560,564
145
Great Faringdon (1829), 9 B. & C. 641
Great Salkeld (1817), 6 M. & S. 408
..217
150
Great Yarmouth JJ. (1882), 8 Q. B. D.525
429
G. W. Ry. (1858), 28 L. J. M. C. 59
436
G. W. Ry. Co. (1852), 1 E. & B. 874 22 L. J. Q. B. 263 ..
Qreen (1851), 2 L. M. & P. 130 ; 20 L. J. M. C. 168 ; 15
705
Jur. 128
Greene (1837), 6 A. & E. 548 ; 1 N. & P. 631 W. W. & D.
550
..
..
291
..
..
..
^-^'(1852)', 17 Q. B. 793 21 L. J. M." 0. 137
16 Jur. 663 625
11 Cox C. C. 193
36
Greenland (1867), L. R. 1 C. C. 95
308
L.J.M..O. 37;.19L, T. 364; 17 W. R,179
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CVm
R.

V.

TABLE OP CASES.

Gregory (1833), 5 B.
M. 478
Griffiths, [1891] 2 Q.

& Ad. 555

3 L. J. M. C. 25

2 N.

&

PAGE

713
B. 145

60 L. J. M. C. 93

39

W. R.

386
719
Grirawade (1844), 1 Cox C. C. 85 ; 1 Den. 330
1 C. & K.
488
592
..
Gwenop (1789), 3 T. R. 133
78,91
22
Hadfield (1870), L. R. 1 0. C. 253 ; 39 L. J. M. C. 131
489
L. T. 664 ; 18 W. R. 955 ; 11 Cox C. C. 574
707
Haigh (1813), 3 T. R. 637
487
Haines (1821), R. & R. 451
216
Halifax (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 211
95
Hall (1822), 1 B. & C. 123 25 R. R. 321
179
(1828), 3 C. & P. 409
[1891] 1 Q. B. 747 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 124 64 L. T. 394 ;
17CoxC. C. 278
710,714
Hammond (1852), 17 Q. B. 772 21 L. J. Q. B. 153 85
R.R. 674
118
459
Hampden (1637), 3 State Trials 1235
Hamstall Rid ware (1789), 3 T. R. 380
645
Hanson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 519
300
Hants JJ. (1840), 1 B. & Ad. 654 9 L. J. M. C. 109 ; 35 R. R.
407
105,346
Harden (1852), 2 E. d, B. 188 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 299 ; 17 Jur.
804
288
Hardy (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 278 40 L. J. M. C. 62 23
L. T. 785 ; 19 W. R. 359 ; 11 Cox C. C. 656
489
Harper (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 78 50 L. J. M. C. 90
44 L. T.
615 29 W. R. 743 ; 14 Cox C. C. 574
472
..
..
..
Harrald (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 361 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 173
26
L. T. 616
20 W. R. 328
155
Harris (1836), 7 C. & P. 429
467
582
(1836), 7 C. & P. 446
498
(1842), Car. & M. 661
(1791), 4 T. R. 202
2 R. R. 358
707
Harrogate (1850), 15 Q. B. 1012 20 L. J. M. C. 25 ; 16 Jur.
422 ; 4 New Sess. Ca. 319
246
Harvey (1747), 1 Wils. 164
465
Hastings (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 692 n. 1 D. & R. 148 ; 24 R. R.
657
427
Haughton (1853), 1 E. & B. 501 22 L. J. ]Vt 0. 89 ; 17 Jur.
455 ; 93 R. R. 264
..
..
550
Havering-atte-Bower (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 691 ; 2 D. & R.
176 ; 24 R. R. 532
427
Hawkesworth (1786), 1 T. R. 450; 2 East P. C. 255
..
204
Hazelton (1874), L. R. 2 C. C. 134 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 11 ; 31
L. T. 451 ; 23 W. R. 139
493
Hellier (1851), 17 Q. B. 229 ; 21 L. J. M. C. 5 ; 15 Jur. 901 312
Helton (1742), Burr. S. C. 187 ; 2 Stra. 1168
..
106
..
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

0. 135

ex

TABLE OF OASES.
FAQE

R.

V.

Hyde

337

(1852), 7 E.

..

&

B. 859 n.

21 L. J.

M.

C.

94

16 Jur.

237
312

..

&

Idle (1818), 2 B.
Aid. 149
Ingall (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 199

46 L. J. M. C. 113 35 L. T.
649,659,660
11.57
33 L. J.
Ingham (1864), 5 B. & S. 257 ; 9 Cox C. 0. 508
12 W. R. 793 569
Q. B. 183 10 Jur. N. S. 968 ; 10 L. T. 456
660
Ingram (1697), 2 Salk. 593
Inland Revenue Commrs. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 569 57 L. J.
296
M. C. 92 ; 59 L. T. 378 36 W. R. 696 52 J. P. 390
Ipstones (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 216
37 L. J. M. 0. 37 ; 17
103
L. T. 497 16 W. E. 538 9 B. & S. 106
207
Ipswich Union (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 269 46 L. J. M.
382,386
36 L. T. 317 25 W. R. 511

552; 25

W.

James (1786), 1 East 303 n

Jay (1858), 8 E. & B. 469 27 L.
;

..249

J.

M.

C. 25

4 Jur. N. S.

246
407 112 R. R. 649
467
Jeans (1844), 1 0. & K. 539
32 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 9 Jur.
Jenkins (1863), 3 B. & S. 116
639
N. S. 570 7 L. T.272 11 W. R. 20
582
Jenniug's Case (1838), 2 Lewin 0. 0. 130
488
Jepson (1767), 2 East P. C. 1115
322
- Johnson (1839), 6 01. i& F. 41
49 R. R. 14, H. L
681
(1720), 1 Stra. 261
54 R. R.
Jones (1841), 12 A. & E. 684 10 L. J. M. C. 5
464
661
488
(1851), 5 Cox C. C. 226
471
(1897), 67 L. J. Q. B. 41
487
Jordan (1836), 7 C. & P. 432
84 L. T.
Kane, [1901] 1 K. B. 472 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 143
586
240; 65 J. P. 26
2
Kensington (1847), 12 Q. B. 654 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 332
230
Jur. 747
634
Kent (Inhabitants) (1811), 13 East 220 ; 12 R. R. 330
Kent JJ. (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 305 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 112
135
12W. R. 635
62 L. T.
(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 181 ; 59 L. J. M. 0. 51
361
..
114 38 W. R. 253 ; 54 J. P. 453 17 Cox C. C. 61
..635
Kerrison (1813), 1 M. & S. 435 ; 14 R. R. 491
..
344
Kettle, [1905] 1 K. B. 212
Keyn (1876), 2 Ex. D. 63 ; 13 Cox C. C. 403 ; 46 L. J. M. C.
264,265,274,277
17
354
King (1711), 1 Salk. 182
492
(1716), 1 Sess. Cas. 27
Kingston-upon-Thames JJ. (1858), E. B. & E. 256 ; 27 L. J.
341
M.C. 199 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 758 ; 113 R. R.631
487
Kipps (1850), 4 Cox 0. C. 167
*
Knapp (1853), 2 E. & B. 447 22 L. J. M. C. 139 ; 17 Jur.
295
530 1 C. L. R. 443 95 R. R. 634
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXI
PAQE

R.

Knight

(1909), 73 J. P. 15
Lambe (1792), 5 T. R. 76
Lancashire (1858), 8 E.
B. 563
L. J. M. C. 161 ; 112 R. R. 693

179
360

&

Land Tax Com.

&

(1853), 2 E.

4 Jur. N. S. 375

27

655

B. 694

22 L.

J. Q. B.

386

95 R. R. 759
357
Langford (1842), Car. & M. 602 2 Moo. C. C. 252
179, 497
LangriviUe (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 83
54 L. J. Q. B. 124
52
L. T. 253 33 W. R. 213
47
Lawrence (1830), 4 C. & P. 231
487
683
(1909), 25 T. L. R. 374
Leeds Ry. Co. (1852), 18 Q. B. 343 21 L. J. M. C. 193 398, 399
Leicester (1827), 7 B. & C. 6 9 D. & R. 772 5 L. J. (O. S.)
M. C. 95 ; 31 R. R. 135
662
Leicestershire JJ. (1850), 15 Q. B. 88 4 New Sess. Cas. 124
19 L. J. M. C. 209 14 Jur. 550
674, 677
Leigh R. D. C, [1898] 1 Q. B. 836 67 L. J. Q. B. 562 78
L. T. 604 46 W. R. 471 62 J. P. 355
365
Lesley (1860), 1 Bell 220
29 L. J. M. C. 97
8 Cox C. C.
269; 6 Jur. N. S. 202
8 W. R. 220 1 L. T. 452
264
Leverson (1867), L. R. 4 Q. B. 394 18 W. R. 251 ..
..
539
Lewes Prison (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 576 44 L. J. M. C.
176 32 L. T. 673 24 W. R. 13
735
Lewis (1857), D. & B. 182 26 L. J. M. C. 104
..
265, 557
Lichfield (1842), 2 Q. B. 693
11 L. J. Q. B. 122 2 G. & D.
10 6 Jur. 624 57 R. R. 768 ..
577
Lightfoot (1856), 6 B. & B. 822 25 L. J. M. C. 115 2 Jur.
N. S. 786 4 W. R. 655 20 J. P. 677 106 R. R. 814
23, 258
Lindsey (1811), 14 East 317 12 R. R. 529
634
Linford (1857), 7 E. & B. 950 110 R. R. 909
..
..
342
Littlechild (1871), 40 L. J. M. C. 137
352
Little Coggleshall (1817), 6 M. & S. 264
220
Liverpool JJ. (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 638 52 L. J. M. C. 114
49 L. T. 244 33 W. R. 20 47 J. P. 596
17
Llangian (1863), 4 B. & S. 249 32 L. J. M. C. 225 8 L. T.
287,562
422 11 W. R. 776
Lloyd (1767), 2 East P. C. 1122
488
Local Govt. Bd. (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 321 52 L. J. M. C. 4
48 L. T. 173 31 W. R. 72 47 J. P. 228
92
Lofthouse (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 433 35 L. J. Q. B. 145 12
Jur. N. S. 619 14 L. T. 359 14 .W R. 649 7 B. & S. 747 660
London (1764), 3 BuiT. 1456
729
London (Bp.) (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 243 59 L. J. Q. B. 169
62 L. T. 167 38 W. R. 214 54 J. P. 340
..
442, 443
London C. C, [1892], 1 Q. B. 190 61 L. J. M. C. 75 ; 66
L. T. 168 40 W. R. 286 56 J. P. 8
150
London JJ. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 357 59 L. J. M. C. 146 63
L. T. 253 39 W. R. 11
340
64 L. J. M. C. 100
72 L. T.
[1895] 1 Q. B. 616
105,346
211 43 W. R. 387 59 J. P. 820
18 Jur. 285

. .

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXU
R.

London J J.

V.

& C.

London (Mayor

C,

[1893], 2 Q. B. 476
"

69 L. T. 682

of) (1847),

PACE
360,

..

-'

673, 674

13 Q. B. 1

16 L.

J.

Q. B. 185

323

llJur. 867

Long

R.R

(1841), 1 Q. B. 740

409

..

..

G.

& D.

367

6 Jur. 98

55

..

Loom

(1827), 1 Moo. 0. C. 160

Lopes (1858), 1 D. B. 525 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 48 ; 4 Jur. N. S.
98 ; 7 Cox C. C. 431
P. 596 ; 40 R. R.
Loveless (1834), 1 M.
Rob. 349 ; 6 C.

680
572

&

85
825
62,66,522
Loxdale (1758), 1 Burr. 447
126
Luflfe (1807), 8 East 193
9 R. R. 406
Lundie (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 157 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 640 5 L. T.
704
..
830 ; 10 W. R. 267
..
Lynch, [1903] 1 K. B. 444 72 L. J. K. B. 167 88 L. T.
267
26; 51 W. R. 619; 67 J. P. 4]
77 L. T. 568
67 L. J. Q. B. 59
[1898] 1 Q. B. 61
168
..
46 W. R. 205 8 Asp. M. C. 363 18 C. C. C. 677 ..
10
Mabe (1835), 3 A. & E. 531
McCann (1868). L. R. 3 Q. B. 677 37 L. J. M. C. 123 ; 19
247
L. T. 115 16 W. R. 985
729
MoKenzie (1820), R. & R. 429
485
McMahon (1894), 15 N. S. W. L. R. 131 Aust
Maidenhead (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 494 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 444 46
365
J. P. 724
Mainwaring (1858), E. B. & E. 474 27 L. J. M. C. 278 4
13
Jur. N. S. 928 113 R. R. 735
581
Mallinson (1758), 2 Burr. 679
Manchester (1857), 7 E. & B. 453 26 L. J. M. C. 65 110
R. R. 678
91, 200
99
38 R. R. 258 n
(1821), 4 B. & Aid. 504
2 C. L. R. 974 23 L. J. M. C.
(1854), 3 E. & B. 336
247
48 18 Jur. 267 97 R. R. 511
Manchester Corp., [1911] 1 K. B. 560 80 L. J. K. B. 263
53
104L. T.54; 75 J. P. 73; 9L. G. R. 129
3 D. & R.
Manchester Waterworks (1823), 1 B. & C. 630
591
20
Mankelow (1853), Dears. C. C. 169 ; 6 Cox . C. 143 22
487
L. J. M. C. 116 17 Jur. 352
250
Mann (1727), 2 Stra. 754
Mansel Jones (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 29 ; 60 L. T. 860 ; 37 W. R.
139
508; 53 J. P. 739
15
Margram (1793), 5 T. R. 153
85
Marks (1802), 3 East 157 6 R. R. 577
Marriot (1692), 4 Mod. 144
709
190
Marsh (1824), 2 B. & C. 717
Mashiter (1837), 6 A. & E. 153 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 121 1 N. &
P. 314 ; W. W. & D. 173 45 R. R. 433
114, 122 532
..
;

264

&

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXIU
PAGE

R.

V.

Mattersey (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 211 2 L. J. M. C. 16

1 N.
&M. 49
216
Matthews (1797), 10 Mod. 26
353
Maude (1842), 2 Dowl. N. S. 58 11 L. J. M. C. 120 6 Jur.
,.
106,486
646 65 R. R. 753
Maulden (1828), 8 B. & C. 78 32 R. R. 344
..
..
365
Mawgan (1838), 8 A. & E. 496 3 N. & P. 502
..
..
729
426
Meade (1916), 80 J. P. 332
178
(1909), 78 L. J. K. B. 476
Medway Union (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 383 37 L. J. M. C.
..
313
100 18 L. T. 431 16 W. R. 979 9 B. & S. 439 ..
MeUingham (1732), 2 Bott. 363
15
232
Merionethshire (1844), 6 Q. B. 163 13 L. J. M. C. 114 ..
..
..
734
13 L. J. M. C. 158
(1844), 6 Q. B. 343
Metrop. Board of Works (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 358 38 L. J.
172
Q. B. 201 17 W. R. 1094
Metrop. Com. Sewers (1853), 1 E. &B. 694 22 L. J. Q.B.
242
234; 17 Jur. 787; 93 R. R. 348
40 L. J.
Metrop. District Ry. (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 698
32
C 113
Meyer (1876), 1 Q. B.D.'l73 34 L. T. 274;"si nom. R. v.
150
Harrison, 23 W. R. 392
Middlesex (1851), 1 L. M. & P. 621 4 New Sess. Cas. 302
135
20 L. J. M. C. 42 86 R. R. 893
293
(1831), 2 B. & Ad. 818 36 R. R. 758
346
(1817), 6 M. <fe S. 279
608
Middlesex JJ. (1843), 2 Dowl. N. S. 724
345
(1888), 32 Sol. J. 221
Middlesex Regiment (Commanding Officer), [1917] 2 K. B.
2(i7
129
Midland Ry. Co. (1855), 4 E. & B. 958 1 Jur. N. S. 797 ., 572,
592
32
44 L. J. M. C. 137
(1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 389
23 W. R. 921
572, 592
L. T. 753
116
Mildenhall (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 374
62 L. T.
59 L. J. M. C. 56
Miles (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 423
..
362
572 38 W. R. 334 17 Cox C. C. 9 54 J. P. 549 ..
Mill (1850), 10 C. B. 379 1 L. M. & P. 695 20 L. J. C. P.
369,390
16 15 Jur. 59 84 R. R. 618
Milledge (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 332 48 L. J. M. C. 139 40 L. T.
152
748 27 W. R. 659
8 Jur. 717
59 R. R. 134 ..
4
Millis (1844), 10 CI. &F. 534
645
Mills (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 578
117
Mitchell (1818), 10 Bast 518
82 L. J. K. B.
Mitchell, mcp. Livesey (1913), 77 J. P. 148
430, 435, 436
153
Monck (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 544 46 L. J. M. C. 251 36
L. T. 720
38, 357
178
Moore (1852), 3 C. & K. 319 16 Jur. 750
236
Moreley(1760), 2Burr. 1011
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXIV
R.

V.

TABLE OF CASES.
734
683

Morgan (1736), 2 Stra. 1066

Monson (The Veronica Case)

(1903), 67 J. P. 267
Morris (1867), L. R. 1 C. C. 90 ; 36 L. J. M. C. 84
636 ; 15 W. R. 990 ; 10 Cox C. C. 48 ..
Ad. 441
(1830), 1 B.
Morrison (1859), Bell C. C. 158 ; 8 Cox C. C. 194 ;

16 L. T.

362
729

&

C. 210 33 L. T. O. S. 220 7 W. R. 554

Morton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 39 61 L. J. Q. B. 39

M.

40

28 L. J.

499

65

T. 611

W. R.

109 ; 56 J. P. 105
(1881), 7 Q. B. D. 244 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 44 L. T.
823 ; 29 W. R. 758 ; 45 J. P. 696; 14 Cox C. C. 583
Mount (1875), L. R. 6 P. C. 283 ; 44 L. J. P. C. 58 ; 32 L. T.

152

Most

279; 23

W.

262
582
220
217
592

R. 572

Murrow

(1835), 1 Moo. C. C. 456

Mursley (1787), 1 T. R. 694
Mvott (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 138
N4ath (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 707 ; 40 L. J. M. C 193
70
Neville (1846), 8 Q. B. 452 ; 15 L. J. M. C. 33

489

R. R.
591

738

Newman

(1882), 's Q.B.'

0.706; 5i"l. J.'m.

C. 87;

46

;
30 W. R. 550 46 J. P. 612
115,
Nicholson (1810), 12 East 330 11 R. B. 398
426,
Norfolk (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 238 2 L. J. M. C. 23
..
39 R. R. 713
(1834), 5 B. & Ad. 990
..
North CoUingham (1823), 1 B. & C. 578
..
North Curry (1825), 4 B. & C. 953 ; 7 D. & R. 424
293,
Northleach (1834), 5 B. & A. 978
..
NorAvich (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 310
93 L. T.
Novis, [1905] 2 K. B. 456
74 L. J. K. B. 633
534 69 J. P. 288 ; 21 Cox C. C. 33
O'Connor (1882), 15 Cox C. C. 3
45 L. T. 512 ; 46 J. P.
214
Oldham (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 134 ; 2 Den. 473
(1868), Mayor and Corporation of, L. R. 3 Q. B. 474
37 L. J. M. C. 169 18 L. T. 240 46 W. B. 789 9 B. & S.
202
16 L. J. M. C. 110
Overseers (1847), 10 Q. B. 700
..
11 Jur. 487
Owens (1859), 2 E. & E."86 28 L. J.' Q. B. 316
..
..
(1828), 1 Moo. C. C. 205
Oxford (Bp. of) (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 525 48 L. J. Q B. 609
41L. T. 122
426,
Oxford (V. C.) (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 471 ; 26 L. T 506
71,
Oxfordshire J J. (1813), 1 M. & S. 446
Oxley (1852), 6 Q. B. 256
Paddle (1822), R. & B. 484
Paget (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 151 51 L. J. M. C. 9 45 L.T.
794; SOW. R. 336
Papworth (1802), 2 East 413
Parker (1837), 7 C, & P. 829 ; 2 Moo. C. C. 1

L. T. 394

472
116
438
521
564
115
296
663

341

588
76

551

625
152
467

Digitized

by Microsoft

432
117
655
705
488

101
103
493

TABLE OF CASES.
R.

CSV

Patteson (1832), 4 B. & A. 9

1 N. & M.
2 L. J. K. B. 33
612; 38R. R. 191
Paty(1770), 2 W. Bl. 721
Pawlefct (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 491
42 L. J. M. C. 157; 29
L. T. 390
Payne (1866), L. R. 1 C. C. 27 35 L. J. M. C. 170 12 Jur.
N. S. 476 ; 14 L. T. 416 ; 11 W. R. 661
Pease (1832), 4 B. & A. 30 2 L. J. M. C. 26 ; 38 R R. 207
Pelly, [1897] 2 Q. B. 33 66 L. J. Q. B. 519 ; 76 L T. 467
45 W. R. 604 ; 61 J. P. 373 18 C. C. 0. 556
Pembridge (1842). 3 Q. B. 901 3 G. & D. 603 ; 7 Jur. 553
12 L. J. Q. B. 47, 259 61 R. R. 433 ..
45, 103,
Pharmaceutical Society, [1899] 2 Ir. R. 132 ..
Phillips (1842), 2 Moo. C". 0. 252
12 Jur.
(1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 648 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 217
N. S. 920; 14 W. R. 791
369,
Pickford (1861), 1 B. & S. 77 ; 30 L. J. M. C. 133
Pierce (1814), 3 M. & S. 62 15 R. R. 410
..
Pilfield, [1919] 2 K. B. 249
Pilkington (1844), 2 E. & B. 546 17 Jur. 554
..
Finder (1855), 24 L. J. Q. B. 148
..
Plowright (1686), 2 Mod. 95
D.
Ponsonby (1842), 3 Q. B. 14 11 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 1 G.
713 ; 6 Jur. 642 61 R. R. 128
56 L. J.
Poole (Mayor of) (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 602, 683
36 W. R. 239 52 J. P. 84 16
M. C. 131 ; 57 L. T. 485

V.

668
603

521

596
628

361*

510
61
179

424
18
87
102
126
653
237

.'v:

247

CoxC. 0.323

726
498
Pooley (1800), R. & R. 12
Poor Law Commissioners (1838), 6 A. & B. 1 6 L. J. M. C.
41;1N. &P. 371
7,315,556,560
Port of London Authority, Ex. p. Kynock, [1919] 1 K. B.
109
176, C. A.
392
Portsea (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 384 50 L. J. M. C. 144
55 L. J. Q. B. 567
34
Portugal (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 487
586
W. R. 32
57" L. J. Q. B. 138; 58
Poulter (1888), 20 Q. b'.'d. 132
172
L. T. 534 52 J. P. 244 36 W. R. 117
Powell (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 78; L. R. 2 C. C. R. 403 16
498
Jur. 177
120
Poynder (1823), 1 B. & C. 178 2 D. & R. 258 25 R. R. 345
3 C. L. R.
Pratt (1855), 4 E. & B. 860 Dears. C. C. 502
492, 547, 563
686 24 L. J. M. 0. 113 1 Jur. N. S. 681
103
Preston (1839), 7 Dowl. 593
497
Price (1833), 5 C. & P. 510
706,,707
3 P. & D. 421 4 Jur. 291
(1840), 11 A. & E. 727
606
(1854), 8 Moo. P. C. C. 203, P. C
Prince (1875), L. R. 2 C. C. R. 154 44 L. J. M. C. 122 32
180, 181, 190
L. T. 700 24 W. R. 76 13 Cox C. C. 138
586
(1827), 2 C. & P. 517
315,322
Pugh (1779), 1 Dougl. 188
..

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

ex VI

PAGE

E.

Purdey (1864), 5 B. &

N. S. 153 11 L. T. 309

34 L. J. M. C. 4 ; 11 Jur.
909
346
13 W. R. 75
Ratcliffe (1882), 10 Q. B. D. 74 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 40 47 L. T.
304
388 15 Oox 0. C. 127
Read (1849), 13 Q. B. 524 ; 4 New Sess. Cas. 7 ; 18 L. J.
365
M. 0.164; 13 Jur. 789
(1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131 14 Cox 0. C. 17 47 L. J. M. C.
471, 491
50 37 L. T. 722 26 W. R. 283
Reason (1853), Dears. & B. C. 0. 226 2 C. L. R. 120; 6
..
..494
Cox C. C. 227 23 L. J. M. C. 11 17 Jur. 1014
616
Reyce (1767), 4 Burr. 2075
708
Richards (1800), 8 T.R. 634; 5 R.R. 489
Riley, [1896] 1 Q. B. 309 65 L. J. M. C. 74; 74 L. T. 254
..
146
..
44W. R. 318 60 J. P. 519; 18 0. C. C. 285
70 L. J. K. B. 590 ; 84 L. T.
Roberts, [1901] 2 K. B. 117
426
530; 49 W.R. 488; 65 J. P. 359
487
Robins (1844), 1 0. & K. 456
Robinson (1759), 2 Burr. 800
331,707
Bell 0. 0. 34 5 Jur. N. S.
(1859), 28 L. J. M. 0. 38
471
203 32 L. T. 502 7 W. R. 203
705
(1852), 17 Q. B. 466
Robsou (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 137 55 L. J. M. 0. 55 53 L. T
823 34 W. R. 276 50 J. P. 488 15 Cox C. 0. 772
..
114
Rochester (1851), 7 E. & B. 910; 27 L. J. Q. B. 45; 110
R. R. 889
660, 663
Rose (1847), 2 Cox 0. 0. 329
176
1 Jur. N. S.
(1855), 5 B. & B. 49 24 L. J. M. 0. 130
803 103 R. R. 358
526
Rowlands (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 530; 51 L. J. M. 0. 51; 46
L. T. 286 30 W. R. 444 ; 46 J. P. 437 15 Oox 0. 0. 31
467
Russell (1849), 13 Q. B. 237 3 New Sess. Cas. 368 18 L. J.
M. C. 106 13 .Jur. 259
283
(1833), 1 Moo. 0. 0. 377
487
2 Smith 424 8 R. R. 506
(1805), 6 East 427
723
A. C. 446; 70 L. J. K. B. 998; 85 L. T. 253;
, [1901]
20CoxC. 0. 51
258
Saddlers' Co. (1863), 10 H. L. Cas. 404; 32 L. J. Q. B.
337; 9 Jur. N. S. 1081; 11 W. R. 1004, H. L.
112, 306, 357
Saffron Walden (1846), 9 Q. B. 76
9 New Sess. Oas. 360;
15 L. J. M. 0. 115 10 Jur. 639 72 R. R. 186
..
..
612
Sainsbury (1791), 4 T. R. 456 ; Nolan 8; 2 R. R. 433
150, 706
St. Albans (1853), 22 L. J. M. 0. 142
17 Jur. 531
..
237
St. George's Hanover Square (1812), 3 Camp. 222
13 R. R.
792
306
St. George's Union (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 90; 41 L. J. M. 0.
30; 25 L.T. 696; 20 W.R. 179
71
St. GUes (R. V. Chadwick) (1847), 11 Q. B. 173
75 R. R.
313
106
St. Gregory (1835), 2 A. & E. 99
4 L. J. M. C. 9 4 N. &
M. 137
376

V.

S.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.
R.

&

James, Westminster (1836), 5 A.

St.

V.

cxvii

E. 391

2 H.

& W.

253

PAGE

322

Martin's (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 493

36 L. J. M. C. 99
8B. &S. 536; 16L. T. 625; 15W. R. 1096
St. Mary Abbotts, [1891] 1 Q. B. 378
60 L. J. M. C. 52
64 L. T. 240 39 W. R. 278; 55 J. P. 502
St. Mary, Lambeth (1838), 3 Nev. & P. 416
47 R. R. 613
St. Mary, Whitechapel (1848), 12 Q. B. 127
12 Jur. 792 3
New Sess. Gas. 262 17 L. J. M. C. 172 12 J. P. 598
..
St.

Matthew (1875), 32 L.T. 558

-St.

135
155

246

392
153
376

1066 Gas. temp. Hardw. 323

Pancras (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 375 69 L. J. Q. B. 245 38
W. R. 311 54 J. P. 389
229,442
St. Paul, Exeter (1829), 10 B. & G. 12
15
St. Peter, Hereford (1831), 1 B. & Ad. 916
15
St. Sepulchre (1831), 1 B. & Ad. 924
216
(1859), 1 E. & E. 813 28 L. J. M. G. 187 5 Jur. N. S.
386
876; 7W. R. 447
Salisbury (1838), 8 A. & E. 716 3 N. & P. 476
320
Salop (1838), 8 A. & E. 173
607
29 W. R.
(1881), 6 Q. B. D. 669; 50 L. J. M. C. 72
667
677
Saltren (1784), Gald. 444
640
Sanchee (1697), 1 Ld. Raym. 323
305
Sanders (1839), 9 C. & P. 79
579
Sankey (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 379; 47 L. J. Q. B. 96 ..
625
..
Scaife (1851), 17 Q. B. 238 5 Gox C. G. 243 2 Den. C. C.
281 20 L. J. M. C. 229; 15 Jur. 607
534
Scot (1790), 3 T. R. 602
532
Scott (1856), Dears. & Bell G. G. 47 25 L. J. M. C. 1 28 2
Jur. N.S. 1096
618
Seburg (1870), L. R. 1 G. G. 264
39 L. J. M. C. 133 22
L. T. 623 18 W. R. 935 11 Cox G. G. 520
264
Sedgley (1831), 2 B. & A. 63 36 R. R. 475
572
Selby Dam Drainage Gommissioners (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B.
629
372
Senior (1864), 1 L. & C. 401;" 9 Cox C. G.'469; 33 L. J.
M. C. 125 10 Jur. N. S. 547 10 L. T. 428 12 W. R. 749 295
266
Serva (1845), 1 Den. 104 2 C. & K. 53
467
Shadbolt (1833), 5 G. & P. 504
Shaw (1865), L. & G. 579; 10 Gox G. G. 66; 34 L. J. M. G.
..
681
169 11 Jur. N. S. 415 12 L. T. 470 13 W. R. 692
Shee (1843), 4 Q. B. 2; 3 G. & D. 80; 12 L. J. M. G. 53,
247
186 7 Jur. 810 62 R. R. 266
Shepherd (1841), 1 Q. B. 170 4 P. & D. 534 5 Jur. 432
247
Shiles (1841), 1 Q. B. 919
369,424
13
Shrewsbury (1853), 1 E. & B. 711 22 L. J. M. G. 98
1 L. J. M. G.
Shrewsbury Gas Co. (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 216
595
18; .37R. R. 409
St. Nicholas (1737), 2 Stra

St.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXVIU

TABLE OF CASES.
I'AGE

R.

D. 323; 55 L. J. M. C. 153; 55
L. T. 126; 34 W. R. 656 50 J. P. 743
..
55, 678
..
Silvester (1864), 33 L. J. M. C. 79; 10 Jur. N. S. 360; 4
584
B. & S. 927 9 L. T. 682; 12 W. R. 375
498
Simpson (1842), Car. & M. 669
Skeen (1859), Bell C. C. 97 28 L. J. M. C. 91
6, 357 365
Slade (1888), 21 Q. B. IX 433; 57 L. J. M. C. 120 59 L. T.
127, 471
640; 37 W. R. 141 52 J. P. 599; 16 Cox C. C. 496
Slater (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 267 51 L. J. Q. B. 246 30 W. R.
410 46 J. P. 694
27,568
Sleep (1861), 1 L. & C. 44 30 L. J. M. C. 170 8 Cox C. C.
184
..
472; 7 Jur. N. S. 979 4 L. T. 525 9 W. R. 709 ..
22
Smith (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 604
18
(1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 266 39 L. J. M. C. 112
W. R. 932
145,146,478
346
..
..
(J860), 29L. J. M. C. 216; 8W. R. 589
542
(1791), 4 T. R. 414
13 L. J. Q. B. 166
(1844), 5 Q. B. 614 D. & M. 564
642
8 Jur. 599
17
17 L. J. M. C. 6
(1868), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 110
681
L. T. 263 16 W. R. 140
11 Cox 0. C. 10
9 Cox C. C. 110 31 L. J. M. C.
(1862), 1 L. & C. 131
105 8 Jur. N. S. 199 5 L. T. 761 10 W. R. 273
733
28 L. T.
(1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 146 42 L. J. M. C. 46
129 21 W. R. 382
734
Sneyd (1841), 9 D. P. C. 1001 5 Jur. 962 61 R. R. 843 .. 663
Somersetshire JJ. (1826), 5 B. & C. 816 6 D. & R. 469
237
Southampton (1852), 21 L. J. M. C. 201 18 Q. B. 841 ; 17
Jur. 254
306
Southampton Income Tax Commissioners, Ex p. Singers,
9
[1917] 1 K. B. 259 86 L. J. K. B. 66, C. A
South Kilvington (1844), 5 Q. B. 216 3 G. & D. 157
13
L. J. M.C. 3; 7 Jur. 1108
218
South Shields Licensing JJ., [1911] 2 K. B. 1
80 L. J.
K. B. 809; 75 J. P. 299
465,614
South Wales Ry. Co. (1849), 13 Q. B. 988
18 L. J. Q. B.
310 13 Jur. 1095 6 Rly. Cas. 197 78 R. R. 569
237
6 Rly. Cas. 489 19 L. J. Q. B.
(1850), 14 Q. B. 902
272 14 Jur. 828
638
South Weald (1864), 5 B. & S. 391 33 L. J. M. C. 193 10
Jur. N. S. 1099
10 L. T. 498 12 W. R. 873
438,
Sparrow (1740), 2 Stra. 1123
Spratley (1856), 6 E. & B. 363 25 L. J. Q. B. 257
N. S. 735; 106R. R. 632
Spurrell (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 72; 35 L. J. M. C.
Jur. N. S. 208 13 L. T. 364 14 W. R. 81 ..

V.

Shurmer

(1886), 17 Q. B.
;

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

-^

'.

East 151
Bl. 689; 23 L. J. M. C. 17

StaflFordshire JJ. (1802), 3

(1854), 2 EI.

&

1073

18 Jur.
15

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxix
PAGE

R.

V.

Sbalfordshire JJ. (1806), 7 East 549

3 Smith 555

668

Ei.

R.

19,370,374
(1810), 12 East 572
E. 842; 6
(137), 4 A.
J. M. 0. 165

&

6L.

& M.477;

N.

& W.

2 H.

48;

521

Stainforth (1848), 11 Q. B. 66
3 New Sess. Cas. 53
L. J. M. C. 25; 12 Jur. 95
Stephens (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 702 35 L. J. Q. B. 251
Jur. N. S. 961 ; 14 L. T. 593 14 W. R. 859
Stepney (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 383 43 L. J. M. C. 145
L. T. 808
Stepney Corporation, [1902] 1 K. B. 317 ; 71 L. J. K.
;

. .

. .

17

464
15
137, 184

30
735

B.

238
Stevens (1834), 1 Moo. C. C. 409
467,
Stewart (1858), 8 E. & B. 360; 27 L. J. M. C. 81
4 Jur.
N. S. 187; 112 R. R. 597
246, 247,
Stimpson (1863), 4 B. & S. 307 32 L. J. M. C. 208 ; 10
Jur. N. S. 41; 9 Cox 0. C. 356
Stock (1838), 8 A. & B. 405
Stoddart, [1901] 1 K. B. 177 70 L J. K. B. 189 83 L. T.
538 ; 49 W. R. 173 ; 64 J. P. 774 19 Cox C. C. 587
..
Stoke BHss (1844), 6 Q. B. 158 D. & M. 135 13 L. J. M. C.
151; 8 Jur. 536; 66 R.R. 332
Stoke Damerel (1836), 7 B. & C. 563 1 M. & R. 458
..

709
582

248

180
734

210

15,

705
10,

380

Stone (1854), 23 L. J. M. C. 14 Dears. C. C. 251

17 Jur.
1106
469
(1796), 1 East 639
681
Storr, (1766), 3 Burr. 1698
708
Strachan (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 463 ; 41 L. J. Q. B. 210; 26
L. T. 835; 20W. R. 629
417
Stratford-on-Avon (1809), 11 East 176
116
Streeter, [1900] 2 Q. B. 601; 69 L. J. Q. B. 915; 83 L. T.
288; 48 W. R. 702; 64 J. P. 537
478
Stretfield, (1683) 32 L. J. M. C. 236
11 W. R. 736
..
365
StrugneU (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 93
581
Sunderland Customs (1914), 83 L. J. K. B. 555
..
102
Surrey (1849), 6 D. & L. 736
621
Surrey JJ. (1880), 6 Q. B. D. 100 50 L. J. M. 0. 10
19, 345
Sussex (1865), 4 B. & S. 966; 34 L. J. M. C. 69
11 Jur.
N. S. 300; IIL. T. 740; 13 W. R. 471
19
4 B. R. 390
344
(1797), 7 T. R. 107
Swan (1849), 4 Cox C. C. 108
729
Sykes (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 52 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 39 ; 33 L. T.
566 24 W. R. 141
230,636
Sylvester (1862), 2 B. & S. 322 ; 31 L. J. M. C. 93
..
233
Tankard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548; 63 L. J. M. C. 61
70 L. T.
42 42 W. R. 350 58 J. P. 300 17 Cox C. C. 719
114, 622
28 L. J. Q. B. 173
Tart (1859), 1 E. & E. 618
6 Jur.
N. S. 679; 117R. R. 374
137
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

CXX

PAGE

R.

V.

Tatlock (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 157

46 L. J. M. 0. 7

35 L. T.

499
134
Taylor (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1671
Tewkesbury (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 639 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 285
152
..
..
18 L. T. 851; 16 W. R. 1200 ; 9 B. & S. 683
Thallman (1863), L. & C. 326 9 Cox C. C. 388; 33 L. J.
492
M. C. 58; 9L. T. 425; 12W. R. 88
Thomas (1878), L. R. 2 0. C. 141 44 L. J. M. C. 42 31
46f5
L. T. 849; 23W. R. 344
497
(1830), 4 0. & P. 237
683
ThornhiU (1838), 8 C. & P. 574
740
Thurston (1662), 1 Lev. 91
216
Tillingham (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 180
Timmins (I860), 30 L. J. M. 0. 45 Bell C. C. 276 ; 8 Cox
487
..
3 L. T. 337 9 W. R. 36
C. C. 401; 6 Jur. N. S. 1309
180, 181
Tinkler (1859), 1 P. & F. 513
Tithe Commissioners (1850), 14 Q. B. 474; 19 L. J. Q. B.
425,427
177 80 R. R. 271
Titterton, [1895], 2 Q. B. 61 64 L. J. M. C. 202 ; 73 L. T.
62, 328
345; 43 W. R. 603; 59 J. P. 327
660
Todmorden (1841), 1 Q. B. 185 10 L. J. M. 0. 65 ..
..
464
Toke (1838), 8 A. & E. 227 7 L. J. M. C. 74
ToUey (1803), 3 East 467
12
Tolson (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 168 58 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 60 L. T.
178, 181
899 37 W. R. 716 54 J. P. 4 16 Cox C. C. 629 ..
Tone Conservators (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 561
567
Totnes (1848), 11 Q. B. 80 18 L. J. M. C. 46
..
..
645
Totnes Union (1845), 7 Q. B. 690; 2 New Sess. Cas. 82; 14
639
L. J. M. C. 148; 9 Jur. 660; 68 R. R. 539
Ad. 465
Townrow (1830), 1 B.
493
Treeve (1796), 2 East P. C. 821 ; 15 R. R. 381
184
Trueman, [1913] W. N. 198
211
Tuchin (1704), 2 Lord Raym. 1066
250
Tucker (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 417 46 L. J. M. C. 197 36 L. T.
478 25 W. R. 697 13 Cox C. C. 600
574
Turvey (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 520
457
Twyford (1836), 5 A. & E. 430; 6 N. & M. 830
..
..
624
Tyler, [1891] 2 Q. B. 588 61 L. J. M. C. 38
..
134
..
Univ. of Cambridge (1723), 1 Stra. 557
639
Upper Papworth (1802), 2 East 413
103
Usworth (1836), 5 A. & E. 261 ; 5 L. J. M. C. 139 .
71
Vandeleer (1718), 1 Stra. 69
622
Varlo (1775), 1 Cowp. 250
532
Vasey, [1905] 2 K. B. 748; 75 L. J. K. B. 117, C. C. R. ..
44
Verelst (1813), 3 Camp. 432 14 R. R. 775
665
Vine (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 195 44 L. J. M. C. 60 31 L. T.
842; 23 W.R. 649; 13 Cox CO. 43
396
Wagstaff (1819), R.
R. 398
488
Walker (1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 355 44 L. J. M. C, 167 33
L. T. 167
707

520;13Cox328

. .

&

. .

&

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxxi
PA GR

R.

1).

Wallis (1793), 5 T. R. 379

49,532
Walne (1879), 11 Cox C. 0. 647, C. 0.
493
Walsall (1854), 3 C. L. R. 100
232
Waltham (1849), 3 Cox C. C. 442
467
Warwick (1846), 8 Q. B. 926 15 L. J. Q. B. 306 10 Jur.
962 ; 70 R. R. 694
127,509
Warwickshire (1856), 6 E. & B. 837 25 L. J. M. C. 119
106R. R. 819
341
Washbrooke (1825), 4 B. & C. 732; 7 D. & K. 221
..
658
Watson (1806), 7 East 214 3 Smith 283
7
Waudby, [1895] 2 Q. B. 482; 64 L. J. M. C. 536 73 L. T.
582
352; 44 W. R. 64; 18 Cox C. C. 194; 59 J. C. 505..
..
Wa veil (1779), 1 Doug. 115
..229
..
(1829), 1 Moo. C. C. 224
471
Webb, [1896], 1 Q. B. 487 65 L. J. M. C. 98 74 L. T.
269
428; 44W. R. 527; 60 J. P. 280; 18C. C. C. 312 ..
..
Weil (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 701
53 L. J. M. C. 74; 47 L. T.
630 31 W. R. 60; 15 Cox C. C. 189
420
Welch (1875), 40 J. P. 183
349
Welland (1822), R. & R. 494
467
WeUs (1836), 4 Dowl. 562
735
498
Westbeer (1740), 2 Stra. 1133
Western (1868), 32 J. P. 390
464
521
West Riding (1842), 2 Q. B. 705
521
Ad. 667
(1833), 5 B.
606
23 R. R. 421
(1821), 4 B. & Aid. 623
(1876), 1 Q. B. D. 220 ; 35 L. J. M. C. 97 ; 35 L. T.

&

358
..
..
[1891] 1 Q. B. 722 ; 60 L. J. M. C. 122
West Riding C. C, [1896] 2 Q. B. 386
West Riding JJ. (1841), 1 Q. B. 325
..
..
;
69 L. J. Q. B. 13
, [1900] 1 Q. B. 291
Weymouth (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 332 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 139 40
L. T. 748 ; 27 W. R. 659
White (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 358 54 L. J. M. C. 23 52 L. T.
116 ; .33 W. R. 248 ; 49 J. P. 294
Whiteley (1858), 3 H.
N. 143 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 120 117
,

728
296
233
33
586

152

&

626

295

R. R. 634
(1889), 23 Q. B.

D. 482

58 L. J. M. C. 164

61 L. T.

496
27
R. 2 C. C. R. 3; 42 L. J. M. C. 9
..
618, 681
L. T. 693 21 W. R. 176 12 Cox C. C. 251 ..
330
Wigg (1705), 2 Salk. 460
Wacock (1845), 7 Q. B. 329 1 New Sess. Cas. 651 14 L. J.
74,446
..
M. C. 104 9 Jur. 729
,..
228
Wilkes (1769), 4 Burr. 2527
74,448
Williams (1758), 1 W. Bl. 95
468
(1790), 1 East P. C. 424
488
(1843), 1 Cox C. C. 16
629
..
(1884), 9 App. Cas. 418 53 L. J. P. C. 64

253; 54 J. P. 134

Widdop

(1872), L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXU

TABLE OF CASES.
FACE

R.

V.

Willmett (1848), 3 Cox C. C. 281

Wilson (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 42 ; 37 L; T. 354

184
;

25

W.

R. 44;

45

13 Cox C. C.630
(1857), D.

&

B. 127

26 L. J. M. C. 18; 7 Cox C. C.

473,490
190; 2Jur.N. S. 1146
Wimbledon Local Board (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 459; 51 L. J.
..
153, 155
..
Q. B. 219 ; 46 L. T. 47 ; 30 W. R. 400
554
Windsor, Mayor (1844), 7 Q. B. 908 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 337 ..
645
Winwick (1800), 8 T. R. 454
230
Withyham (1854), 2 C. L. R. 1657
237
Wood (1855), 5 E. & B. 49
467
(1830), 4 C. & P. 381
(1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 559 38 L. J. M. C. 144 20 L. T.
481
654; 17 W. R. 850; lOB. &S. 534
108
Woodhouse, [1906] 2 K. B. 501
216
Woodland (1786), 1 T. R. 261 3 East 11 n
Woodrow (1846), 15 M. & W. 404 2 New Sess. Cas. 846 ;
184
16 L. J. M. C. 122
469
Woolcock (1833), 5 C. cfe P. 516
Worcestershire JJ. (1839), 3 P. & D. 465 12 A. & E. 283
I Arn. & H. 80
7
3 Jur. 1050
..242
(1854), 3 E. & B. 477 23 L. J. M. C. 113
..
287
(1816), 5 M. & S. 457 ; 17 R. R. 397
Worksop Board (1865), 5 B. & S. 951 34 L. J. M. C. 220
II Jur. N. S. 1015 10 L. T. 297 12 W. R. 710
..
658
..
Wright (1834), 1 A. & E. 434
74, 245, 253
709,712
(1758), 1 Burr. 543
Wycombe Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 310; 36 L. J. Q. B.
528
121 ; 15 L. T. 601 15 W. R. 489 ; 8 B. & S. 259
..
..
Wymondham (1843), 2 Q. B. 541
126
Wynn (1719), Bunb. 39
250
110
York (1837), 6 A. & E. 419 25 R. R. 423 n
York and N. Midland Ry. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 41 .. 529
Yorkshire (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 1003; 3 L. J. M. C. 54; 1
A. &E. 563
217
681
(1815), 3 M. & S. 493
Youle (1861), 6 H. & N. 753 ; 30 L. J, M. C. 234 ; 4 L. T.
299;9W. R. 637
330,334
Younger (1793), 5 T. R. 449; 2 R. R. 638
450
Zulueta (1843), 1 C. & K. 215
44, 262
R. (Gallagher) w. Tyrone J J., [1901] 2 Ir. R. 497, Ir
118
Reuss V. Bos (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 176; 40 L. J. Ch. 665; 24
L. T. 641
151
;

iJe (1880), 49 L. J. P. & M. 67

Reya, Exp. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 332 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 122
17; 26 W. R. 193
Reynolds v. Att.-Gen., Nova Scotia, [1896] A. C. 240
P. C. 16; 74L. T. 108
Rhodes v. Rhodes (1882), 7 A. C. 192, P. C

Reuss Kostritz,

Digitized

by Microsoft

278
;

37 L. T.

65 L. J.

223
382
5

TABLE OF CASES.

cxxiu
PAGE

Smethurst (1838), 4 M. & W. 42 6 Id. 351 7 L. J.

Ex. 273 9 Id. 330; 1 H. & H. 237 2 Jur. 893 4 Jur. 702
Rhymney Ry. Co. o. Rhymney Iron Co. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 146
59 L. J. Q. B. 414; 63 L. T. 407 38 W. R. 764
..
..
Richards v. Dyke (1842), 3 Q. B. 256; 2 G. & D. 493; 6 Jur.
1035
V. James (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 285
36 L. J. Q. B. 116
16
L. T. 174 15 W. R. 580 8 B. & S. 302
V. McBride (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 119
51 L. J. M. C. 15 45
L. T. 677; 46 J. P. 247; 30 W. R. 121
Richens v. Wiggens (1863), 3 B. & S. 953 32 L. J. M. C. 144 9
Jur. N. S. 1055 8 L. T. 384; 11 W. R. 617
Richmond v. N. Lond. Ry. Co. (1868), L. R. 3 Ch. 679 37 L. J.
Ch. 886
Richmond Gas Co. v. Richmond Corp., [1893] 1 Q. B. 56 62
L. J. Q. B. 172
67 L. T. 554
41 W. R. 41
56 J, P. 776
Richmond Hill Co. v. Trinity House, [1896] 2 Q. B. 134 65 L. J.
Q. B. 561; 75L. T. 8; 45 W. R. 6
Rickard v. Graham, [1910] 1 Ch. 722 79 L. J. Ch. 378 102 L. T.
482
Ricket V. Metrop. Ry. Co. (1867), L. R. 2 H. L. 175; 36 L. J.
..
560,
Q. B. 205 16 L. T. 542; 15 W. R. 9.37, H. L.
Ricketts v. Bodenham (1836), 4 A. & E. 433; 5 L. J. K. B. 102;
6 N. & M. 171
1 H. & W. 753
5 D. P. C. 120
43 R. R.
384
Rider v. Kidder (1805), 10 Ves. 360 53 R. R. 269
V. Wood (1860), 1 K. & J. 644
29 L. J. M. C. 1 103 R. R.
295
Ridgway v. Stafford (1851), 6 Ex. 404; 20 L.J. Ex. 226; 86
R. R. 347
V. Wharton (1854), 6 H. L. Cas. 238
27 L. J. Ch. 46 4 Jur.

Rhodes

-c.

369
709

286
379
14

303

530

622

127

373

724

. .

286
112

176

300

N. S. 173
512
Ridler . Punter (1593), Cro. Eliz. 291
376
Ridsdale v. Clifton (1877), 2 P. D. 276; 46 L, J. P. C. 27
36
L. T. 865
50,97,536,537
RUey V. Read (1879), 4 Ex. D. 100 ; 48 L. J. Ex. 437 ; 27 W. R.
414
116
Ringer v. Cann (1838), 3 M.
W\ 343 1 H. & H. 67 7 L. J. Ex.
589
108; 2 Jur. 256; 49 R. R. 627
Ripley j;. Waterworth (1802), 7 Ves. 425
457
;

&

Ripon

The (1897), 66 L. J. P. 110

Whatmore (1878), 8 Ch. D. 467

263

City,

Rishton

v.

W. R.
v.

Ritchie

v.

47 L. J. Oh. 629

Smith

& 0. 499

3 D.

26

Wear Commrs.

v.

& R.

788

2 L. J.

622

(1849), 6 C. B. 462;

18 L. J. C. P. 9;

63; 77 R. R. 369..
River

512, 513

827

Hughes (1824), 2 B.
K. B. 61; 26R. R. 424

Ritcher

13 Jur.

693

Adamson

Cas. 743; 47 L. J. Q. B. 193

Digitized

(1877), 1 Q. B. D. 546 ; 2 App.

1, 8, 40, 150, 176, 529
37 L. T. 643

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CXXIV

PASE

Elvers v. Adams (1878), 3 Ex. D. 361 48 L. J. Ex. 47 ; 39 L. T.

617
39; 27 W. R.381
284,308
Rix i;. Borton (1840), 12 A. & E. 470
..
..
577
Roberts, Se, [1900] 1 Q. B. 129; 69 L. J. Q. B. 19
V. Davey (1833), 4 B.
A. 665; 1 N. & M. 443; 38
375
R.R. 348
43 L. J. M. C. 135;
V. Egerton (1874), L. R. 9 Q. B. 494;
562
30 L. T. 633 22 W. R. 797
33 L. J. Ex. 65 9 L. T.
V. Orchard (1864), 2 H. & C. 769
414
727; 12 W. R.253
3 C. L. R. 513 ; 24 L. J.
V. Phillips (1855), 4 E. & B. 450
515
Q. B. 171; 1 Jur. N. S. 444; 99 R. R. 553
59 L. J. M. C. 129;
V. Woodward (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 412
63 L. T. 200 38 W. R. 770 55 J. P. 116 17 Cox C. C. 139 193
Robertson, Exp. (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 733; 44 L. J. Bank. 99;
683
32 L. T. 697 23 W. R. 906
715
V. Amazon Tug and Lighterage Co. (1881), 51 L. J. Q. B. 68
Robinson v. Briggs (1871), L. R. 6 Ex. 1 40 L. J. Ex. 17 23
121
L. T. 395
34 L. J. C. P.
V. Collingwood (1865), 17 C. B. N. S. 777
198
18 10 Jur. N. S. 1080 11 L. T. 313 ; 13 W. R. 84
V. Dixon, [1903] 2 K. B. 701
72 L. J. K. B. 717; 89
185
L. T. 132; 52 W. R. 8 67 J. P. 386
298, 333, 466
V. Emerson (1866), 4 H.
C. 352
..
.
62
V. Jenkins (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 275 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 147
471
L. T. 439 38 W. R. 360
V. Waddington (1849), 13 Q. B. 753 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 250
607,
13 Jur. 537
Robson, Be (1881), 19 Ch. D, 156 ; 51 L. J. Ch. 337 ; 45 L. T.
208,216
418 30 W. R. 257
V. The Kate (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 13
57 L. J. Q. B. 546 59
113
L. T. 557 36 W. R. 910 6 Asp. M. C. 330
Rochdale Building Society v. Mayor &c., Rochdale (1886), 51
340
J. P. 134
Rochdale Canal v. King (1849), 14 Q. B. 122 ; 18 L. J. Q. B. 293 ;
236
14 Jur. 16 80 R. R. 222, 233
..
263
Rochefoucauld v. Boustead (1896), 66 L. J. Ch. 75
..
345
Rochfort V. Atherley (1876), 1 Ex. D. 511 ; 35 L. T. 602
..
Rockett V. CUppingdale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 293 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 782 ;
289
64L. T. 641
;

&

. .

&

Roddam

v. Morley (1857), 1 De G.& J. 1 ; 26 L. J. Ch. 438 ; 3

Jur. N. S. 449; 118R. R. 1
Roddy V. Fitzgerald (1858), 6 H. L. Cas. 823 ; 108 R. R. 327, H. L.
Roderick v. Aston Local Board (1877), 5 Ch. D. 328 ; 46 L. J. Ch.
802 36 L. T. 328 25 W. R. 403
;

Rodrigues v. Melhuish (1854), 10 Ex. 110

W. R. 618; 102R. R. 503
Rogers, Be, [1894] 1 Q. B. 425

63 L.

J. Q.

24 L. J. Ex. 26

503
99
631

2
11

B. 178

lManson387

70 L. T. 107

577

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXV

Hull Dock Co. (1864), 34 L. J. Ch. 165 11 L. T. 463 13

R. 217
604
Rogers, Jungblut & Co. v. Martin (1910), 26 T. L. R. 459
afi'd.
1
K.
B.
A
C.
19,
[1911],
652
Roles . RosevTell (1794), 5 T. R. 538
294
Rolle V. Whyte (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 286 37 L. J. Q. B. 105 17
L. T. 560 16 W. R. 593 8 B. & S. 116
..
..
64, 565
Rolls V. St. George, Southwark (1880), 14 Ch. D. 785
49 L. J.
Ch. 691 44 J. P. 680 43 L. T. 140 28 W. R. 867
170, 545
Roniney Marsh v. Trinity House (1872), L. R. 5 Ex. 204 39
L. J. Ex. 163 22 L. T. 446; 18 W. R. 869 and L. R. 7 Ex.
247 41 L. J. Ex. 106
..
724
Rona, The (1882), 51 L. J. Adm. 65
34
Ronard, .Be (1916), 85 L. J. K. B. 393
H8
Rooker, iJe, [1916] W. N. 293
114
Rooke's Case (1598), 5 Rep. 100a
228
Roper V. Knott, [1898] 1 Q. B. 868 67 L. J. Q. B. 574 78 L. T.
594 46 W. R. 636 62 J. P. 375
348
Rose V. Groves (1843), 5 M. & G. 613 6 Scott N. R. 645
1 D.
& L. 61 12 L. J. C. P. 251 7 Jur. 951 63 R. R. 415
724
1). Himeley (1808), 4 Cranch 241
257
V. Rose, [1897] llr. R. 9, Ir
407
Rosewarne v. Billing (1863), 15 0. B. N. S. 316 33 L. J. C. P.
12 W. R. 104 ..
55; 10 Jur. N. S. 496 9 L. T. 441
..
693
Ross V. Rugge-Price (1876), 1 Ex. D. 269 45 L. J. Ex. 777 34
L. T. 535; 24 W. R. 786
714
Rosseter v. Cahlmann (1853), 8 Ex. 361 22 L. J. Ex. 128
..
257,
259, 260
Rossiter v. Miller (1877), 3 App. Cas. 1124 48 L. J. Ch. 10 39
L. T. 173 26 W. R. 865
..
..
514
Rothes V. Kirkcaldy Waterworks Commrs. (1882), 7 App. Cas.
702, H. L
357
Rothschild V. Inland Revenue, [1894] 2 Q. B. 142 70 L. T. 667
42 W. R. 542 58 J. p. 399
11
Routledge v. Low (1868), L. K. 3 H. L. 100
37 L. J. Ch. 454
18 L. T. N. S. 874 16 W. R. 1081, H. L
274
Rovard, He (1916), 58 L. J. K. B. 393
380
Rowning i;. GoodchUd (1773), 2 W. BL 906
716
Royal Aquarium v. Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 431 61 L. J. Q. B.
..
409 66 L. T. 513; 40 W. R. 450; 66 J. P. 404
..
27
Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2 Q. B. 715
64
L. J. Q. B. 99
..
226, 351
71 L. T. 168 43 W. R. 22 ..
Royal British Bank v. Turquand (1856), 6 E. & B. 327 24 L. J.
672
Q. B. 327 1 Jur. N. S. 1086 106 R. R. 623
Royal Mail Co. v. Braham (1877), 2 App. Cas. 381
46 L. J.
P. C. 67 36 L. T. 220; 25 W. R. 651
573
Ruabon Co. ;;. G. W. R., [1893] 1 Ch. 427 62 L. J. Ch. 483 68
L. T. 110; 41 W. R. 418
627
Ruck V. WUliams (1858), 3 H. & N. 308 27 L. J Ex. 357 117
R. R. 697
173,724

Rogers

v.

W.

. .

.'

'

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXVl

Ruckmaboye

PAGE

Lulloobhoy (1852), 8 Moo. P. C. C. 4; 5 Moo.

Ind. App. 234
Rumball V. Schmidt (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 603
30
46 L. T. 661
W. R. 949 46 J. P. 567
Rumsey v. N. E. Ry. Co. (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 641 32 L. J.
C. P. 244 10 Jiir. N. S. 208 8 L. T. 666 11 W. R. 911 ..
Russell, ^a;j3. (1812), 19 Ves. 163
Ex p. (1875), L. R. 10 Oh. 255 44 L. J. Bank. 42 32
L. T. 4 23 W. R. 817
V. Oambefort (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 526
58 L. J. Q. B. 498
61 L. T. 751 37 W. R. 707
V. Men of Devon (1788), 2 T. R. 667
1 R. R. 585
i;. Prat (1589), 1 Leon. 193
Russell Institution v. St. GUes S;c., Bloomsbury (1854), 23 L. J.
M. 0. 65
Rustomjee v. R. (1877), 1 Q. B. D. 487; 2 Q. B. D. 69 46 L. J.
Q. B. 238 36 L. T. 190 25 W. R. 333
Ruther v. Harris (1876), 1 Ex. D. 97; 45 L. J. M. C. 103; 34
L. T. 825
Rutland v. Rutland (1595), Cro. Eliz. 377
Ryall r;. RoUe (1749), 1 Atk. 165
i;. Rowles (1750), 1 Ves. 367
Bylands v. Fletcher (1868), L. R. 3 H. L. 330 37 L. J. Ex. 161
19L. T. 220
v.

409

612

678
249

227

. .

. .

267
726
449

508

249

490
449
91
112

632

S.

Sadler v. Whiteman, [1910] 1 K. B. 868 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 800;

[1910] A. 0. 514 79 L. J. K. B. 1050 103 L. T. 296
540
Saffery v. Mayer, [1901] 1 K. B. 11 70 L. J. K. B. 145 ; 83 L. T.
394 49 W. R. 54 ; 64 J. P. 740
556,693
St. Cross i). Howard de Walden (1795), 6 T. R. 338
..
..108
St. GUes, Camberwell v. Hunt (1887), 56 L. J. M. C. 65
52 J. P.
132
367
St. Gobain Co. v. Hoyermann's Agency, [1893] 2 Q. B. 96 ; 62
L. J. Q. B. 485 69 L. T. 329 41 W. R. 563
..
..
267
St. John, Hampstead v. Cotton (1886), 12 App. Cas. 6
56 L J.
Q. B. 225; 56L. T. 1; 35 W. R. 505; 51J. P. 340
..
4,5
;

. .

St.
St.

St.

Juan Nepomuceno

(1824), 1 Hagg. Adm. 265 ..

..
266
Leonard's v. Franklin (1878), 3 C. P. D. 377
47 L. J. C. P.
W.
L.T.
16
R.
882
129;
727; 39
110, 573
Losky V. Green (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 370; 2 F. & P. 106: 30
L. J. C. P. 191 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 394 3 L. T. 297 9 W. R. 119 543
Mary j;. Radcliffe (1717), 1 Stra. 60
116
Pancras v. Battenbury (1857), 2 C. B. N. S. 477; 26 L. J
C. P. 243 3 Jur. N. S. 1106 ; 109 R. R. 765
240 712
Sepulchre, ^a;jp. (1863), 33 L. J. Oh. 372
..
..
1125
Thomas's Hospital v. Hudgell (1900), 70 L. J. K. B. 115
..
506
Werburgh Overseers v. Hutchinson (1880), 5 Ex. D. 19 49
L. J. M. C. 23; 42L. T. 153; 28W. R. 153 ..
..
17,8!
;

St.

St.

St.

St.
St.

. .

'

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxxvii
PAGE

Salaman v. Warner, [1891] 1 Q. B. 734; 60 L. J, Q. B. 624; 39

W. R. 547
Sale V. Lambert (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 1 43 L. J. Cli. 470 22 W. R.
;

97

478

514

Sales Agency V. Elite Theatres, [1917] 2 K. B. 164, C. A.

..
225
Salford (Mayor) v. Lancashire C. C. (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 384; 38
W. R. 661 59 L. J. Q. B. 576 63 L. T. 409
..
..
617
Salisbury's (Bishop of) Case (1613), 10 Rep. 60b
375
Salkeld v. Johnston (1849), 2 C. B. 749 1 Mac.
G. 242 2 Ex.
256 18 L. J. Ch. 493; 84 R. R. 255 ..
..
52, 74, 89, 91
Salmon v. Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Cas. 627 ; 55 L. J. P. C. 69
55L. T. 446
44,407,408
Salomons v. Miller (1853), 8 Ex. 778 22 L. J. Ex. 169
17 Jur.
;

&

463;

91R. R. 759

20,552
72 L. J. K. B. 627 ; 88
L. T. 868 52 W. R. 95 ; 67 J. P. 306 1 L. G. R. 753
525
..
Salt Union v. Wood, [1893] 1 Q. B. 370
68 L. T. 92
62 L. J.
M. 0. 75 ; 41 W. R. 301 57 J. P. 201 7 Asp. M. C. 281
132
Salters' Co. v. Jay (1842), 3 Q. B. 109
2 G. & D. 414 ; 11 L. J.
Q. B. 173 ; 6 Jur. 803 61 R. R. 147
323
Saltmarshe v. Hewett (1834), 1 A. & B. 812 ; 3 N. & M. 656 ; 40
R. R. 436
224
Saltoun V. Adv.-Genl. (1860), 3 Macq. 659 6 Jur. N. S. 713
8
W. R. 565
108
Sandiman v. Breach (1827), 7 B. & C. 96
9 D. & R. 796
31
R. R. 169
584
Sandys, Ex p. (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 863 ; 1 N. & M. 591
.
642
Sankey, Be (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 17 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 238; 38 W.R.
533
618
SanPaulo Ry. Co. v. Carter, 1896] A. C. 31 ; 65 L.J. Q. B. 161
73 L. T. 538 44 W. R. 336 ; 60 J. P. 84
270
San Teodoro v. San Teodoro (1880), 5 P. D. 79 49 L. J. P. 20
42L. T. 331
256
Santos V. lUidge (1860), 8 C. B. N. S. 861
28 L. J. C. P. 317
29 L. J. C. P. 348 8 W. R. 705 6 Jur. N. S. 1348
44, 262, 266
Saunders, Be, [1895] 2 Q. B. 117, 424; 64 L. J. Q. B. 739
73
L. T. 172 ; 44 W. R. 30 59 J. P. 740 2 Mans. 361
126
..
V. Holborn Bd. of Works, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64 ; 64 L. J. Q. B.
101 ; 71 L. T. 519 43 W. R. 26
715, 726
V. S. E. Ry. Co. (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 456
49 L. J. Q. B. 761
43 L. T. 281 29 W. R. 56 44 J. P. 781
121
Savarkar, Ux p., [1910] 2 K. B. 1056 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 57 ; 103
L. T. 473
134
Savings Institution u. Makin (1844), 23 Maine .360
..
..282
Savoy (Overseers) v. Art Union of London, [1896] A. C. 296 65
L. J. M. C. 161 74 L. T. 497 45 W. R. 34 60 J. P. 660 .
508
Saxonia, The (1862), Lush. 410 31 L. J. Adm. 201 8 Jur. N. S.
315 10 W. R. 431 ; 6 L. T. 6 15 Moo. P. C. C. 262
..
277
Scadding v. Eyles (1846), 9 Q. B. 858 15 L. J. Q. B. 364
402
Scale . Rawlins, [1892] A. C, 342 ,,
.,
14

K. B. 245

Salt V. Scott-Hall, [1903] 2

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXVm

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

..
Scales V. Pickering (1828), 4 Bing. 448 ; 1 M. & P. 195 ..
Scaltock V. Harston (1875), 1 C. P. D. 106 45 L. J. G. P. 125 ;
34 L. T. 130 ; 24 W. E. 431

528

634
Scarborough (Mayor of) v. Rural Authority of Scarborough
554
(1876), 1 Ex. D. 344 34 L. T. 768
Scatohard v. Johnson (1888), 57 L. J. M. C. 41 52 J. P. 389 .. 125,
187, 490
Schmitz, Exp. (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 509; 53 L. J. Oh. 1168;
477
50 L. T. 747 32 W. E. 812 1 M. B. R. 55
Sohofield, JEx p., [1891] 2 Q. B. 428 60 L. J. M. C. 157 64 L. T.
..
134
780; 39 W. R. 580 56 J. P. 4 17 Cox C. C. 303 ..
Schwerzerhof v. Wilkins, [1898] 1 Q. B. 640 67 L. J. Q. B. 476
410
78 L. T. 229 62 J. P. 247
Scott V. Avery (1856), 5 H. L. C. 843; 25 L. J. Ex. 303; 2
235
Jur, N. S. 815
395
. Craig's Representatives (1896), 24 E. 462, Sco
V. Glasgow, [1899] A. C. 470
68 L. J. P. C. 98 81 L. T.
523
302; 64 J. P. 132
V. Morley (1887), 20 Q. B. D. 120; 57 L. J. Q. B. 43; 57
..
476
L. T. 919 36 W. R. 67 52 J. P. 280 4 M. B. B. 286
36 L. J. P. C. 65
V. Paquet (1867), L. R. 1 P. C. 552
465
4 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 505
V. Royal Wax Candle Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 404; 45
..
573
L. J. Q. B. 586 34 L. T. 683 24 W. E. 668
..
V. Uxbridge Ry. Co. (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 596
35 L. J. C. P.
440
293 12 Jur. N. S. 602
Scottish "Widows' Fund v. Craig (1882), 20 Ch. D. 208; 51
709
L. J. Oh. 363 30 W. R. 463
Sorimshire ;;. Scrimshire (1752), 2 Hagg. Cons. 395
..
..260
Soutt V. Freeman (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 1*77 46 L. J. Q. B. 173
35 L. T. 939 25 W. B. 251
319
Seaman . Busley, [1896] 2 Q. B. 344, C. A.

..
..
..
166
Secretary of State for India v. Sooble, [1903] A. C. 299 72 L. J.
K. B. 617 89 L. T. 1 51 W. R. 675, P. C
500,505
Sefton, Se, [1898] 2 Ch. 378 67 L. J. Ch. 518 78 L. T. 765 47
W. R. 49
144
Selkrig v. Davis (1814), 2 Rose 311 2 Dow. 250
269
Sellar v. Bright & Co., Ltd., [1904] 2 K. B. 446; 73 L. J. K. B.
643 91 L. T. 9 52 W. R. 563 20 T. L. R. 586
579
..
..
Selmes v. Judge (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 724 40 L. J. Q. B. 287
24 L. T. 905 19 W. E. 1110
414
Senior v. Metrop. Ey. Co. (1863), 2 H. & C. 258 32 L. J. Ex.
225 9 Jur. N. S. 802 8 L. T. 544 11 W. E. 886 ..
172
Seward v. The Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. Cas. 59 54 L. J. P. 9;
52 L. T. 474 38 W. E. 477 49 J. P. 324 5 Asp. M. C.
386
8,63,314,317
Scwell V. Taylor (1859), 7 C. B. N. S. 160; 6 Jur. N. S. 582 29
L. J. M. C. 50; IL. T. 37
574
Shackell v. Eosier (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 634 3 Scott 59 2
Hodges 17 42 R. E. 666 5 L. J. C. P. 193
702
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxxix
PAGE

Shaftesbury v. Russell (1823), 1 B. & C. 666

B. R. 534
Shaftoe's Charity, Be (1878), 3 App. Cas. 872

& E.

3 D.

47 L. J. P. C. 98

84; 25

236

38L.T.793
Shardlow

v.

345

D. 90

Cotterell (1881), 20 Ch.

L. T. 572

30

W.

51 L.

J.

Ch. 353

45

E. 143

Sharmam;. Merritt

(1916), 32 T. L. R. 360
Sharp w. Eettie (1884), 11 C. of SesB. Cas. (4th series) 745 So. ..
Sharpe,
p. (E. v. Arnold) (1864), 5 B. & S. 322; 33
L. J. Mat. 152 ; 10 Jur. N. S. 1018 ; 10 L. T. 458 ; 12 W. R.

511
363
722

Ex

756

26
214

Thomas

(1830), 6 Bing. 416

V. Wakefield (1889), 22 Q. B. D.

w.

239 58 L. J. M. C. 57
60 L. T. 130 ; 37 W. R. 187 ; 53 J. P. 206 and [1891] A. C.
173 60 L. J. M. C. 73 64 L. T. 180 39 W. R. 561 55
;

H. L
Sharpington v. Fulham,

108,228,233

J. P. 197,

[1904] 2 Ch. 449 73 L. J. Ch. 777 ; 91

R. 617; 68 J. P. 510; 2L. G. R. 1229 ..
413
Shaw V. Benson (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 563 52 L. J. Q. B. 575 555, 691
V. Crompton, [1910] 2 K. B. 370
80 L. J. K. B. 52 103
L. T. 501
62
V. Q. W. R., [1894] 1 Q. B. 373 ; 70 L. T. 218 ; 42 W. R.

L. T. 739; 52

W.

285; 58

V.

J. P.

Morley

318

46

(1868), L. R. 3

Ex. 137

37 L.

M.

J.

C. 105

19

599
16 W. R. 763
ReoMtt, [1893] 1 Q. B. 779 68 L. T. 688 41 W. R. 497 429
V. Simmons (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 117
53 L. J. Q. B. 29 32
103
W. R. 292
!. Thompson (1595), 4 Rep. 30b
616
Shears v. Jacob (1866), L. R. 1 C. P. 513 35 L. J. C. P. 241 14
619
L. T. 286 14 W. E. 609
Sheatley, In the Goods of, [1891] P. 172 ; 60 L. J. P. 56
515
..
Sheffield Corporation v. Sheffield Electric Light Co., [1898]
606
ICh. 209
Sheil, Ex p. (1877), 4 Ch. D. 789 46 L. J. Bank. 62 36 L, T.
502,503
270; 25 W. E. 420
580
Shells V. Eait (1849), 7 C. B. 116 18 L. J. C. P. 120
..
..
Shelley v. Bethell (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 11 53 L. J. M. C. 16 49
581
L. T. 779; 32 W. B. 276 48 J. P. 244
610
SheUey's Case (1581), 1 Rep. 93b
Shepheard v. Broome, [1904] A. C. 342; 73 L. J. Ch. 608 91
717
L. T. 178; 53 W. R. Ill 11 Manson 288
195
Shepherd w. Hall (1812), 3 Camp. 180
L. T. 15

V.

V.

Hills (1855), 11 Ex. 55

V.

Hodsman

25 L. J. Ex. 6

105 R. R. 386

(1852), 18 Q. B. 316; 21 L. J. Q. B. 263

Shepherdess, The (1800), 5 Chr. Rob. 262

i;. Gosnold (1672), Vaugh. 169

Sheppard

Digitized

by Microsoft

..

.,

711,

712
320
176
533

CXXX

TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE

Sherborn v. Wells (1863), 3 B. & S. 784 32 L. J. M. C. 179 8

566
L. T. 274
Sherras v. De Eutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918 64 L. J. M. C. 218
72 L. T, 839 43 W. B. 526 59 J. P. 440
.. 137, 179, 186, 187,
190, 195
Sherwood v. Bay (1837), 1 Moo. P. C. 353 43 E, E. 90, P. C. .. 101
580
Shields . Bait (1849), 18 L. J. 0. P. 120
Shiels V. Q. N. By. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 331
7 Jur. N. S.
119
631; 4L. T. 479
Shillito V. Thompson (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 12
45 L. J. M. C. 18
526, 596
33 L. T. 506 24 W. E. 57
Shine, Ex p., [1892] 1 Q. B. 522 61 L. J. Q. B. 253 66 L. T.
576
146 40 W. E. 386 9 M. B. E. 40
238,240,734
Shipman V. Henbest (1790), 4 T. B. 109 ..
..
..522
..
Shipperdson's Trusts, iJe (1880), 49 L. J. Ch. 619
Shoolbred v. Eoberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560 [1900] 2 Q. B. 497 68
199,350
L. J. Q. B. 998, C. A
59 L. J. M. 0.
V. St. Panoras JJ. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 346
480
..
63 62 L. T. 287 38 W. E. 399 54 J. P. 231
78
Shore I). Cunningham, [1917] 2 Ir. E. 360
..
726
Short V. Hammersmith Corporation (1911), 104 L. T. 70
22 E. E. 503
..
12
V. McCarthy (1820), 3 B. & Aid. 626
Shortrede v. Cheek (1834), 1 A. & E. 57; 3 N. & M. 366; 40
41,512
E. E. 258
Showers v. Chelmsford Union, [1891] 1 Q. B. 339 60 L. J. M. C.
247
55 64 L. T. 755 39 W. E. 231
Shrewsbury v. Beazley (1865), 19 C. B. N. S. 651 34 L. J. C. P.
92
328 14 W. E. 31 13 L. T. 281
29 L. J. C. P. 34, 190
V. Soott (1860), 6 C. B. N. S. 1, 221
6 Jur. N. S 452, 472
74,296,548
Shrimpton v. Sidmouth By. Co. (1867), L. E. 3 C. P. 80; 17
440
L. T. 647
Shuttleworth, Be (1846), 9 Q. B. 651 2 New Sess. Cas. 470
16 L. J. M. 0. 18 llJur. 41
653
;;. Le Fleming (1865), 19 C. B. N.
S. 687
34 L. J. C. P.
309 llJur. N. S. 840 14 W. E. 13
55,450,578
Sill i;. Worswiok (1791), 1 H. Bl. 665
2 E. E. 816
269
..
..
Sillence, Ex p. (1877), 7 Ch. D. 239
47 L. J. Bank. 87 37 L. T.
676 26 W. B. 129
608
Simmonds i;. EUiott, [1917] 2 K. B. 894
675
V. Fulham Vestry,
[1900] 2 Q. B. 188; 69 L. J. Q. B.
560 82 L. T. 497 48 W. E. 574 64 J. P. 548
..
367
..
V. Mailing, [1897] 2 Q. B. 433
66 L. J, Q. B. 585 77
L. T. 341 45 W. E. 603 61J. P. 502
523
V. Woodward, [1892] App. Cas. 100
61 L. J. Ch. 252 66
L. T. 534 40 W. E. 641, H. L
118
Simms v. Begistrar of Probates, [1900] A. C. 323 69 L.J. P. C.
51 82 L. T. 433, P. C
206,218
Simpkin, Ex p. (1859), 2 E. & E. 392 29 L, J. M. C. 23 6 Jur.
N. S. 144
611,656
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.
Simpkm

V. Birmingham JJ.
M. C. 102 26 L. T. 620
;

CXXXi

(1872) L. R. 7 Q. B. 482
;

20

W.

21 L. J.

B. 702

17

Simpson, Be, [1916] 1 Ch. 502

14,268
V. Blues (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 230
41 L. J. C. P. 121 26
L. T. 697 20 W. R. 680
34
V. Ready (1844), 11 M. & W. 846
13 L. J. Ex. 193
728
V. S. Staffordshire Waterworks (1865), 34 L. J. Ch. 380; 4
De G. J. & S. 679 11 Jur. N. S. 463 13 W. R 729
..
528
V. Teignmouth, &c. Bridge Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 405
72
L. J. K. B. 204 88. L. T. 117 51 W. R. 545 67 J. P. 65
1 L. G. R. 235, C. A
71,481,595
i). Unwin (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 134
39 R. R. 359
..
..
410
Sims ?;. Doughty (1799), 5 Vea. 243
281
V. Pay (1889), 58 L. J. M. 0. 39
60 L. T. 602
53 J. P.
420; 16 Cox C. C. 609
..
333
V. Thomas (1840), 12 A. & B. 536 ; 4 P. & D. 233
9 L. J.
Q. B. 399 4 Jur. 1181
112,146,303
V. TroUope, [1897] 1 Q. B. 24
66 L. J. Q. B. 11 75 L. T.
351 45 W. R. 97
16
Simson v. Moss (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 543 36 R. R. 655
..
322
..
Sinnott v. Whiteehapel (1858), 3 C. B. N. S. 674
27 L. J. C. P.
177 4 Jur. N. S. 263 111 R. R. 788
344
Sion College v. London Corp., [1901] 1 K. B. 617 70 L. J. K. B.
369 84 L. T. 133 49 W. R. 361 65 J. P. 324
..
317, 527
Skinner v. Usher (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 423
41 L. J. Q. B. 158
26 L. T. 430 20 W. R. 659
566,574
Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co., [1893] 1 Ch. 413 62 L. J. Ch. 196
67 L. T. 696 41 W. R. 217
593
Slattery v. Naylor (1888), 13 App. Gas. 446 57 L. J. P. C. 73 59
L. T. 41 ; 36 W. R. 897
527
Slowey V. Threshie (1901), 38 Sc. L. R. 799, S. C
523
Smale v. Burr (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 64; 42 L. J. 0. P. 20 27 L. T.
555 21 W. R. 193
225
Small V. Nat. Prov. Bk., [1894] 1 Ch. 686 63 L.J. Ch. 270; 70
173,174
L. T. 492 42 W. R. 378
66
Smelting Co. of Australia v. Inl. Rev., [1897] 1 Q. B. 175
45 W. R. 203
61 J. P. 116 128
L. J. Q. B. 137 75 L. T. 534
47 L. J.
Smith, Ex p. (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 374; 26 W. R. 682
230,231,636
M. C. 104
Ek p. (cited in Alexander v. Vaughan (1737), 1 Cowp. 402 267
59 L. J. Q. B. 554
38 W. R.
lie (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 536
212
744 7 M. B. R. 246
Re (1877), 2 Ex. D. 47 46 L. J. Q. B. 75 35 L. T. 858 .. 250
Re Hands v. Andrews, [1893] 2 Ch. 1 62 L. J. Ch. 336
..
109, 303
68 L. T. 337 41 W. R. 289 57 J. P. 516, C. A.
74 L. T. 810 45
Be, [1896] 2 Ch. 590 65 L. J. Ch. 761
107
W. R. 29
412
/?e (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 113
24 L. J. Ch. 258 18
V. Adams (1855), 5 De G. M. & G. 712
56,144
Jur. 968 104 R. R. 249
;

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXXU

TABLE OP OASES.
VAfili

Baker, [1891] App. Gas. 349; 60 L. J. Q. B. 691 65 L. T.

109
467; 56 J. P. 660, H.L
. Bamham (1876), 1 Ex. D. 419
..
588
..
34 L. T. 774
26 L. J.
V. Birmmgham Guardians (1857), 7 E. & B. 483
246
M. C. 105 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 769 110 E. B. 689
V. Brown (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 729
40 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 24
63,556
L. T. 808 ; 19 W. E. 1165
84 L. T.
V. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297 ; 70 L. J. P. C. 53
382
801 ..
..
..
194
. Cooke (1915), 79 J. P. 245
V. Dauney, [1904] 2 K. B. 186
73 L. J. K. B. 646 90 L. T.
116
760 ; 20 T. L. E. 444
V. Pox (1848), 6 Hare 386
12 Jur. 130 ;
17 L. J. Ch. 170
12
77E.E.152
V. G. W. Ey. Co. (1877), 3 App. Cas. 165
47 L. J. Ch. 97
357
37 L. T. 645 ; 26 W. E. 130
V. Huggett (1861), 11 C. B. N. S. 55
K. & G. 434 31 L. J.
653
..
C. P. 38 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 617
5 L. T. 357 10 W. E. 80
660
. Jones (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 328
y. Keats (1832), 4 Hagg. Ecc. 275
248
516
V. Kirby (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 131
24 W. E. 207
..
V. Kynnersley, [1903] 1 K. B. 788
72 L. J. K. B. 357 ; 88
L. T. 449 51 W. E. 548 67 J. P. 125 ; 1 L. G. E. 393
71, 595
V. Lambeth Assessment Committee (1883), 9 Q. B. D. 585
129
52L. J. M. C. 1
;. Lancaster (1869), L. E. 5 C. P. 246
169
V. Lindo (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 395
27 L. J. C. P.
5 Id. 587
196, 335; 4 Jur. N. S. 974; 114 E. E. 785
..
64, 478, 532, 697
158
v. Lister (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 154
15 L. J. Ex. 149
699
V. Mawhood (1845), 14 M. & W. 452
..
. Moody (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 43
85
V. Northleaoh Eural District Council, [1902] 1 Ch. 197
71
359
L. J. Ch. 8
V. Portsmouth JJ., [1906] 2 K. B. 229
75 L. J. K. B. 851
95 L. T. 5 ; 54 W. E. 598 70 J. P. 497
76
V. E. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 614 ; 47 L. J. P. C. 51 ; 38 L. T.
233
640
V. Eosario Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 174
70 L. T. 68 ; 7
Asp. M.C. 417
..
42
V. Southampton Corp., [1902] 2 K. B. 250
658
V. Sparrow (1827), 4 Bing. 84
2 C. & P. 544
29 E. E. 514 691
u. Tilley (1664), 1 Keb. 712
534
V. Walton (1877), 3 C. P. D. 109
47 L. J. M. C. 45 37 L. T.
437
501
35 L. J. Ch. 454 14 L. T.
V. White (1866), L. E. 1 Eq. 626
350; 14 W. E. 510
693
32 L. J. Ch. 218 10
V. Whitmore (1863), 1 Hem. & M. 576
Jur. N. S. 65 ; 10 L. T. 128
236
V. Wood (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 23
59 L. J. Q. B. 5 61 L. T.
469
870 ; 38 W. E. 138 ; 54 J. P. 324

Smitl;..

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CXXXUl
PAGE

Smith's Estate, Be (1887), 35 CJi. D. 589 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 726

56
L. T. 850 ; 35 W. E. 514 ; 51 J. P. 692
Smithett v. Blythe (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 509 ; 35 E. E. 358
..
Smithies v. Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13
71 L. J. K. B. 555
87
L. T. 167 ; 50 W. E. 686 ; 66 J. P. 740
Smyth V. North (1872), L. E. 7 Ex. 242 41 L. J. Ex. 103; 20
W. E. 688
Sneed t>. Commonwealth (1838), 6 Dana 338 (Kentucky)
..
Sneezum v. Marshall (1841), 7 M. ife W. 417 ; 9 D. P. 0. 267 ; 10
L.J. Ex. 193
Soci6t^ Anonyme Beige des Mines d'Aljustrel v. Anglo-Belgian
Agency, (1915), 84 L. J. Ch. 849, 0. A
Society des H6tels Bennies D. Hawker (1913), 29 T. L. E. 578 ..
Societe G^n^rale de Paris v. Tramway Unions Co. (1884), 14
;

318
549

186

Q.

B.D.455

..

203
6
504
196
44

202

".

..

Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Wheeler (1814), 2 Gallison

388
105
209
Solarte v. MelviUe (1827), 1 Man. & Ey. 198
Somerset (Duke of). He (1887), 34 Ch. D. 465 ; 56 L. J. Ch. 733
163
56 L, T. 145 35 W. E. 273
Somerset v. Hart (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 360 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 77 ; 48
J P 327
192 490
V. Wade, [1894] Tq. B.'574;
63 L. J.*M. c!'l26 '70 L. T.
482; 42 W.E. 399; 58 J. P. 231
187,192,490
..
..
Southam, Be (1882), 19 Ch. D. 169
51 L. J. Ch. 207 ; 45 L. T.
606
635 30 W. E. 126
Southampton Bridge Co. ;;. Southampton L. Bd. (1858), 8 E. & B.
28 L. J. Q. B. 41
3 Jur. N. S.
808 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 128
629
1261 112 E. E. 785
South of Ireland Colliery v. Waddle (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 468 37
16 W. E. 756 and L. E. 4
L. 3. C. P. 211
18 L. T. 405
38 L. J. 0. P. 338 17 W. E. 896
..
163, 619
C. P. 617
^
50 L, J.
S. E. Ey. Co. V. Ey. Commrs. (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 586
520
Q. B. 201 ; 44 L. T. 203 ; 45 J. P. 388
173
Southport Banking Co. . Thompson (1887), 57 L J. Ch. 114 ..
62 L. J.
Southport (Mayor of) v. Morriss, [1893] 1 Q. B. 359
M. C. 47 ; 57 J. P. 231 ; 41 W. E. 382 68 L. T. 221 ; 7 Asp.
132
M. C. 279
;

'

'

South Staffordshire Tramways Co. y.-Sickness, &c. Assrce. Assn.,

64 L. T. 279
60 L. J. Q. B. 47, 260
[1891] 1 Q. B. 402
606
39 W. E. 292 55 J. P. 372
Southwark, &c. Water Co. v. Hampton Urban Council (1898),
572
68 L. J. Q. B. 207
67 L. J. Ch. 657
V. Wandsworth Board, [1898] 2 Ch. 608
630
79 L. T. 132 47 W. B. 107 62 J. P. 756
22
South Yorkshire Ey. Co. v. G. N. Ey. Co. (1853), 9 Ex. 55
619,655
L. J. Ex. 305 96 E. E. 550
Sowerby v. Smith (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 524; 43 L. J. C. P. 290
502,546,647
31L. T. 309; 23 W. E. 79
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXxiv

PAGE

59 L, J. Q. B. 306; 62
24 Q. B. D. 728
L. T. 849 ; 38 W. K. 497 7 M. B. B. 100
Spaekman's Case (1849), 1 McN. & G. 170; 18 L. J. Ch. 261 ..
Spencer v. Metrop. Bd. of Works (1882), 22 Ch. D. 142; 52
L. J. Ch. 249; 47 L. T. 459; 31 W. E. 347
Spice V. Baoon (1877), 2 Ex. D. 463 46 L. J. Ex. 713 86 L. T.
896; 25 W. E. 840
Spioer v. Barnard (1859), 1 E. & E. 874; 28 L. J. M. C. 176; 5
Jur. N. S. 961 7 W. E. 467; 117 R. E. 497
Spiers & Pond v. Bennett, [1896] 2 Q. B. 65 65 L. J. M. 0. 144
74 L. T. 697 44 W. E. 510 60 J. P. 437
..
58, 59,
Spilsbury v. Micklethwaite (1808), 1 Taunt. 146; 9 E. E. 717 ..
55 L. J. Q. B. 48 ; 56
Spittall V. Brook (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 426
L. T. 364; 35W. E.520; lFox22
..
S. S. B., iJe, [1906] 1 Ch. 724
,
Stable, JJe, [1919] P. 10
Staoey v. Lintell (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 291 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 108 ; 40
L. T. 553 27 W. E. 551
StaUard v. Marks (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 412 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 91 ; 38
L. T. 566 ; 26 W. E. 694
Stamp, Ba;^. (1846), IDeG. 345
Standard Manufacturing Co., Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 627; 60 L. J. Ch.
61,
292 64 L. T. 487 ; 39 W. R. 369, 0. A
Stanford i;. Eoberts, [1901] 1 Ch. 440
Stanley v. Dodd (1822), 1 D. & E. 397 2 D. & E. 800 ..
..
37 L. J.
V. Western Insurance Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 71
Exoh. 215 ; 16 W. E. 369 ; 17 L. T. N. S. 518
..
..
V. Wild (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 318
Stapleton v. Haymen (1864), 2 H. & C. 918 33 L. J. Ex. 170
10 Jur. N. S. 497 ; 12 W. E. 817
Starey v. Ohilworth Gunpowder Co. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 90 59
L. J. M. C. 13 62 L. T. 73 ; 38 W. E. 204 54 J. P. 436 17

Spaokman, Re

(1890),

99
592
557

651
167

. .

186
632

117
144
127

126
212
177
816
70

496

107
249

653

CoxC.

C. 65
Stead V. Carey (1845), 1 C. B. 496

195
;

14 L.

J. C. P.

177

9 Jur.

511
395
Steavenson v. Oliver (1841), 8 M. & W. '234; 5 Jur. 1064; 10
L.J. Ex. 338
728
Steed i-. Henley (1824), 1 C. & P. 574
697
Steel . Dartford Log. Bd. (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 256
..
..726
Steele v. Brannan (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 261
41 L. J. M. C. 85
26 L. T. 509 20 W. E. 607
196, 330
V. Midland Ey. Co. (1866), L. E. 1 Ch. 282
12 Jur. N. S.
218 14 L. T. 3 14 W. E. 367
53
Steinson V. Heath (1694), 3 Lev. 400
711
Stephens i;. Mysore Eeefs Mining Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 295 ..
592
v. Eobinson (1832), 2C. & J. 209
696
Stephenson v. Higginson (1851), 3 H. L. C. 638, H. L
471
Stettin, The (1862), Br. & L. 199
31 L. J. Adm. 208
6 L. T.
613
563
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXV
PASE

Stevens, Exp. (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 786 ; 44 L. J. Bank. 136 ;

L. T. 135 ; 23 W. E. 908
w. Evans (1761), 2 Burr. 1152
V. Gourley (1859), 7 C. B. N. S. 99; 1 P. & F. 498;
L. J. 0. P. 1 6 Jur. N. S. 147 1 L. T. 33 ..
..
V. Jeaoooke (1848), 11 Q. B. 731 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 163
;

83
225
710

29
647, 688

12

Jur. 477
354,718
V. Lasoles, [1912] 1 K. B. 36, C.
55
Steward v. Greaves (1843), 10 M. & W. 711 ; 2 D. N. S. 485 ; 12
L. J. Ex. 109 ; 6 Jur. 1116
294
Stewart v. Jones (1852), 1 E. & B. 22 22 L. J. Q. B. 1 16 Jur.

1020

326
532

Lawton

(1823), 1 Bing. 374

Stiles V. Galinski, [1904] 1 K. B. 615 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 485
L. T. 437 ; 52 W. E. 462 ; 68 J. P. 183 ; 2 L. G. E. 341
t;.

90
20

T. L. E. 219
525
Stock and Share Auction, &o. Co., Be, [1894] 1 Ch. 736 63 L. J.
Ch. 245 ; 70 L. T. 235 42 W. E. 300 1 Manson 125
..
561
Stocker v. Warner (1845), 1 C. B. 167 ; 9 Jur. 136 14 L. J. C. P.
90
389
Stockport, &c Schools, Be, [1898] 2 Ch. 687
68 L. J. Ch. 41 ..
587
Stockport, &o. Ey. Co., Be, (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 251 ; 10 Jur.
N. S. 614 10 L. T. 426 ; 12 W. E. 762
172
Stockton & Darlington Ey. Co. v. Barrett (1844), 11 CI. & F. 590
8 Scott N. E. 641 65 E. E. 261
504, 528
V. Brown (1860), 9 H. L. Cas. 246
6 Jur. N. S. 1168 8
231
W. E. 708
Stoker i;. Morpeth Corpn., [1915] 2 K. B. 511
444,657
..
..
Stokes V. Grissell (1854), 14 C. B. 678; 2 C. L. E. 730; 23
L. J. C. P. 141 ; 18 Jur. 519 98 E. E. 814
612
V. Mitcheson, [1902] 1 K. B. 857
71 L. J. K. B. 677 ; 86
L. T. 767 ; 50 W. E. 553 66 J. P. 615
840
Stokes' Trusts, Be (1872), L. E. 13 Eq. 333 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 290
522
26L. T. 181; 20 W. E. 396
Stone V. Dean (1858), E. B. & E. 504 27 L. J. Q. B. 819 4 Jur.
674
N. S. 534
V. Yeovil Corpn. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 691 ; 45 L. J. C. P.
657 ; 34 L. T. 871 24 W. E. 1073 and 2 C. P. D. 99 ; 46
419
L. J. C. P. 137 ; 36 L. T. 279 25 W. E. 240
..
;

Fowle

App. Cas. 20 57 L. J. Q. B. 387 58

L. T. 1; 36 W. E. 742; 52 J. P. 228
Stoomvaart Maatschappij Nederland v. P. & O. Steamship Co.
(1882), 7 A. C. 816
19 L. J. C. P. 217 ..
Storie v. "Winchester (1850), 17 C. B. 653
Story, Exp. (1878) 3 Q. B. D. 166 47 L. J. Q. B. 266 38 L. T.
29; 26W. E. 329
Stoy V. Eees (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 748 59 L. J. Q. B. 310 63 L. T.
49; 38W. R. 683
Stonor

V.

(1887), 18

66
881

241

'

Digitized

644

by Microsoft

118

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXVl

PAGE

Universal Stock Exchange, [1896] A. C. 166 ; 65

L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 74 L. T. 468 ; 44 W. B. 497 ; 60 J. P. 468,

Strachan

H.

v.

199

..110
Stradling . Morgan (1558), Plow. 204
156
Straker . Eeynolds (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 262
Stratford Union Council v. Manchester, &c. Ey. Go. (1903),
IL. G. E. 683

633

..
69,515
Streatley, IntheGoodsof (1891),60L. J. P. 56..
Stretton's Derby Brewery v. Derby (Mayor), [1894] 1 Ch. 431
..
..
628
63 L. J. Ch. 135 ; 69 L. T. 791 ; 42 W. B. 583
Strickland v. Hayes, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 ; 65 L. J. M. C. 55 ; 74
L. T. 137 ; 44 W. B. 398 ; 18 C. C. C. 244 ; 60 J. P. 164 .. 523,

524
Strother v. Hutchinson (1838), 4 Bing. N. 0. 83 5 Scott 346
6 D. P. C. 238 ; 3 Hodges 294 2 Jur. 16 7 L. J. C. P. 1 ..
Stroud V. Wandsworth Bd. of Works, [1894] 2 Q. B. 1 68 L. J.
..
M. C. 88; 70L. T. 190; 42W. B. 355; 58 J. P. 652
Studds V. Watson (1884), 28 Ch. D. 305 54 L. J. Ch. 626 52
'
..
L. T. 129 33 W. B. 118
..
Sturgis V. DareU (1860), 4 H. & N. 622 28 L. J. Ex. 366 and 6
H. & N. 120 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 472 6 Jur. N. S. 1351 ; 118 B. E.
;

451

231

512

458,543

652

Submarine E. 14, B, [1917] P. 85

Suburban Hotel Co., Be (1867), L. E. 2 Ch. 737
710

17 L. T. 22

Suche &

Be (1875),
774 24 W. E. 184
Co.,

15

W.

102
;

86 L.

Ch.

J.

E. 1096

592

1 Ch. D. 48; 45 L. J. Ch. 12; 33 L. T.

391

Sully V. Atty.-Genl. (1860), 5 H. & N. 711 29 L. J. Ex. 464

Jur. N. S. 1018 ; 8 W. E. 472
Summerlea Iron Co. v. Thomson, [1913] S. C. (J.) 34, Sco.
;

270
..

138,

202, 210

Summers v. Holbom Bd.

M. C. 81; 57 J.

of

P.

Works, [1893] 1 Q. B. 612

326;

68 L. T. 226;

62 L.

W.

41

J.

E.

445
336
Sunderland Bd. v. Frankland (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 18; 42
623
L. J. Q. B. 13 28 L. T. 18
Sunderland Gdns. v. Sussex (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 99 51 L. J. M. C.
33 46 L. T. 98 80 W. E. 337 46 J. P. 375
386
..
..
Supervisors u. U. S. (1866), 4 Wallace, 435
..
..
439, 441
Surtees V. Ellison (1829), 9 B. & C. 752
728
Sussex Peerage (1844), 11 CI. & F. 85 8 Jur. 793, H. L.
1, 6, 78
;

256, 260, 501

Sutton

Sutton (1883), 22 Ch. D. 515 ; 52 L. J. Ch. 383 ; 48 L. T.

62,73,76,303
95;31W. E. 369
Sutton's Case (1627), 10 Eep. 31a
99
Swaine v. WUson (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 252; 59 L. J. Q. B. 76 62
L. T. 309 38 W. B. 261 ; 54 J. P. 484
702, 704
Swan V. Sanders (1881), 50 L. J. M. C. 67 ; 4 L. T. 424 29
474
W. E. 588 14 Cox C. C. 566
V.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

CXXXVll
PAOB

Spooner (1863), 3 B. & S. 329 32 L. J. M. C. 82 9

7 L. T. 623 11 W. E. 264
Swift V. Jewsbury (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 301 43 L. J. Q. B. 56
30 L. T. 31 22 W. E. 319
V. KeUy (1836), 3 Knapp, 257
40 E. E. 22, P. C
Swindells. Bulkeley (1886), 18 Q. B. B. 250; 56 L. J. Q. B.
613 66 L. T. 38 35 W. E. 189
Sydney Municipal Council v. Bourke, [1895] A. C. 433, P. C. ..
Sydney, The, [1916] P. 300
Syers u, Conquest (1873), 37 J. P. 342
Sykes v. Sowerby U. D. C, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584 69 L. J. Q. B.
464; 82 L.T. 177; 64 J. P. 340
Symingtons Petitioners (1905), 43 Sc. L. E. 157, Sc
Syred v. Carruthers (1858), E. B. & E. 469 27 L. J. M. C. 273
4 Jur. N. S. 949 113 E. E. 732

Sweeney

v.

Jur. N. S. 691

470

138
260
454
726
102
211

364
592

675

T.

Tabernacle Bldg. Soc. v. Knight, [1892] A. C. 298 62 L. J. Q. B.

50 ; 67 L. T. 483 56 J. P. 709
293
Taff Vale Ey. v. Amalgamated Soc. of Ely. Servants, [1901]
A. C. 426 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 905 85 L. T. 147 ; 50 W. E. 44
65 J. P. 596 17 T. L. E. 698
629,705
Talbot V. Shrewsbury (1873), L. E. 16 Eq. 26
42 L. J. Ch. 877
21W. E. 473
303
Tarrant v. Baker (1854), 14 C. B. 199
2 C. L. E. 78
23 L. J.
C. P. 21 ; 18 Jur. 15; 98 E. E. 589
414
Tassel v. Ovenden (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 383 46 L. J. M. C. 228 36
L. T. 696 ; 25 W. E. 692
350,351
Tate D. Wellings (1790), 3 T. E. 531
209
Tatham v. Eeeve, [1893] 1 Q. B. 44 62 L. J. Q. B. 30 ; 67 L. T.
683 ; 41 W. E. 174 57 J. P. 118
556,693
Tattle v. Grimwood (1826), 3 Bing. 493
727
Tawny's Case (1704), 2 Salk. 531
365
Taylor, Be (1877), 4 Ch. D. 159 46 L. J. Ch. 399 ; 36 L. T. 169
26W. E. 69
228
V. CaldweU (1863), 3 B. & S. 826 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 164
8 L. T.
356 ; 11 W. E. 726
674
2 C. L. E. 1247
V. Crowland Gas Co. (1854), 11 Ex. 1
23
L. J. Ex. 254 ; 18 Jur. 913 ; 105 E. E. 360
119
V.
23 L. J. Ex.
(1854), 10 Ex. 293 ; 2 C. L. E. 1247
254 ; 18 Jur. 913
697
V. Goodwin (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 228 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 40
481
L. T. 458 27 W. E. 489
V. Greenhal^h (1876), 24 W. E. 311, reversing L. E. 9 Q. B.
487 ; 43 L. J. Q. B. 168 ; 31 L. T. 184 ; 23 W. E. 4 ..
189, 726
10 C. B. N. S. 429 30
V. Humphreys (1861), 17 C. B. 539
L. J. M. 0. 242 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 1288 ; 4 L. T. 514 9 W. E. 705 121
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CXXXVm

TABLE OF CASES.
PABE

Newman (1863), 4 B, & S. 93

C. 314 8 L. T: 424 11 W. B.

32 L. J. M. C. 186 9 Cox
74, 167
C.
752
;
V. Oldham (1877), 4 Ch. D. 395 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 105 ; 35 L. T.
72,301
696 25 W. B. 303
V. Oram (1862), 1 H. & C. 370 ; 31 L. J. M. C. 252 ; 8 Jur.
574
748 ; 7 L. T. 68 10 W. E. 800
682
u. PMlips (1802), 3 East 155
6 B. E. 575
..
V. Bogers (1881), 50 L. J. M. 0. 132
45 L. T. 314 ..
290
V. St. Mary Abbotts (1871), L. B. 6 0. P. 309
40 L. J. C. P.
117
45 ; 23 L. T. 493 19 W. B. 109 1 Hop. & C. 421 ..
V. Smetten (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 207 ; 52 L. J. M. C. 101 ; 48
600
J. P. 36
V. Taylor (1876), 1 Ch. D. 426
3 Ch. D. 145 ; 45 L. J. Ch.
520
378, 848 ; 25 W. B. 279 35 L. T. 450
642
leather. Ex p. (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 7 ; 19 L. J. M. C. 70
..
Tempest v. Kilner (1846), 3 0. B. 249 15 L. J. C. P. 10
..
575
Temiant v. Bell (1846), 9 Q. B. 684 16 L. J. M. C. 31 ; 10 Jur.
946
608
V. Bawlings (1879), 4 C. P. D. 133 ; 27 W. B. 682
..
656, 677
V. Smith, [1892] A. C. 150
61 L. J. P. C. 11 66 L. T. 327
56J. P. 596
505
V. Union Bank of Canada, [1894] App. Cas. 31
63 L. J.
P. C. 25 ; 69 L. T. 774
252
1 H. & P. 202 ; 34
Tepper v. Nichols (1865), 18 C. B.!N. S. 121
L. J. C. P. 61
11 Jur. N. S. 18
11 L. T. 509
13 W. B.
270
632 ' 633
Ternan, Se (1864), 5 B."& S. 645 33"l. J. M. C. 201 ; 9 CoxC. C.
522 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 34 10 L. T. 499 ; 12 W. B. 858 ..
..
123
Terrell, Be (1878), 4 Ch. D. 293 ; 47 L.J. Bank. 60
38 L. T. 243
26 W. B. 470 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 47
227
Terry v. Brighton Aquarium Co. (1875), L. B. 10 Q. B. 306 ; 44
L. J. M. C. 173 32 L. T. 458
...
574
V. Terry (1915), 32 T. L. B. 167
152
Tewkesbury u. Twyning (1632), 2 Bott. 1 Buls. 349
..
..216
Tewkesbury Union v. Upton-on-Sevem Union (1913), 83 L. J.
KB. 37
116
Thacker v. Hardy (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 685 48 L. J. Q. B. 289
39
L. T. 595 ; 27 W. B. 158
210
Thames, Conservators of v. Hall (1868), L. B. 3 C. P. 415 37
L. J. C. P. 163 ; 18 L. T. 361 ; 16 W. B. 971 ..
..
311, 314
Thames Haven Co. v. Bose (1842), 4 M. & G. 552 2 D. N. S. 104
5 Scott N. E. 524 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 90
3 EaUw. Cas. 177 61
E. B. 599
202
Theberge v. Laudry (1877), 2 App. Cas. 102 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 1 ; 35
L. T. 640 ; 25 W. E. 216
251,252
Theta, The (1894), 63 L. J. Adm. 160
244
Thiskell ?;. Cambi, [1919] W. E. 195
70
Thistleton w. Frewer (1862), 31 L. J. Ex. 230
394
Thoda;^, Exp. (1877), 2 Ch. D. 229, 797 45 L. J. Bank. 64, 159 ;
34 L. T. 261, 705
345
Taylor

v.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

CXXXIX
PAGE

Thomas, Re

(1888), 21 Q. B. D. 380 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 574

447 ; 36 "W. K. 375 ; 5 M. B. K. 153
u. Kelly (1888), 13 A. C. 506, H.
V. Pritohard, [1903] 1 K. B. 209 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 23

59 L. T.

249
16

87 L. T.
688 ; 51 W. E. 58 67 J. P. 71 20 C. C. C. 376
..
249, 252
V. Quartermaine (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 685 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 340 ;
57 L. T. 537 ; 35 W. R. 555 51 J. P. 516
..
628, 682
V. E. (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 44
44 L. J. Q. B. 9 ; 31 L. T.
439; 23 W. R. 176
250
u. Ehymney EaU Co. (1870), 39 L. J. Q. B. 141
..
..
720
V. Stephenson (1853), 2 E. & B. 108 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 258
17
Jur. 597 ; 95 E. E. 463
483
V. Suiters, [1900] 1 Oh. 10
69 L. J. Oh. 27 81 L. T. 469
48W. E. 133
523,525
Thomas' Estate, Re (1918), 34 T. L. E. 626
127
Thompson, Re, [1894] 1 Q. B. 462 63 L. J. Q. B. 187 70 L. T.
238; 42W.E.462
347
JJe (1919), 88 L. J. K. B. 646
389
V. Brighton (Mayor), [1894] 1 Q. B. 332
63 L. J. Q. B. 181
70 L. T. 206 ; 42 W. E. 161 ; 58 J. P. 297
726
V. Farrer (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 372
51 L. J. Q. B. 534
47
L. T. 117 4 Asp. M. 0. 562
57
i;. Gibson (1841), 10 L. J. Ex. 243
608
103 L. T.
V. Goold, [1910] A. C. 409 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 905;
81 ..
..
25,55,346
V. Harvey (1859), 4 H. & N. 254; 28 L. J. M. 0. 163; 118
670
E. E. 418
39 L. J. 0. P. 264 22 L. T.
V. HiU (1870), L. E. 5 0. P. 564
636
820; 18 W.E. 1070
Thomson v. Adv.-Gen. (1848), 12 01. & F. 1 9 Jur. 217 ; 29 E. E.
270
1, H. L
. Olanmorris (Lord), (1900) 69 L. J. Oh. 337
..
..583
Thorbum v. Barnes (1867), L. E. 2 0. P. 384 ; 36 L. J. 0. P. 184
639
16 L. T. 10 15 W. E. 623
Thorley, Re, [1891] 2 Oh. 613; 60 L. J. Ch. 537 ; 64 L. T. 515
504,509
39W. E. 565
Thome, Exp. (1876), 3 Oh. D. 457; 45 L. J. Bank. 158 35 L. T.
543
532 ; 25 W. E. 186
V. Heard, [1895] A. 0. 495 ; 64 L. J. Oh. 652
73 L. T. 291
12
44W. E. 155
118
Thorp . Browne (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 220, H. L
Thorpe v. Adams (1871), L. E. 6 0. P. 125 30 L. J. M. 0. 52 ; 23
314
L. T. 810 19 W. E. 352
V. PriestnaU, [1897] 1 Q. B. 159; 66 L. J. Q. B. 248; 45
101
W. E. 223 ; 60 J. P. 821
63
Thursby v. Briercliffe, [1894] 2 Q. B. 11
[1895] A. 0. 32
58 J. P. 428,
L. J. M. 0. 137 ; 70 L. T. 618 ; 42 W. E. 450
572
H.L
598, 599
..
p:hwaites v. Coulthwaite (1896), 65 I;. J. Ch. 238 ..
;

. .

-^

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxl

PAGE

Wilding (1883), 12 Q. B. D. 4 53 L. J. Q. B. 1 49
L. T. 396; 32W. R. 80
Tidd, Be, [1893] 3 Oh. 154; 62 L. J. Ch. 915; 69 L. T. 255; 42
Thwaites

v.

W. E.25

652

454

33 L. J. C. P. 235
Tidey v. MoUett (1864), 16 C. B. N. S. 298
10 Jur. N. S. 800 10 L. T. 380 12 W. E. 802
57 L. T. 416; 35 W. E.
Tidswell, Re (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 548
669
;

. .

569

Timmins

u.

Timmins, [1919] P. 75
,

558
152

2 G. & D. 621
11 L. J.
(1842), 3 Q. B. 413
239
6 Jur. 1012
Tisdell V. Combe (1838), 7 A. & E. 788 3 N. & P. 29 1 W. W. &
587
H. 5; 2 Jur. 32
Ill
Titmus V. Littlewood, [1916] 1 K. B. 272
Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B. & C. 838; 5 D. &
62,306
B. 530
Tobin V. E. (1863), 14 C. B. N. S. 505 32 L. J. C. P. 216 9 Jur.
..
..
N. S. 1130; 8 L. T. 392, 730 11 W. R. 701, 915
250
Todd V. Robinson (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 739; 54 L. J. Q. B. 47; 52
496
L.T. 120; 49 J. P. 278
ToUemaohe's Estate, ;fe, [1917] P. 246
127
Toilet t;. Thomas (1871), 24 L. T. 508
588
Tomkins v. Ashby (1827), 6 B. & C. 541 9 D. & R. 543 ..
..
506
Tomlinson v. BuUock (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 230; 48 L. J. M. C. 95
40 L. T. 459 27 W. E. 552
610
V. Consolidated Credit Corpn. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 135
62
L.T. 162; 38 W.R. 118; 54 J. P. 644
198
Tompson v. Browne (1835), 3 M. & K. 32 5 L. J. Ch. 64
..
223
Toms V. Claoton (1898), 78 L. T. 712 46 W. R. 629 62 J. P. 505 510
14 L. J. C. P. 67
V. Cuming (1845), 7 M. & G. 88
9 Jur.
90
136
32 L. J. Q. B. 382 10 Jur.
V. Wilson (1863), 4 B. &. S. 442
N. S. 201 7 L. T. 421 11 W. E. 117
608
Tone Conservators v. Ash (1829), 10 B. & C. 349 34 R. R. 441 .. 617
Toomer . London Ch. & D. Ey. Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 450; 47
L. J. Ex. 276 ; 37 L. T. 161 26 W. R. 31
520
Tooth i;. Power, [1891] A. C. 291
157
Toronto (Corporation) v. Vurgo, [1896] A. C. 88 65 L. J. P. C.
4; 73 L. T. 449
524
Tottenham Board v. Rowell (1876), 1 Ex. T>. 514; 46 L. J. Ex.
432; 25 W.R. 135
348
Toutill V. Douglas (1863), 33 L. J. Q. B. 66 8 L. T. 426
731
..
Towler v. Chatterton (1829), 6 Bmg. 258 3 M. & P. 619 31
R. R. 411
397
Towns V. Wentworth (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 543
99
Townsend v. Deacon (1849), 3 Exch. 706 6 D. & L. 659 18
L. J. Ex. 298 13 Jur. 366
409
Tracey v. Pretty. [1901] 1 K. B. 444 70 L. J. K. B. 234 88
L. T, 767 ; 49 W. R. 282 65 J. P. 196 19 C. C. C. 593 ..
231
Traill ). McAllister (1890), 25 L. B. Ir. 524
..
..
,73?

Timms

v.

WUliams

Q. B. 210

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxli
PAOK

Travis

Uttley, [1894] 1 Q. B. 233

v.

242; 42

Tredwen

v.

W.B.

63 L.

J.

M.

G. 48

70 L. T.

461; 58

Holman

J. P. 85
(1862), 1 H. & C. 72

4
31 L. J. Ex. 398

Jiir. N. S. 1080
10 W. K. 652
235
Trethowan, Be (1877), 5 Ch. D. 559 46 L. J. Bank. 43 36 L. T.
70; 25W. E. 399
173
Trevor -Battye's Settlement, Be (1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 646
..
41
Triumph, H.M.S., and Usk, H.M.S., Be (1917), 86 L. J. P. 127 .. 103
Tromans v. Hodkinson, [1903] 1 K. B. 30 72 L. J. K. B. 21 87
L. T. 549 51 W. E. 286 67 J. P. 30 20 C. 0. C. 360
600
Trowell v. Shenton (1878), 8 Ch. D. 324 47 L. J. Ch. 738 38
L. T. 369 26 W. R. 837
512
Trower v. Chadwick (1839), 3 Bmg. N. C. 334 3 Scott 699 2
Hodges 267 43 E. E. 659
630
Tuflfv. Drapers'Co. (1913), 82L. J. K. B. 174
224
Tunbridge Wells v. Baird, [1896] A. C. 434 65 L. J. Q. B. 451
74 L. T. 385 60 J. P. 788
170,545
Tunbridge Wells Improvement Commissioners v. Southborough
Local Bd. (1888), 60 L. T. 172
671
TunnioUffe d. Birkdale (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 450 56 L. J. M. C.
109 59 L. T. 190 36 W. E. 360 52 J. P. 452
..
..
247
Tumbull V. Forman (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 234 54 L. J. Q. B. 489
53 L. T. 128 13 W. E. 768 49 J. P. 708
387
Turner, Be (1846), 9 Q. B. 80 15 L. J. M. C. 140
..
176
..
V. Browne (1846), 3 C. B. 157
15 L. J. C. P. 223; 10 Jur.
811 ; 4 D. & L. 201
685
V. Evans (1853), 2 E. & B. 515
22 L. J. Q. B. 412 17 Jur.
41
1073 2 De a. M. & G. 740 95 E. E. 312, 681
V. Morgan (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 587
44 L. J. M. C. 161
420
33L. T. 172; 23W. E. 659
Tnrquand v. Bd. of Trade (1886), 11 App. Cas. 286 55 L. J. Q. B.
417; 55 L. T. 30
54,78
Turtle . Hartwell (1795), 6 T. E. 426
123
Twigg's Estate, Be, [1892] 1 Ch. 579 61 L. J. Ch. 444 66 L. T.
604 40 W. E. 297
446
Two hundred Chests of Tea (1824), 9 Wheaton 430
107
..
..
Twycross v. Grant (1877), 2 0. P. D. 469; 4 C. P. D. 40; 46
L. J. C. P. 636 36 L. T. 812 25 W. E. 701
39,123,
..
204 449 717
Tyerman v. Smith (1856), 6 E. & B. 719 25 L. J. Q. B. 359; 2
680
Jur. N. S. 860
Tyson . Thomas (1825), McClel. & Y. 119
696,735
..
..
;

. .

. .

. .

'

U.
Uckfield U. D. C. v. Crowborough Water Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 664
68 L. J. Q. B. 1009 ; 81 L. T. 539 ; 48 W. E. 63
..
..
Underhill 1). EUicombe (1825), McCleL & Y. 450
V. Longridge (1859), 29 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 221
..

286
711
446,

482, 497

10

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxlii

I'AGE

Ungley

Ungley

u.

L. T. 52

Union Bank
409

Union

25

(1877), 5 Ch.

W.

J.

Ch. 854; 37

454

R. 733

Lenanton

v.

D. 887; 46 L.
D. 243

(1878), 3 0. P.

47 L.

J. C. P.

158

38 L. T. 698

New

S. S. Co. of

Zealand

(1884), 9
5 Asp. M. C.

Melbourne Commrs.

v.

App. Cas. 365 53 L. J. P. C. 59 50 L. T. 337

93
222 P. C
United Alkali" Co. v- Simpson',' [1894] 2 Q. B. 116 ;'63 L. J. M. C.
445
..
..
141 71 L. T. 258 42 W. E. 509 58 J. P. 607
United Land Company v. G. E. Ey.Co. (1875), L.E. 10 Ch. 586
526
..
..
44 L. J. Cli. 685 33 L. T. 292 23" W. E. 896
464,465,583
..
United States y. Coombs (1838), 12 Peters 72
V. Fisher (1805), 2 Cranch 358
3 Id. 390
75, 148, 149, 263
464
u. Gooding (1827), 12 Wheat. 460
?;. Hartwell (1867), 6 Wall. 385
6,465,484
729
u. Helen, The (1810), 6 Cranch 203
265
V. Howard (1818), 3 Wash. 340

......

. .

Kessler (1829), Bald. 15

Kirby (1868), 7 Wall. 482
i-. Klintock (1820), 5 Wheat. 144
?;. McLain (1800), 2 Brev. 443 (Tennessee)
v. Morris (1840), 14 Peters 464
V. Palmer (1818), 3 Wheat. 610
75, 265,
..
V. Thirty-six barrels Of wine (1870), 7 Blatchf. 459 ..
V. Wiltberger (1820), 5 Wheat. 76, 95
..
6, 463, 464,
i;. Wood (1840), 16 Peters 342
Universal Stock Exchange v. Strachan, [189^] ^- C. 166; 65
L. J. Q. B. 429 74 L. T. 468 44 W. E. 497 ; .60 J. P. 468,
?;.

!;.

H. L

Unwin

199

Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. 115

v.

L. T. 511

39

W.

E. 587

55 J.

60 L.
P. 662
;

J. Q.

B. 582

65

98
113

Upame, The
UpfiU

(1912), 81 L. J. P. 110
V. Wright, [1911] 1 K. B. 506

80 L.

J.

K. B. 254

103

693
250

L. T. 834

Uppom

Sumner (1779), 9 W. Bl. 1251

Urquhart, Se (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 723 59 L.
i;.

W. E.
Urwin

v.

265
177
265
467
492
557
508
465
336

J. Q.

B. 364

38

7M.B.

E. 94
Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. 115
612;

60 L.

J. Q.

B. 531

..

133
100

V.

Vale

Neath Colliery

Purness (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 276 34

L. T. 231 24 W. E. 631
Valentmi v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 166 58 L. J. Q. B. 74
61 L. T. 731 38 W. E. 331 ; 54 J. P. 295
Vallance v. Falle (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 109 53 L. J. Q. B. 459 51
L. T. 158 32 W. R. 770 48 J. P. 519
5 Asp. M. C. 280 669,
Vallejo V. Wheeler (1774), Cowp. 143; Lofft. 631
..
..
Van Sandau, Ea; J). (1846), 1 De G. 303
Vane v. Vane (1874), L. K. 8 Ch. 383 42 L. J. Ch. 299 ..
..
of

v.

511

Digitized

376

by Microsoft

722
196
658
160

TABLE OP CASES.

Cxliii

PAGE

Q. B. 181; 9 M. B. E. 280; 62
L. J. Q. B. 277 67 L. T. 592 ; 41 W. B. 32 57 J. P. 132
v.. Taylor (1855), 4 E. & B. 910
24 L. J. Q. B. 198 ; 99

Vansittart, Be,

[1893]
;

130

. .

E. E. 823

Vaughan

382, 404

VaUey E.

Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. 679 29 L. J. Ex.

-628
247 ; 6 Jur. N. S. 899 2 L. T. 394 ; 8 W. E. 594 ..
..
214
Vautin, iJe, [1900] 2 Q. B. 325
Vaux . VoUans (1833), 4 B. & Ad. 525 ; 38 E. E. 305 ..
..656
Veitch V. Exeter (1858), 8 E. & B. 986 27 L. J. M. C. 116 4 Jur.
N. S. 584 ; 112 E. E. 853
222
Venour, Be (1876), 2 Ch. D. 522; 45 L. J. Oh. 409; 24 W. E.
v. Tafif

752
76 530
Verdin ti.'Wray "(1877)V2 Q. B. D. 608; 46 L. J.'q. B.*i70; 35
L. T. 942 27 W. E. 274
845
Vernon, The (1842), 1 W. Eob. 316
277
Vernon v. St. James' Vestry (1880), 16 Ch. D. 449 50 L. J. Ch.
227,630
81 44 L. T. 229 29 W. E. 222
Viokers v. Evans, [1910] A. 0. 444 79 L. J. K. B. 955 103
25
L. T. 292
Victorian Daylesford Syndicate, Ltd. v. Dott, [1905] 2 Ch. 624 ..
700
58
Vigers Bros. v. London C. C, [1919] 1 K. B. 56
Vinter v. Hind (1883), 10 Q. B. D. 63 52 L. J. M. C. 93 48
420
L. T. 359 31 W. E. 198 47 J. P. 373
Violett V. Sympson (1857), 8 E. & B. 344 27 L. J. Q. B. 138 3
12
Jnr. N. S. 1217
Virginia & Maryland S. Nav. Co. v. U. S. (1840), Taney and
609
Campbell's Maryland Eep. 418
364
Vowles i;. Cohner (1895), 64 L. J. Ch. 414
-..
60
Vron Colliery Co., Be (1882), 51 L. J. Ch, 389, C. A. ..
'

'

W.
v. London Union (1859), E. B. & E. 370; 28
C. 113 ; 113 E. E. 680
V. Neale (1917), 96 L. T. 786, D. C
Wadham v. Postmaster-General (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 644 ; 40
..
..
L. J. Q. B. 310 ; 24 L. T. 545 ; 19 W. E. 1082

Waddington
L. J. M.

Wadley

v.

Wadmore

Baylis (1814), 5 Taunt. 752; 15 E. E. 645

..
..
v. Dear (1871), L. E. 7 C. P. 212; 41 L. J. C. P. 49;

26 L. T. 28

Wadsworth, Be
613

Wain

V.

20

W.

(1885),

E. 239
29 Ch. D. 517

365
162
687
541

169,632
;

54 L.

J. Ch.-638

52 L. T.

33 W. E. 558
Warlters (1804), 5 East 10; 1 Smith K. B. 299

25

7 E. E.

511

645

Wainewright, Be (1843), 1 Phil. 258

25,444,484
Waits V. Bingley (1882), 21 Ch. D. 674 51 L. J. Ch. 651 30
269
W. E. 698
V. Jones (1835), 1 Bing. N. C. 656
1 Hodges
1 Scott 730
702
..
166..
.,
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

cxliv

PAGE

Wake

12 Q. B. D. 142; 53
L. J. M. C. 1 50 L. T. 76 32 W. E. 82; 48 J. P. 197 342, 708
458
Wakefield, &o. Bank V. Yates, [1916] 1 Ch. 452
Walker i>. Constable (1798), 3 Wils. 25
604
V. Crystal Palace
Gas Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 300; 60
..
607
L. J. Q. B. 781 ; 65 L. T. 86 39 W. B. 716
..
V. Goe (1859), 3 H. & N. 395
4 H. & N. 350 ; 28 L. J. Ex.
724
..
184; 5 Jur. N. S. 737 ; 117 B. E. 751 118 E. E. 488
V. Hobbs (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 458
59 L. J. Q. B. 93 ; 38
140
W. E. 63
V. Homer (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 4 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 34 ; 33 L. T.
489
601 ..
..
V. Better, [1911] 1 K. B. 1103
80 L. J. K. B. 623 ; 104
295
..
L. T 821 75 J. P. 331
..
..
6
V. Eichar'dson (1837), 2'm. & W. 889 ; 1 M. & hV251
L. J. Ex. 229 ; 46 E. E. 782
91, 573
60 L. J. 313
..
523
V. Stretton (1896), 44 W. E. 625
..
Wallace v. Att.-Gen. (1864), L. E. 1 Ch. 1 35 L. J. Ch. 124 .. 244
V. BlaekweU (1856), 3 Drew 538 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 644 ; 3 Jur.
283,611
N. S. 656; 106E. E. 425
v. King (1788), 1 H. Bl. 13
450
Wallgrave v. Tebbs (1856), 2 K. & J. 313 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 241
..
221
Wallis V. Pratt, [1910] 2 K. B. 1003 79 L. J. K. B. 1018 ; 103
L. T. 118
48
Wahnsley v. MUne (1860), 7 C. B. N. S. 115 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 97 ;
6Jur. N. S. 125
..
173
..
'..
Walsh V. Lonsdale (1882), 52 L. J. Ch. 2
569
V. Southwell (1851), 2 L. M. & P. 78
6 Ex. 150 ; 20
L. J. M. C. 165
135
Walsingham's Case (1579), Plowd. 562
282
Walter v. Steinkopff, [1892] 3 Ch. 489 61 L. J. Ch. 521 67 L. T.
184 ; 40 W. E. 599
350
Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 746; 50 L. J.Ch.657 ; 44 L. T.
1;30W. E. 395
36,203,457
Wandsworth v. Golds, [1911] 1 K. B. 60 80 L. J. K. B. 126
103 L. T. 568 ; 74 J. P. 464
..
..
367
Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co. (1884), IS
Q. B. D. 904 53 L. J. Q. B. 449 51 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. E.
776; 48 J. P. 676..
170,545
Wanklyn v. Woollett (1847), 4 C. B. 86 72 E. E. 545
26
Wanstead Bd. v. Hill (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 479 ; 32 L. J. M. C.
135 9 Jur. N. S. 972; 7 L. T. 744 ; 11 W. E. 368 ..
..
589
Wanthier v. Wilson (1911), 27 T. L. E. 582
224
Warburton v. Huddersfield Industrial Soc, [1892] 1 Q. B. 817
61 L. J. Q. B. 422; 67 L. T. 43 ; 40 W. E. 346; 56 J. P.
453
590
v. Loveland (1828), Hud. & Bro. 623, Ir.
5
Ward, Be (1863), 32 L. J. Q. B. 53
142
V. Beck (1863), 13 C. B. N. S. 668; 32 L, J. C. P. 113 ; 9
Jur. N. S. 912
542,653
V.

Sheffield

(Mayor

of)

(1880),

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cxlv

PAOB

Ward V. Gray

&

34 L. J. M. C. 146 11 Jur.
N. S. 738 12 L. T. 305 ; 13 W. E. 653
V. Hobbs (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 150
47 L. J. Q. B. 90 37 L. T.
654 26 W. R. 151 and 4 App. Cas. 13 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 281
40L. T.73; 27 W. E. 114
i;. Scott (1812), 3 Camp. 284
Warden i;. Dean of St. Paul's (1817), 4 Price 65
V. Tye (1877), 2 C. P. D. 74; 46 L. J. M. C. Ill
35 L. T.
852
Wardsop (John), Ira <fee i;i(ife o/, [1917] P. 54
Warkworth, The (1884), 9 P. D. 145 ; 53 L. J. P. D. & A. 65
51 L. T. 558 33 W. E. 112 5 Asp. M. 0. 326
..
124,
Warne v. Beresford (1837), 2 M. & W. 848 6 L. J. Ex. 192 401,
r. Varley (1795), 6 T. E. 443
Warner v. Armstrong (1834), 3 M. & K. 45
208,
V. Murdoch (1877), 4 Ch. D. 750
46 L. J. Ch. 121 ; 35 L. T.
748 25 W. E. 207
Warrmgton, Exp. (1853), 3 De G. M. & G. 159 22 L. J. Bank.
33 17 Jur. 480 98 E. E. 95
V. Furbor (1807), 8 East 242 ; 6 Esp. 89
..
..
507,
Warwick t;. White (1722), Bunb. 106
Warwick Canal Co. v. Birmingham Canal Co. (1879), 48 L. J. Ex.
550
Washer v. Elliott (1876), 1 C. P. D. 169 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 144 ; 34
..
L. T. 56 24 W. E. 432
..
WaterfaU v. Penistone (1857), 6 E. & B. 876 26 L. J. Q. B. 100
3 Jur. N. S. 15 106 E. E. 841
Waterford Peerage, The (1832), 6 CI. & P. 133 ; 49 E. E. 55,
(1865), 6 B.

S.

345

98

719
157
575

361.

15

517
729
413
693

400

304
508
241

520
151

173

539
H. L
Waterhouse v. Keen (1825), 6 D. & E. 257 4 B. & C. 200 40
422
E. E. 858
Waterton v. Baker (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 173; 37 L. J. Q. B. 65
676,680
17L. T. 468
Watkins v. Major (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 662 44 L. J. M. C. 164
;

24 W. E. 164
182, 194
Watson, Be (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 27 59 L. J. Q. B. 394 63 L. T.
209,212
209; 38-W. E. 567; 7M. B. E. 155
644
iJe (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 85
10 Cox C. C. 56 ; 11
V. Martm (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 50
588
Jur. N. S. 321 ; 11 L. T. 372; 13 W. E. 144
Watton V. Watton (1866), L. E. 1 P. D. 227 35 L. J. P. & M. 95
404
14 L. T. 742 ; 15 W. E. 288
Watts V. Ainsworth (1862), 1 H. & C. 83 31 L. J. Ex. 448; 6
512
L. T. 252
..
388
Waugh V. Middleton (1853), 8 Ex. 352 22 L. J. Ex. Ill
..
..
695
Waymell v. Eead (1794), 5 T. E. 599 ; 2 E. E. 675
573
Weavers Co. u. Forrest (1746), 1 Stra. 1241
Webb, Be; Exp. Board of Trade (1914), 83 L. J. K. B. 1386 .. 227
33 L. T. 352

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

cxlvi

V. Bird (1862), 10 C. B. N, S. 268; 4 L. T. 445; 9 W. E.

899 and 13 C. B. N. S. 841 31 L. J. C. P. 335 8 Jur. N. S.

Webb

621

579

Pairmanner (1838), 3 M. & W. 473; 6 D. P. C. 549; 7

L.J. Ex. 140
V. Knight (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 530; 46 L. J. M. C. 264; 36

606

V.

107
26 W. E. 14
528
Manchester E. Co. (1839), 4 My. & C. 116 48 B. E. 28
Webster v. SoTithey (1887), 36 Oh. D. 9; 56 L. J. Ch. 785; 56
325, 638
L. T. 879; 35 W. E. 622; 52 J. P. 36
455
w. Webster (1858), 27 L. J. Ch. 115
Weeks v Wray (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 212 37 L. J. Q. B. 84 17
606
L. T. 498; 16 W. E. 399; 9B.&S. 62
369
Welch V. Nash (1807), 8 Bast 394 9 E. E. 478
Weldon v. De Bathe (1884), 14 Q. B. D. 339 54 L. J. Q. B. 113
402
53 L. T. 520 33 W. E. 328
53 L. J. Q. B. 528 51
V. Winslow (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 784
402
L. T. 643 33 W. E. 219
Welford w. Beazley (1747), 3 Atk. 503
512
Wellington (Mayor) v. Lower Hult (Mayor), [1904] A. C. 773 73
125
L. J. P. C. 80; 91 L. T. 539; 20T. L. E. 712
..
..
Wells V. Kingston-on-Hull Corporation (1875 ), 44 L. J. C. P. 257 ..
163
V. London and Tilbury By. Co. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 126; 87
502
L. T. 302 25 W. E. 325
i;. MoSherry,
684
[1914] 1 K. B. 616
3 Scott 141 2 Hodges
V. Porter (1836), 2 Biag. N. C. 722
42; 5L. J. C. P. 250
478
Welsh V. West Ham (Mayor), [1900] 1 Q. B. 324 69 L. J. Q. B.
114; 82 L. T. 262
612
Wemperis, ife, [1914] 1 Ch. 502
154
Wendon v. L. C. C, [1894] 1 Q. B. 812 63 L. J. M. C. 117 70
L. T. 94
58
Wenlook v. Eiver Dee Co. (1885), 10 A. C. 354, H. L
655
Wenman v. Lyon & Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 192 60 L. J. Q. B. 663
65 L. T. 136 39 W. E. 519
130
Werle v. Colquhoun (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 753 57 L. J. Q. B. 323
58 L. T. 756; 36 W. E. 618 52 J. P. 644
271
Wescomb's Case (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 110 19 L. T. N. S. 397 .. 117
West V. Francis (1822), 5 B. & Aid. 737 1 D. & E. 400 24 E. E.
541
178,290
V. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 15
80 L. J. Ch. 587 104 L. T.
759
92,382,385,393
West Derby Guardians v. Metro. Life Assurance, [1897] A. C.
647 66 L. J. Ch. 726 77 L. T. 284 61 J. P. 820, H. L. ..
284
West Ham v. Fourth City Bldg. Society, [1892] 1 Q. B. 654 60
L. J. M. C. 128 66 L. T. 350 40 W. E. 446
56 J. P.
488
281,296
West Ham Corporation v. G. E. Ey. Co. (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 340 520
West Ham Overseers v. lies (1883), 8 App. Cas. 386; 52
L. J. Q. B. 650 49 L, T. 206 31 W. E. 928 47 J. P. 708 ..
91
L. T. 791

V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP CASES.

CXlvii

West India Improvement Co. v. A.-G. of Jamaca, [1894] A. C.

243; 70L. T. 80
West India Telegraph Co. v. Home & Colonial Marine Insurance
Co. (1896), 65 L. J. Q. B. 616
v. Blythe (1854), 3 El. & Bl. 737
2 C. L. R. 1660 28
L. J. Q. B. 386 1 Jur. N. S. 85 97 R. E. 731
..
..
Westbury V. Coston (1703), 2 Salk. 532
Western Counties Ry. Co. v. Windsor & Annapolis Ry. Co.
(1882), 7 App Cas. 178
51 L. J. P. C. 43 46 L T. 351 ..
Western National Bank v. Perez, [1891] 1 Q. B. 304 60 L. J.
Q. B. 272 64 L. T. 543
39 W. E. 245
Western Suburban, &o.. Building Society v. Martin (1886), 17
Q. B. D. 609 55 L. J. Q. B. 882, C. A
Westerton v. Liddell (1857), reported by Moore 1 Jur. N. S. 1178
Westminster u. Gerrard (1621), 2 Bulst. 346
Westminster Council v. London C. C, [1902] 1 K. B. 326
71
L. J. K. B. 244 86 L. T. 53 ; 50 W. R. 429 ; 66 J. P. 199
;. Watson,
[1902] 2 K. B. 717
Westminster Fire Office v. Glasgow Provident Investment Co.
(1888), 13 A. C. 699
Westminster Vestry v. Hoskins, [1899] 2 Q. B. 474 ; 68 L. J.
Q. B. 840 81 L. T. 390 47 W. E. 649 63 J. P. 725
Westmore v. Paine, [1891] 1 Q. B. 482 60 L. J. M. C. 89 64
L. T. 55 ; 89 W. E. 463 55 J. P. 440 17 Cox C. C. 244
Westmoreland, The (1845), 2 W. Rob. 394
Westover v. Perkms (1859), 2 E. & E. 57 28 L. J. M. C. 227 248,
Wethered v. Calcutt (1842), 5 Scott N; R. 409 4 M. & G. 566
11 L. J. M. C. 123 6 Jur. 487 61 R. R. 606
82, 116,
Wetherell u. Jones (1832), 3 B. & Ad. 221
38 L. J. C. P.
Wetherfield'v. Nelson (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 571
220 ; 20 L. T. 366 ; 17 W. R. 651
Weymouth v. Nugent (1865), 6 B. & S. 22 34 L. J. M. C. 81 11
Jur. N. S. 465; 11 L. T. 672; 13 W. R. 338
Wheat V. Brown, [1892] 1 Q. B. 418 61 L. J, M. C. 94 66 L. T.
464 ; 40 W. R. 462 56 J. P. 153
Wheaton v. Maple & Co., [1893] 3 Ch. 48 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 963 69
L. T. 208 41 W. R. 677
Whidbome V. Eocles. Com. (1878), 7 Ch. D. 375; 47 L. J. Ch.
129; 37 L. T. 846
Whinney, Ex p. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 476 1 M. B. R. 185
Whistler v. Forster (1868), 14 C. B. N. S. 248 32 L. J. C. P. 161
8 L. T. 317 11 W. R.648
83 L. T. 449 49
Whitaker, Re, [1901] 1 Ch. 9 70 L. J. Ch. 6
W. R. 106
iJe, Whitaker ?;. Palmer, [1904] 1 Ch. 299
Whitchurch v. Fulham Board (1866J, L. E. 1 Q. B. 233 35 L. J.
M. C. 145 ; 14 W. E. 277 13 L. T. 631 12 Jur. N. S. 353
White, Ex p. (1864), 88 L. J. Bank. 22 10 Jur. N. S. 189 9 L. T.
702; 12 W. E. 390
Be, [1913] 1 Ch. 231

Westbrook

694

615

321
217
501

267
164
647
486

. .

86
247

113
113

684
151
549

. .

122
699

519

549

475

. .

252
157
477

351

174
174

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

229

385
146

TABLE OF OASES.

cxlviii

PASE

White

735

Boot

(1788), 2 T. B. 274
V. Feast (1872), L. B. 7 Q. B.
w.

L. T. 611 20 W. E. 382
V. Fellowes (see Whitehouse

353

41 L.

M.

J.

C. 81

26

180,288,645

Pellowes).
17. Pulham Vestry (1896), 74 L. T. 425
w. Granada SS. Co. (1896), 13 T. L. E. 1
44 L. J.
V. Hindley Loc. Bd. (1875), L. B. 10 Q. B. 219
Q.B. 114; 32L. T. 460; 23W. E. 651
68 L. J. Q. B. 702
80 L. T.
V. Morley, [1899] 2 Q. B. 34
761; 47 W.B. 583; 63 J. P. 550
32 L. J. C. P. 1 5 L. T.
V. Steel (1863), 12 C. B. N. S. 383
v.

367
368

726

523

155

449

Wright (1824), 3 B. & 0. 273

Whitechuroh v. E. London By. Co. (1873), L. E.

209

W.

7 Ex. 424

27

32
Smithers (1877), 2 C. P. D. 553 46 L. J. M. C. 234
290
37L. T. 378
Whitehouse v. Fellowes (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 780 30 L. J. C. P.
..
..
173, 611, 629
305 29 L. T. 168 21 W. E. 893
Whiteley v. Barley (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 154 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. 643
496
60 L. T. 86 36 W. B. 823 52 J. P. 595
38 L. J, M. C. 51 19
V. Chappell (1869), L. B. 4 Q. B. 147
470
L. T. 355 17 W. E. 175
, Heaton (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 217
295
45 L. J. Ch. 177; 33
Whitfield V. Langdale (1876), 1 Ch. D. 61
41
L. T. 592 24 W. B. 313
Whithorne v. Thomas (1845), 7 M. & Gr. 1 8 Soott N. S. 783 1
..117
Lut. Beg. Cas. 125 14 L. J. C. P. 38 8 Jur. 1008 ..
Whitley Partners, Re, Ex p. Callan (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 55 L. J.
Ch. 540; 54L. T. 912; 34W. E. 505, C. A. ..
..
..
69
Wigton V. Snaith (1851), 16 Q. B. 496 20 L. J. M. C. 110; 15
Jur. 346
406
Wilberforoe v. Hearfield (1877), 5 Ch. D. 709 46 L. J. Ch. 584
25 W.B. 861
157
Wild Banger, The (1862), IJ. & K. 180 9 Jur. N. S. 134 32 L. J.
Adm. 49 11 W. E. 255 7 L. T. 724
277
Wiley V. Crawford (1861), 1 B. & S. 253 80 L. J. Q. B. 319 7
Jur. N. S. 943 4 L. T. 653 9 W. B. 741
564, 692
Wilkes V. Hungerford Market Co. (1835), 2 Bing. N. C. 281
724
Wilkinson v. Calvert (1878), 3 C. P. D. 360 47 L. J. C. P. 679
38 L. T. 813 26 W. E. 829
604
V. Evans (1866), L. B. 1 C. P. 407
35 L. J. C. P. 224
12
Jur. N. S. 600 14 W. B. 963
1 H. & B. 552
..
..
513
Wilkinson's Settlement, Be, [1917] 1 Ch. 620
14
Williams, ^cB p. (1824), 13 Price 673
153
, Be (1853), 2 E. & B. 84
22 L. J. M. C. 125
95 E. E. 446 341
Williams and Stepney, He, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 60 L. J. Q. B. 636
65 L. T. 208 ; 39 W. B. 538
395
Williams u. Allen, [1916] 1 K. B. 425
186
L. T. 494

Whitehead

21

B. 28

v.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OP OASES.

oxlix

PAQB

Williams v. Burgess (1840), 12 A. & E. 635 4 P. & D. 348

9
D. P. C. 544; lOL. J. Q. B. 10
607
V. Byrnes (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. 0. N. S. 154, P.
511
y. Gary (1695), 4 Mod. Bep. 403; 12 Mod. 71
..449
..
-=
V. EUis (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 175
49 L. J. M. C. 47
42 L. T.
249 28 W. E. 416 44 J. P.. 394
71,481,578
V, Evans (1875), L. E. 19 Eq. 547
44 L. J. Ch. 319
32
L. T. 359 23 W. E. 466
454
V.
(1876), 1 Ex. D. 277
35 L. T. 864 ..
..
482,497
V. aolding (1865), L. E. 1 0. P. 69
35 L. J. G. P. 1 11 Jur.
N. S. 51
13 L. T. 291
14 W. E. 60
586
V. Q. W. Ey. Go. (1874), 10 Ex. 16
102 E. E. 449 ..
..
526
V. Harding (1866), L. E. 1 H. L. 9; 85 L. J. Bey. 25
12
Jur. N. S. 457
389,398
1!. Hathaway (1877), 6 Gb. D. 544
288
. Jones (1811), 12 East 346; 11 E. E. 411 ..
116
..
..
V. Jordan (1877), 6 Gh. D. 517
46 L. J. Gh. 681 26 W. E.
230
511
V. Lake (1859), 2 E. & E. 349
29 L. J. Q. B. 1 6 Jur. N. S.
45; IL. T. 56
511,513
V. Lear (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 285
41 L. J. M. G. 76
25
L. T. 906
542
V. Lords of Admiralty (1851), 11 G. B. 424
617
V. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232
138
21 W. E. 386
V. North's Navigation GoUieries, [1904] 2 K. B. 44
73 L. J.
K. B. 575; 91 L. T. 3; 52 W. E. 564; 68 J. P. 371
20
T. L. E. 448, C. A
188
0.
(1906), 75 L. J. K. B. 334
201,202
V. Pritohard (1790), 4 T. E. 2
2 E. E. 310 ..
..
317, 527
V. Eoberts (1852), 7 Exch. 618
22 L. J. Ex. 61
369
V. Eose (1867), L. E. 3 Ex. 5
37 L. J. Ex. 12 17 L. T. 253
16W. E. 316
358
V. Smith (1859), 4 H. & N. 559
28 L. J. Ex. 286
5 Jur.
N. S. 1107; 118 E.E. 611
890
V. Swansea Navigation Ganal Go. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 158
37L. J. Ex. 107
656,664
. Wheeler (1860), 8 G. B. N. S. 299
278
Williamson v. Maggs (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 5
28
V. Norris, [1899] I Q. B. 7
68 L. J. Q. B. 31 79 L. T. 415
111,177
47 W. E. 94; 62 J. P. 790; 19 0. C. G. 203 ..
..
Willion V. Berkley (1562), Plow. 223 11 Eep. 72a.
..
244, 252
Willis u. Brown (1839), 10 Sim. 127
456
87
V. Gipps (1846), 5 Moo. P. 0. 379, P.
V. Howe (Earl), [1893] 2 Gh. 545
62 L. J. Gh. 690 69 L. T.
12
358; 41 W. E. 433
44 L, J. Q. B. 137 33
V. Thorp (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 383
587
L. T. 11 23 W. B. 780
V. Wells, [1892] 2 Q. B. 225
67 L. T.
61 L. J. Q. B. 606
164,239
316; 41 W.E. 64; 56 J. P. 775
;

. .

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

Cl

PAGE

&

2 C. L. B. 677 18 Jur.
300
518 23 L. J. Q. B. 281 97 R. R. 654
Willock V. Noble (1875), L. R. 7 H. L. 580 ; 44 L.J. Ch. 345 32
157
L. T. 419; 23 W. R. 809
Wilson, Re (1878), 8 Ch. D. 364
47 L. J. Bank. 116; 38 L. T.
349
730 26 W. R. 582
388
V.
[1916] 1 K. B. 382
u. Halifax (1868), L.R. 3 Ex. 114; 37 L.J. Ex.44; 17 L. T.
134,413,574
660 16 W. R. 707
89, 90, 449, 453
3 Smith 123
V. Knubley (1806), 7 East 128
53 R. B. 104 111
1 B. & P. 430
V. Marryat (1798), 8 T. R. 31
15 L. J.
10 Jur. 917
V. Nightingale (1846), 8 Q. B. 1034
55
Q. B. 309; 70R. R. 727
6 B. & S.208 11 Jur.
V. Rankin (1865), L. R. 1 Q. B. 162
N. S. 173 34 L. J. Q. B. 62 13 W. R. 404 12 L. T. 20 and
..
694
..
85L. J. Q. B. 203; 14W. R. 198; 13L. T. 664
229
2 B. R. 51 5
V. Rastall (1792), 4 T. R. 757
24 L. J. Q. B. 185
1
V. Robertson (1855), 4 E. & B. 923
222
Jur. N. S. 755 ; 99 R. R. 827
34
V. West Hartlepool Co. (1865), 2 De G. J. & S. 475
455,654
L. J. Ch. 241
23 L. J. Ch. 697 101
V. Wilson (1854), 5 H. L. Cas. 40
444
R R 25
Wimbledon Local Board v. Underwood, [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 61
169
L. J. Q. B. 484 67 L. T. 55 40 W. R. 640 56 J. P. 633
154
Wimperis, 5e, [1914] 1 Ch. 502
Winch V. Thames Conservators (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 878 43
634
L. J. C. P. 167 31 L. T. 128 22 W. E. 879
539
Windsor & Annapolis By. v. B. (1886), 11 A. G. 607, P. C.
..
24
Wingfield I). Wingfield, [1919] 1 Ch. 462
39 L. T.
V.
(1878), 9 Ch. D. 658 47 L. J. Ch. 768
559
227;26W.E.711
Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), 10 M.. & W. 109 11 L. J. Ex.
368
415
582
Wiseman . Gotten (1663), 1 Lev. 79
Wlthington Loc. Bd. v. Manchester, [1893] 2 Gh. 19 62 L. J. Ch.
..
589
..
393 ; 68 L. T. 330 41 W. B. 306 57 J. P. 340
568
Withipole's Case (1628), Cro. Car. 134
Withnell v. Gartham (1795), 6 T. B. 388 1 Esp. 323 3 B. B.
541
218
Wixon V. Thomas, [1911], 1 K. B. 43 80 L. J. K. B. 104 103
247
L. T. 730; 75 J. P. 58 8 L. G. E. 1042
AVoking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act, 1911, He
76
(1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 201
Wolton?). Gavin (1850), 16 Q. B. 48; 20 L. J. Q. B. 73 15 Jur.
666
329

Willmot

V.

Rose

(1854), 3 El.

Bl. 563

.....
;

v. Hawksford (1859), 11 C. B.N. S.

31 L. J. G. P. 184 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 844 6 L. T. 618
..
Be (1872), L. B. 7 Gh. 302 41 L. J. Banlc. 21 26 L. T.

Wolverhampton Waterworks
456

Wood,

113; 20 W. B. 403

Digitized

669

570

by Microsoft

TABLE OF OASES.

cli

PAGE

Wood

V. Boosey (1868), L. R. 2 Q. B. 340

7 B. & S. 869 36
L. J. Q. B. 103 15 L. T. 530 ; 15 W. K. 309 and L. R. 3
Q. B. 223; 9 B. & S. 175; 37 L. J. Q. B. 84 18 L. T. 105
;

16W.

R. 485

651

Burgess (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 162 59 L. J. M. C. 11 6i

L. T. 593 38 W. R. 381 54 J. P. 325 16 Cox 729
195
9 Jur. 796 68 R. R. 590
V. Dixie (1845), 7 Q. B. 892
..
376
V. Priestner (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 66, 282
36 L. J. Ex. 127 41, 43
V. RUey (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. 26
37 L. J. C, P. 24 17
L. T. 216 16 W. R. 146
780
Woodall, Exp. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 832 57 L. J. M. C. 71 59
134
L. T. 841 36 W. R. 655 52 J. P. 581
Woodgate v. Godfrey (1880), 5 Ex. D. 24 49 L. J. Ex. 1 42
212
L. T. 34 28 W. E. 816
Woodhouse v. Woods (1860), 29 L. J. M. 0. 149 6 Jur. N. S.
421;1L. T. 59
655,674,675
Woodward v. Lond. & N. W. Ry. Co. (1878), 3 Ex. D. 121 47
578
L. J. Ex. 263 38 L. T. 321 26 W. R. 354
- V. Sarsons (1875), L. E. 10 C. P. 733 44 L. J. C. P. 293
663
32L. T. 867
17 Jur. 790 22 L. J. M. C.
V. Watts (1853), 2 E. & B. 452
21
149; 95R. R. 638
878
Woolf . HamUton, [1898] 2 Q. B. 887, C. A
WooUord's Trustee v. Levy, [1892] 1 Q. B. 772 61 L. J. Q. B.
..
..
473
546 66 L. T. 812 40 W. R. 483 56 J. P. 694
WooUey v. Kay (1856), 1 H. & N. 307 25 L. J. Ex. 351 108
496
E. E. 584
Woolverton Estates, Be (1878), L. R. 7 Ch. D. 197 47 L. J. Oh.
43
127 37 L. T. 578 26 W. R. 188
Woolwich V. Fulham, [1906] 2 K. B. 240 75 L. J. K. B. 680
71 J. P.
[1907] A, C. 255 76 L. J. K. B. 739 97 L. T. 117
486
361 5 L. G. R. 801
Worcester v. Droitwich (1876), 2 Ex. D. 49 46 L. J. M. C. 241
366
36 L. T. 186 25 W. R. 336
Worcester Banking Co. v. Firbank & Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 784 63
..
..
267
L. J. Q. B. 542 70 L. T. 443 42 W. R. 402
Worcestershire C. C. v. Worcester Union, [1897] 1 Q. B. 480 66
247
L. J. Q. B. 323 76 L. T. 138 45 W. R. 309 61 J. P. 244
Worley v. St. Mary Abbot's, [1892] 2 Ch. 404 61 L. J. Ch. 601
58
66 L. T. 747 40 W. R. 566
Worms V. De Valdor (1880), 49 L. J. Ch. 261 41 L. T. 791 28
256
W. R. 346
Wray v. Ellis (1858), 1 E. & E. 276 28 L. J. M. C. 45 117 E. R.
328
208
Wright, Be (1856), 2 K. & J. 595 25 L. J. Ch. 621 2 Jur. N. S.
106
465
269
Ee (1855), 11 Ex. 458 25 L. J. Ex. 49
32 L. J. M. C. 204
V. Frant Overseers (1863), 4 B. & S. 118
424
10 Jur. N. S. 39 8 L. T. 455 11 W. R. 883
V.

. .

Digitized

by Microsoft

. .

TABLE OF CASES.

chi

PASB

Wright
N.
V.

V.

Greenroyd

S.

98;

Hale

5L.

(1861), 1 B.
T. 847

Horton

L. T. 782
V.

L. J. Ex. 40

W.

8 Jur,

6 Jur. N. S.

9W.

400,403
E. 157
App. Cas. 371 56 L. J. Ch. 873; 56
..
669, 698
E. 17 52 J. P. 179, H. L.

(1887), 12

36

31 L. J. Q. B. 4

394

H. & N. 227

(1860), 6

1212; 3L. T. 444;

V.

& S. 758

M.

Ingle (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 379 55 L. J.

W. E. 220; 50 J. P. 436
;

C. 17

54 L. T.

487
621
Legge (1815), 6 Taunt. 48
46
V. London General Omnibus Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D, 271
L. J. Q. B. 429 36 L. T. 590 25 W. E. 647
..
..
362
!). Maunder (1841), 4 Beav. 512
668
V. Mills (1859), 4 H. & N. 488
28 L. J. Ex. 223 5 Jur.
610
N. S. 771 118 E. E. 566
46 L. J.
V. Monarch Investmt. Soc. (1877), 5 Ch. D. 726
164,238
Ch. 649
38 L. J. Q, B. 213
V. Pearson (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 582
20 L. T. 849 17 W. E. 1099 10 B. & S. 723
..
..
603
V. Williams (1836), 1 M. & W. 77
1 Tyr. & G. 375
1 Gale
410 46 E. E. 265
17,406
Wrightup V. Greenaore (1847), 10 Q. B. 1 16 L. J. Q. B. 246 .. 313
Wroughton v. Turtle (1843), 11 M. & W. 561 1 D. & L. 473 13
L.J. Ex. 57
506
Wyatt^. Barwell (1815), 19 Ves. 439; 13E. E. 236
..
..
456
62 L. J. M. C. 158 69 L. T.
V. Gems, [1893] 2 Q. B. 225
456 42 W. E. 28 57 J. P. 665
336
V. G. W. Ey. Co. (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 204 ..
..
635, 636
V. Metrop. B. of Works (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 744
31 L, J.
C. P. 217
621
Wynne t. Middleton (1745), 1 Wils. K. B. 125
501
511; 34
v.

Y.

Yarmouth

Simmons

(1878), 10 Ch. D. 518

47 L. J. Ch. 792
;
26 W. E. 802
282, 502
Yates, Be (1888), 38 Ch. D. 112 57 L. J. Ch. 697 ; 59 L. T. 47
174
36W. E. 563
44 W. E.
V. Higgins, [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 ; 65 L. J. M. C. 31
474
335; 60 J. P. 88
54 L. J. Q. B. 258; 52 L. T.
V. E. (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 648
305 33 W. E. 482 ; 49 J. P. 436
363, 568
Ydun, The, [1899] P. 236 68 L. J. P. 101 ; 81 L. T. 10 8 Asp.
M. C. 651
400,413
Yeadon Loo. Bd. v. Yeadon Waterworks (1888), 41 Ch. D. 52 58
L. J. Ch. 563 60 L. T. 550; 37 W. E. 360
444
Yearwood's Trusts, Be (1877), 5 Ch. D. 545; 46 L. J. Ch. 478;
25W. E. 461
296
Yewens v. Noakes (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 535; 50 L. J. Q. B. 132; 44
43
L. T. 128 28 W. R. 562 45 J. P. 468
v.

38 L. T. 881

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF CASES.

York and N. Midland Ey. Co. v. R.

690
444

22 L.

York (Dean

.J.

Q. B. 225

(1853),

i_
1 !E1.

cliii

PAGE

& Bl. 858

7 Eailway Cas. 459

Middlesburgh (1828), 2 Y. &

17 Jur.

93 R. R.

10,436

..

of) v.

214

J. 196,

31

E. R. 566
84
York's (Dean of) Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 57 R. R. 545 ..
..
52
Yorkshire Railway Wagon Co. v. Maclure (1882), 21 Ch. D. 309;
51 L. J. Ch. 857; 47 L. T. 290; 30 W. R. 761
..
..
224
Youle V. Mappin (1861), 30 L. J. M. C. 234 ; 6 H. (S? N. 753
334
Young V. Adams, [1898] A. C. 469 67 L. J. P. C. 75 78 L. T.
506
9, 382, 395
V. Billiter (1860), 6 E. & B. 1
25 L. J. Q. B. 169
2 Jur.
N. S. 438 ; 8 H. L. Cas. 682
375,377
V. Davis (1863), 7 H. & N. 760
31 L. J. Ex. 250
8 Jur.
N. S. 286 ; 6 L. T. 363 ; 10 W. R. 524 and 2 H. & C. 177 8
Jur. N. S. 79 9 L. T. 145
11 W. R. 735
725
V. Gratridge (1868), L. R. 4 Q. B. 166
38 L. J. M. C. 67 ..
594
;'
V. Higgon (1840), 6 M. & W. 49 ; 8 D. P. C. 212
9 L. J.
605,606
M. C. 29
V. Hughes (1859), 4 H. & N. 76
28 L. .T. Ex. 161
5 Jur.
N. S. 101 32 L. T. O. S. 259; 118 R. R. 337
..
382, 394
51 L. J.
V. Leamington (Mayor) (1882), 8 App. Cas. 527
369, 542654
Q. B. 297
52 L. J,
V. Royal Leamington Spa (1883), 8 App. Cas. 517
..
671
Q. B. 713 ; 49 L. T. 1 31 W. E. 925 47 J. P. 660
Ystradyfodwg, &o. Sewerage Board v. Benstead, [1906] 1 K. B.
;

. .

294

171

Z.

Zalinoff v. Hammond, [1898] 2 Ch. 92 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 370

78
L. T. 456
47
Zeta, The, [1893] App. Cas. 468
53 L. J. P. 17
63 L. T. 630;
244
57J. P. 660
244
Zeus, The (1888), 13 P. D. 188
Zollverein, The (1856), Swab. 90 2 Jur. N. S. 429
..
257, 263,
272, 279
607
Zouch V. Empsey (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 522
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.
9 Hen. III., Magna Charta ..
..
20 Hen. III., Merton
..
..
52 Hen. III., Marlbridge
..
..
3 Ed. I., Westminster 1
..
..
6 Ed. I., Gloucester
..
..
..
13 Ed. I., Westminster 2
..
..
circumspecte agatis
..
21 Ed. I., de malefactoribus in parois
17 Ed. II. c. 10, de prerogativa regis
4 Ed. III. st. 1, o. 6, amendments ..

..

..

..

..

..64,145,4(39
..

253,616

253 601
45l' 533
..
..
..
449 452
49, 153, 252, 451, 602,' 715
..
..
..
..
452
515
143 144
..
..
..
.,
250
o. 7, trespass
..
..
..
..
..
449
25 Ed. III. St. 4, c. 4, weirs
64
st. 5, c. 2, treason
..
..
..
,,
..
479
c. 22, provisors
..
..
..
..
..
ge
42 Ed. III. 0. 1, confiiination of charters ..
..
..
..
459
..
1 Bich. II. c. 12, prisoners
..
..
..
..
..
451
..
6 Rich. II. c. 2, venue
..
..
..
..
..
459
c. 5, justices
662
15 Rich. II. c. 3, admiralty
534
16 Rich. II. c. 5, prsemunire
..
..
..
..
..
96
5 Hen. IV. c. 10, jail
451

13 Hen. IV. c. 7, suppression of riots

..
660
2 Hen. V. c. 3, jurors
448
0. 4, justices
661
3 Ed. rV. c. 4, imports
727
3 Hen. VII. c. 4, fraudulent conveyance
376
6 Hen. VIII. c. 6, procedendo
534
21 Hen. VIII. c. 13, clergy
176,709
22 Hen. VIII. c. 5, bridges
115
..
..
26 Hen. VIII. 0. 14, suffiagan bishops
..
.,
739
27 Hen. VIII. 0. 10, uses
63, 573
0. 20,
305
28 Hen. VIII. c. 11, clergy
309
..
..
..
..
c. 14, wines
..
..
545
32 Hen. VIII. c. 1, wills
156
c. 9, land
309
..
..
c. 28, discontinuances
..
..
253
84 & 35 Hen, VIII. c. 5, will
156,157
.

Digitized

. .

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clvi

I'AOE

545
282
157, 466, 467
'..
536
250
..
.0. 16, sale of offices
479, 709
c. 25, public-house
354
..
1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 12, distress
83, 106
4 & 5 Ph. & M. o. 8, abduction
291
..
1 Eliz. c. 1, supremacy
536
..
0. 2, recusants
15. 376
..
5 Eliz. c. 4, apprentice
..
657
..
c. 23, writ de contumace capiendo ..
112, 145, 376
13 Eliz. c. 5, fraudulent odnveyance
428
c. 7, bankrupts
c. 10, ecclesiastical leases
253, 298, 313, 317, 375, 600
224
c. 20, benefice
317,318
14 Eliz. c. 11, ecclesiastical leases
317
18 Eliz. c. 11, ecclesiastical leases
736
28 Eliz. 0. 2, witchcraft (Irish)
534
31 Eliz. c. 5, penal action
253
o. 6, simony ..
477
c. 12, accessories

37 Hen. VIII. o. 17, ecclesiastical jurisdiction

88 Hen. VIII., Diike of Norfolk's attainder
1 Ed. VI. 0. 12, horse-stealing
5 & 6 Ed. VI. c. 1, prayer-book

..

"

39 Eliz.

c. 5,

hospitals

43 Eliz.

c. 2,

poor

156
71, 100, 154, 229, 246, 287, 521,

charitable uses
6, costs

c. 4,
c.

1 Jac. I. c. 11,
c. 15,

3 Jac.

I. c. 10,

572, 662, 706, 710

52, 448, 544
312, 730

bigamy

..

257'

422, 428

bMikrupt
conveyance of felons

c. 12, fish

..

7 Jac. I. 0. 12, shop books

21 Jac. I. 0. 16, limitations

..

86
581
544

29, 30, 68, 69, 264, 289, 302, 312,

313, 391, 397, 408, 455, 458, 571, 678

0. 19,

bankrupt

16 Car. I. c. 10, petition of right

12 Car. II. c. 17, clergy
13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, uniformity
c. 12, poor
22 & 23 Car. II. o. 1, Coventry Act

..

0. 9, costs'
c. 25,

25 Car. II.
29 Car. II.

31 Car. II.

W. & M.
2 W. & M.
1

o. 2, tests

game
..

..

'

0. 3,

Statute of Frauds

c. 7,

Sunday Observance
Habeas Corpus

c. 2,

c. 18,
0. 5,

toleration

49, 69, 70, 250, 272, 384, 454,

511, 514, 515, 575

2,378,584

..

landlord and tenant

Digitized

86
291
158
50, 536
287, 331, 425, 707
468
312
581, 601
20

by Microsoft

..55,

159
352
300, 450, 679

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clvii

PAGE

2
3
3
4
7

W. & M. c. 8, swine
W. & M. 0. 14, debt
& 4 W. & M. c. 11, poor ..
& 5 W. & M. 0. 20, judgments
& 8 Will. III. c. 25, conveyances
c. 35,

..

165, 374

304

blasphemy
pubUc stores

330, 737

WiU.

11

&
& 5 Anne,
& 6 Anne,

11

&

28
.'.

41,
III. c. 17, lottery
c. 23, larceny
12 Will. III. c. 7, piracy
c.

10

381

Quakers

o. 35,

9 Will. III.

330
89

e.

c. 14,

game

c. 16,

brokers

7 Anne,

c. 12,

ambassadors

8 Anne,

29,30,264
190,492
64,697
205, 264

16, limitations

6 Anne,

c.

..

321, 456

20, registration

c. 7,

customs

480
537

..

taxation
19, copyright

c. 14,
c.

9 Anne,

c. 14,

gaming

mandamus

10 Anne,
12 Anne,

c. 2,

church

I Geo. I.

usury

..

st. 2, c. 5, riot

st. 2, c. 13,

I. c. 8,

Papist

20,552

..

poor

c. 27, artificers

6 Geo.

I. c. 18,

7 Geo. I.

9 Geo.

49
352
353
303
468

..

exercise of trades

c. 14,

st. 2, c. 16,

5 Geo.

274,716
716
372,559

c. 10, post-office
e. 20,

0. 21,

I. c. 7,

Bubble Act
bottomry

appeal

c. 22,

..

..

Black Act

188
712
729
176

..

10 Geo. I. c. 4, Papist
5 Geo. II. c. 20, pilotage
7 Geo. II. c. 8, stock-jobbing
..
8 Geo. II. c. 13, copyright
9 Geo. II. 0. 36, mortmain
10 Geo. II. c. 31, apprentice ..
II Geo. II. c. 19, distress
12 Geo. II. o. 29, quarter sessions
18 Geo. II. 0. 18, certiorari
14 Geo. II. c. 6, cattle stealing
17 Geo. II. 0. 3, poor rate
c. 38, poor
18 Geo. II. c. 20, justices
19 Geo. II. 0. 22, harbours
..
20 Geo. II. c. 19, apprentice
23 Geo. II. c. 13, artificers
24 Geo, II, c, 44, justices
.

67
338
64
295
19
832,615
552
359
478
..
146, 480, 650, 651
144, 214, 221, 325, 384, 573
689

198,587,714

..

'.'.

'..

81,

668
248
602
28
145, 287, 312
21,665
335
585
333

"284,308,606
11

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clviii

25 Geo. II.
26 Geo. II.

wills
..
c. 14, fees at sessions
c. 33, clandestine marriages
32 Geo. II. c. 28, arrest
2 Geo. III. c. 19, game
5 Geo. III. c. 14, fish
6 Geo. III. c. 19, gloves
25,

c.

12 Geo. III.

master and servant

Boyal marriages

o. 11,

24, destroying stores

o.

61, gunpowder
III. c. 78, fire insurance
III. c. 30, deer
III. c. 26, annuities
o.

14 Geo.
16 Geo.
17 Geo.

PAGE
81

e. 6,

21 Geo. III.
22 Geo. III.

c.

50, auction

duty

c.

56, larceny

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

109,362
410
492
480
334
260
..

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

..

332
105,582
.

..

c. 70,

East India Company

c. 75,

Colonial Offices

..
83, poor relief
23 Geo. III. c. 58, stamps
..
..
25 Geo. III. c. 51, post-horse duties
26 Geo. III. c. 71, slaughter-house

107, poor
44, ecclesiastical courts
c. 48, apprentice
c. 13, date of Acts
c. 54, friendly societies

. .

. .

. .

..

..

..

. .

III. c. 54, conspiracy

..
III. c. 101, poor
III. c. 52, legacy duty
III. c. 123, oaths
III. c. 5, land tax
c. 60, land tax
39 Geo. III. c. 34, game
39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99, pawnbrokers
42 Geo. III. c. 90, militia
43 Geo. III. c. 59, bridge

34 Geo.
35 Geo.
36 Geo.
37 Geo.
38 Ge9.

44 Geo. III.
47 Geo. III.
48 Geo. III.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

77,740

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

c. 68,

coals

c. 55,

house tax

106, expired Acts

c. 143, hcenoe duties
50 Geo. III. c. 41, hawkers ..
..
51 Geo. III. c. 36, justices
52 Geo. III. i;. 93, taxes
53 Geo. III. c. 127, justices
o.

Digitized

311
550

287,312,420

..

..

..

c.

conveyancer

..

..

o.

c. 98,

373
596
359
87
145
507
240,566
737
78
..
161
690
.

c.

c.

84, benefices
99, distress
c. 108, church
e. 161, duties

737
581

85,86

c.

27 Geo. III.
28 Geo. III.
33 Geo. III.

664
106

270
84
99
99
410
693,700
78
430
..
609
..
236
318
..
542
..
697
696

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

by Microsoft

71
741
300
322
665
67'0

286

TABLE OF STATUTES.
53 Geo. III.

c. 141,

annuities

t. 159,

shipowner

c.

160, doctrine of the Trinity

justices
..

54 Geo. III.

o. 84,

55 Geo. III.

c.

c. 1.'59,

c.
c.

56 Geo. III.

clix

harbours

137, poor
184, stamps ..
194, apothecaries

c. 50,

farm stock

excise
57 Geo. III. c. xxix, paving
0. GO, court of Exchequer
c. 93, distress
c. 99, clergy
59 Geo. III. c. 46, appeal of murder
c. 58,

c. 50,

poor

foreign enlistment
Geo. IV. c. 117, larceny
1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 18, witchcraft
3 Geo. IV. c. 89, warrant of attorney
o. 69,

c.

71, cruelty

c.

126, turnpikes

4 Geo. IV.

master and servant

76, marriage

c. 34,

c.

95, turnpikes
..
83, vagrants
c. 84, felon
c. 97, artificers
o. 113, slave trade
0.

5 Geo. IV.

6 Geo. IV.

c.

c.

&

..

c. 57,

settlement

c.

125, pilots
46 joint-stock

57,
8 Geo. c. 27,
c. 28,
c. 29,
c. 30,
c.

bankruptcy
false verdict

c.

7 Geo. IV.

16,

c. 50,

..

66,69

..

banks

insolvents ..
criminal statutes
criminal law
false pretences
riot

66,96,

..

..

..

332^477,

..

..

83,

,.

.,

..

71, arrest
0. Ixxv, watermen
c.

9 Geo. IV.

c. 14,
o.

c.
c.

o.
o;

c.
c.

10 Geo. IV.

23,
31,
40,
60,
61,
69,
74,

0.

limitation

bankers

murder at sea
lunatic prisoner
corn ..
public-house

..

game

criminal law
7, Eoman Catbolio relief

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clx

PAGE

10 Geo. IV.
11 Geo. IV.

163,164

friendly societies
1 Will. IV. c. 47, debt

0. 56.

&

beer
64, beer

c. 51,
c.

c. 68, carriers
c. 70,

fe

2 Will. IV.
2

&

procedtire

poor
o. 22, evidence
..
..
2 Will. IV. c. 22, backney carriage

1 Will. IV.

89
301
300, 301, 321, 322, 479, 480

22, 23, 367, 419

..
..

..

..

..

..

&

253,307
161

c. 18,

c.

430
566
..182,353,410,479,492,581,601
0.32, game ..
c. 37, Truck Act
137,138,201
..
624
c. 41, special constables
.,
..
..
c. 58, interpleader
..
..
..
250
..
..
c. Ixxvi, coal ..
..
469
..
.,
..
..
518
33, land suits
..

..

c 45, representation of the people

3 Will. IV. c. 71, prescription ..
..

..

..

..

..

63,71,590

16, 17, 55, 323,

87,

578

100, tithes
297
c. 120, stage carriages
..
..
..
240,566
4 Will. IV. c. 15, dramatic copyright ..
..
135
..
..
c. 27, limitations
159,297,302
c. 42, limitations
29, 30, 142, 302, 402, 403, 458, 583
0.

..

customs
..
..
..
..
356
.,
and recoveries 160, 285, 320, 321, 443, 648
0. 90, poor
591
c. 98, usury
303,304
c. 105, dower
52, 55, 56
4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 36, 0. C. Court
537
c. 76, poor
..
..
33,98,298,625,639,660,686
c. 82, stock
518
5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 41, bankrupt securities ..
..
372, 541, 542
c. 50, highways
100, 103, 125, 189, 229 284, 308,
340, 424, 481, 496, 566, 691, 725
c. 54, prohibited degrees
..
..
101, 260, 261
c. 63, weights and measures
196, 259, 482
0. 76, municipal corporations
.. 127, 136, 155, 483,
577, 597, 660
0. 83, patent
..
..
..
..
..
389
6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 56, Scotland, process
736
c. 71, tithes
157,622
0. 76, newspaper stamps
..
..
..
..
606
c. 53,

c. 74, fines

0. 86,

registration

..

..

..

..

0. 96,

assessment

..

..

..

.,

c. c,

7 Will. IV.

&2

Vict.

&

1 Vict.

shippmg
..
26, wills
c. 45, parish notices
0. 85, injuries

special constables
106, clergy
..

Digitized

707

108,361
559
..
28
..
582
..
640

14, 127, 156, 456, 514,

c.

c. 80,
c.

..

69, 70, 666

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

by Microsoft

..

309,609,656,709

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxi
PAGE

&2

Vict. c. 110, insolvents

2 & 3 Vict.

0. 11,

e, 37,

judgments
usury

..

..

65, 112, 146, 286, 297, 321,

324, 418, 579, 668

..

..

poUce

&4

Vict. c.
c.
0.
c.
0.
c.

&

5 Vict. c.
5 Vict. c. 27,
5 & 6 Vict. 0.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

.,

..

..

. .

61, beer
66, admiralty ..
..
85, cliimneys
86, church discipline ..
48, corporations
..
ecclesiastical leases
^.
14, com duties
.

..

..

..

..

..

551
313
493
286
..
..
223, 544, 555
364,575
..
131, 651
427
507
184
..
..
..
326
..
70, 136, 710
..
507
..

lunatic prisoner

..

..

..

income tax

..

..

..

..

c. 39,

factors

c. 45,

copyright

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

sessions
..
18, registration

&

7 Vict.

c.

c. 36,
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
c.

&8

Vict. c.
c.
c.
c.
c.
0.

c.
0.

&

9 Vict.

o.
o.
c.
o.

exemption from rating

66, cognovit actionem

68, plays
73, attorneys
..
76, extradition ..
86, hackney coaches ..
96, Campbell's Act (libel)
12, copyright
15, factories
..
24, engrossing ..
29, game
..
84, metropolis .
..
96, insolvency ..
101, poor
110, companies
16, companies clauses
18, lands clauses

20,raUways
84, customs

..

..
100, lunatics
c. 106, real property
c. 109, wagers
10 Vict. c. 66, poor removal
c. 93, fatal accidents
c. 95, county courts

c.

&

Digitized

431,432

..

o. 35,

c. 95,

401
306

..

c, 22,

54, tithes
0. 79, stamps
c. 93, adulteration

272
..
812,730
735
..
230,669

..

c.

29
303

127, 327, 331, 581

slave trade ..
24, costs
54, lunatic prisoner

c. 73,

..

..

331,332,565,581,591

0.47, police
0. 71,

..

..

..

..

..

..

35,378
211

402,438,713
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

122
566
211
651
..
307,494
736
..
547
..
306
..
104
..

..

..

18,258,275,625
440,690
..

202, 316, 373, 440, 654

245,325
104,131,712

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

356
187

310,319,569
198,385,559,692
99
..

..

by Microsoft

..

261,275,316
238,288,643

TABLE OF STATUTES,

elxii

PAGE

10

&

11 Vict.

gasworks
27, harbours

c. 15,
c.

102, insolvency
12 Vict. c. 21, India
c. 42, justices
c. 43, justices ..
c.

11

&

& 13

public health

103, poor

c. 106,

&

14 Vict;

14

&

15

& 16

c. 5,

..

252, 289, 898, 534, 538, 614

.,

..

..

..

..

..

c.

61,

c.

97,

IS.Vict. c. 36,
Vict.

c.

c.

17 Vict.

c.
0.

27
428
347,589,594,658,667,
670, 671
241, 287, 288
..

..

.-

..

..

..

..

..

66, 79, 357, 877, 888, 494, 567,

Church

..

..

..

of Ireland

county court
76, common law procedure
86 Chancery
30, vexatious indictments ..
..
..
34, income tax

54,

lodging-house
51, succession duty

59, cheque
c. 96, lunatics

c.

..

..
..

c.
c.
c.

c.

17

&

18 Vict.

..

107, customs
119, betting-houses
128, smoke
187, charitable trusts

c. 31,

18 & 19 Vict.

c.

c,

271,544
132,133
97,102,218,270
..

598,600
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

Digitized

495

64, 111, 181, 182, 151, 199,

265, 268, 811, 416,
522, 548, 563, 569,
653, 677, 691, 722
..
. .

..

..

..

by Microsoft

..

516

23, 24, 28, 65, 141

48, cinque ports

..

827
474

209,481

120, merchants shipping ..

125, common law procedure

118, public-houses

189
587

46,416
120,121,178,197,212,379

railways

..
36, bills of sale
c. 88, gaming
c. 60, animals ..
..
c. 90, usury
c. 102, corrupt practices
c. 104, merchant shipping

c.

..

201
652
272

o.

c.

..

310
116
318
730
27, 28, 401, 404
105
200
..
..
..

..

898
576
666
522

428,680,730

county courts
stamps ..
house duty

c. 41,
c.

79,249,289,312
..18,361,474
262,557

mutiny

60. trustees

c.

&

..

..

bankruptcy

c.

o. 71,

16

..

..

c. 123, nuisances
Vict. e. 45, sessions
c. 92, cruelty to animals
0. 96, high seas
c.

18

..

..

19

44, county court

o. 45, companies

12

..

..

426,603

c.

c. 63,

..

97,335
175
418

..

..

665
294

TABLE OF STATUTES.
18

& 19

Vict.

c.

120, metropolis

management

clxiii

TABLE OP STATtTEg.

clxlv

PAaK

25

& 26

Vict.

merchant shipping

c.

63,

0.

68, copyright

..

c. 86,

lunacy

c. 87,

friendly societies

companies

c.

89,

0.

102, metropolis

o.'lOS,

assessment

..

..65,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

124, 131, 276

60
305
731

59, 103, 130, 202, 249, 316, 555, 592,

619, 622, 669, 690, 698

management

57, 58, 285, 360, 423,

475, 641

TABLE OP STATUTES.

clxV
PAGE

32

&.

33 Vict.

c. 62,

debtors

0. 67,

metropolis valuation

..

0. 70,

diseases of animals

..

c. 71,

bankruptcy

15, 35, 101, 151, 250, 358, 371, 377, 378,

421, 470, 471, 472, 476, 645

360,659,666,672,673

..
182, 719, 725
32, 33, 97, 158, 203, 214, 223, 227,
228, 258, 411, 412, 570, 576, 648

c.

telegraphs
..
debtors
99, habitual criminal

c.

117,

c. 73,

..

..

33 & 34 Vict.

c. 9,

0.

c.
c.

c.
c.

o,
c.

c.
c.

34

& 35

Vict.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

peace preservation

..

..

.,

..

..

..
. .

c.

pharmacy

14, naturalisation

..

public-houses

35,
52,
71,
75,
90,
91,
93,

apportionment

. .

. .

. .

extradition
national debt
..
education
foreign enlistment
clerical disabilities

married
97, stamps
99, revenue

woman

c.

86 & 37 Vict.

o.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

30, 153,
225, 226, 311, 506, 508,
..

161
154
509

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

299
661
161, 552
652
..
..
484
..

..

30,474
145, 421, 550, 690

256,385

ballot
..
S. L. R., 1872

..
..

21, 60, 470, 636, 637, 663, 716

253, 300, 376
..
..

259

bastards
adulteration

58, 561

127,128,579

mines

wUd

birds
local courts

..

..

..

..

..

constables

pawnbrokers
Ucensing 23,

693,700

..

60, extradition

66, judicature
71, salmon fishery
c. 76, railways
0. 85, shipping

c.

88, slave trade

290
171
425

81, 111, 125, 179, 186, 190, 192, 361,

490, 520, 565, 734

vagrants

Digitized

164

261,306,371
494
..
..

kidnapping

c.

0.

395

311,506,667
256,264,408

96. dilapidations

c. 38,'

. .

147, 384, 592

West

Vict. c. 19,
0. 33,
c. 63,
c. 65,
c. 74,
c. 77,
c. 78,
c. 86,
c. 92,
c. 93,
o. 94,

266,268

45,122,420

43, ecclesiastical dilapidations

0. 48, oaths
c. 79, lodgers' goods protection
..
..
e. 98, vaccination
c. 112, habitual criminals
c. 116, S. L. E., 1871

& 36

..

SO
140
373

..

0.

35

146

..

..

..
..

..

Africa
31, trade unions

c. 8,

..

..

0. 29,
c.

..

104, 325, 567, 576

o. 83,

..
..

..
..
..

661
588
45, 550
11, 151, 165, 166, 291, 292
589
..
..
..
..
151
..
..
..
359
..
..
..
..
272
..
..
..
..

by Microsoft

..

..

..

TABLE OF STATUTES,

clxvi
36

&

37 Vict.

c.

91, S. L.

K,

1873

..

TABLE OP STATUTES.
43

& 44

PAGE

c.

revenue ..
35, wild birds
42, employers' liability
12j revenue
21, married women (Scotland)

c.

25, dilapidations

c.

41,
58,

Viot.,0. 20,
o.
o.

44

&

45 Vict.

c.

c.

c.

conveyancing

c.

& 46

Vict.

c.

..
..

120, 223, 395,

393,

392,
126,

army

59, civil procedm'e .

newspaper libels

"362,363,

c. 60,

45

clxvii

61, Welsh Sunday closing

14, metropolis

14,

301
290
55
505
394
661
393
666
519
740
147
113

poor rate assessment

..
17, 28, 81
22, boilers
131
..
..
e. 39, conveyancing
..
..
648
c. 43, bills of sale
..
15, 16, 31, 118, 135, 168, 169
173, 198, 210, 211, 212, 316.
379, 380, 386, 703
c. 50, municipal corporations
127, 136, 139, 155, 483,
551, 597, 620, 624, 660
c. 61, bills of exchange
25,48,201
c. 75, married women's property
c. 20,

c.

TABLK OF STATUTES.

Clxviii

PAGE

50
51

& 51
& 52

3^8

Viet. c. 66, bankruptcy

Vict. c. 8, revenue
c. 21, distress

97,700
130, 295, 679

railways and canals

0.33, forgery
e. 37, landlord and tenant
c.

25,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

151
322
136
623

..
..
..
41, local government
..
c. 42, mortmain
214,325,384,448,573
..
..
0. 43, county courts
. . 27, 28, 69, 130, 238, 288, 291, 292,
319, 348, 411, 428, 518, 537,
553, 580, 643, 677, 680, 730

c.

0. 56,
o.

c.

52

&

53 Vict.

c.
c.

c.
c.
c.

53

&

54 Vict.

738

bishop

1888
64, criminal procedure
7, revenue
21, weights and measures

248, 286

57, S. L. E.,

45, factors
49, arbitration
63, interpretation

c. 5,

..
'

..

363

..

..

..

..

223,395

..

..

193, 426

..

161,364,575
..

..

46, 200, 201, 409,

..

428

66, 77, 110, 332, 439, 604, 612,

613, 625, 728, 731, 733, 739, 741

27,187,305,653

lunacy

324
446
211
256
..
..
..
..
503
0. 39, partnership
Ii7
..
..
..
0. 44, judicature
..
..
518
0. 51, S. L. E., 1890
..
173
e. 53, bankruptcy
..
..
..
..
c. 59, public health
186,211
..
..
..
561
c. 63, companies
..
.,
..
128
c. 70, housing of working classes
.,
..
c. 71, bankruptcy
386, 405, 608
40,224
54 & 55 Vict. c. 8, tithe
c. 85, bills of sale
173,211
308
c. 38, stamp duties
.,
..
..
..
..
..
0. 39, stamps
128, 204, 226, 509, 511, 668, 700
c. 73, mortmain
..
..
..
..
..
215
c. 76, public health
310,326,338,738
199, 385, 600, 693
55 & 56 Vict. c. 9, gaming
73
c. 10, short titles
c. 13, conveyancing
393
737
c. 19, statute law revision, 1892
c. 32, clergy discipline
432,489
c. 62, shop hours
..
..
125
..
..
..
..
..
..
590,731
56 & 57 Vict. c. 39, industrial societies
c. 54, S. L. E., 1893
254,325,332
21, inland revenue .
c. 29, intestacy
..
c. 35, boilers
c. 37, foreign jurisdiction
c.

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

. .

. .

'

c.

61, public authorities protection .. 28, 104, 108, 109,

134, 284, 308, 358, 359,
360, 413, 510, 586

Digitized

by Microsoft

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxix
PAGE

56

&

57

& 58 Viot.

57 Vict.

married women's property

..
..
71, sale of goods

63,

c.
0.

supreme court

..

public office
24, wild birds
56, S. L. E., 1894

.,

0. 16,

..

102, 387
48, 70, 390, 511, 575

..

..

..

..

.;

..

..

..

579
87
290
27
719

o. 17,
c.

c.

animals ..
..
merchants shipping

o. 57,
0.

60,

..

57, 65, 111, 124, 127, ISi,

..

132, 151,
265, 268,
416, 485,
563, 569,
c.

&

58

59 Vict.

c.

33, fugitive criminals

c.

37, factory

c. 39,

& 60

59

Thames conservancy
London building
113,

clxxxvii,

c. ocxiii,

and workshop

summary

158, 199, 256,

276, 311, 359,
516, 517, 543,
653, 677, 684,
691, 720, 722
..

..

..

..

jurisdiction (married

45,550
410

..

..

..

women)

152, 396,

'73

Vict. c. 14, short titles

707

public health
25, friendly society

c. 19,
c.

&

60

61 Vict.

c.

61

& 62

Vict.

c.

11, bishop
Vict. 0. 4, solicitors

..

..

supreme court
London government

c. 6,

c. 14,

63

27, marriages
c. 51, food and drugs
64 Vict. c. 26, land charges

&

Ed.

VIL

..

c. 10,

133,507
124, 345, 346
245,309

..

..

..

. .

. .

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..''

c.

VIL

24, intoxicating liquors

..

..

..

musical copyright
..
42, education

..

..

..

housing of working classes

..
..
county courts

..

..

..

..

c. 36,
c,

39,

c. 42,

4 Ed.

VIL

5 Ed.

VIL

6 Ed.

VIL

..

motor cars

..

c.

wild birds
28, weights and measures

c.

11, railway fires

c. 4,

c. ccix,

London building

c.

extradition
16, justices

c.

32, dogs..

copyright

Digitized

187
640
215
251

.
322
69,411
290
426
628
..

"^
122
665
343
640

c. 15,

c. 36,

474
58
321

c. 15,

c.

3 Ed. VII.

185
738
438
147
322

499,586
307,410,492

embezzlement

c. 22, factories

2 Ed.

..

..

c.

..

65, land transfer

10, finance

c.

62 & 63

..

workmen's compensation

c. 37,

359

174, 285, 423, 445, 558,

585, 586, 636, 647, 688

by Microsoft

TABLE OP STATUTES.

Clxx

FAQK

6 Ed. VII.

c.47, trade disputes

48,

c.

c. 58,

7 Ed. VII.

c. 17,

18,
21,
c. 24,
c. 29,
c. 31,
c. 43,
0. 47,
c.

8 Ed. VII.

c.
c.

c.

..

merchant shipping
..
workmen's compensation

infants
..
adulteration
limited partnerships
patents
vaccination..
..

c.

incest

o.

post office
S. L. B., 1908

..

..

..

c. 8,

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

188

..

103, 107, 129,

163, 202, 203,
440, 655, 561,
619, 622, 669,
690, 691, 698, 717

48, 60,
130, 147,
316, 428,
592,

..

..

..

..

128
140

284,545,700

finance

Geo.-V.

..

371
298
261
..
..
393
..
..
290
103, 586, 645
..
486,716
..
..
106
129
322
162,652
140,689

distress

34, electric lighting

44, housing
..
1

..

247
525
285
424
503

..

companies (consolidation)

&

..55,345,346

..

c. 69,

10 Ed. VII.
10 Ed. VII.

..

..

poisons
children

c.

..

386,389,593

c. 67,

0.

..

probation of offenders, 1907

education ..
..
marriages ..
..
clxxi, water
..
..
11, wild birds
15, costs in criminal cases
28, agricultural holdings

45,
48,
0. 49,
o. 53,
c. 55,

9 Ed. VII.

..

territorial forces

c. 9,

c.

121
705
279, 534, 654; 720, 722

89, intoxicating liquors

0.

o.

23, 102, 111,

24, licensing (consolidation)
121, 125, 147, 179, 186, 187,
190, 192, 222, 231, 232, 294,

342, 361, 395, 490, 520,

565, 636, 734
1

&

2 Geo. V.

c.
o.
c.

2 & 3 Geo. V.

..
..
..
..
670
c. 35, finance
27, animals
361, 474
38, money lenders ..
..
..
..
^ ..
381
46, copyright
..
60,131,135,146,275,290,387,
480, 491, 556, 651, 716

c. 20,

criminal law
16, 19, 416, 517, 522,

31, pilotage
Geo. V. c. 27, forgery
o.

&4

c.

28,
c. 34,
o.

& 5 Geo. V.

146,343,486

mental deficiency
bankruptcy
..

37, national insurance

47, deeds of

c. 58,

arrangement

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

266,267,268
..
388,405

..

criminal justice administration

Digitized

653
553
537

..

c. 17, aliens
c.

256
619

by Microsoft

..

86, 664

TABLE OF STATUTES.

clxxi
PAGE

4 & 5 Geo. V.

c.

& 6 Geo. V.
6 & 7 Geo. V.
5

59,

bankruptcy

61, constables

c. 61,

government

0. 14,

summertime

& 8 Geo. V.

o.

33, 66, 70, 79, 100, 112, 114,

158, 197, 203, 212, 214, 223,
227, 249, 258, 267, 309, 320,
349, 357, 377, 386, 412, 421,
435, 470, 477, 542, 546, 568,
570, 576, 579, 608, 645, 648
..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

of

time, Ireland
50, larceny

c. 45,

c.

..

India

..
624
256,359
..
605
..

605

114,472,478,487,491,493,
498, 499, 586
..
..
..
686
25, courts (emergency powers)

c. 64,

..

representation of people

Digitized

by Microsoft

..
63, 70, 71, 130,
136, 137, 139, 153, 155,
165, 554, 577, 590, 710

Digitized

by Microsoft

ON THE

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

INTRODUCTORY.

I.

STATUTE is the will of the Legislature ; and

rule of interpretation, to which
fundamental
the
all

others are subordinate,

is

that a statute

is

to

be expounded " according to the intent of them

that made it " (a). And if the words of the
are

statute

in

themselves

biguous no more

precise

unam-

and

necessary than to expound

is

these words in their natural and ordinary sense,

the words themselves in such case best declaring

the intention of the Legislature

(b).

The

object

of all interpretation of a statute i? to determine

what intention is conveyed, either expressly

impliedly, by the language used, so far as

p.

(a)

4 Inst. 330; Sussex Peerage (1844), 11

(6)

Income Tax Commissioners

543

61 L.

J.

Q. B. 265

v.

[1902] 2

p.

778

E. 660, at

R 143.

47 L.
1, p.

J.

v.

Q. B. 193
;

I.S.

by Microsoft

Adanson
see also

Glass v. Patterson,

p. 667.

Digitized

is

Pemsel, [1891] A. 0. 534,

v.

Bridges (1847), 1 H. L. 0.

Ir.

&

Biver Wear Commissioners

(1877), 2 App. Oas. 743, at

Fordyce

01.

or

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

necessary for determining whether the particular

case or state of facts presented to the interpreter
falls

within

the task

when

is

When

it.

the intention

is

expressed,

one of verbal construction only ; but

the statute expresses no intention on a

question to which

gives rise, and yet

it

some

must necessarily be imputed to the

intention

Legislature regarding

it,

the interpreter has to

by inference grounded on certain

The Act (a), for instance, which
imposes a penalty, recoverable summarily, on
every tradesman, labourer and other person who
carries on his worldly calling on a Sunday,
would give rise to a question of the former kind,
when it had to be determined whether the class
of persons to which the accused belonged was
determine

it

legal principles.

comprised in
questions

arise

out of the prohibition

offender indictable

marily

and,

is

as well

as

is

the

punishable sum-

the validity of a contract entered

into in contravention of the

On

But two other

the prohibition.

Act affected by

it ?

these corollaries or necessary inferences from

though silent,
must nevertheless be held to have entertained
some intention, and the interpreter is bound to
determine what it was.

its

enactment,

And

the Legislature,

in such case the interpretation

must be

that which best accords with the public benefit,

(a)

Sunday Observance

Digitized

Act, 1677 (29 Oar., 11 Ch. 7).

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

thus where a statute imposes a penalty without

expressly stating to whom it is to be paid such
penalty by implication goes to the Crown

The

(a).

subject of the interpretation of a statute

seems thus to

fall

under two general heads

What

are the principles which govern the construction

of

the language of an Act of Parliament

What

and

which guide the interpreter

in gathering the intention on those incidental
points on which the Legislature is necessarily
presumed to have entertained an opinion, but on
which it has not expressed any ?
next,

are those

SECTION

The
tion

II.

LITERAL

CONSTRUCTION.

and most elementary rule of constructhat it is to be assumed that the words

first

is,

and phrases of technical legislation are used in

their technical meaning if they have acquired one,
and, otherwise, in their ordinary meaning and,
secondly, that the phrases and sentences are to
be construed according to the rules of grammar.
;

From

these presumptions

it

is

not allowable to

where the language admits of no other

meaning nor, where it is susceptible of another
meaning, unless adequate grounds are found,
either in the history or cause of the enactment
or in the context or in the consequences which
depart,

(a)

Bradlaugh

v.

Clarhe (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B. 505 (H. L.).

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.

would result from the

literal interpretation, for

concluding that that interpretation does not give

the real intention of the Legislature (a). If there

nothing to modify, nothing to alter, nothing to

qualify, the language which the statute contains,

is

must be construed in the ordinary and natural

meaning of the words and sentences (b).
The great fundamental principle is

it

" In construing iWills, and indeed, Statutes

and all Written Instruments, the grammatical

and ordinary sense

words

of the

is

to be

adhered to, unless that would lead to absurdity,

some repugnancy or inconsistency with

or

the rest of the instrument

in

which case

the grammatical and ordinary sense of the

may

words

Bac. Ab. Statute

(a)

191, p. 195

506

be modified so as to avoid that

60 L.

Mallan

Maule

J.

Q. B. 89

May

v.

(I.)

46 E. E. 567

(1844),

Beche

Cox

134, per

59 E. E.

Lord Brougham
J.

Q. B. 105

J.

J.

(b) St.

v.

M.

5,

A.-G.

v.

B.

v. Millis,

Westminster

Ex. 886, per Jessel M.E.

153

B.

v. Castro (1874),

Clarke (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B.

Lord Fitzgerald; Mornsey

24 Q. B. D.
63 L.

Bradlaugh

H. L. Gas. 815

Cull v. Austin (1872), 41 L. J. 0. P.

505, per

M. & W.

Chambers Assoc. (1876), 45 L.

43 L.

McBougal v. Paterson, 21 L. J. 0. P. 27
13 M. & W. 511 67 E. E. 707 per

Jeffery v. Boosey (1854), 4

J.,

v. Smith, (1836),

Makes (1890), 15 App. Gas.

v.

per Lord Esher M.E.

v.
;

Monarch Bldg.

Soey.,

Travis v. Uttley (1893),

G. 48.

John, Hampstead v. Cotton (1886), 12 App. Gas. 6, per

Lord Halsbury L.O.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

absurdity, repugnancy, or inconsistency, but

no further "

(a).

In repeating this canon in Abbott v. Middleton (6),

Lord Wensleydale said " This rule was in sub:

down by Mr.

stance laid

Loveland

burton V.

by

described

Jessep {d), as
as can be.'

(c).

Lord

It

if

we

as

common

sense as strong

'

Cardinal Eule,' from

we should launch

departed,

of difficulties

had previously been

EUenborough, in Doe v.

had been stated by Lord Cranworth

(when Chancellor)
which,

War-

It

a rule of

'

Justice Burton in

into a sea

and as the
not easy to fathom (e)
when applied to Acts of Parliament,
;

^Olifteit JSlule

by Jervis C. J., in Mattison v. Hart " (/), who there

states " we ought ... to give to an Act of Parliament the plain, fair, literal meaning of its words,

where we do not see from its scope that such

meaning would be inconsistent, or would lead to
manifold injustice."

When
(a)

the language

is

not only plain but admits

Per Lord Wensleydale, Grey

26:L. J. Ch. 481

(1886), 12 App.

see also Vestry

Gas., at p. 6,

v. Pearson,

St. John's,

6 H. L. Gas. 106

Eampstead

and note especially Bhodes

v.

v.

Cotton

Bhodes

(1882), 7 App. Gas. (P. G.) 192, at p. 205.

(5) (1858),

7 H. L. Gas. 114, 115

28 L.

Id)

12 East, 293.
Gtmdry v. Pinniger (1852), 1

(e)

21 L.

(/)

J.

Gh. 114.

Huds. & Bro. 648.

(c)

J.

De

G. M.

& G. 502;

Gh. 405.

(1854), 23 L. J. G. P. 108, at p. 114; 14 G. B. 385.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

can

of but one meaning, the task of interpretation

It is not allowable, says

hardly be said to arise.

what has no need of interpreta-

Vattel, to interpret

tion

Ahsoluta sententia expositore non indiget

(a),

Such language best

the

declares, without more,

intention of the lawgiver, and

decisive of

is

The Legislature must be intended

it

(h).

it (c).

mean what

to

has plainly expressed, and consequently there

no room

for construction {d).

is

matters not, in

It

what the consequences may be.

Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal
such

a case,

language capable of only one meaning, anything

is

enacted by the Legislature,

though

even
(a)

Law

(6)

2 Inst. 533.

(c)

Per Buller

of N., b. 2,

B.

J.,

&

(1844), 11 01.

Per Parke

{d)

(e)

J.,

v.

Lord Campbell, B.

Banbury, 1 A.

v.

V.

Co.,

V.

v. City

from the rule

Turner,

Sussex Peerage

395

& B. 142 per

Cur.,

of London Court, [1892]

laid

down by

M.E.

Jessel

per Lord Herschel, Mersey

[1893] A. C, at

v. Skeen, 28 L. J.

M.

C. 94

p.

477

per Jervis

per
C.J.,

Bale, 21 L. J. C. P. 104; per Pollock C.B., Miller

Salomons, 21 L. J. Ex. 197

&c.

95.

Ex. D. 227

Docks &c. Board

shoM

1 T. E. 96

U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wallace,

Per Lord Esher M.E., B.

The Alina,

Alley

(e).

v. Blight, 2 Oranoh, 399.

1 Q. B. 273, dissenting
in

Wheat.
B.

mischievous

263.

v. Hodnett,

P. 143

U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5

Fisher

s.

must be enforced,

absurd or

be

it

it

In re (1878), 48 L.

J.

Nicolls (1878), 3 A.

Moo. P. C.

9.

v.

per Lord Brougham, British Farmers

Ch. 56

C. 1004

affirmed su6. nom, Burkin;

Crawford

v.

Spooner, 6

See Sneedv. Commonwealth, 6 Dana, 339 (Kentuoky)_

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

The underlying

meaning

principle being that the

and intention of a statute must be collected from

plain and unambiguous expressions used
therein rather than from any notions which may
be entertained by the Court as to what is just or
expedient (a). If the words go beyond what was
probably the intention, effect must nevertheless
be given to them (b). They cannot be construed,
contrary to their meaning, as embracing or
exclU'ding cases merely because no good reason
appears why they should be excluded or emthe

However

braced (c).

receive its fuU effect

wisdom
Ghm/nne

(a)
p.

606
(6)

When

(d).

may

must
once the meaning
be,

it

not the province of a Court to scan

is plain, it is

its

or incon-

unjust, arbitrary

venient the meaning conveyed

or its

poHcy

Burnell (1839), 7 01.

v.

duty

Its

(e).

&

P. 572

not to

is

Coleridge

J.,

at

51 E. E. 43.

&

Notley v. Buch (1828), 8 B.

G. 164.

Hoare (1763), 2 Eden, 184, per Lord Northington

but see Companhia de Mocambique v. British South, Africa Co.,
[1892] 2 Q. B. 358, 0. A. and;perOur., Dmn v. Beid (1836), 10
(c)

Pike

V.

Peters, 524
(d)

an American case.

Ornamental Woodwork Co.

Martin B. and Bramwell B.

546, per Parke J.
Biffin V. Torke,
Co.,

41 L.

(e)

B.

J.

B.

v.

Poor

v.

Brown, 2 H. & C. 63, per

& E.
& E. 7
6?. W. B.

Mirehouse v. Bennell, 1 01.

Law

Commissioners, 6 A.

63 E. E. 337, per Erskine

J.

May

v.

Q. B. 104.

Per Lord Ellenborough, B.

V. Staffordshire,

Lord Mansfield

v.

12 East, 572; B.
B.

v.

Watson, 7 East, 214, and

v. Eodnett, 1 T.

Worcestershire, 3 P.

Digitized

by Microsoft

& D.

E. 100, per

465, per Lord

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

make the law

according

stands,

it

words

expound

reasonable, but to

the

to

it

as

sense of the

real

(a).

Apparently, however, the statutory crystallisa-

common law

tion of an existing

in the absence

of express

new and extended

And where
obKgation (6).
Act

later

tion

it

specially
is

not,

effect,

application of that

there

general

are

and

capable of reasonable

sensible application without

subjects

wiU

words to that

create a

words in a

liability

extending them to

with by earlier legisla-

dealt

not to be held that such earlier and

either indirectly repealed,

special legislation is

altered or derogated from merely

by force of such

general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so (c).

Moreover, although

the effect of repealing a statute

as completely as
rule

if it

to obliterate it

is

had never been passed

must be taken with the

this

qualification that it

does not deprive persons of vested rights acquired

Denman

per Bramwell B., Archer

Miller v. Salomons, 21
Attuoater,

v.

&

James, 2 B.

L. J. Ex. 197, per Pollock C.B.

5 Oh. D. 30, per James L.J.

S.
;

61

Exp.

Followed in Payne

Exp. Gross, In re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, note, p. 552.

(a) Biffin v. Yorke,

63 E. E. 337, jjer Oresswell

Plasterers Go. v. Parish Glerks Go., 20 L. J.

Tovell (1872), 42 L. J.

M.

G. 33

J.

Ex. 362

See
;

ex. gr.

Dennis v.

" The Merle " (1874), 31 L. T.

447.

Wear Gommissioners

(6)

Miver

(c)

Seward

v.

v.

Adamson

(1877), 2 A. 0. 743.

Vera Gruz (1884), 10 A. 0. 59, at

Digitized

by Microsoft

p. 68.

LITERAL OONSTRUOTION.

by them in actions duly determined under the

repealed law (a).

But although
spective
statute

that

as

retro-

unless the intention of the Legislature

should

be

construed

so

is

and unambiguous language (6),

in plain

where

vested

which

were

who have

divested,

lawful

when

made unlawful by

language

what was the

expressed
it

seems

and acts
done are

a statute, those

must give

effect

they are bound to do this even

when they suspect (on

the

are

to interpret the law

And

to it(c).

rights

perfectly

subsequently

when

principle

operation ought not to be given to a

it

that

general

conjectural grounds only)

does

not faithfuUy express

intention of the Legislature

real

passed the Act, or would have been

it

intention

if

its

the specific case had been proposed

"It may have been an oversight in the

framers of the Act," says Parke B., in one case,
" but we must construe it according to its plain
and obvious meaning " (c?). "Our decision," says
to

it.

(a)

Lemm

400 P. C.
Singer,

v. Mitchell

Comp. Sex

v.

(1912), 81 L.J. P. 0. 173; [1912] A. 0.

Southampton Income Tax Commissioners ;

(1916), 86

Exp.

L. J.

B. 66,

0.

A.;

[1917]

1 K. B. 259.
(6)

Tomig

v.

Adams, [1898] A. 0. 469, p. 476 (P. 0.)

Bourlt v.

Nntt, [1894] 1 Q. B. 725, C. A.

(c)

Midland B. Co.

(d)

Nixon

v.

Pye, 10 C. B. N. S. 179, per Erie G.J.

V. Phillips (1852),

Digitized

21 L.

J.

Ex. 88.

by Microsoft

10

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Lord Tenterden, in

another

(a),

"may,

in this

particular case operate to defeat the object of the

Act

but

it is

better to abide

by

this consequence

than to put upon it a construction not warranted

by the words of the Act, in order, to give effect to

what we may suppose to have been the intention

of the Legislature." " I cannot doubt," says Lord
Campbell, in another
the Legislature was

been carried into

" what the intention of

but that intention has not

(b),

by the language used.

we should abide by the words

effect

It is far better that

of a statute, than seek to reform it according to

the supposed intention."

Abinger, in another

(c),

" The Act," says Lord

"has practically had a

very pernicious effect not at

we cannot

construe

it

all

contemplated ; but

according to that result."

In short, when the words admit of but one

meaning, a Court is not at liberty to speculate on
the intention of the Legislature, and to construe
them according to its own notions of what ought
to

Nothing could be more

have been enacted (d).

dangerous than to make such considerations the

(a)

Stohe

B.

V.

Barham, 8 B. & 0. 99

Damerel, 7 B. &

(b) Coe V. Lawrence,

22 L.

M. & W.

464.

see also per Bayley

B.

J.,

v.

J.

Q. B. 140.

M. & W. 395 Lochwood v. A.-G., 10

Per Lord Denman, B. v. Male (1835), 3 A. & B.

A.-G. V. Lochwood, 9

(c)

0. 569.

531.
(d)

225,

Per

Cur., Torh

&

N. Midlcmd By. Go.

and comp. The Queen

v.

Digitized

v. B.,

22 L.

J.

Q. B.

French (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 507.

by Microsoft

LITEEAL CONSTRUCTION.

11

ground

for construing an enactment that is unambiguous in itseK. To depart from the meaning
on account of such views is, in truth, not to con-

strue the Act, but to alter

But the business

it (a).

of the interpreter is not to improve the statute

it

to expound it.
The question for him is not
what the Legislature meant, but what its language
means (6); i.e. what the Act has said that it
meant (c). To give a construction contr,ary to,
or different from, that which the words import or

is,

can possibly import,

to

make it

o&ce

is

is

not to interpret law, but

and judges are to remember that their

jus didere, not jus dare{d).

Though

this rule appears so

frequently appealed to that

trate it

it is

obvious,

advisable to illus-

by some examples to show

and the
stance,

limits of its

its

the Judicature- Act, 1873,

of limitation

s.

general scope

Thus, for in-

application.

was repeatedly decided

it

so

it is

at

law (before

24) that the statutes

which enacted that actions should

not be brought after the lapse of certain periods

(a)

Per Lord Brougham, Choynne

Lord Westbury, Exp.

per Grove
(6)

burn

J.,

51 E. E. 42

33 L.

St. Sepulchre's (1863),

per

J.

Oh. 372

per Cock-

Allhins v. Jupe, 2 C. P. D. 375.

Wigram, Interp.
C.J.,

v. Burnell,

Palmer

v.

Wills, 5th ed., 1914, p. 7

3 Q. B.

Thatcher,

D. 353; per Lord

Coleridge, Coxhead v. Mullis, 3 C. P. D. 439.

(c)

(d)

Per Mathew

J.,

Bothschild

v. Inl.

Bev., [1894] 2 Q. B. 145.

Lord Bacon, Essay on Judicature.

Bodrigues

v.

Melhuish, 10 Ex. 116.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Per Pollock C.

B.,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

12

from the time when the cause of action accrued,

barred actions brought after the time so limited,

though the cause

was not discovered

of action

or,

practically, discoverable by the injured party at

the date of accrual, or was even fraudulently concealed from the wrong-doer until the time limited

by the Act had expired (a). The hardship of such

decisions was obvious, but the language admitted
of no other construction.
So, if an Act provides

made within

that convictions shall be

a certain

period after the commission of the offence, a con-

would
be bad, although the prosecution had been begun
within the time Hmited, and the case had been
adjourned to a day beyond it, with the consent, or

viction

made

after the lapse of that period

even at the instance,

(a) Short

& B. 73

J.

McCarthy, 22 E. E. 503

Co.,

J.

Smith

Q. B. 138

Barley Main Colliery Co.

529.

As

68 L.

J. P. C.

49

v.

B.
V.

V.

Willis v.

Heard, 64 L.

Ch. 224.

As

J.

v. Gibbons,

Violett v.

26 L.

J.

Ex. 1

(1885, 1886), 55 L. J. Q. B.

v.

Barl Howe, 62 L.

Ch. 652.

to the effect

Comp. Chap. IX, Sec.

(6)

Hunter

Oelhers v. Ellis, [1914] 2 K. B. 139

enemy, see Halsey

Pellew

Fox, 77 E. E, 152

to concealed fraud, see Bulli Coal Co. v. Osborne (1899),

and Thome
J.

v.

v. Mitchell

Guild, 51 L. J. Q. B. 313

52 L.

Brown v. Howard, 2 Brod.

Q. B. 378

Sympson, 27 L.

So,

(6).

BucMe, 58 E. E. 834
Imperial Gas Co. v.
23 L. J. Ex. 803 Bonomi v. Backhovse (1856),

Golvin v.

London Gas
27 L.

v.

defendant

of the

J.

See also Kirh

upon the contracts

of

Gibbs

v.

Oh. 690
v.

an

Todd,
alien

[1916] 2 K. B. 707, G. A.

Lowenfeld,
II.

Bellamy, 1 B.

&

C. 500;

Wonford, 9 B. & C. 134

Digitized

B.

v. Tolley,

3 East, 467;

Farrell v. Tomlinson, 5 Bro.

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

when an Act gave

13

by an
the making

to persons aggrieved

order of justices a certain period, after

of the order, for appealing to the Quarter Sessions,

it

has been held that the time ran from the day

on which the order was verbally pronounced, not

from the day of its service on the aggrieved
person (a). Even when the order was made behind his back, as in the case of stopping up a
road, the time ran from the same date,* and not
from the day on which he got notice of

it (6),

notwithstanding the manifest hardship and

in-

from such an enactment (c).

And as a general proposition of law the rule laid
down by Lord Halsbury in Leader v. Duffey for the

justice resulting

construction of wUls applies d fortimi to the conof

struction

statutes,

consequently "whatever

must receive a construction

according to the plain meaning of the words and

the instrument,

it

sentences therein contained

and

it is

arguing in

a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention

apart from the language of the instrument

P. 0. 438

27 L.
(a)

19 L.

Adam

J.

M.

B.

V. Derbyshire,

J.

M.

2 A. & B. 389

B.

v.

0. 278.

G. 127

Barnet, 45 L.

134.

v. Bristol,

itself.

J.

Gomp. B.

M.
v.

7 Q. B. 193

B.

v.

HuntingdonsUre (1850),

Exp. Johnson, 32 L.
C. 105

Nutter

v.

Shrewsbury, 22 L. J.

M.

East, 151.

(6)

B.

(c)

Per Lord EUenborough,

V. Staffordshire, 3

J.

Digitized

M.

0. 193

Moorhouse (1904), 68

Id. 153.

by Microsoft

C. 98.

B.

v.

J.

P.

INTBBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

14

and, having made that fallacious assumption, to

bend the language in favour of the assumption so

made " (a).

Where an Act ordained that no converted
Papist should be deemed a Protestant unless he
received the sacrament, took the abjuration oath,

and

filed certain certificates

within 6 months from

his declaring himself a Protestant, a

compKance

iiffcer that period was held too late (b).

The Welsh Sunday Closing Act, 1881, being
fixed to come into operation on the day "next

one day

appointed" for the annual hcensing meeting, was

by a literal construction postponed for a year later
than was, in

all

probability, intended

but the

Court refused to avert this result by any departure

from the primary meaning of the words (c). The
tor to sign his will

which requires, s. 9, a testa"in the presence" of two

been

construed as meaning the

Wills Act, 1837

witnesses, has

(d),

actual visual presence

Leader

(a)

v.

And prior to the passing

(e).

Buffey (1888), 13 A. C. 294, at p. 301.

See also

Scale V. Bawlins, [1892] A. G. 342.

(h) Farrell v. Tomlinson,

mud

Bichards

(c)

v.

1 Vict.

(e)

In
In

As
re,

re,

c.

26,

s. 9.

Brown

Ch. 502.

[1917] 1 Ch. 620.

Digitized

J.

M.

0. 15.

26.

e.

v. Shirrow,

to the effect of foreign domicile

[1916]

See also Mohum-

App. 167.

McBride (1881), 51 L.

{d) 7 Will. IV., 1 Vict.

19.

5 Bro. P. 0. 438.

V. Bareilly, L. E. 1 Ind.

As

See also

71 L.

on

s.

J.

P. D.

&

A.

9, see Simpson,

Wilkinson's Settlement,

to nuncupative wills in case of

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
of 38

&

39 Vict.

15

which repealed 5
0. 4, s. 25, it was held that if an Act of
Parliament provided that no deed of apprenticeship should be vaUd unless signed and sealed byc. 86,

s.

17,

Eliz.

justices of the peace, the omission of the seal

be

would

fatal to the validity of the

instrument (a). So,

an Act authorises orders of commitment "in
open Court," an order not in the Court, but signed

if

in another part of the building also

public,

would be invalid

provided by

s.

21

(1) of

{b),

the

open to the

and generally

Summary

it is

Jurisdic-

Act (other than a purely

such as the signing of summons,

tion Act, 1879, that any

ministerial act,

must be heard, tried, determined or adjudged

in open Court.
The Bills of Sale Act, 1878,
requiring an affidavit of the due attestation as weU
&c.)

as of the execution of the deed, the omission in the

former to mention the attestation was held

fatal,

although the attestation clause of the deed asserted

It

it (e).

would not be open to the

sailors or soldiers killed in action, see JoTin

of,

interpreter, in

Wardrop, in the

estate

[1917] P. 54.
(a)

Tiam,

B.

Damerel, 7 B. & C. 563.

V. Stohe

2 Bott. 363

B.

v.

See also B.

Margram, 5 T. E. 153

B.

v.

Melling-

v. St. Peter's,

& Ad. 916 B. v. St. PauVs, 10 B. & 0. 12 B. v. Staffordshire,

23 L. J. M. 0. 17.
Kenyan v.
(b) Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 62), s. 5
B.

Eastwood, 57 L.
(c)

Ford

attestation

V.

J.

Q. B. 455.

Kettle,

by a

51 L.

solicitor is

Digitized

J.

Q. B. 558.

avoided by

s.

by Microsoft

The

necessity for

10 of 45 & 46 Vict.

16

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

such cases, to shut his eyes to the formalities

deemed them unimportant, or

because a hardship or failure of justice might
required, because he

result, in the particular case before

him, from a

neglect of any of them.

An

Act which enacted that a

43.

Attestations

was to deliver
up his licence to the pilotage authorities " whenever required to do so," would call for implicit
obedience to the letter, however arbitrarily the
power which it conferred might be misused, and
although the withdrawal of the licence would in
effect amount to a dismissal of the pilot from his
The Prescription Act, 1832,
employment (a).
making easements "indefeasible" which were
enjoyed for a number of years " next before some
suit or action wherein the claim or matter " was
brought in question, was held to leave the title to
the easements inchoate only, no matter how long
they had been uninterruptedly enjoyed, until a
c.

may now

be

made

pilot

" by one or

more

credible

witness or witnesses not being a party or parties thereto."

As

to the Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9 ; Thomas v. Kelly

See also
(1888), 13 App. Cas., per Lord Halsbury, p. 511.

Parsons

v.

L. J. Q. B.

59 L.

J.

Brand, 59 L.

Q. B. 189

J.

Comp. Bird

See other illustrations in Be

8.

Ch. 73

Sims

v.

New

v.

Davey, 60

Eberhardt

Co.,

Trollope (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. 11

Lester v. HicMing, [1916] 2 K. B. 302.

-

(o)

Henry

v.

M. C. 57.
the power of the

Newcastle Trinity House (1858), 27 L.

Sec. 20 (2) of 2

& 3 Geo. V.

c.

31, limits

J.

Pilotage Authority in this matter to certain specified cases.

Digitized

by Microsoft

LITERAL OONSTEUOTION.
suit or action

was brought, when the

into a complete right

&

45

17

46 Vict.

Prior to the passing of

(a).

20,

c.

ripened

title

s.

(which

altered

the

Act which provided that if the

occupier assessed to a rate ceased to occupy before
the rate was wholly discharged, the overseers

law), the earlier

should enter his successor in the rate book, and

the outgoer should not be liable for more than his

due proportion, did not relieve such outgoer from

the rest of the rate, when the premises remained
unoccupied after his removal (&).

An enactment

that a magistrate might, on the

summon

application of the mother of a bastard,

putative father for

its

months from

maintenance, within 12

its

would not authorise a

birth,

its

second magistrate to issue a second

summons

the expiration of the 12 months, merely

after

because the

first

summons could not be

served by

reason of the defendant having absented himself,

and could not be renewed

(o) 2

&

3 Will. IV.

[1904] A. 0. 179,

c.

71

Levet
(6)

L. J.

Home &

at pp. 189,

Cooper

v.

Hyman v. Van Den Bergh, 77 L.

V. Gas Ught & Cohe Go. (1918), 35
32 & 33 Vict.

M.

0. 23.

c.

B.

V.

41,

s.

16

iS**.

Simphin

v.

Colonial Stores,

190

Wright

Hubbuch, 31 L.
J.

Oh. 154.

P.

See also

v. Hutchinson,

Marsden

49

v. Saville

Birmingham, L. E. 7 Q. B.

Liverpool Justices, 62 L. J.

M.

0. 114.

I.S.

Digitized

J. 0.

v.

T. L. E. 47.

Werburgh

See, as otlier illustrations,

Foundry, 3 Ex. D. 203

482

Colls v.

Lord Macnaghten

Williams (1836), 46 E. E. 265

323;

or continued, because

by Microsoft

18

INTEBPEETATION OP STATUTES.

the justice

who had

issued

it

had died

(a).

And

as the same enactment required the justices to

hear the evidence of the mother at the hearing,

and such other evidence as she might produce,

and, if her evidence was corroborated, to adjudge
the man to be the putative father, it was held that
no order could be made against the putative father
when the mother could not be examined, having
died after the summons and before the hearing (b).
"Where an Act (c) prohibits the removal of a conviction by Certiorari to the Supreme Court, that
writ cannot be issued (the justices having jurisdic-

even

tion)

for the purpose of bringing

up a case

stated by justices for the opinion of the Court

although the object of such a prohibition

is

to

prevent convictions being quashed for technical

defects, but not to exclude the jurisdiction of the

Supreme Court, when consulted on a substantial

question which the justices themselves have
raised (d). An Act which imposed a penalty on
any person who pUoted a ship in the Thames
before he was examined and admitted a Trinity
House pilot, was held not to reach one who had
been expelled from the Society
(o) 7

&8

Vict.

c.

101

B.

v.

after

Pich/ord (1861), 30 L. J.

133.

Armitage (1872), 42 L.

(b)

B.

(c)

12 & 13 Vict.

(d)

B.

V.

c.

92,

s.

V. Chantrell (1875),

Digitized

examination

J.

M.

C. 16.

26.

U L.

J.

M.

0. 94.

by Microsoft

M.

0.

LITERAL CONSTEUOflON.

and admission

&

12 Vict.

c.

(a).

19

The Indian Insolvent Act, 11

21, wliich required the insolvent to

and provided
that his discharge should be a bar to all demands,
like a certificate under the bankruptcy laws in
England, was held to bar a debt which had not
been included in the schedule, and the creditor
file

a schedule of

all

his creditors,

had consequently been deprived by the neglect or

design of his debtor of the opportunity of opposing

where an Act gave an

appeal to the next session, and directed that " no
appeal should be proceeded upon " if it was found
by the session that no reasonable notice had been
the discharge

So,

(6).

given, but should be adjourned to the next session,

the

appellant was

secure delay by

enabled to

omitting to give any notice, so that the session

could not find that " reasonable notice " had been

In these two cases the construction

worked an injustice and enabled a person to td,ke
given

(c).

(a) Pierce

2 & 3 Geo. V.

v.
c.

Hopper (1720),

1-

31, subjects a pilot

Sec. 48 (d)

Stra. 249.

who

of

acts during suspension

to a penalty not exceeding 100.

(6)

Exp. Parhury (1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 518

Comp. Wesson

v.

Alcard, 22 L. J. Ex. 45.

(c)

9 Geo.

I.

c.

JR. v.

Bucks, 3 East, 342

B.

v. Stafford-

8 E. E. 668, The better law, however, at the present day

appears to be that an appellant cannot by any conduct on his
part make impracticable the sessions which otherwise would be
aJtire,

the next practicable sessions;

6 Q. B. D. 100, at

p. 107,

-R.

and see B.

Digitized

v.

Surrey Justices (1880),

v. Sussex,

by Microsoft

34 L.

J.

M. C.

69,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

20

but
advantage of his own wrong or neglect (a)
the language of the Legislature admitted of no
;

other construction.

The Act which required members

of Parliament,

before voting in the House, to take the abjuration

oath in a form which concluded with the declaration that

it

was taken " on the true

faith of a

Christian," received a literal construction, which

had the

effect of

excluding Jews from Parliament

although the history of the enactment showed

that it was intended to test the loyalty, not the

member, and was directed

religious creed, of the

Roman

solely to the exclusion of

Catholics

and

though those who refused to take the oath would

have been deemed Popish recusants, and liable to
banishment as such (6). So the plain language of
the Test and Corporation Acts of Charles II.,
though the first of them was really aimed only at
the actual holders of

Roman

Catholics,

Protestant

and the second at

oflBLces,

had the

effect of disqualifying

Dissenters from public

Where an Act

disqualified

from

employment.

killing

game

all

persons not possessing land of a certain value,

(a)

See Chap. VIII, See. III.

(h) 1

161

Geo.

2,

c.

13

Miller

v.

Salomons, 21 L.

J.

Ex.

Salomons v. Miller, 8 Ex. 778. Jews were

from having to take the oath " on the true faith of a

Christian "
to

St.

22 Id. 169

relieved

As

I.

by 21 & 22 Vict.

Eoman Catholics, see

Digitized

c.

49,

amended by 23 & 24 Vict. c. 63.

c. 7, & 30 & 31 Vict. c. 62.

10 Geo. IV.

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUOTION.

21

except the heir apparent of an esquire or other

person of higher degree, it was held that esquires

not possessed of the requisite property quahfioation

were not excepted. However strange it might

seem that the Legislature should refuse them the

which it had granted to their eldest
sons (a), it was held to be safer to adopt what the
Legislature had actually said rather than to conjecture what they had meant to say (b).
So,
until 1875 under an Act which qualified for the
privilege

magistracy owners

in immediate

remainder or

reversion of lands leased for two or three lives,

was held that a remainderman expectant on

life in possession was
not qualified, as there was no lease. There was
perhaps no good reason why the quahfioation
should not have been extended to such a remainderman, but there was no actual absurdity, incon-

it

the death of a tenant for

venience, or injustice in the omission

(c).

The

which provides that

a candidate may undertake any duties which any
agent of his, if appointed, might have performed,
and may assist his agent in the performance of
such duties, and " may be present at any place
at which his agent may, in pursuance of the Act,

rule in the Ballot Act, 1872,

(a) Jones v.

Smart (1785), 1 T. E. 44.

(6)

Per Ashurst

(c)

18 Geo.

J., Id.

II. c.

See 38 & 39 Vict.

c.

20

51

Woodward y.

Watts, 22 L. J.

54.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

0. 149,

INTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

22

was construed

attend,"

literally

as

authorising

the presence of the candidate absolutely, and not

only in the event of his undertaking the duties

though it was
construction gave a barren

agent or assisting him;

of his

conceded that

this

and useless, or even mischievous, right against

which the other provisions of the Act seemed to
militate

(a).

A statute which

a Court of Bequests

person residing in a town or navi-

summon any

to

empowered

by leaving the summons at

his abode, and to proceed ex parte if he did not
appear, was held to justify ex parte proceedings
against a seafaring man who had for months before
the summons, and during the whole of the progating from

its port,

been absent beyond the seas

ceeding,

(6).

So,

where an Act authorised justices to hear bastardy

cases on proof that the summons had been served
at the last place of abode of the putative father,

was held that they had jurisdiction in a case

where the latter was abroad, and had had no
cognizance of the summons (c). The Carriers Act,
it

(a)

Clementson

v.

Mason, 44 L.

J. 0.

P. 171.

See per Brett

J.,

Id. 217.
(6)

Guherson

(c)

B.

22 L.

J.

V.

v.

M.

& E. 753.
M. 0. 21. See also B. v. Bams,
Higham (1857), 26 L. J. M. 0. 116.

Melton, 12 A.

Bamarell,.31 L.
C. 143

B.

J.

v.

Comp. B. V. Smith (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 604.

that in bastardy a

summons cannot be

Digitized

It

should be noted

served on the alleged

by Microsoft

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION ILLUSTRATED.

1830

which exempted a common

(a),

23

carrier

from

the loss of or injury to certain classes

liability for

value was

and
insured (6), was construed literally as exempting
him from liability, even when the loss was owing
goods

of

the

unless

declared

to his negligence, so long as such negligence did

not amount to a wilful misfeasance, or a wrongful

act inconsistent with his character of carrier

The

provisions of

Licensing Act, 1872 (repld.

Licensing Act, 1910), requiring intoxicating

69,

s.

s. 8,

liquors, sold

by

retail.

not in cask or bottle or

quantities less than half a pint, to

in

(c).

be sold

marked according to the imperial

standard, would be violated by the sale of beer,

in measures

even at the request of the customer, in a vessel

containing one-third of a quart, there being no
imperial measure answering to that quantity (c?).

The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, which

empowered by s. 50 (repld. by 46 & 47 Vict,
49) a judge to order either party to a cause

c.

to produce

documents upon the application of the

putative father out of England, B.

Lightfoot (1856), 20 J. P,

v.

677.

Wm.

(a)

11 Geo. IV.

&

(6)

Doey

&

N. W. By.

also L.
(c)

N.

K
(d)

&

v.

L.

N. W. By. Go.

Einton

v.

IV.

c.

68.

Co.,

v. Aahton,

Dihbin (1842), 57

By. Co. (1876), 45 L.

35 & 36 Vict.

c.

94

Digitized

J.

[1919] 1 K. B. 623.

[1919]

W.

E. E.

See

N. 234,
Morritt

754;

Q. B. 289.

Payne

v.

Thomas, 60 L.

by Microsoft

J.

M.

0.

3.

v.

24

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES,

own

other party supported by his

was

affidavit,

held not to authorise an order on the affidavit

of another person in its stead

(a),

party

(&).

absent beyond seas

is

Act, by

s.

60 (repld. by 46

empowering a judgment

&

even though the

And

the same

47 Vict.

c.

49), in

obtain an

creditor to

order for the examination of his debtor, was held

not to authorise the examination of the directors

when

the debtor was a corporate body

the Solicitors Act, 1860, 23

& 24 Vict.

which authorises the imposition

127,

c.

of a

So,

(c).
s.

28,

charge for

costs on property "recovered or preserved" {d)

through the instrumentality of a solicitor, was

held not to authorise such a charge where the

was

an invasion of the
was a suit not respecting
property, but respecting an easement merely, or
the mode in which it was enjoyed (e) nor to a
case where the proceedings had not gone beyond
a decree for an account, and the parties had then
compromised without the knowledge of the solicitor
suit

to prevent or stop

right to light

for this

of the party

who thereby

(o) Christopherson

Kingsford

v.

v.

did recover property (/).

Lotinga,

33 L.

J.

Eerschfield v. Glarh (1856), 25 L. J.

(c)

Diclcson v.

As

to

Gomp.

G. W. B. Co., 33 L. J. C. P. 307.

(6)

(d)

C. P. 121;

Neath

what

&

Ex. 113.

Brecon B. Co. (1869), 38 L.

constitutes recovery

J.

Ex. 57.

and preservation, see

Wingfield v. Wingfield, [1919] 1 Ch. 462.

(e)

Foxon

v.

Gascoigne, 43 L. J. Gh. 729.

(/) Pinherton

v. Hasten,

Digitized

42 L.

J.

Oh. 878.

by Microsoft

Comp. Moxon

v.

NO ADDITION OR

OMISSION.

25

direction on his deathbed by the holder of a

promissory note that

it should be destroyed as
soon as found, was held not " an absolute and
unconditional renunciation of his rights" on the

note within

And a like

s.

62, Bills of

Exchange Act, 1882

(a).

rule applies where, without renunciation

in writing, the bill is given

up to a third party

(6).

It is but a corollary to the general rule in ques-

be added to or to be taken
from a statute, unless there are similar adequate
tion, that

nothing

is to

grounds to justify the inference that the Legislature intended something which it omitted to
express

(c)

"it

is

a strong thing to read into an

Act of Parliament words which are not there, and,

in the absence of clear necessity, it is a wrong

"we

thing to do "(d);

are not entitled to read

words into an Act of Parliament unless clear

reason for it is to be found within the four corners
of the

Act

itself " (e).

Sheppard, 59 L. J. Q. B. 286, where

Court.
(a)

money had been

See also Be Wadsworth, 54 L.

45 & 46 Vict.

61

c.

(6)

Edwards

(c)

Seeder Tindal

v. Walters,

Be

J.

George, 59 L. J. Oh. 709.

[1896] 2 Ch. 157, C. A.

v.

Westbury, Exp.

Sepulchre, 33 L. J.

Estate, 31 L. J. Ch.

See also
{d)
(e)

inf.

M. & Gr. 277; per

29; per Lord

O.J., Everett v. Wells, 2

Lord Eldon, Dams

St.

paid into

Oh. 638.

Marlborough, 53 E; E.

351.

Chap. IX, Sec.

Camp.

Be

Ch. 375

Cherry's

Per Lord Mersey, Thompson

v. Goold,

79 L.

by Microsoft

K. B. 911.

J.

Per Lord Lorebum L.C., Vickers v. Evans, 79 L.

Digitized

Be

Wainwright, 1 Phil. 258.

J.

K. B.955.

26

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

But where a

Act

section of a public

is

incor-

porated in a private Act the subsequent repeal

of the public

Act

will

not repeal the section inter-

polated in the private Act

(a).

case not provided for in a statute

is

not to

be dealt with merely because there seems no good

reason

why

should have been omitted, and the

it

omission appears consequently to have been unThus, a Divorce Act, which provided

intentional.

that any order

made

for

the protection of the

woman might be
who made it, was

earnings of a deserted married

discharged by the magistrate

held not to empower his successor to discharge

though the magistrate who had made it was

dead (b), and this rule is of general application (c).
An Act which authorises the removal of lunatics
to a hospital when there is no lunatic asylum

it,

in the county,

established

does

not

authorise

such a removal when a county asylum

but

so full as to

is

(a)

JenMns

(6)

20 & 21 Vict.

ss.

7-9

Burrell,

B.

V.
(c)

v. Gt. Central
c.

85,

s.

By. (1912), 81 L.

K. B. 24.

WanUyn

v.

72 E. E. 545;

Woollett,

Ashhurton, 8 Q. B. 871.

Eiggs

v.

Schroeder (1877), 47 L. J. Q. B. 426

Boodle, 16 L. J. C. P. 135

Owen

J.

amended by 21 & 22 Vict. o. 108,

5 B. & S. 322. See also Nettleton v.

21,

Exp. Sharpe (1864),

66 E. E. 658;

exists,

be unable to receive another

V.

Henshaw

Nind

v. Arthur, 7

(1877), 47 L. J. Ch. 267

(1877), 2 C. P. D. 362.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Newton

v.

D. & L. 252

Gatlow v. Gatlow

NO ADDITION OR OMISSION,
lunatic

was

It

(a).

27

one time held that

at

if

an Act

requires that a writ, on renewal, shall be sealed with

a seal denoting the date of renewal, a copy of the

writ cannot be substituted for the original for this

purpose,

when the

original

now provided by Order 8, E.

a writ of which production
lost,

lost (6), but it

is

is

that " where

S.

C, r.

is

necessary, has been

3,

the Court or a judge, upon being satisfied of

and of the correctness of a copy thereof,

may order that such copy shall be sealed and
served in Keu of the original writ." So, also, it
was held under the repealed Act 26 & 27 Vict. c.
29, s. 7, which enacted that answers made to an
election commission should not be admitted in
evidence in any proceeding except in cases of

the

loss,

" indictment " for perjury, left such answers excluded in " informations " for perjury filed by the
Similarly, an Act requiring
"
notice of action for
anything done " by a person

Attorney- General

(c).

was held not to

extend to actions for words spoken in the execuand the provisions of the County
tion of it (d)

in the execution of his office,

(o)

B.

V. Ellis (1844),

provided for by
(&)

15 & 16 Vict.

(c)

B.

V. Slater

Viet. 0. 51,
(d)

11

s.

59,

& 12

Boyal Aquarium

This contingency

6 Q. B. 501.

is

now

68 of the Lunacy Act, 1890.

s.

c.

76

Bavies

v.

Garland, 45 L. J. Q. B. 137.

(1881), 51 L. J. Q. B. 246, and see 46

and Schedule

Vict.
v.

c.

44,

s.

4.
9,

repealed by S. L. E., 1894,

Parkinson, 61 L. J. Q. B. 409.

Digitized

& 47

by Microsoft

28

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Court Act, 1888, which require certain formalibe gone through before bringing an action

ties to

against the

do not extend to a motion by a

bailiff,

up by the

trustee in bankruptcy for the delivery

bailiff of

property seized

When

the

(a).

Common Law

Procedure Act, 1852,

abolished the writ of distringas without providing

on lunatics in confinement

for the service of a writ

and inaccessible,

was found that no actions

could be prosecuted against them (J). So, when
it

extra-parochial places were

made

rateable, without

enactments which required

either repealing the

that a copy should be afSxed on or near the doors

making any
was held, where

of all the churches in the parish, or

other provision for publication,

it

there was no church in the extra-parochial place,

that a rate aflSxed on a church door fifty yards

from the boundary was invalid for want of publication

51

(a)

(c).

&52

&

Vict.

W. & M.

43,

c.

s.

50;

which required

20,

c.

Be Loch

(1890), 63 -L. T. 320.

Sec. 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56

Vict.

c.

much

61) repeals so

of

& 57

any public Act, including the

County Courts Act, as contains a provision that notice

of action

shall be given.
(6)

Holmes

Maggs, 28 L.

(1854), 24 L, J. C. P. 24

v. Service

J.

Ex.

See

5.

s.

17 of the

Act, but see Judic. Act, 1875,

(c)

51 L.

17 Geo.
J,

M.

II. c. 3,

C. 104

and 1
s.

and Ord. 9
Vict.

4 of 45

difficulty discovered in this

Digitized

Williamson v.

Common Law

c.

& 46

and cdgnate

(5),

45

B.

Vict.

cases.

by Microsoft

Procedure

E. S. C.
v.
c.

Byott (1882),

20, avoids the

NO ADDITION OR

29

OMISSION.

that judgments should be docketed, enacted that

undocketed judgments should not affect lands as

regarded purchasers or mortgagees, or have preference against heirs or executors
c.

11, abolished docketing,

&

3 Vict,

and enacted that no

judgment should have effect unless registered

but it made no provision for the protection of
heirs and executors.
Though this was perhaps an
oversight, resulting in hardship on an executor
who had paid simple contract debts without keep;

ing suScient assets to meet an unregistered judg-

ment

which he had no notice, the Court refused

to supply the omission (a).
These were all casus
omissi which the Court could not reach by any
of

recognised canons of interpretation.

Where an Act

authorised the apportionment of

the cost of making a sewer, without limiting any

time for the purpose, the Court refused to read

the Act as limiting the exercise of the power to a
reasonable time

21 Jac.

(b).

I. c.

16,

having pro-

vided that the Statute of Limitation should not

run while the

4 & 5 Anne, c.

plaintiff

was beyond the

seas,

and

having made a similar provision

where the defendant was abroad, s. 7, 3 & 4 W. IV.
c. 42, enacted that no part of the United Kingdom

is

16,

(o) Fuller v.

Bedman

remedied by

s.

(6)

Bradley

v.

(1859), 29 L. J. Oh. 324

3 of 23

& 24

this mischief

Vict. c. 38.

Greenwich Board of Works (1878), 47 L.

111.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

M. C.

30

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.

should be deemed " beyond the seas " within the

meaning of the former Act, but made no mention

of the latter Act
and it was held that. 3 & 4 W. IV.
;

42, could not be stretched to include the latter

0.

Act

may have been no good reason for

the new enactment to the Act of

There

(a).

thus limiting

James; but there was no

ground either
the consequences

sufficient

in the context or in the nature of

resulting from the

omission, for concluding that

Anne was intended to be included. So

when the Married Women's Property Act, 1870

the Act of

(repealed with certain savings by 46

s. 2),

empowered a married

making her

liable to

action lay against her

woman

be sued,

c.

75,

to sue, without

was held that no

Sec. 11, Habitual Crimi-

(&).

nals Act, 1869 (repealed

it

& 46 Vict.

by 34

&

35 Vict.

c.

112),

in enacting that upon a trial for receiving stolen

goods, a previous conviction for any offence involving dishonesty should be

admissible against the

prisoner as evidence of his having received with

guilty knowledge, provided that notice

were given

him that the conviction would be put in

evidence " and that he would be deemed to have

to

known

that the goods were stolen until he proved

the contrary," omitted, however, to enact substan(a)

Lane

v.

N. C. 584, and see

(6)

33

M. & W. 70 Battershy v. Kirk, 2 Bing.

Mather v. Brown (1876), 1 0. P. D. 596.

Bennett, 1

& 34

Vict.

c.

93,

s.

11; Hancocks

L. J. 0. P. 514.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

LaUache, 47

NO ADDITION OK OMISSION.
that

tively

conviction

this

should be given to the

effect

and

31

was held that the omission

could not be supplied (a). Without such an
emendation, the notice was incorrect and misleading; but it did not lead to any injustice or
;

it

inconvenience or other mischievous consequence.

Although the

Bills of Sale Act, 1878, required that

the execution of

every

sale should be
"
attested by a solicitor, and that
the attestation

of

bill

should state" that the instrument was explained

by the solicitor to the grantor before execution, it

was held that no explanation was required for
the Act did not expressly enact that an ex;

planation
that

should

be

given

it

been given

(b).

only

required

had
Again, although the Bankruptcy

the attestation should assert

that

it

Act, 1869, provided for securing for the general

body of creditors the proceeds of goods of a debtor

sold in execution, it made no express provision for
dealing with his goods when seized under an elegit
and it was held that the omission, however fatal
to the whole policy of the Act, could not be supby any stretch of judicial interpretation

plied

(a)
(6)

Vict.

B.

V.

Davis (1872), L. E. 1 0. 0. E. 272.

Eepaaled as regards attestation by

c.

43,

(c).

s.

10

Exp. National Merc.

solicitor

Bank

by 45 & 46

(1880), 49 L. J,

Bank. 62.

c.

(c)

Exp. Ahbott, 50 L.

52,

s.

146.

J.

Oh. 80.

Cured by 46 & 47

See also Be Hutchinson (1885), 55 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Vict.

Q. B. 582.

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

32

a Eailway Act provided that the company, while in possession, under the Act, of lands

Where

liable

to assessment to

parochial rates, should,

works were completed and liable to

assessment, be bound to make good the deficiency

until

its

in thfe parochial assessment

by reason of the land

was held, at first, that the

company was bound to make good the deficiency
in any one of the parishes through which the line

having been taken,

it

was completed within the

parish (a); but this construction was rejected by
the House of Lords, who held that when the company have completed and are actually working a
line, or part of a line, within any parish, the
company can claim, and is liable, to be assessed in
ran, only until the line

respect of the actual letting value of the line, or

part of a line, so completed and actually worked,

whether it be or be not as valuable as the assessable

property for which it is substituted, and whether
the whole of the line of railway authorised by
their Act of Parliament has or has not been
completed (6). So s. 49, Bankruptcy Act, 1869,
which enacted that " an order of discharge shall
not release the bankrupt from any debt or

liability

incurred by means of any fraud or breach of trust,"

(a)

424;

Whitechurch
see also

v.

B.

East London By.

v.

Co.,

L. E. 7 Ex. 248,

Metrop. Bistr. By. Co., 40 L. J,

M.

113.
(6)

East London By. Go.

Digitized

v.

Whitechurch, L. E. 7

by Microsoft

H. L.

81.

G.

NO ADDITION OB OMISSION.

33

was held not to be confined to a fraud or breach. of

trust committed by the bankrupt personally; for
such a construction could only have been put
upon the words either by reading "his" instead

"any"

of

before the words "fraud or breach, of

trust," or by adding the words " committed by
him " after them (a).

which would leave without

any part of the language, would be rejected,
unless justified on similar grounds (6).
Thus,
where an Act plainly gave an appeal from one
Quarter Sessions to another, it was observed that
such a provision, though extraordinary and perhaps an oversight, could not be eliminated (c).
construction

effect

32

&

which gives to certain County

Courts power to try claims under i6300, arising out
of " any agreement in relation to the use or hire
33 Vict.

51,

c.

of a ship," or in relation to the carriage of goods,

with an appeal to the Court of Admiralty, and

power to the
causes to

latter Court

itself,

County Court

was

at first held not to give the

jurisdiction over suits for the breach

32 & 33 Vict. c. 71 Cooper v. Pritchard, 52 L. J. Q. B.

and see the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 26 (3.Z.).

(a),

s.

any such

charter-party, notwithstanding the compre-

of a

526,

to transfer

(6)

See Chap. IX, Sec.

(c)

B.

103.

V.

I.

West Biding, 1 Q. B. 329, and 4 & 5 Will. IV.

This mistake

is

cured by 47 & 48 Vict.

c.

43,

Schedule.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

s. 4,

76,

and

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

34

hensive nature

of

the language used;

on

tlie

ground that the literal construction would involve

the presumably unintended anomalies of giving by
mere implication a large, novel, and inconvenient
jurisdiction to the Court of Admiralty, and to the
suitor the

remedy

of proceeding in

rem when

his

claim was under 300, which he did not possess

when it exceeded it (a). But this construction
did not prevail, because

without effect the

it left

words which gave jurisdiction over any agreement

and
in relation to the use or hire of a ship (b)
;

yet

it

difficult to believe that the resulting

was

consequences were within the contemplation of the

Legislature or the scope of the enactment.

In a case where the technical language used

was precise and unambiguous, but incapable of
reasonable meaning, the Court held that

it

not at liberty, on merely conjectural grounds

(o)

(6)

Simpson
J.

had made warrants of

confess judgment void as against the

3 Geo. lY.

attorney to

44 L.

v. Blues,

39,

c.

41 L.

121; Gunnestad

J. C. P.

v. Price,

Ex. 44.

Gaudet

v.

49 L. J. P. D.

Brown, L. E. 5 P. G. 134; " The Alina" (1880),

&

A. 40.

of bills of lading for

This right includes claims by holders

damage

to goods

voyage, " The Bona " (1882), 51 L. J.

in note at
(c)

(c),

words a meaning which did not belong

to give the

to them,

was

end

of

Chap. V, Sec.

I.

See, however. Chap. IX, Sec.

Digitized

on board ship during

Adm.

I.

by Microsoft

65,

and see cases

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

35

assignees of a bankrupt,

if not filed within 21 days

from execution, or unless judgment was signed
"or" execution was "issued" within the same
period; and the Court of Queen's Bench refused

"or" into "and," and "issued" into

"levied"; though the passage was unmeaning as
it stood, and the proposed alterations would have
to alter

given

an

it

efieet

probably, but

which, because rational, was

only conjecturaUy, the

tended by the Legislature

in-

This subject, how-

(a).

be further considered in a subsequent

ever, will

chapter

efi'ect

(b).

SECTION

III.

THE

CONTEXT

EXTERNAL

CIRCUMSTANCES.

The foregoing elementary

rule of construction

does not carry the interpreter far; for

it is

con-

where the language is precise and

capable of but one construction, or where neither
the history or cause of the enactment, nor the
context, nor the consequences to which the literal
interpretation would lead, show that that interprefined to cases

tation does not express the real intention.

(a)

Green

by 6 & 7
33 Vict.

c.

62,

22, at p. 33
(6)

v.

Wood, 14 L.

s.

28,

Quin

J.

extended

v.

by 32 &

Briggs (1881), 19 Ch. D.

O'Keefe (1859), 10

Ir. 0.

Chap. IX.

Digitized

is

to " Judges Orders "

and camp. Laird

v.

This Act

Q. B. 217.

and applied

Vict. c. 66,

by Microsoft

L. E. 393.

mTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

36

But
which
rally,
it

another elementary rule, that a thing

it is

is

within the letter of a statute

will,

gene-

be construed as not within the statute unless

be also within the real intention of the Legisla-

ture (a), and the words,

if sufficiently flexible,

be construed in the sense which,

more
Language

grammatically,
intention

(6).

is

if

must

less correct

in

harmony with that

is

rarely

ambiguity as to be capable

so

free

from

being used in

of

more than one sense and to adhere rigidly to its

literal and primary meaning in all cases would be
If a literal
to miss its real meaning in many.
meaning had been given to the laws which forbade
a layman to "lay hands" on a priest, and punished all who drew blood in the street, the layman
who wounded a priest with a weapon would not
have fallen within the prohibition, and the surgeon who bled a person in the street to save his
life, would have been liable
to punishment (c).
;

On

a literal construction of his promise

(a)

Bac. Ab. Statute

(6)

See

409

(I.) 6.

Caledonian B. Go.

v.

N. Brit.

Lord Selborne

Co. v. Torbain, 1

576

per Lord Blackburn, Edinburgh

App. Cas. 68

Co. V. Comptroller of Patents,

at pp. 575,

Palmer (1849), 18 L. J. Ex.

B. Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 114,

;per Cur., SLollingworth v.

at p. 122, per

Tramways

Mahomed

Eastman Photographic

[1898] A. C. 571, Lord Halsbury,

Direct U.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Tele-

graph Go. (1877), 2 App. Cas. 394, at p. 412

and per Jessel M.E.,

Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 746, at pp. 750 et seq.

(c)

1 Bl.

Comm.

61

Puff. L. 5,

Digitized

c.

12,

s. 8.

by Microsoft

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTEUOTION.

37

sawing the Venetian governor's body in two,

was no breach of his engagement to spare his
head nor Tamerlane's burying alive a garrison,

II. 's

a violation of his pledge to shed no blood

On

(a).

a literal construction, Paohes, after inducing

Notium to a parley under a promise to replace him safely in the citadel, claimed
to be within his engagement when he detained
his foe until the place was captured, and put him
to death after having conducted him back to
the defender of

it (b)

and the Earl

of Argyll fulfilled in the

same

promise to the laird of Glenstane, that

spirit his

he would surrender he would see him safe to

England for he did not hang him until after he
had taken him safely across the Tweed to the
if

English Bank (c).

The equivocation

ambiguity of words and

or

and especially such as are general, is said

Bacon to be the great sophism of sophLord
by
isms (d). They have frequently more than one
equally obvious and popular meaning words used
phrases,

in reference to one subject or set of circumstances

(a) Vattel,

L. N. b.

2, s.

273.

34; Grote's Greece,

(6)

Thucyd.

(c)

Burton's Sc. Crim. Tr. 17.

3,

vol. 6,

chap. 50.

Immaturce puellm, quia more

tradito nefas esset virgines strangulari, vitiatce prius a carnifice, dein

strangulatce.

jure

Suet.

Tiberius,

s.

61,

and see Tacitus, Hist.

Lib., V.,

See other instances of such frauds collected in Grot, de

c. 9.

b., b. 2, c. 16, s. 5.

(d)

See also Herodotus,

Lord Bacon, Advancement

Digitized

iv.

154.

of Learning, b. 2.

by Microsoft

38

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

may convey

meaning quite

from what

different

the same words used in reference to another set of

circumstances and another object would convey.

General words admit^ of indefinite extension or

restriction, according to the subject to which they

and the scope and object in contemplation.

They may convey faithfully enough all that was
intended, and yet comprise also much that was
relate,

not;

or,

reach

be so restricted in meaning as not to

the cases which

all

intention.

within the real

fall

Even, therefore, where there

is

no

indistinctness or conflict of thought, or careless-

ness of expression in a statute, there

is

enough

in the vagueness and elasticity inherent in lan-

guage to account for the difficulty so frequently

found in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment, with the degree of accuracy necessary for
determining whether a particular case

But

it.

statutes are not always

falls

within

drawn by

skilled

hands, and they are always exposed to the risk

by many hands which introduce

different styles and consequent difficulties of
Nothing, it has been said by a
interpretation.
of alterations

great

authority,

so

is

construct

as to

difficult

properly an Act of Parliament

easy as to pull

It is not

(a)

Per Lord

it

St.

to pieces

(a).

Leonards, O'Flaherty

6 H. L. Gas. 142, at p. 179

and nothing so

v.

McDowell (1857),

and see Coverdale\. Charlton

48 L. J. Q. B. 128, per Bramwell L.J., 2 Q. B. D.

Digitized

enough

by Microsoft

B.

v.

(1878),

Monch

FALLACY OF LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.

39

to attain to a degree of precision whicla a "person

reading in good faith can understand,

it is

neces-

sary to obtain a degree of precision whicli a person

reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand

The
hvit

(a).

Uteral construction then, has, in general,

To

primd facie preference.

meaning,

arrive at the real

always necessary to get an exact

it is

conception of the aim, scope, and object of the

Lord
Coke (6), 1. What was the law before the Act was
passed 2. Wbat was the mischief or defect for
which the law had not provided 3. What remedy
Parliament has appointed; and 4. The reason of
Act

whole

to

according

consider,

to

According to another authority, " in

order properly to interpret any statute it is as

the remedy.

now

was when Lord Coke reported

Heydon's Case to consider how the law stood
when the statute to be construed was passed, what
necessary

as it

the mischief was for which the old law did not
provide, and the remedy provided by the statute
to

mischief"

cure that

(1877), 544, at p. 552

469, at p. 496
(a)

L.

J.
(6)

(c)

J.

meaning

true

p. 115.

Gastioni, Exp.,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 149

60

C. 22.

Heydon's Case, 3 Eep. 7b

Gomp. Bradlaugh

52 L.

J.,

The

Twyeroas v. Grant (1877), 2 C. P. D.

4 Q. B. D. 104, at

Per Stephen

M.

(c).

v.

Marshahea

Case,

10 Eep. 73a.

Clarke (1883), 8 A. 0. 354, at p. 366,

et seq.

Q. B. 505.

Per Lindley M.E., Mayfair Property

2 Ch. 28, at

p.

35

67 L.

J.

Digitized

Oh. 337.

by Microsoft

Co.,

In

re,

[1898]

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

40
of

any passage,

it is said, is

to be found not merely

in the words of that passage, but in comparing

it

with other parts of the law, ascertaining also what

were the circumstances with reference to which

'

the words were used, and what was the

object

appearing from those circumstances, which the

Legislature had in view

Every clause of a

(a).

statute should be construed with reference to the

context and the other clauses of the Act, so

far as possible, to

the whole

make a

to the subject matter

As regards the

consistent enactment of

or series of

statute

as, so

statutes relating

(b).

history, or external circumstances

which led to the enactment, the general rule which

is

applicable to the construction of all other docu-

ments

is

equally applicable to statutes

(c),

viz.,

that the interpreter should so far put himself in the

position of those
(a)

whose words he

is

interpreting,

See per Lord Blackburn, Biver Wear Com.

(1877), 2 App. Gas. 743

and per Lord Halsbury

v.

L.O.,

Adamson
Eastman

Co. V. Comptroller of Patents, [1898] A. C. 576.

(b)

Per Lord Davey, Canada Sugar Bejtning

Co. v. Beg.,

[1898] A. C. 741.
(c) It

has indeed been said that

imposing with regard to Acts

of construction

J. Q.

B. 279.

Tithe Act, 1891,

it

is

s.

all

documents: Per

to the decision in this case, see

(1).

Digitized

from

Norton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 452;

v.

As

safer to abstain

Parliament any further canons

than those applicable to

Bowen LJ., Lamplough

58 L.

of

by Microsoft

now

EXTERNAL CIBCUMSTANOES.
as to be able to see

41

what those words

relate to.

Extrinsic evidence of the oiroumstanoes or sur-

rounding facts under which a will or contract was

made, so far as they throw light on the matter to

which the document relates, and of the condition

and position and course of dealing of the persons

who made

or are mentioned in

it

is

it,

always

admitted as indispensable for the purpose not only

such person and things, but also of

of identifying

explaining the language, whenever

latently

is

it

ambiguous ,or susceptible of various meanings or

shades of meaning, and of applying it sensibly to
^the circumstances to which

Thus,

relates (a).

it

when

a Charter-Party stipulates that " detention

by ice " is not to be reckoned among laying days,

the meaning intended by this term cannot be

accurately determined without that knowledge of

Wigram

(a)

wood
In

re

Int. Wills, Prop. 5, cited

Magniac (1891), L.

V.

SJiortrede v.

Ch. 508

V.

J.

GJieeTe,

Doe

v.

Ch. 225

Legg, 23 L.

J.

Turner

Ex. 228

78 L.

J.

J.

Ch. 63
J.

36 L.

J.

& N.

Ex. 127

Lewis

22 L.

v. G.

J.

Q. B. 412; Graves

W. B.

Co.,

Bosaz, 2 P. D. 66

Butterley Co.

79 lb. 411

v.

47 L.
;

J.

Q. B.

Whitfield v.

H. L. 283

New HucJcnall

Be

Colliery

Trevor-Batty e's Settlement,

Ch. 646.

Digitized

Bash-

Nelms, 1 H.

v.

Eill v. Crook, L. E. 6

L.J.,

Baumann v. James, L. E. 3
& E. 431 Blundell v. Gladstone,

Be Be

Ch. 729

In re (1912), 81 L.

Anstee

v. Ilvatis,
;

by Lindley

Trevor-Batty e's Settlement,

v. Priestner,

40 E. E. 258

Langdale, 1 Ch. D. 61

Jameson, 77 L.

Wood

Benyon, 12 A.

133, per Bramwell L.J.

Co.,

Oh. 817

(1912), 81 L. J. Ch. 646

225, per Bramwell B.

12 L.

J.

by Microsoft

42

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

the circumstances of the port and trade which the

presumed

parties possessed, or are conclusively

have possessed;
stances

to

of these circum-

and evidence

received for the purpose of accurately

is

construing

the contract

When

(a).

a vessel

is

warranted seaworthy, the meaning must vary with

the nature, not only of the vessel but of the voyage

and evidence of these circumstances

is

admitted

in order to ascertain the precise intention of the

In a lease

parties.

keep

it

house with a covenant to

of a

in tenantable repair,

necessary to

is

it

ascertain whether the house is an old or a

one, whether

it is

new

a tenement in St. Giles's or a

palace in Grosvenor Square

which would

for that

be a repair of the one, might not be so of the

other

So, on the sale of a horse warranted to

(b).

go well in harness, the qualities of a good goer

would be different in one fit to draw a lady's

carriage, and a brewer's dray and it would therefore
be necessary to inquire what was the kind of horse
which was the subject of the warranty (c). Where
;

Hudson

(a)

M.E., Smith
also

Behn

v.

v.

V.

Ede, 37 L.

J.

Q. B. 166

Bosario Nitrate

Bumess

Co.,

on whc. see per Esher

[1894] 1 Q. B. 178;

(1861), 32 L. J. Q. B. 207,

see

and Bentson

v.

Taylor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 274.

Guiteridge v. Munyard, 1

(6)

B.

Co.,

33 L.
J.

J.

Ch. 622

Moo. & E. 336

J.

Q. B. 17, at

Q. B. 46.

Both

London v. G. W.

LurcottY. WaJcely, [1911] 1

See jdgmt. of Blackburn

(c)

L.

70 L.

p.

28

J.,

Burges

Clapham

v.

v.

of these cases relate to

Digitized

by Microsoft

K.B.

905.

WickJiam (1863),

Langton (1864), 34

Marine Insurance.

EXTEENAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

43

worded in language equally applicable to a past and to a future credit, evidence of

a guarantee

is

the state of the dealings of the parties

may

time,

was the

the

at

be given in order to determine which

which they used the words (a).

real sense in

So, in the interpretation of statutes, the interpreter, in order to

understand the subject matter

and the scope and object

of the enactment, must,

what was the mischief

or defect for which the law had not provided that
is, he must call to his aid all those external or
historical facts which are necessary for this purpose, and which led to the enactment [b], and for
these he may, as regards ancient statutes, consult
contemporary or other authentic works and writings (c), and may also consider whether a statute
was intended to alter the law, or leave it exactly
where it stood before (d). It being " a very serious
in Coke's words, ascertain

(a)

36 L.

Be

Goldshede
J.

Swan, 16 L.

v.

Ex. 127.

Woolverton Estates, 47 L.

43 L.

P.

J.

1 Ch. 305
(6)

M. & A. 73
Morrell

Gorham

Bramwell

v.

v.

J.

Ex. 284

J.,

Wood

v. Horderrp,

Ch. 127

Charter

Sf

v.

Ch. 315

J.

Charter,

v.

Moore, [1904]

v.

Millington, [1913] 2 Ch. 648.

Exeter (Bp.), Eep. by Moore,

B.

Priestner,

v.

45 L.

and compare Bruner

Studd

B., A.-O. v. Sillem (1863), 2

per Coleridge

Tewens

v.

J.

See also Laher

p.

462

H. & C. 431,

Blane, 13 Q. B. 773

see per

at p.

531

per Thesiger L.J.,

Noakes, 6 Q. B. D. 535, and see Phillips

v.

Bees

(1889), 59 L. J. Q. B., at p. 4.
(c)

See Bead

{d)

Per Cdzens-Hardy

v.

Lincoln (Bp.), 62 L. J. P. C. 1
L.J.,

Digitized

Be a

inf. p.

108.

Debtor, [1903] 1 K. B. 705.

by Microsoft

44

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

matter to hold that when the main object of a

statute is clear

it

shall be

by the

draftsman's

of law "

(a).

reduced to a nuUity

unskilfulness

or

ignorance

In his celebrated judgment in the

Alabama arbitration, Cockburn, C.J., showed, by
a reference to their history, that both the American

and English Foreign Enlistment Acts of the early

part of the nineteenth century were intended,
not to prevent the sale of armed ships to belligerents, but to prevent American and English
from manning privateers against

citizens

gerents

5 G-eo. IV.

(b).

c.

belli-

113, for the abolition

was construed to extend to

committed by British subjects out of the
British dominions, that is, on the West Coast of
Africa, by the light of the notorious fact that the
crime against which the Act was directed, was
mainly, if not exclusively committed there (c)
though it may, perhaps, not have extended to our
subjects in other parts of the world beyond our
of the slave trade,

offences

An

territories (d).

Salmon

(a)

Bex

v.

ordinance of

the colony of

Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Cas., at p. 634;

J. K. B. 117, [1905] 2 K. B. 748,

Vasey (1905), 75 L.

V.

C. 0. E.

Supplement

(&)
(c)

B.

V.

to the

London

Gazette,

Zulueta (1843), 1 Car.

20 Sept. 1872,

& K. 215

p.

4135.

SociSte des Hotels

Hawher (1913), 29 T. L. E. 578.

(d) Per Bramwell B., Santos v. Illidge (1859-60), 8 C. B. N. S.
861, and see the judgment of Wright J., in Kaufman v. Oerson,
Beunis

v.

[1903] 2 K. B. 114

73 L.

J.

Digitized

K. B. 320.

by Microsoft

BXTEBNAL CIECUMSTANOES.

Hong Kong which

45

authorised the extradition of

Chinese subjects to the government of China, when

charged with " any crime or offence against the

law of China," was construed, either by reference

to the circumstances under which the treaty (which
the ordinance enforced) had been made or to the
geographical relation of

Hong Kong

limited to those crimes which

to China, as

nations concur
An Act which authorised " the

in proscribing (a).

all

Court " before which a road indictment was preferred, to give costs,

was construed

the judge at Nisi Prius to do

so,

as authorising

partly on the

ground of the well-known fact that such indictments were rarely tried by the Court in which
they were, in the
ferred "

In

(6).

strict

sense of the word, " pre-

construing

an

was intended to
should be considered, as the two

the terms of the treaty which

carry into effect

Extradition Act

it

documents ought not to conflict

accordingly
where the treaty provided that no extradition
should be made for offences committed before it
came into operation, the Act, though silent on the
;

point, should be limited in the

There
to

is

amend the law

(a) A.-G. V.

defects

Kwoh-a-Sing (1873), L. E. 5 P. C. 179, 197.

(6)
(c)

33 & 34 Vict.

by 58 & 59

directed against

are

Pembridge, 12 L.

B.

V.

same way (c).

some presumption that statutes passed

Vict.

c.

c.

33

52,
;

B.

J.

Q. B. 47, 259.

amended by 36 & 37
v.

Digitized

Vict. c. 60,

Wilson, 3 Q. B. D. 42.

by Microsoft

and

46

INTERPRETATION OV STATUTES.

whicli have

come

into notice about the time

when

and on the ground that

s.
Eailway & Canal Traffic Act,, 1854, was
7,
passed to correct a state of the law brought into
notice by a legal warfare which had been waged
those

statutes passed;

about

negligence

only,

section to losses of goods "occasioned

neglect or

of"

default

servants, has been held not

by the

theft of a servant of

by the

company

such

that

in

reference

the

or

its

extend to a loss
the company without
to

negligence on their part, that not being, a loss by

neglect or default on their part

Agaiu, on the ground that

(a).
it

was

to

prevent

delay and costs that the Legislature enacted in

s.

Act, 1889, that, " before delivery

4, Arbitration

any pleadings or taking any other steps in the

proceedings," any party may apply to the Court
of

was held by the House

of Lords, that a defendant who had taken out a
summons and obtained an order for further time
"
for dehvering his defence had taken a " step

to stay the proceedings, it

within the section

(a)

17 & 18 Yict.

c.

52 & 53 Vict.

c.

(b).

31

Shaw

v.

G. W. B.

Co.,

[1894] 1 Q. B.

373.
(6)

A. C.

1.

Marine

But
Co.

49

see Ghappell
v.

-v.

Ford's Hotel Go. v. Bartlett, [1896]

North, 60 L. J. Q. B.

Woodhouse, 62 L.

J.

Oh. 697

Ltd. V. Knowles, 71 L. J. K. B. 351.

aflSdavits in

answer to a motion

in the proceedings''

554:, &n3. Brighton

County Theatres,

But the mere

within the section, Zalinoff

Digitized

filing of

for a Eeoeiver is not " a step

by Microsoft

v.

Hammond,

EXTEENAL CIKCUMSTANCES.

The

47

may

external circumstances which

be thus

referred to, do not, however, justify a departure

from every meaning of the language of the Act.

Their function is limited to suggesting a key to
the true sense,

when

the words are fairly open to

more than one, and they

are to be borne in mind,

with the view of applying the language to what

was intended and

of not extending it to

what was

not intended (a).

for some special
where a provision is of doubtful
import, or employs words of technical meaning,
the pre-existing law is not to be taken into consideration in construing a Codifying Act, which
implies not only the collection, but in some
respects the alteration of the law (6).
Such an

It has

reason,

67 L.

J.

been said that unless

e.g.,

Ch. 370, nor

is

a mere request for a Statement of

Claim, Ives v. Williams, 63 L.

intention to defend

by

J.

Ch. 521

nor

is

giving notice of

up the slip attached

Bowley (1913), 108 L. T. 920.
filling

to a default

But on the
summons. Austin v.
other hand attendance before a master, and acquiescing without
protest on an order has been held to be " a step in the pro-

ceedings."

out a

Cohen

summons

v.

Arthur (1912), 56 Sol.

for discovery is also " a step."

Taking

J. 344.

Parher, Gaines

&

Go. V. Turpin, [1918] 1 K. B. 368.

(a)

See dictum of Jessel M.E., Holme

and B.
A.-G.

v. Langriville,

V.

54 L.

J.

v.

Ouy, 5 Ch. D. 905

Q. B. 124; but see Hall V.C. in

Manchester (1881), 18 Ch. D., at p. 609

50 L.

J.

Ch.

562.
(&)

Per Lord Herschell, Bk. of England

A. C. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Vagliano, [1891]

48

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

Act, in the main, expresses in abstract propositions the conclusions of law or equity

been reached by the

Exchange Act, 1882, and

which have

Judicature, ex gr. Bills of

In relation to the
said in a

citation of

intent

ojf

earlier

Goods Act, 1893.

Cozens-Hardy, M.E., has

latter,

modern case

Sale of

" I rather deprecate the

The

decisions.

and

object

the statute was no doubt

simply to

codify the unwritten law applicable to the sale of

goods

but in so far as there

is

an express statu-

tory enactment, that alone must be looked at and

must govern the rights of the parties, erven though

the section may, to some extent, have altered the
prior Common Law " {a).
Yet counsel, and even
eminent judges,
if

will refer to the earlier decisions

an argument

only for elucidating

And,

(6).

indeed, as regards a Consolidation Act

ex.

gr.

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908 if it reenacts, with a like context, a word or phrase in
one of the Acts consolidated which has received
judicial

interpretation,

generally,

be

that

applicable

to

interpretation will,

the same word or

phrase in the Consolidation Act

(c).

Eeference has been occasionally

(o) Bristol

Tramways

made

Go. v. Fiat Motors (1910),

to

79 L.

J.

what
K. B.

1109.
(6)

L.

J.
(c)

See judgment of Parwell L.J., Wallis

K. B. 1023.
See, however, cases cited, p. 109, inf.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Pratt (1910), 79

EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANOES.

49

the framers of the Act, or individual members of

the Legislature intended to do by the enactment,
or understood

Hengham

it

to have done (a).

knew

said that he

Chief Justice

better than counsel

the meaning of the 2d Westminster, as he had

drawn up

that

statute

(b).

Lord Nottingham

claimed that he had some reason to

know

the

meaning of the Statute of Frauds, because, he

said, it had had its first rise from him, he having
Lord
brought it into the House of Lords (c).
Kenyon supported his construction of 9 Anne,
c. 20, by the argument that so accurate a lawyer
as Mr. Justice Powell, who had drawn it, never
would have used several words where one
Lord Field refers to the improbasufficed (d).

who framed the

would not have made a

the eminent lawyers

bility that

Judicature Act,

1875,

Lord
if they intended it(e).
has,
on
more
that
he
however
Halsbury states
certain exception

than one occasion, said that the worst person to

construe a statute is the person who is responsible
for its drafting, for
(a)

For an exposition

he

is

much

disposed to confuse

of the general rules governing the

struction of Statutes, see Halsbury L.C., in Gox

15 A. C, at pp. 577
(6)

Year Book

(c)

See Ash

v.

{d)

B.

(e)

Bell-Gox

v.

Con-

Hakes, [1890]

et seq.

of 33

Ed.

I.

M. Term.

(Eolls Ed.) 82.

Abdy, 3 Swanst. 664.

V. Wallis,
v.

5 T. E. 379.

Bakes (1890), 60 L.

J.

Q. B. 89; 15 A.

p. 544.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C,

at

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

50

what he intended to do with the effect of the

language which in fact he has employed (a). Yet,
in determining the meaning of the rubric on vestments in the Prayer-book (enacted by the Uniformity Act, 13

&

14 Car.

II.

c.

4),

the Privy

Council, in one ecclesiastical case, referred to the

introduction of a proviso by the Lords in that

Commons, and

Act, and its rejection by the

to

the reasons assigned by the latter, in the conference which ensued,

for the

rejection,

as

indication of the intention of the Legislature

an
(b)

between the
bishops who framed or revised the rubric and the
Presbyterian divines at the Savoy Conference in
1662, as showing the meaning attached to it by
the former (c). And it has been stated as a

and in

another, to

discussion

general proposition in ecclesiastical matters that

the law excludes all historical investigation

and discussion on antecedent usage in matters of
ritual and practice it excludes one source of light
upon doubtful questions (d).
Lord Westbury,

if

when

Chancellor, referred to a speech

himself,

V.

A.

(a)

Hilder

(6)

Hebbert

made by

Attorney-General, in the House of

as

Dexter (1902), 71 L.

v.

J.

Ch. 781, at p. 783.

Purchas, 40 L. J. Bcc. 33, and see MachonoMe

v.

Martin (1881), 6 A. C. 424.

(c)

Bidsdale

(d)

See Halsbury L.C. in Bead

C,

v.

OUftort,

46 L.

J. P. C. 27.
v.

Bishop of Lincoln, [1892]

at p. 652.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Commons,

EXTEENAL OIEOUMSTANOES.

51

in 1860, in introducing the

Bankruptcy

which was passed into law in the following

year; and one of his reasons in favour of the
construction which he put on the Act was that it
tallied best with the intention which the LegislaBill,

ture (that

is,

the three branches of the Legislature)

might be presumed to have adopted, as it was the

ground on which application had been made to
one of the three. But he observed, at the same

had endeavoured,

time, that he

in forming his

opinion, to divest his mind, as far as possible, of

impressions received from the past, and to

all

consider the language of the Act as

had been

if it

him for the first time in the case

before him (a).
The reports furnish other instances (6). But it is unquestionably a rule that
presented to

what may be called the parliamentary history of

an enactment is not admissible to explain its
meaning (c). Its language can be regarded only
as the language of the three Estates of the realm,
(a) Be Mew, 31 L. J. Bank. 89, and see Hamilton, In re (1878),
Bacon G J., 9 Ch. Div., at p, 696.
(6) Ex. gr. per Hale C.B., Hedworih v. Jackson, Hard. 318;
McMaster v. Lomax, 2 Myl. & K. 32 ; Mounsey v. Ismay, 3 H. &
Hudson v.
0. 486 Drummond v. Drummond, 36 L. J. Ch. 153
;

Tooth, 47 L. J. Q. B. 18,

Q. B. D.
(c)

649

1,

See

and see Bell-Oox, Exp. (1887), 20

at p. 30.

ex. gr.

per Cur., B.

per Pollock C.B., A.-O.

Bramwell

v.

Hertford College, 47 L.

v. Sillem,

Q. B.

2 H. & G. 521, and per

B., 537.

Digitized

J.

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

52

and the meaning attached to it by its framers or

by individual members of one of those Estates
cannot control the construction of

Indeed,

it (a).

the inference to be drawn from comparing the

language of the Act with the declared intention
of its framers would be that the difference between
the two was not accidental but intentional
Accordingly, the

Dower

& 4 Will.

Act, 1833, 3

(6).

IV.

was construed to apply to gavelkind lands,

although this was avowedly contrary to the in-

0.

106,

tention of the real property commissioners

prepared that Act

that

it

was

their

for

intention that

extend to lands of that tenure

Moor, who
43 Eliz.

who

they stated in their report

should not

it

Sir Francis

(c).

drew the Statute of Charitable Uses,

says, in his reading

c. 4,

on

it,

that a gift

of lands to maintain a chaplain or minister for

divine service, or to maintain schools for

chising,

was not within

intentionally omitted,
fiscated;

its

lest

they should be con-

since rehgion being variable according

to the pleasure of succeeding princes, that

(a)

Dean of

Yorh's Case (1841), 2 Q. B. 1

Pollock C.B. and Parke B., Martin

478

Cameron

v.

Cameron (1834),

Phcenix Gas Co. (1865), 34 L.

(6)

Per Tindal

p. 757,
(c)

cate-

meaning, having been

57 E. E. 545.

Bonham

v.

Ex. 108.
2 0. B. 749, at

Payne (1885), 52 L. T. 530.

(1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 239.

Digitized

Per

Hemming (1854), 10 Ex.

2 Myl. & K. 289 Hemstead v.
v.

C.J., Salkeld v. Johnston (1847),

and see Esdaile

Farley-tv.

J.

which

by Microsoft

EXTERNAL OIROUMSTANCES.

was orthodox

53

one time might be superstitious

at another, and so be forfeited (a)
but such
devises were nevertheless afterwards held to fall
at

within the Act

So, what took place before

(b).

the committee cannot be invoked for putting such

a construction on a private Act(c), as
its

wiU

limit

application to one party to the detriment of

the general public.

Although for the purpose of

the Court would be at liberty to
consider the position of the parties concerned, and

construing

may come
clause

it

the conclusion that a particular

to

was inserted

who

at the instance of a party

was present, for his protection, and conferred

upon him such an interest as to entitle him to a
mandamus to compel compliance therewith (d).
Another class of external circumstances which
have, under peculiar circumstances, been sometimes taken into consideration in construing a
statute, consists of acts

may determine
(a)

done under

it,

usage

for

the meaning of the language, at

Duke, Char. Uses, 125.

(6) Id.

134, Penstred v. Payer, Id. 381

Grieves v. Case, i Bro.

C. C. 67.
(c)

B.

V.

(d)

to

Davis

& Sons v.

Midland B.

V.

Co.,

Taff Vale By.

L. E. 1 Ch. 282

Manchester Corp., 80 L.

B.

V.

J.

Co.,
;

[1895] A. 0. 542

for

J.

K. B. 263.

construing such clauses, see

527-530.

Digitized

Steele

K. B. 265.

Manchester Corp. (1910), 80 L.

the principles

per Lord Alverstone C.J.,

by Microsoft

inf.

As
pp.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

54

when the meaning

events

all

amhiguity

SECTION

is

not free from

(a).

IV.

THE

CONTEXT

EAELIEB

AND LATER

ANALOGOUS ACTS.

ACTS

Passing from the external history of the statute

to its contents, it is an elementary rule that construction

is

made

to be

of all the parts together,

and not of one part only by itself (b). Incivile est

nisi tota lege perspecta, una aliqua partioula ejus proSuch a survey is
posita, judicare vel respondere{o).
the
words are the
often indispensable, even when
for the true meaning of any passage
plainest {d)
is that which (being permissible) best harmonises
with the subject, and with every other passage of
the statute. If one section of an Act, for instance,
;

required

"notice" should be "given," a

that

verbal notice would, generally, be sufficient

if

another
(a)

See

p. 404,
(b)

section

ex. gr. Leverton v.

it

should

to inf.,

Chap. XI, Sec.

but
be

I.

Lincoln College Case, 3 Eep. 59b.

Turquand.

Blackburn,

that

B. (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 394, at

and other cases referred

Co. Litt. 381a

Lord

provided

v.

Board of

Per

Trade (1886), 55

L. J. Q. B. 417.
(c)

Dig.

{d)

Per Lord Esher, M.E. and Ery

B. Go.

V.

1, B,

84.
L.J., Lancashire

Enowles (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 391

Colliery Co. v.

Bochdale Canal

Co.,

and Torks.

and see Chamber

[1895] A. 0. 564, at

et seq.

Digitized

by Microsoft

p.

571,

THE CONTEXT.

55

"served" on a person, or "left" with him, or in

manner or place, it would obviously
show that a written notice was intended (a).
a particular

Sec. 2, Prescription Act, 1832, 2

71, in protecting certain stated

c.

&

3 Will. IV.

easements from

disturbance after specified periods of enjoyment,

uses an expression which unambiguously includes
all

such easements, that

is,

those in gross as well

But

as those appurtenant.

5,

s.

which, in pro-

viding a form of pleading to be applicable to

rights within the Act, gives a form

from

its

all

which could,

nature, be applicable only to rights appur-

tenant, shows that the wide expression in the

earlier section

was used in the

right appurtenant

&4
(a)

51 L.

Will. IV.

43 & 44 Vict.
J.

Q. B. 112

105, the
42; 2

c.

Wilson

Dower

So, in the

(b).

c.

restricted sense of a

Act, 1833,

word "land," which

W. & M.

5; Moyle

c.

v. Nightingale,

See also Workmen's Compeiisation Act, 1906,

that Notice of accident is to be " given "

imports that the Notice

Colliery Go. (1909),

is

78 L.

(note, p.
V.

B.

M.

v.

0. 1.

providing

which, on the context,

K. B. 539), (as to what constitutes

v. Insoles,

whilst the Claim which, under the

maybe

s. 2,

J.

to be in -writing {Hughes v. Coed Talon

J.

notice in writing see Stevens

" made,"

v. Jenkins,

70 E. E. 727

Shurmer, 55 L. J. M. C. 153. See Portingell, Exp., 61 L.

it

{Lowe

[1912] 1 K. B. 36, 0. A.),

same

section,

has to be

Myers (1906), 75 L. J. K. B. 651,

656), and need not be for a specific sum {Thompson
oral

Goold (1910), 79 L.
(6) Shuttleworth v.

followed in Mercer

538; 74 L.

J.

J.

v.

K. B. 905).

Le Fleming, 34 L.
v.

J. 0. P.

Denne, [1904] 2 Oh. 534

Ch. 723.

Digitized

by Microsoft

309
;

approved,

[1905] 2 Gh.

INTBKPEETATION OP STATUTES,

56

and

defines as including manors, messuages,

other hereditaments, both

all

and incorwas

corporeal

poreal, except such as are not liable to dower,

held not to include copyhold lands

because

s.

6,

which provides that a widow shall not be entitled to

dower, when " the deed " by which the land was
conveyed to her husband contains a declaration
to that effect, showed that only lands which were
transferable by deed were within the contemplation of the Legislature (a).
So a colonial statute
which required an executor to file particulars of
the "personal estate " of the testator was held to
refer to such personal estate only as was held by
the testator in the colony,

it

other parts of the context a

being clear that in

number

of similar

expressions had to be subjected to limitations or

qualifications

of

the same nature.

safest guides, it has

been

said, to

of the

the construction

of sweeping general words,

which are

apply in their

sense,

full literal

One

is

difiScult to

to

examine

other words of like import in the same instrument,

and to see what limitations must be imposed on

them and if it is found that a number of such
;

expressions have to be subjected to limitations

and

and that such limitations and

are of the same nature, that circum-

qualifications,

qualifications
(a)

L. J.

Smith

v.

Adams, 24 L.

Ch. 123.

Comp. Doe

J.
v.

Ch. 258

p. 144.

Digitized

Powdrell

v. Jones,

Waterton, 22 E. E. 328;

by Microsoft

24
inf.

THE CONTEXT.

57

stance forms a strong argument for subjecting the

expression in dispute to a like limitation

Where one

qualification (a).

empowered the Board

and

section of an Act

of Trade,

when

it

had

"reason to believe" that a ship could not go

to sea without serious danger to human life, to
detain it for survey and another gave the ship;

owner a right to compensation if it appeared that

there was not reasonable cause for its detention,
by reason of the condition of the ship or the act
or default of the owner it was held that the latter
;

section so modified the sense of the earlier one,

that the Board of Trade would be liable to com-

ground
if it

owner, though

the

pensate

for belief

when

it

it

had reasonable

ordered the detention,

appeared from the evidence at the

a person of ordinary skill

trial

that

would have thought that

there was no reasonable ground for detention

(6).

where one section of 25 & 26 Vict, c. 102,

enacted, that if " any building " projecting beyond
the general line of the street was pulled down, the
Board of Works might order it to be set back,
giving compensation and the next section enacted
that under certain circumstances "no building"
should be erected in any street, without the
So,

(a) Blaclcwood v.
(6)

Vict.

B. (1882), 52 L.

39 & 40 Vict.
c.

60

Q. B. 534.

see

s.

o.

459,

80, ss. 6

J. P. 0. 10.

and

and Thompson

10, repealed
v.

case under the repealed Act.

Digitized

by 57 & 58

Farrer (1882), 51 L.

by Microsoft

J.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

58

consent of the Board, beyond the general line

the

would have included

alterations, whether on new sites or old, was confined by the former to buildings erected on land
which had been hitherto vacant (a). Where one

latter section, which, fer

se,

section of a repealed Act imposed a penalty for

selling " as unadulterated " articles of food

which
and another declared that
a person who sold an article of food " knowing it
to have been mixed with another substance to
increase its bulk or weight," and did not, in selHng
are in fact adulterated

it,

declare the admixture to the purchaser, should

be deemed to have sold an adulterated article, the

different wording of the two sections showed that

under the former the

seller

would be

liable

though

he was ignorant of the adulteration (6). Commenting on this latter section. Lord Bussell of KiUowen

^ Pond

says in Spiers

" I do not think

v. Bennett,

there need be mens rea in order to constitute an

(a)

Lord Auckland

v.

Westminster Board of Worlcs (1872),

v. L. G. C, 63 L. J. M. 0. 117
the meaning of " obstruction " or " encroachment " within

41 L.

J.

Ch. 723

Wendon

the Act of 1862, see Vigers Bros. v.

Comp. Worley

Doe

V. Olley,

(6)

v. St.

Mary

54 E. E. 607

35 & 36 Vict.

o.

London

C.

61 L.

J.

Abbotts,
;

Lavy

v.

74, repealed

L. G.

as to

s.

1 of

C, [1919] IK. B. 56.

See also

Oh. 601.

G.,

64 L.

by 38 & 39

J.

Vict.

M.
c.

0. 262.

63,

s. 1,

amended by 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30, 48 & 49

Vict. c. 61, s. 5, 62 & 68 Vict. c. 51, and 7 Ed. VII. c. 21
Fitzpatrich v. Kelly (1873), 42 L. J. M. 0. 132 ByU v. Gmer
(1891), 61 L. J. M. 0. 70; [1892], 1 Q, B. 220.
which

latter

Act

is

Digitized

by Microsoft

COMPAEISON OF SECTIONS.

59

offence under the second part of the section,

if

the article which was in fact altered by abstraction

was

sold without disclosure

offence under

it

would constitute an

this section " (a).

A provision in

an

Enclosure Act which reserved to the lord his right

and to the working of them as fully as

if the Act had not been passed, without paying
compensation, is materially limited by a direction
that " highways should be set out over the land "
for this latter provision would preclude him from
to minerals,

working the minerals under the highways without

leaving

adequate

support

the Companies Act,

(6).

One

section

of

which enacted that

where a company was being wound up by or
under the supervision of the Court, any distress or
1862,

execution put in force against the property of the

company after the commencement of the windingup " shall be void to aU intents," was so modified

by another which enacted that when an order for

winding-up 'had been made, no action or other
proceeding should be proceeded with against the
company, except with the leave of the Court, that

meaning and effect was only to invalidate

the proceedings which it pronounced void, when
its

true

(a) (1896), 65 L. J.
(6) Benfieldside

Ex. 491;

M,

0. 144, at p. 147.

Local Board

and see A.-G.

L. J. Q. B. 207, C. A.;
subsidences,

55 L.

J.

see

v.

v.

Oonsett

Co.

(1894),

64

as to right of action in successive

Barley Main Colliery Co.

Oh. 529.

Digitized

Iron Co., 47 L. J.

Conduit Colliery

by Microsoft

v. Mitchell

(1886)

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

60

the Court did not sanction them

Clause 21

(a).

which in
express terms requires the presiding officer at each

in the Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872,

station to exclude all persons except the clerks,

the agents of the candidates, and the constables

on duty, was found to include also the candidates

themselves in the exception, since a subsequent
clause (61) provides that

present at any place at which his

The words

may be
agent may

a candidate

Fine Arts Copyright

Act, 1862, which give to the author of every

attend (&),

of

s.

1,

and exclusive right of

copying, engraving, reproducing, and multiplying
such painting, and the design thereof, by any
means and of any size, are seen (when reference
is made to subsequent sections empowering the
owner of the copyright to obtain a forfeiture of the
original painting the sole

piratical imitations) to be inapplicable to the repre-

sentation of a painting by a tableau vivant

all

these instances, the Legislature supplied in the

context the key to the meaning in which

(a)

Vron

Be London

Cotton Co. (1866), 35 L. J. Ch. 425.

In re (1882), 51 L.

Colliery Co.,

British
ss.

In

(c).

Ltd., In re, [1919] 2 Ch. 155.

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.

(6) Clementson v.

Mason

25 & 26 Vict.

Copyright Act, 1911

2 Ch. 1

c.
;

used

See also

Gh. 389, 0. A., and

Salicylates,

140, 142,

(c)

J.

it

See

now

(1875), 44 L. J. C. P. 171.

68,

amended, and partially repealed, by

Sanfstaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894]

see further, Eanfstaengl v. Baines, 64 L. J. Ch. 81,

[1895] A. C. 20.

Digitized

by Microsoft

REFERENCE TO EARLIER ACTS.

61

expressions which seemed free from doubt

and
that meaning, it is obvious, was not that which
literally or primarily belonged to them.
Where the later of two Acts provided that the
earlier Act should, so far as was consistent, be
construed as one with

an enactment in the

it,

later

statute that nothing therein should include deben-

tures

was held to exclude debentures from the

earlier

one also

It

(a).

has been observed, however,

when an Act embodies

that

several distinct Acts,

one part throws no further light on the other parts

than would be cast upon them by separate and

enactments to the same

distinct

Where

effect (b).

a single section of an [Act

is

introduced

must be read in the sense

which it bore in the original Act from which it is
taken, and consequently it is legitimate to refer
to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain
what the section meant, although one section only
is incorporated in the new Act (c).
into another statute,

Bead

(a)

Mfg.

Co.,

v.

In

it

Joannon, 59 L.
re,

J.

Q. B. 544

1 Oh. 627, 0. A.

[1891]

see also Standard

and Exp. Lowe, 60

L. J. Oh. 292.

Per Turner

(6)

27 L.

J.

Cope

L.J.,

Ch. 600.

As

subsequent statute, see Knill

59 L.
2

Ir.

J.

Q. B. 136, 697

E. 132.

And

see

v.

Boherty (1858), 4 K. & J. 367

to incorporation of

B.

inf, p.

v.
v.

earlier

Pharmaceutical Society, [1899]

541

et seq.

Per Lord Blackburn, Mayor of Portsmouth

10 App. Gas. 371.
(c)

Digitized

Acts in a

Towse, [1890] 24 Q. B. D. 186

by Microsoft

v.

Smith (1885),

62

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Probably, the rule as to the exposition of one

Act by the language of another is satisfactorily

and most comprehensively laid down in the broad
statement of Lord Mansfield, that

"

Where

there

though made
at different times, or even expired and not referring to each other, they shall be taken and
are different statutes in pari materia,

construed together, as one system and as explanatory of each other " (a).

For instance, a by-law which authorised the

election of " any person " to be Chamberlain of
the City of London would be construed so as to
harmonise, and not to conflict, with an earlier
one which limited the appointment to persons
possessed of a certain quahfication, and " any
person" would be understood to mean only any
person

eligible

{b).

Where

a question arose as to

s. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 24 Vict,

which gives that Court jurisdiction over any

whether
c. 10,

(a)

B.

V.

Loxdale, 1 Burr. 447, adopted in the C. A., Gold-

smiths Co. V. Wyatt (1907),

76 L.

J.

K. B. 169

but in B.

Titterton, [1895] 2 Q. B. 67, Lord Eussell of Killowen

observes that "

materia only

Cotton

it

is

where there

L.J., Sutton v. Sutton,

is

an ambiguity."

52 L.

J.

See also per

Gh. 337, cited by Bray

v.

Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B.

(overruling Oxford v. Wildgoose, 3 Lev. 293).

Co. V. Phillips (1840),

G J.,

proper to refer to earlier Acts in pari

Shaw V. Grompton, 80 L. J. K. B. 56; McWilliam

Macq. H. L. 136, per Lord Truro.
(6)

v.

6 Bing. N. G. 314

Digitized

&

C. 838

See also Poulterer's

9 L.

by Microsoft

J.,

Adams, 1

J. G.

P. 190.

KBFEBENCE TO LATER ACTS.

63

claim for " damage " done by any ship, included

done to persons by

injuries

collision

one reason

was that in other Acts

in pari materid, loss of life and personal injury, on
the one hand, and loss and damage to ships and
other property, on the other, were invariably
treated distinctly, and the word " damage " was
nowhere, in them, applied to injuries to the

for deciding in the negative

person
s.

(a).

expression " poasession " in

So, the

26 (now repealed) of the Eepresentation of the

People Act, 1832, which enacts that no person

shall be registered in respect of his estate or interest

in lg,nd as a freeholder, unless he has been

"in

actual possession " of

was

for six

same sense

construed in the
of Uses,

it

months

(b),

as in the

Statute

which declares that the person who has

is to be deemed in lawful
and consequently the grantee
of a rent-charge by a conveyance operating tinder
the latter statute was held to be in possession of
it, within the meaning of the Eepresentation of
the People Act, 1832, from the date of the execution of the deed (c)
though a grantee under a

the use of the land

"possession" of

it;

(a)

Smith

V.

Brown

(1871), 40 L. J. Q. B.

Vera Cruz (1884), 54 L.

(6)

The

P. D.

& A.

qualifying period under 7

months, see
(c)

J.

214

Seward

v.

The

9, inf. p. 317.

& 8 Geo. V.

c.

64, is six

s. 6.

Heelis v. Blain (1864), 34 L. J. 0. P. 88

(1873), 42 L. J. 0. P. 146.
seer's (1883),

53 L.

J.

See also Lowcock

Q. B. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Eadfield's Case

Broughton Over-

64

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

common law conveyance would

sion, within the

same Act,

until

not be in posses-

he had received a

payment of the rent-charge (a).

Not only may the later Act be construed by the
light of the earlier, but it sometimes furnishes a
Thus
legislative interpretation of the earlier.
III.),
which
Chapter 23 of Magna Charta (9 Hen.
provides that "

all

down through

weirs shall be put

Thames and Medway, and through

all

England,

except by the sea-coast," was held to apply only

Ed. III. aind other

to navigable rivers, because 25

subsequent statutes spoke of

as having been

it

passed to prevent obstruction to navigation (b).

To determine the meaning of the word " broker,"
in 6 Anne,

c.

16, the

Bubble Act

(6 Qeo. I. c. 18)^

passed twelve years later, was referred

the same term was used(c).
repealed

Merchant

In

s.

Shipping Act,

to,

where
of

299,

1854,

the

which

enacted that damage arising from non-observance

of the saiKng rules should

to

primd

deemed

facie be

have been occasioned by " the wilful default "

of

the person in charge of the deck, the expression

(a)

477

(6)

Murray

v. Thorniley (1846),

25 Ed. III.

Q. B. 105

27 L.

Stat. 4, c.

and see

L. J. C. P. 305
(c)

15 L.

J. C.

Orme's Case (1872), L. E. 8 C. P. 281

P. 155

42 L.

J.

69 E. E.
0. P. 48.

Bolle v. Whyte (1868), 37 L. J.

Leconfield {Lord) v. Lonsdale (Lord) (1870),

Callis

on Sewers, 258, 4th

Clarke v. Powell, 4 B.
J. C.

& Ad. 846

Smith

P. 196, 335.

Digitized

ed., at p. 305.

by Microsoft

v.

Lindo (1858),

BEFERENOE TO LATER

65

ACTS.

"wilful default " was construed by the light of

the later Act

(a),

& 26 Vict.

25

that

shall he

of

which

ship which occasioned the

deemed to be "in fault," as

the

declares
collision

c. 63, s. 29,

including a negligent as well as a criminal fault

But where one Act

(1

&

2 Vict.

c.

110,

(&).

18)

s.

judgments to rules of Court,

the payment of money, and a later one
(Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 60)
authorised creditors who obtained judgment to
recover the amount by the new process, which
it introduced, of foreign attachment, it was held
that this remedy did not apply to rules of
Court, the object of the former Act appearing to
be merely to give to rules the then existing
remedies of judgments, and of the latter, to confine
the new remedy to judgments in the strict acceptation of the term (c).
General rules and forms made under the authority
gave the

effect

of

for

an Act which enacted that they should have the

same force as if they had been included in it have
also been referred to for the purpose of assisting in
of

the interpretation of the Act

(a)

Eepealed by 57 & 58 Vict.

c.

And now by

{d).

60,

745 and Sched. 22.

s.

(6) Grill V. General Screw Collier Go. (1866), L. E. 1

611, per Willes J.

35 L.

J.

C. P. 321

the

and see Price

v.

P.

Union

Lighterage Go. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 374.

(c)

42 L.

Be
J.

(d)

Frankland, 42 L. J. Q. B. 13

Bestv.Pembrolce (1873),

Q. B. 212.

Re Andrew, 45 L.

J.

Bank. 57.

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

66

Interpretation Act, 1889,

s.

31, it is provided that

made under an Act

rules, orders, etc.,

construed as using expressions in

as the

shall be

the same sense

Act (a).

The language and

provisions of expired and

repealed Acts on the same subject, and the construction

which they have authoritatively received,

are also to be taken into consideration

the Legislature uses the same

presumed that
language in

when

the same sense,

different times

for it is

dealing at

with the same subject, and also

that any change of language

some indication
Thus s. 202 of the
is

change of intention (b).

repealed Bankruptcy Act of 1849, which made
"void" aU securities given by a bankrupt to a
of a

creditor to induce the latter to forbear opposition

was construed in the

same sense as that which had been given to the
same provision in the earlier and repealed Bankruptcy Act of 6 G-eo. IV. (c). What was meant in
s. 4, Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, by

to the bankrupt's certificate,

(a)

52 & 53 Vict.

Lochwood (1894), L.
(6)

c.

J.

63.

See

P. 0. 74,

See Chap. XI, Sec. III.

Devonpurt Corpn.

v.

Institute

B.

of Patent Agents v.

inf. p. 93.

v.

Loxdale, sup. 62, and see

Tozer (1902), 71 L. J. Oh. 754.

approved in Stoomvart Maatschappy Nederland

v.

P.

Principle
0. Steam-

<b

ship Co. (1882), 7 A. 0., at p. 816.

(c)

Goldsmid v. Hampton, 27 L.

Exp., 22 L. J. Bank. 17,

inf. p.

J. C. P. 286.

479

the statute relating to Bankruptcy; see

Digitized

See also Gopeland,

& 5 Geo. V.
s.

by Microsoft

c.

59,

is

now

44 as to preference.

REFERBNOES TO REPEALED ACTS.

67

" running away, leaving his or her child chargeable to the parish " (a),

was determined by referring

to the earher Act of 6 Greo. I., which spoke of
persons who " run or go away from their abodes
into other counties or places, and sometimes out
of the kingdom," and was therefore held not to

woman who

apply to a

her children at the

left

door of the workhouse, and returned to her usual

abode in the town, where the workhouse was

situated

(6).

Where

a repealed Act imposed

penalty on the owner of cattle found lying on a

highway " without a keeper," and the same provision

was re-enacted without the

last words, the

omission was construed as obviously showing the

intention that the presence of a keeper should no

longer absolve the owner from liability

Where

(c).

a part of an Act has been repealed,

may, although not of operative

force, still

be taken

into consideration in construing the rest, for

part of the history of the

instance,
(a)

an

Act

which

For other offences under

(fortune telling),

[1918]

new

Act{d).

imposed a

it

it is

If,

for

duty

on

this section, see Davis v. Ckrry

K. B. 109;

Hartley

v.

Elinor

(suspected person) (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 938.

(6)

Cambridge Union

v.

Parr, 30 L.

J.

M,

G. 242, per Byles J.

and see Peters v. Gowie, 46 L. J. M. G. 177.

Lawrence v. King (1868), 37
(c) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 101, s. 25
L. J. M. G. 78; and see Qolding v. Stocking (1869), L. E.
;

4 Q. B. 516.
(d) See sup. pp. 40-48.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

68

and

racehorses, cabhorses,

repealed as

regards

all

other horses, were

racehorses,

remaining

the

words would stUl obviously include them, if the

enactment were read as if the repealed words had
never formed a part of

it (a).

Where

a statute

mineral waters, and on

other waters to be used as medicines, and the
duty on artificial mineral waters was afterwards

imposed a duty on

artificial

all

repealed, the repealed words were held essential

for

determining whether what

still

subsisted of

the Act, though wide enough to include artificial

waters,

been

was intended

to include

them.

It

has

however, to be an extremely hazardous

said,

proceeding to refer to provisions which have been

what the
stead, though

absolutely repealed, in order to ascertain

Legislature meant to enact in their

there

may

be occasions on which such a reference

would be legitimate

(b).

The construction which has been put upon Acts

of similar scope

on similar subjects, even though

the language should be different,

reason be referred
9 Geo. IV.

c.

to.

may

for a similar

Thus, the provision of

14, requiring that an acknowledgment

to take a debt out of the Statute of Limitation

should

be

signed

" by

the

party

chargeable

thereby," was held not to include an acknowledg-

L J., A.-G. v.Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214.

(a)

Per Bramwell

(6)

Per Lord Watson, Bradlaugh

v.

Clarke (1883), 8 App. Cas.

354, at p. 380.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BEFERENCE TO ANALOGOUS ACTS.

ment by

his agent,

69

on the ground that when the

Legislature intended to include the signature of

agents, not only in other Statutes of Limitation,

but also in several sections of the Statute of

Frauds, one of which was recited in the Act,
express words had been used for the purpose

County Court Act

142, s. 11, which gave

So, the repealed

Vict, c,

of 1867, 30

(a).

& 31

jurisdiction in

ejectment when the value of the tenement did

not exceed 20, was construed, as regards the
measure of value, by reference to the Parochial

Assessments Act, 1836, 6 & 7 WiU. IV. c. 96 (6).

That which was held a sufficient signature to a
will or contract under the Statute of Frauds (c)
was held for that reason sufficient under the
repealed Bankruptcy Act, 6 Geo.

131

c.

16,

s.

under the Statute of Limitation (e), and

(c?),

(a)

IV.

Hyde

v.

Johnson (1836), 5 L.

J. G.

For limitations

P. 291.

on the principle underlying

this decision, see Whitley Partners,

In

Oh. 540, 0. A. (Cotton L.J.).

re Gallan (1886),
(6)

Be

55 L.

J.

See

Elstone and Base, 38 h. J. Q. B. 6.

Court Acts, 1888,

s.

59,

and 1908,

s. 3,

now County

under which the value

has been raised to 100.

(c)

Lemayne

v. Stanley (1681),

of (1891), 60 L.

Hubert

J.

v. Treherne,

P. 56

3 Lev. 1

EnigM

60 E. E. 600

Streatley in the Goods

v. Groehford,

5 E. E. 729

Ogilvie v. Foljamhe (1817), 17

E. E. 13.
(d) Kirhpatrich v. Tattersall (1845),
(e)

Lobb

V. Stanley,

li L.

J.

Ex. 209.

5 Q. B. 574, per Patterson

J.

as to what

will constitute a valid authentication of a contract, see Caton v.

Caton (1867), L. E. 2 H. L., at p. 139.

Digitized

by Microsoft

70

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

under the repealed Parliamentary Voters' Eegistration Act, 1843

(a).

But where the Acts

are not in pari materid, it is

fallacious to take the construction

which has heen

put upon one as controlling the construction of

another (6). For instance, the meaning put on
the words " goods " in the reputed ownership clause

Bankruptcy Acts would be no guide to its

meaning in s. 17, Statute of Frauds, now s. 4,
Sale of Goods Act, 1893, not only because the
words associated with it are different, but because
the objects of the Act are wholly different (c). For
the same reason, the Parochial Assessments Act,
1836, 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96, was held to throw but
of the

little (if

any) light on the meaning of " the clear

yearly value " of a tenement which qualified a

voter under the Eepresentation of the People Act,

(a)
s.

47,

6 & 7 Vict.

Comp. B.
(6)

c.

18,

V.

17

s.

and Schedule VIII.

& 8 Geo. V.

repealed by 7

c.

64,

Bennett v. Brumfitt, 37 L. J. 0. P. 25.

Cowper, 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533.

Dewhurst

v.

Feilden, 66 E. E. 696, per

Waller, 29 L. J. Ex. 247, per

(1893), 63 L. J. Gh. 23

Wilde B.

and see Stanford

Maule

J.

Eyre

Gerard's Estate,
v. Boherts,

v.

Be

[1901] 1

Oh. 440.
(c)

HumUe

v.

MitcMl

and see Colonial Bank

L. J. Ch. 43

[1918] A. C.

Parker

W.

(1839), 52 E. E. 318
v.

for later cases

1,

v. Grisp,

H. L. (B)

under

9 L.

J.

Q. B. 29,

s.

4,

56

see Morris v. Baron,

Meggeson v. Groves, [1917] 1 Ch. 158

[1919] 1 K. B. 481

Thishell v. Camhi, [1919]

N. 195.

Digitized

Whinney (1886), 11 A. 0. 426

by Microsoft

CONFINED TO ANALOGOUS ACTS.

71

Because chambers are a "house"

1832(a).

for

the purposes of assessment to a poor rate under

43 Eliz. c. 2 (b), of gaining a settlement under
6 Geo. IV.

0. 57(c), of qualifying for a vote under

the repealed Representation of the People Act,

1832

and

which a burglary
might be committed (e), it did not foUow that
the same meaning was to be given to the expression in the House Tax Act, 1808, 48 Geo. III.
c. 55, repealed as to London, which imposed a
duty on " inhabited houses " (/). A bicycle, which
is a " carriage " within an enactment against furious
driving, would not necessarily be also a carriage
(d),

also as a place in

under a turnpike Act which imposed a toll on

carriages propelled by steam or other agency (g).
(a) 2 Will. IV. 0. 45,

modifications in 48

& 49

69 E. E. 473; 15 L.

27 (repealed but re-enacted with

s.

Vict.

J. C.

c. 3, s.

P. 160

5)

Wood

Cohill v.

Dobhs

v.

(1846),

Grand June. W. W.

(1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 50.
(6)

B.

V. St.

George's Union (1871), 41 L. J.

Be Hecqmrd, 24
(c)

B.

Q. B. D. 71

V. Ustoorth (1836),

(d) Henrette v.

M.

Be Nordenfelt, 64
& B. 261.

0. 30.

L.

J.

Comp.

Q. B. 182.

5 A.

Booth (1863), 33 L.

J. C. P. 61, as to existing

law, see Eepresentation of the People Act, 1918.

(e)

Evans and Fyneh's Case, Cro. Car. 473.

(/) A.-G.
886
B.

V.

(g)

Grant

Westminster Chambers Assoc. (1876), 45 L. J. Ex.

Langston (1899), 69 L.

J. P.

0. 66.

See also

C. 47.

See also

Oxford (V.C), L. E. 7 Q. B. 471.

Williams

Sim,pson v.

Smith

V.
v.

V.

v. Ellis

(1880), 49 L. J.

Teignmouth Co. (1903), 72 L.

Kynnersley (1903), Id. 357.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.
J.

K. B. 204, G. A.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

72
It

may

be added that in construing Acts of a

private or local character, such as Eailway Acts,

the Courts do not shut their eyes to the fact that

embodied in them,
are in effect private arrangements between the
promoters and particular persons; and are not
special clauses, frequently found

inserted by the Legislature as part of a general

simply introduced at
the request of the parties concerned (a). If the

scheme

of legislation, but are

general provisions of such Acts were to override

such special clauses, those in whose favour the

latter are inserted would have a just claim to be
heard in Committee on every clause of the Act,

which would make

private legislation

impossible to conduct any

it

Such

(6).

special clauses are

therefore treated as isolated, and foreign to the

Act; so that their wording, contrary

to the general rule, is not to be regarded as
rest of the

throwing any light on the construction of

SECTION

v.

THE
SCHEDULE

THE

NOTES

TITLE

PREAMBLE

^RULES

MARGINAL

AND ORDERS.

Originally, bills in Parliament

tions to the King.

it (c).

were mere peti-

They were entered on the

(a)

But see

(6)

Per Jessel M.E., Taylor

rolls

sup. pp. 53-54.

v.

Oldham (1877), 46 L.

J.

Oh.

105.
(c)

Per Lord

(1874), L. E. 7

Caims, East London B.

H. L.

89.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co. v.

Whitechurch

THE

73

TITLE.

answer; and at

of Parliament, with the King's

the end of the session, the Judges drew up these

records into statutes to which they gave a

In the execution of their

made

additions, omissions,

title (a).

task, they occasionally

and alterations; but

the practice ceased in the reign of Henry VI.,

when

bills in

the form of statutes without

The

were introduced (6).

was

title

first

about the eleventh year of Henry VII.

titles

added

In the
amended at any
(c).

Lords the original title of a bill is

stage at which amendments are admissible, when

body

have rendered
any change in the title necessary; and in the
Commons since 1854 either in committee (cZ) or
alterations in the

report

This

of the bill

or on the third reading stage of a bill (/).

(e)

title is

always on the

(a) Co. Litt. 272a.

roll (g).

And see Ilbert on

Legislative Methods, p. 5.

Per Lord Macclesfield se defendendo

1389 May, Parlmy. Pr., 12th ed. chap. 15,
(6)

(c)

Barrington, Obs. Stat. 403.

(d)

May, Parlmy.

(e) Id., p.

Pr.,

12th ed. chap. 15,

(1725), 16 St. Tr.

p. 346.

p. 376.

382.

(/) May, Parlmy. Pr., 12th ed. chap. 15, p. 385, and see
Powell V. Kempton Park Bacecourse Co., [1897] 2 Q. B. 242, at
p.

289 (0.
{g)

A.).

Per Jessel M.E., Sutton

In order to
in 1896,

facilitate

reference,

to

modern

practice the

every Act of Parliament to

a short

Ilbert, Legislative

22 Ch. D. 511, at

p. 513.

citation a Short Titles Act was passed

and according

requires

v. Sutton,

title

in

addition to

Methods and Forms,

Digitized

House

have, for
its

formal long

p. 272.

by Microsoft

of

Lords

facility

of

title,

INTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

74

But

was recog-

although, the title of a statute

nised and attached to

it

by Parliament until quite

modern times, it was not considered a part of the

statute, and was therefore held to be excluded
from

consideration

thus " The

construing

in

the

statute

cannot be resorted to," says

Lord Cottenham, "in construing the enactment " (a). " The title, though it has occasionally
title

been referred to as aiding in the construction of an

no part of the law," was laid

down by the Court of Exchequer, in a well-known
and considered judgment, " and, in strictness,
ought not to be taken into consideration at all " (6).
And Lord Denman remarked that the Court had
Act,

certainly

is

down

often laid that

(c).

The rule was not, indeed,

(a)

Hunter

(6)

Per

invariably observed

84 E. R. 217.

v. NocJcolda,

84 E. E. 255, citing Lord

Cur., Salkeld v. Johnston,

11 Eep. 33b

Coke, Powlter's Case,

Lord Holt, Milk

6 Mod. 62; Lord Hardwicke, A.-O.

Lord Mansfield, JB.

American

case,

(c)

B.

V. Wilcock,

Bl. 95.
J.,

See also Chance v.

Shrewsbury

Leonards, Jefferys

Morant

v. Taylor, 1

v.

14 L.

The
J.

Collector,

M.

v. Scott,

Boosey, 4

v.

Ex. D. 194

Green, L. E. 3 C. P. 522

v.

Madden

St.

J.,

Claydon

J.,

W.

v. Wilkins,

Weymouth, Ambl. 22;

v.

and per Byles

per Lord

H. L. Cas. 982 per Grove

per Willes

v. Williams,

Adams, 1 Lord Eaym.^77

6 C. B. N. S. 1

(cZ)

and the

5 Wallace, 110.

C. 104.

& B, 446 Alexander v.

Newman, 69 R. E. 438 Taylor v. Newman, 32 L. J. M. C. 189
Bawley v. Bawley, 45 L. J. Q. B. 675 Bentley v. Botherham, 46
{d)

See

ex. gr.

B.

v.

Wright, 1 A.

L.

J.

Ch. 284

East

&

West India Bock

Digitized

v.

Shaw, 39 Ch. D. 531

by Microsoft

THE

75

TITLE.

mind, when labouring

for the

design

discover the

to

naturally seized on

the Legislature,

of

everything from which aid could be derived (a);

AND

IT IS

may

be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining

NOW SETTLED LAW THAT THE TITLE OP A

STATUTE IS AN IMPOBTANT PART OF THE ACT (6), and
and of throwing light on its
construction {d), and this rule seems to apply alike
to the " long " and " short " title (e).
general scope

its

however,

Apparently,
statute

(c),

not limited by

is

Formerly the

bill

its title (/).

was, at one of

per Selborne L.C., Middlesex Justices

(a)

its stages,

on parchment

grossed without punctuation

Bryan

of a

construction

the

v. B.,

en(g)

9 App. Gas. 772

v. Child, inf. p. 79.

Per

Cur., U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 386

U. S. v. Palmer,

3 Wheat. 631.
(6)

Per Lindley M.E., Fielding

1 Oh. 3

774

per

per Sutton

Eomer

J.,

Jones

L.J., in

v.

v.

Morley Corporation, [1899]

Shervington (1908), 77 L. J. K. B.

Amhler

v.

Bradford Corporation, [1902]

2 Ch. C. A., at p. 594.

(c)

A.-G.

Per Lord Maonaghten, Fenton

V.

Margate Pier

Co.,

69 L.

stone C.J., London County Council

J.
v.

v.

Thorley, [1903] A. C.

Ch. 331

447

per Lord Alver-

Bermondsey Bioscope

Co.,

80

L. J. K. B. 144.

on Legislative Methods and Forms, p. 269.

Margate Pier Co. (1900), 69 L. J. Ch. 331.

(d) Ilbert

(e) A.-G. V.

(/) Gross

in

the

goods of (1904), 73 L. J. P. 82

headings of sections, Fletcher

76 L.

J.

v.

K B. 218.

(g) 1 Bl.

Com. (Ed. 1844)

Digitized

as to

Birkenhead Corporation (1907),

183.

by Microsoft

INTEEPRBTA.TION OF STATUTES.

76

but as neither the marginal notes nor the punctuaation appeared on the roll, they formed no parts of
This practice was discontinued in
1849, since which time a copy of each Act, printed
on veUum by the King's printer, is preserved in
the Act

(a).

the House of Lords and constitutes the

record of statutes

ment

Both marginal notes and

(6).

now appear on

punctuation

nevertheless,

official

the rolls of Parlia-

has been said they are

it

not to be taken as parts of the statute

But

(c).

as

regards marginal notes, the rule as to their rejection for the purposes of interpretation

imperfect

of

interpretation

For

obligation.

marginal

Martin B. (d) and by Collins

Barrington, Obs. on Stat. 394

(a)

Beav. 327

per Maule

J.,

B.

purpose

the

of

was used by
M.E. (e), which latter
note

see

Barrow

Oldham, 21 L.

v.

now

is

J.

Wadkm, 24

v.

M.

C. 134.

May, Parlmy. P., 12th ed., chap. 15, p. 399.

Per Willes J., and Bovill O.J., Claydon v. Green (1868),
L. E. 3 C. P. 521
per James L.J., A.-G. v. G. E. B. Co.,
(6)
(c)

11 Ch. D. 465

per Jessel M.E., Sutton

retracting his opinion in

Lord Esher M.E., Duke

Be

v. Sutton,

22 Oh. D. 513,

and per

Venour, 2 Ch. D. 525;

of Devonshire v. O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D.

478.
(d) Nicholson V. Fields,

(e) Bushell v.

Smith

and

V.

24,

31 L.

Hammond

Portsmouth

Justices,

London Building

J.

Ex. 233.

(1904), 73 L. J. K. B.

75 L.

J.

K. B. 851.

Act, 1905 (5 Ed. VII.

and

1005,

In
c.

s.

12

OCIX),

marginal notes in that Act are used as references, and see also

Woking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal)

(1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 201.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Act, 1911, In re

THE PREAMBLE.
learned Judge said in Bushell

"the

side-note, although,

section,

is

shows the

As

some

of

it

77

Hammond

v.

{inf.),

forms no part of the

inasmuch as

assistance,

it

the section."

drift of

to headings prefixed to

see

sections,

inf.

p. 92.

The indorsement by the Clerk

of the "date of the passing of the

since 1793

No

of Parliaments

Act

is

part of

it

(a).

iatroductory words are necessary to each

section

(6).

The preamble of a statute has been said to be a

good means to find out its meaning, and, as it
were, a key to the understanding of
it

it (c)

and

as

usually states, or professes to state, the general

object and intention of the Legislature in passing

the enactment

may

it

legitimately be consulted

purpose of solving any ambiguity, or of

for the

fixing the

meaning

of

words which

than one, or of keeping the

within

its real

scope,

(o) 33 Geo. III.

52 & 53 Vict.

(c)

"I very much

effect

of the

whenever the enacting part

c.

63,

s. 8.

regret that the practice of inserting pre-

ambles in Acts of Parliament has disappeared

for the preamble

often helped to the solution of doubtful points "

Alverstone O.J., London County Council

Co.,

80 L.

J.

Act

13.

c.

(&)

may have more

v.

K. B. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

per Lord

Bermondsey Bioscope

78

INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES,
in any

is

Thus

s.

3,

of

these respects open to doubt

26 Geo. III.

who had

person

o.

107

served in

(a).

empowered every
the militia and was
(b),

married, to set up in trade in a corporate town, as

freely as soldiers

might under an

earlier enact-

ment, and declared that "no such militiaman"

removable from the town until he

became chargeable, it being open to doubt
whether this expression included all married
should

be

who had
up in trade in towns, the preamble of an
earlier Act fixed the latter as the true construction, as it was stated that the mischief to be
remedied was the state of the law which prevented
soldiers from setting up in trade in corporate
towns (c). So, as an Act which authorised aliens
who "shall have been resident" in the country
for two years, to hold land, might either be limited
militiamen, or only married militiamen

set

(a) Bae. Ab. Stat.

Turquand
11 01.

(I.)

Co. Litt. 79a, 4 Inst. 330, Plowd.

373; per Lord Selbome,

Board of Trade, 11 App. Gas. 286 Sussex Peerage,
& F. 143, 144. But where the language used in the

Halton

369;

35

Cove,

v.

E. R.

v.

schedule to an Act of Parliament varies from that of the

enacting clause to which

it

relates the language of the enacting

clause prevails, Jacobs v. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Cases) 33, at

p.

37; Shore

article

v.

CunningTiam, [1917] 2

on " The

Ofi&ce

of"

Ir.

Journal, 340.
(6)

Repealed 42 Geo.

(c)

B.

V.

III. o. 90, s. 1.

Gwenop (1789), 3 T. E. 133.

Digitized

E. 360.

a Preamble," see 55

by Microsoft

For an
Solicitors'

EXPLAINS WHAT
to persons

who had

of the Act, or

DOUBTFUL.

IS

79

so resided before the passing

extend to those who should at any

time reside for the required time, the preamble

was resorted to in order to determine which of

the two meanings was the more agreeable to the
and as it recited
policy and object of the Act
that aliens were prevented by law from holding
lands in the State, and it was the interest of the
State that such prohibitions should be done away
with, it showed that the former construction was
;

less

adapted to give

effect to the intention of

Legislature than the latter

the

Sec. 137 of the

(a).

Bankruptcy Act of 1849, which enacted

that a Judge's order to sign judgment, given by
a trader defendant, should be void if not filed, was
held limited to traders who became bankrupt, a
conclusion favoured by the heading prefixed to the
section which professed to enact it "with respect
(repealed)

to transactions with the bankrupt "

construction,

it

may be
to

A wider

added, would have had the

unjust effect of enabling the trader

become bankrupt

(b).

set aside

as

who had not

void his own

deliberate act, an intention not to be imputed

to the Legislature, if the language admits of any

other meaning
(a)

Beard

v.

Bowan

case on an American
(6)

Brym

Sec. 18, 12

(c).

v. Child,

&

(1835), 9 Peters, 301.

c.

45,

Ad American

statute.

82 E. E. 710.

See 4 & 5 Geo. V.

for existing law.

(c)

13 Vict.

See Chap. VIII, Sec. III.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

59,

80

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

which enacted that " any order " of Quarter Session might be removed to the Queen's Bench for
enforcement, was similarly confined to orders in
appeal cases, by the preamble, which, in reciting
that

it

was expedient that the law should be made

uniform in cases of appeal, showed the limited

Under a statute which

enacted that when a person came into the occupation of premises for which the preceding tenant
was rated to the poor, the old and new occupants
scope of the Act

(a).

should be liable to the rate iu proportion to the

time

of

their

occupation,

the

question

arose

whether either, and if so, which of them, was to

pay for the interval between the removal and the
beginning of the second occupation and this was
determined by the preamble, which, by reciting
that in consequence of rated occupiers removing
without paying their rates, and other persons
entering and occupying the premises for a part
of the year, great sums were lost to the parish,
showed that the object of the Act was not to
make an equitable adjustment between the two
occupiers, but to protect the parish from loss it
was therefore held that the rates were payable
for the interval between the two occupations, and
that the burden fell on the outgoing tenant, who
;

(a)

on

p.

B.

V.

Bateman, 27 L.

J.

M.

C. 95.

The

section quoted

79 does not apply to an order of quarter sessions to abate

a nvdsance.

Digitized

by Microsoft

EXPLAINS WHAT

was formerly

IS

DOUBTFUL.

81

under the Act of Elizabeth for

the whole rate (a). An Act which made it penal
for a publican to allow bad characters to " assemble
and meet together " in his house, would not be
broken by his permitting such persons to enter for
liable

taking refreshment, and remaining there as long

was reasonably necessary for that purpose;

if the preamble showed that the object in view
was the repression of disorderly conduct, not the
as

absolute denial of

character

all

hospitality to persons of bad

Under the repealed Act, 23

(b).

G-eo. II.

which recited in the preamble a doubt as to

who were legal witnesses to a will of land, and
enacted that legatees and devisees who attested
" any will " should be good witnesses, but that the
bequests and devises to them should be void, the
enacting part was limited by the preamble to wills
of land. Wills of personality, at that time, needed
no attestation and the principle of cessante ratione
c. 6,

17 Geo.

(a)

II.

e.

38,

4 Q. B. 554; 17 Geo. II.

Vict. c. 41,

s.

16,

M.

0. 23

amended ; 45 & 46
23 & 24 Vict. c. 27,

further
(6)

s.

75

38,

Greig

Act

c.

94.

Vict.

v.

Busholme, L. E.

was replaced by 32 & 33

c.

& 33

20,

Vict.

M.

41,

e.

must

prosecution, Miller v. Dudley

C. 225.

Gomp.

by 35 & 36
J.
s.

M.

0. 294.

14, 35

in every case be given

JJ.

(1898), 46

W.

E. 606.

LS.

Digitized

16, is

s.

In order to justify a conviction under this

affirmative evidence

v.

s. 3.

Bendeno (1858), 27 L.
J.

Werhurgh

Overseers of St.

32

32, repealed in part

s.

v.

See Belasco v. Hannant, 31 L.

Vict.

12,

s.

on which see

Hutchinson, 49 L. J.

Vict. c. 94,

12; Edwards

s.

c.

by Microsoft

& 36

latter

by the

82

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

cessat lex,

as well as

the injustice of depriving

persons of property, making

it

reasonably doubtful

whether the Legislature had used the expression

" any will "in its full and unrestricted meaning,
the preamble was legitimately invoked to determine

the scope of the enactment

(a).

But the preamble cannot either restrict or extend

the enacting part, when the language and the
and scope of the Act are not open to
doubt (b).
It is not unusual to find that the
enacting part is not exactly co-extensive with the
object

preamble.

In many Acts of Parliament, although

a particular mischief

is

recited, the

provisions extend beyond

legislative

The preamble is
some of the incon-

it.

more than a recital of

veniences, and does not exclude any others for
which |a remedy is given by the statute (c). The
often no

evil recited is

but the motive for legislation

remedy may both

(a)

Emmanuel

consistently and

v. Constable,

Summersgill, 17 Ves. 508

(h)

Copland

Be

Oowp. 543, and Perkins

v.

Addams, 219.

Garr

v.

Per Fortescue

J.,

J.

B.

Boyal Exchange

v. Sewell

(1766), 1

Digitized

Bankes

v.

W.

Bl. 659;

Bentley

Oh. 284.
v.

v.

See

Masters, 33 L. J. Q. B. 146.

Bavies (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 358;

Botherham (1876), 46 L.
(c)

wisely be

4 Inst. 330; per Lord Mansfield, Pattison

(1777),

the

3 Euss. 436, overruling Lees

Brett v. Brett, 3

also Weihered v. Galcutt, 61 E. E. 606

Ass. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 63;

Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144.

by Microsoft

v.

EXPLAINS WHAT

IS

DOUBtFtL.

^3

extended beyond the cure of that evil (a) ; and if

on a review of the whole Act a wider intention
than that expressed in the preamble appears to be
the real one, effect

is

to be given to

it

notwith-

standing the less extensive import of the pre-

amble
the

(b).

And generally,

meaning of

although in cases where

words used

in

statute

is

absolutely clear the

Court has no right to go

the words are capable of one

beyond them, when

meaning, and at the same time of a more extended
meaning, the Court will look to the object and
policy of the Act to see what meaning they ought
to have (c).
Thus, 4 & 5 Ph. cS; M. c. 8 (d), made
the abduction of all girls under sixteen penal,
though the preamble referred only to heiresses
and other girls with fortunes (e). So, 13 Eliz.
c. 10, which makes void all leases, gifts, grants
and conveyances of estates, made by any dean and
chapter or master of a hospital, of an hereditaments, parcel of the possessions of the cathedral

church or hospital, except

(a)
(6)

660.
(c)

for the

limited term

Per Lord Denman, Fellowes v. Clay (1843), 4 Q. B. 349.

Per Lord Tenterden, Doe v. Brandling (1828), 7 B & C.
See also Copeman

v. Gallant,

Beigate Bural Council

1 P.

Wms.

v. Sutton District

320.

Water

Co. (1908),

99 L. T. 168.
(d)

Eepealed as to England, 9 Geo. IV.

as to India, 9 Geo. IV.

o.

74,

s.

125.

(e) Co. Litt. 88b, n. 14.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

31,

s. 1,

which see

84

iNTEEPEETATlON OF STATUTES.

allowed by the Act, was not narrowed or controlled

by a preamble which recited only that divers

ecclesiastical persons endowed of ancient palaces,
mansions, and buildings belonging to their benefices,

not only suffered them to go to decay, but"

converted

the materials

and conveyed away

their

to

their

own

benefit,

goods and chattels to

defeat their successors' claims for dilapidations

5 Geo. IV.

c.

(a).

84, s 26, which, after reciting that

New

South Wales, after

obtaining remissions, sometimes "by their industry
acquired property, in the enjoyment whereof it
was expedient to protect them," enacted that
transported

felons

who

every felon

in

received such remission should

be entitled to sue for the recovery of any property,

real or personal, acquired since his conviction,

was held not limited by the preamble to property

acquired by his own exertions, but applied to all
property howsoever acquired, as for instance by
inheritance (b).
It has been more than once
decided that the preamble of the stUl unrepealed

37 Geo. III.

c.

which

123,

refers

mischiefs consequent on inciting

only to the

men

to sedition

and mutiny, and on administering to them oaths

with this object, did not restrict the enacting part
(a)

York

V.

&

J.

Oh. 677, and see Fleming

v.

Middlehorough (1828), 31 E. E. 566

2 Y.

196.
(6)

Gough

V. Davies,

Smith (1861), 12

Jr.

25 L.

J.

G. L. E. 404.

Digitized

by Microsoft

DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT

IS

85

PLAIN.

which made it felony to administer

oaths not only with a view to mutinous or seditious purposes, but also with a view to disturb
the peace, or to be a member of any association
for a;ny such purpose, or not to reveal any unlawful
combination or illegal act
but that the latter
words included offences foreign to politics and
of the statute,

military discipline, such as the administration of

oaths to poachers not to betray their companions,

and to workmen similarly binding them to secrecy

as members of an association for raising wages by
a strike, or for not working under certain prices (a).
So the preamble of 14 Geo, III. c. 78, which
declared that an earlier Act for the regulation
of buildings and the prevention of fire in the cities
of London and Westminster had been found inefficacious,

and that

it

would tend to the safety

of the inhabitants of those cities

tions wre established,

to the metropolis

was not

if

other regula-

suffered to restrict

83 of that Act, which enacted

s.

in general terms that in order to deter persons

from wilfully setting fire to their houses, with a

view to gain to themselves the insurance money,
the
(a)

of

directors
B.

Brodribb (1816), 6 C.

V.

6 E. E. 577

insurance

B. v. Loveless,

819, and comp. Smith v.

case decided under

s.

&

P.

40 E. E. 825

Moody

571

B.

B.

v.

v. Ball,

Property Act, 1875.

by Microsoft

&

in

Marls,

40 E. E.

(1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 43

7 of the Conspiracy

Digitized

should,

offices

Protection of

86

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

suspicious cases, lay out the insurance

damaged buildings

reinstating the

money

in

This con-

(a).

by the
circumstance that the section in question was a
was further

struction, however,

justified

re-enactment of a similar provision in the earlier

and repealed Act, with the significant omission of

the words "within the limits aforesaid," which

words remained in most of the other sections of

the later Act

Sec. 11, 21 Jac.

(6),

I.

c.

19(c),

which empowered bankruptcy commissioners to

dispose of goods which were in the possession
of the bankrupt, as reputed owner, with the real

owner's consent, was prefaced by a preamble which

recited the mischiefs of bankrupts " secretly con-

veying" their goods to other persons, and yet

remaining in the reputed ownership of them

but

the enactment was not confined to this particular

form of the mischief (d).

3 Jac.

King's
(a)

also

I. c.

10

which, after reciting that the

(e),

charged

were

subjects

Exp. Gorely, 34 L. J. Bank.

Owen

v.

14 Geo. III.

Burnett, 2
c.

78,

conveying

per Lord Westbury.

1,

& M.

The

353.

See

application of

83 to Scotland has been doubted, see

s.

Westminster Fire Office

Cr.

with

v.

Glasgow Provident Investment Go. (1888),

13 A. C. 699.
(6)

As

to the construction of

s.

86, see Musgrove v. Pandelis,

[1919] 2 K. B. 43, 0. A.
(c)

(d)
(e)

Eepealed by 6 Geo. IV.

Mace

V.

Cadell (1774),

Eepealed by 4

&

c.

s. 1.

Cowp. 232.

5 Geo. V.

Digitized

16,

c.

58,

s.

44 and Sched. IV.

by Microsoft

DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT

and

IS

PLAIN.

87

and offenders
against the law" to jail, punishable by imprisonment there, enacted that " every person " committed to the county jail by a justice "for any
offence or misdemeanor," should bear his own
charges of conveyance, if he had property, and
that if he had not, they should be borne by the
parish where he was apprehended, was held not to
be confined by the preamble to offenders against
the ordinary law, but to apply to deserters from
So, the preamble of 22 Geo. III.
the army (a).
c. 75(6), which recited the mischief of granting
colonial offices to persons who remained in England,
and discharged the duties of their offices by deputy,
was not suffered to exclude judicial offices from
the general enacting part, 'which authorised the
Governor and Council to remove "any" officeholder for misconduct although the mention of
delegation in the preamble showed that the judicial
office was not there in contemplation (c).
2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 100 {d), which after reciting
that the expense and inconvenience of suits for
the recovery of tithes ought to be prevented by
"felons

other

malefactors

Pierce (1814), 15 E. E. 410

(a)

B.

(6)

Commonly

V.

M. &

S. 62.

attributed to Burke, but really an Act of

by 57 & 58
(c)

Vict. c. 17,

s.

Lord

Act amended

Shelburne's; see Shelb. Life, Vol. III. p. 337.

1.

Willis V. Oippa (1846), 5

Moo. P.

0. 379

see also Cloete v.

The Queen (1854), 8 Moo. P. C. 484.

(d) Eepealed as a publio Act by 46 & 47 Vict.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

49,

g. 4.

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES,

88

shortening the time required for the valid establishment of claims to exemption from tithes, enacted
that

when

made by a layman,
exemption should be deemed conclu-

a claim to tithes was

a claim to

sively estabhshed

by proof

of

non-payment

for

sixty years, gave rise to a celebrated legal controversy, in

much

the preamble was

Before the passing of that Act,

which the

considered.

effect of

no layman could establish exemption from tithes,

except by proving that the land in respect of
which they were claimed had formerly belonged
to one of the great monasteries, and had been
exempt in its hands the latter proposition being
usually established by such evidence of non;

payment

in

modern times

as sufficed for founding

the inference of exemption.

of the

Judges

(a),

It

was held by some

that the enactment was confined

and the preamble was invoked in support of this view. But it was considered by others (6), and finally decided (c), that
the Act applied to all cases whatsoever and that
upon proof of non-payment for sixty years the
landowner was exempt, whether the land had ever
been monastic or not. The enactment was free

to claims of this kind

(o)

Wigram V.-C,

Tindal

C.J.,

Oresswell,

Patteson, and

Coleridge JJ.
(6)

Lord Denman, Williams, Coltman, Erie

Parke, Alderson, and Piatt

(c)

By Lord

BB.

Cottenham.

Digitized

by Microsoft

JJ.,

Pollock C.B.,

PREAMBLE MAY RESTEIOT THE ENACTMENT.

from ambiguity, and contained no

89

flexible

pression capable of different meanings (a)

ex-

wMle

the preamble, which one side understood as meaning that the expense and inconvenience of the

same kind of suits as before ought to be prevented,

was thought on the other to mean that expensive
and inconvenient suits ought to be prevented in all
cases; and that this was best effected by giving
the more easy method of establishing exemptions
by simple proof of non-payment for a certain
time

(6).

Where

the preamble

is

than the enacting part,

found more extensive

it is

equally inefficacious

when otherwise
3 W. & M. o. 14,

to control the effect of the latter,

from doubt. For instance,

"
s. 3 (c), which gave creditors an action of " debt
against the devisees of their debtor, was held not
to authorise an action for a breach of covenant,
free

for the recovery of money not strictly a

" debt " {d); though the preamble recited that it

or

was not just that by the contrivance

of debtors

their creditors should be defrauded of their debts,

(a)

Per Lord

Mae. & G. 264

Cottenham, Salkeld
18 L.

J.

v.

Johnston

(1849),

Ch. 493.

& G. 242 Fellowes v. Clay

(1843), 12 L. J. Q. B. 202 4 Q. B. 313 and see S. C. (1848),
18 L. J. Ex. 89 and see upon the general question Cfeojpe v.
(6)

See Salkeld

v. Johnston,

1 Mac.

Cresswell (1866), L. E. 2 Ch. 112, at p. 118.

(c)

Eepealed by 1 Will. IV.

c.

47,

s. 3.

(d) Wilson V. Knvhley (1806), 7 East, 128.

Digitized

by Microsoft

90

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

had often happened that after binding

themselves by bonds " and other specialities " they
devised away their property. The mention, it was
but that

it

observed, of the action of debt in the enacting

part was

other

(a).

almost an express exclusion of every

An Act which made it penal to dye

seeds so as to give
of

'"

of seeds

them the appearance

another kind,"

could not

be

extended to

similar manipulations of old or inferior seeds, to

make them appear

as

new

of the

same

species,

by

a recital that the practice of adulterating seeds in

fraud of the Queen's subjects and the detriment
agriculture

of

required repression

An^ Act

(b).

which required the trustees of a turnpike trust to

apply the monies which they received, first, in
paying "any interest which might from time to
time be owing," next, in keeping the road in

and finally, in paying off the principal

sums due by the trust, was held not to authorise

repair,

the payment of arrears of interest

although this

enactment was prefaced by a preamble

which

recited that arrears of interest as well as principal

and could not be paid

unless further powers were granted (c).
Such

sums were due by the

off

(a)
(6)

trust,

Per Lord Ellenborongh, 7 East, 135.

v. Maas (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 83
41 & 42
was passed to overcome the difficulties experienced

Francis

Viet, c 17,

in this case.
(c)

Marhet Earhorough

v.

Digitized

Kettering {181 B), 42 L. J.

by Microsoft

M.

C. 137

PREAMBLE MAY RESTRICT THE ENACTMENT.

an extension

91

Act would have required very

clear words, since it would have had the effect of
throwing on the ratepayers of one year a burden
of the

properly belonging to those of another

(a).

It

has been sometimes said that the preamble

may

extend, but cannot restrain the enacting part

of a

statute

But

{b).

it

support this proposition

would seem

difficult to

Several of the cases

(c).

above cited might be referred to as instances of a

meaning having been judicially given to

restricted

an enactment by its preamble (d). It could hardly

be doubted that a statute which, in general terms,

made

felony to alter a

it

but see Burton Turnpike Trustees

39 L.

M.

J.

bill

v.

of exchange,

would

Wincanton Highway Board,

C. 155.

(a)

See Chap. X, Sec.

(6)

B.

II.

Athos (1723), 8 Mod. 144; Copeman

V.

v.

Gallant,

-Wms. 320 per Lord Abinger, Walker v. Bichardson (1837),

46 E. E. 782 6 L. J. Ex. 229 per Willes J., Haymanv. Flewker,
32 L. J. 0. P. 132; per Turner L.J., Drummond v. Brummond
(1866), L. E. 2 Oh. 44 per Growder J., Kearns v. Cordwainers'
1 P.

Co.,

6 C. B. N. S. 388.

(c)

See

ex. gr.

per Parker C.B. aud Lord Hardwicke, Byall

Bolle, 1 Atk, 174, 182.

See also ^er Lord Blackburn, West

v.

Ham

Overseers v. lies (1883), 8 App. Gas. 386, at p. 388.

{d)

B.

V.

Gwenop (1789), 3 T. E. 133

sup. pp. 74, 89.

26 L.

J.

M.

See also per Gur., B.

C. 65

Hughes

See also Lancashire Brick

By.

Co.,

Manchester (1857),

v. Chester B. Co., 31 L. J. Gh. 97.

&c. Co.

and Lancashire & Yorkshire

[1902] 1 K. B. 651, G. A.

Digitized

SaJkeld v. Johnston,

v.

by Microsoft

92

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

be

restrained

fraudulent

to

preamble -which recited that

by a

alterations,
it

was desirable

to

suppress cheats and frauds effected by altering

The function of the preamble is to

explain what is ambiguous in the enactment (&),
and it may either restrain or extend it as best

bills (a).

suits the intention.

But it is a settled rule that the preamble cannot

be made use of to control the enactments themselves when they are expressed in clear and unambiguous terms (c).

The headings prefixed to sections or sets

sections in some modem statutes are regarded
preambles to those sections
{a)'B.

V.

Bigg (1717), 3 P.

of
as

(d).

Wms.

For a resume

434, arg.

of

cases on this point, see Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 25th ed.,

at pp. 772, 773.
(6)

The People

v. Utica Insur. Co.,

See also Coosmo Mining

15 Johns. N. Y. Eep. 389.

144 U.

Go. v. South Carolina (1891),

S.

550, at p. 563.
(c)

Powell

at p. 185
(d)

See

L. J. Ex.

V.

Kempton Parle Bacecourse

ex.

Brya/n, v.

gr.

264; Shrewsbury

Eastern Counties B. Co.

36 L.

Lafone,

Co.,

[1899] A. 0. 143,

68 L. J. Q. B. 392.

v.

v.

82 K. E. 710;

(1850),

19

Beazley, 34 L. J. C. P. 328;

Marriage, 9 H. L. Cas. 41

Ex. 97

J.

ChUd

Hammersmith By.

Co.

Latham
v.

v.

Brand,

Lang v. Kerr, 3 App. Cas. 636 Bayson v.

South London Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 ; per Brett L.J.,

L. E. 4 H. L. 171

B.

V.

West

Local Govt. Bd., 10 Q. B. D. 321

V.

Gwynne, 80 L.

J.

Ch. 587, 588.

per -BuoMey

L.J.,

Gomp. Broadbent

v.

Imperial Gas. Co., 26 L. J. Cb. 276 per Farwell L.J., Fletcher v.

;

Digitized

by Microsoft

A FUNDAMENTAL

93

PKINOIPLE.

Rules made under an Act which prescribes that

they shall be laid before Parliament for a prescribed

which period they may be

annulled by a resolution of either House, but that
if not so annulled they are to be of the same effect
as if contained in the Act, and are to be judicially
noticed, must be treated for all purposes of con-

number

of days, during

struction or obligation or otherwise, exactly as

they were in the Act.

it

a conflict

of these rules

must be

conflict

is

and a section of the

same spirit as a
between two actions of the Act should be

between one
Act,

If there

if

dealt with.

If

dealt with in the

reconciliation

is

impossible, the

subordinate provision must give way, and probably

the rule would be treated as subordinate to the
section (a).

In a word, then,

it is

to be taken as a funda-

mental principle, standing, as it were, at the

threshold of the whole subject of interpretation,
that the plain intention of the Legislature, as

expressed by the language employed,

to be

may

accepted and carried into

is

effect,

59

New Zealand v.
;

Union S.S. Co.

Melbourne Commissioners (1884), 53 L.

9 App. Gas. 365.

(a)

whatever

be the opinion of the judicial interpreter of

Birkenhead Corporation, [1907] 1 K. B., at p. 218

of

invariably

As

Per Lord Herschell

Lockmod, [1894] A. C,

J. P. C.

to Marginal Notes, see sup. p. 76.

L.O., Institute of Patent Agents v.

at p. 360.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBRPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

94
its

wisdom

or justice.

If the language admits of

no doubt or secondary meaning, it is simply to be

obeyed. If it admits of more than one construction, the true meaning is to be sought, not on the
wide sea of surmise and speculation, but "from
such conjectures as are drawn from the words
alone, or something contained in

them

" (a); that

from the context viewed by such light as its

history may throw upon it, and construed with
is,

the help of certain general principles, and under

the influence of certain presumptions as to what

the Legislature does or does not generally intend.

must not be strained

it apply to a case to which it
does not legitimately, in its terms, apply, on

But the language

in order to make

of a statute

account of the supposed intention of the Legislature

and the theory that that supposed intention

can only be effectually carried out by giving to

the words a meaning which they do not naturally
bear

(6).

(o) Puff. L.

N.

b. 5, c. 12, s. 2,

note by Barbeyrac

Beigate

Btiral Council v. Sutton District Water Go. (1908), 99 L. T. 168.

(6)

639;

Per Lord HerscheU, Kent

and see Macheth

v.

G. G. v. Gerard,

Chislett,

[1910]

L. J. K. B. 376.

Digitized

by Microsoft

[1897] A. C.

A. C.

220;

79

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

WORDS

II.

UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE

SUBJECT MATTER.

The words

of a statute,

when

there

a doubt

is

about their meaning, are to be understood in the

sense in which they best harmonise

with

the

and the object which

Their meaning is
(a).
found n(}t so much in a strictly grammatical or
etymological propriety of language, nor even in its
subject of the enactment

the Legislature has in view

popular use, as in the subject or in the occasion

on which they are used, and the object to be

attained (6). It is not because the words of a
statute, or the words of any document, read in one
sense will cover the case, that that

is

the right

sense.
Grammatically they may cover it; but
whenever a statute or document is to be construed,
it must be construed not according to the mere
ordinary general meaning of the words, but according to the ordinary meaning of the words as
applied to the subject matter with regard to which
(a)
(6)

Sup. pp. 39, 40.

Per

B. & P.

Cur.,

b. 2,

s.

JB.

16

v.

Eall (1822), 1 B. & C. 136

Puff L. N.

Digitized

b. 5, c.

12,

by Microsoft

s. 3.

Grot, de

96

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

they are used, unless there

renders

which

necessary to

it

is

something which

is

read them

in

sense

not their ordinary sense in the English

evident enough

language as so applied

(a).

in the simple case of a

word which has two totally

The Act of Ed. III., for

different

meanings.

instance,

which forbade

"provisions"

This

ecclesiastics to purchase

Eome would

at

referring to those

is

be construed as

papal grants of benefices in

England which were called by that name, and not

to food when it was seen that the object of the
Act was not to prevent ecclesiastics from living in
Eome, but to repress papal usurpations (&). The
" vagabond " of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. IVc. 83, is not necessarily the mere wanderer of
strict etymology (c).
Nor is a person making a
;

bond fide collection in the street for a charitable

object a beggar within the mischief of

s.

3 of the

Vagrancy Act{d). No one is likely to confound

the "piracy" of the high seas with the "piracy"
of copyright or to give, in one branch of the law,
the meaning which would belong, in another, to
;

(a)

53 L.
(6)

Per Brett M.E., Lion Insurance Go.

J.

v.

Tucker (1883),

Q. B. 189.

1 Bl.

Comm.

(Ed. 1770) 60

Statutes of Provisors or

Praemunire passed in 1350, 1353, 1364, 1390, and 1401.

(c)

Rex

Moncl

V.

Hilton (1877), 46

V. Diehinson,

{d)

Mathers

v.

L.

J.

M.

[1917] 2 K. B. 393.
Penfold, [1915] 1 K. B. 514.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C. 163;

and see

SUBJECT MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED.

a host

such

familiar words,

of

Duty

sion

" accept,"

as

" assure," " issue," " settlement."

97

In the Succes-

which provided that the

instalments of duty payable by a successor should
cease at his death, except when he was " competent to dispose by will of a continuing interest in
the property," the competency intended was
obviously not mental sanity or freedom from
personal

Act,

1853,

but

incapacity,

by will
did not, by

tion

the

disposi-

The Gasworks Clauses Act,

(a).

an

possession of

which was capable of

estate of inheritance

1847,

due for gas "rent,"

authorise a distress for the debt under the repealed
Bankruptcy Act, 1869, which regulated the power
calling the debt

of distress of a landlord " or other person to

'

rent

16

(a)
ss.

is

'

21,

due " by the bankrupt

& 17

22

Vict. c. 51,

A.-G.

21,

s.

judgment being " final," Bidsdale

Moore, 14 Q. B. D. 627

The Mutiny

(6).

amended by 51 & 52
27 L.

v. Eallett (1857),

J.

whom

Viot.

As

Ex. 89.

2 P. D. 276

v. Clifton,

Exp. Grimwade, 17 Q. B. D. 357

c.

8,

to a
Exj).
;

Be

Henderson, 20 Q. B. D. 509; Onslow v. Inl. Bev. (1890), 59

L. J, Q. B. 556

Be

Salaman

Warner (1891), 60 L.

v.

Alexander,' [1892] 1 Q. B. 216;

L. J. Q. B. 207
(6)

Be

Be a Bankruptcy Notice, [1895]

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

71,

s.

34

J.

Q. B. 624

Binstead (1892), 62

Sill, Exp.,

1 Q. B. 609.

6 Cb. D. 63.

See

Sarrison, Exp., 13 Q. B. D. 753 ; Peake, Be, 53 L. J. Cb. 977.

As to " tolls " in Eailway Acts, see cases collected in judgment
of Field

J.,

Broim

v.

G.

W. B.

North Central Wagon Co.

v.

Co.,

9 Q. B, D. 750; see also

Manchester, 8.

L. J. Cb. 780, 56 Id. 609, 58 Id. 219.

As

8f

L. B.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co.,

55

to water " rate," see

98

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Acts whioli exempt soldiers from the payment of

tolls over " bridges " would not carry the exemption to a steata ferry boat, because it is called a
'floating

bridge

The enactment which

(a).

hibited parish officials from being

pro-

concerned in

contracts for supplying goods, materials or pro-

meant

visions "for the use of the workhouse,"

" for the use of the persons in the workhouse,"

and therefore did not apply

to a contract for the

supply of materials for the repair of the buUdThis

ing'(6).

too plain to need further illustra-

is

tion.

In dealing with matters relating to the general

public, statutes are presumed to use words in their
popular sense;

But when

uti loquitur vulgits(e).

dealing with particular businesses or transactions,

words are presumed to be used with the particular

meaning in which they are used and understood
in the particular business in
Hunt (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 145

Badcoch

v.

66 L.

Ch. 350

J.

(o)

Ward

(6)

55 Geo.

III.
c.

137,

c.

122,

Comp. 4 & 5 Will. IV.

(c)

The

Fusilier,

s.

s.

Floyd

440

c.

34 L.

76,

M.

J.

Barher

s.

J. P.

v. Waite, 1 A.

Kenyon

276

Morrall

Evans

6 by

& B. 514

M. &

A. 27, per Dr. Lushington.

E. 9 Q. B. 380.
v.

v. Stevens,

v. Sutton (1844),

Digitized

s.

77, cited inf. p. 298.

Per Lord Esher M.E., Unwin

s.

E. 433, 439.

0. 146.

Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B.

119 and The Dunelm, 9 P. D. 171; Grot.

Vattel, b. 2,

that

Lyons (1897),

v.
I.

(cZ)

repealed in part as to

ex. gr. Pitts v. Millar, L.

[d)

Haslett v. Sharman, [1901] 2

Gray (1865), 34 L.

V.

31 & 32 Vict.

See

question

b. 2,

c.

16,

s.

3;

4 T. E. 462, per Lord

65 E. E. 434

by Microsoft

14 L.

J.

Ch.

WORDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

99

meaning being rejected, however, as soon as the

judicial mind is satisfied that another is more
Thus,
agreeable to the object and intention (a).
38 Greo. III. c. 5 and c. 60, which exempted
" hospitals " from the land tax, was construed as
applying to all establishments popularly known by
that designation, and even as extending to an
asylum for orphans (b)
when it appeared more
consonant to the object of the Act to give it that
wider meaning, than to restrict it to what are
;

alone "hospitals" in the strict legal sense of the

term, that

eleemosynary institutions in which

the persons benefited form a corporate body (c).
266

Doe

is,

Doe v. Harveif, 4 B. & 0. 610

H. L. Gas. 68 The Pacific, 33 L. J. P. M.
See per James L. J., Boucicault v. Ghatterton, 5 Ch. D.

v. Jesson,

21 E. E. 1

Abbott V. Middleton, 7

&

A. 120.

275

Spackman, Be, 24 Q. B. D. 728

Q. B. 595

Baifner

Hughes, Be, [1893] 1

Bayner (1903), 73 L.

v.

J.

Oh. 114; [1904]

1 Ch. 176, note, p. 191.

(a)

Per Lord Wensleydale, Baddy v. Fitzgerald

See also Pelham Clinton

Cas. 877.

71 L.
V.

Ch. 53, C. A.

J.

v.

Newcastle,

(1858), 6 H. L.
Duke of (1901),

affirmed (1902), 72 L. J. Ch. 424

Towns

Wentworth (1858), 11 Moore P. 0. 643.

(6)

4 B.

house," see

73 L.
(c)

36 L. J. Ex. 172. See B. v. Man& Aid. 504. For a similar construction of " AlmsMary Clark Home v. Anderson, [1904] 2 K. B. 645

Colchester v. Kewney,

chester,

J.

K. B. 806.

Sutton's Case,

within

s.

1,

10 Eep. 31a.

As

to

what

Poor Eemoval Act, 1846 (9 & 10

Ormskirk Union

Ormskirk Union

v.
v.

is

"
an " hospital

Vict. c. 66), see

Chorlton Union (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 721

Lancaster Union, 107 L. T. 620.

Digitized

by Microsoft

100

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

So the power given in the Highway Act, 1835, to

a surveyor to " lop " trees growing near a highway,

was construed in the popular sense as confined to

cutting off lateral branches, and not extending to
" topping " (a). An Act which privileged a bankrupt fi;om arrest for "debt" was, on the same
principle, extended to arrests for non-payment of
money ordered to be paid by an order of the

Common

Court of Chancery, or by a rale of a

Law

Court, though technically not constituting a

debt

(b)

and the provision of the repealed s. 18

& 6

(a) 5

Will. IV.

60 L.

c.

50,

s.

of a fence

under 5 & 6 Will. IV.

1 Car.

& K.

Q. B. 531.

J.

As

125,

when

to

65

c.

Urwin

As

Q. B. 115

to

50,

what
s.

v.

(8),

Hanson, [1891] 2

removal

will justify

69, see Evans v. Oakley,

the occupier of land

obligation to the public for an obstruction, see

is

under no

Hudson

v.

Bray,

[1917] 1 K. B. 520.
(6)

By

A 5 Geo.

7 of 4

s.

1914), protection

is

V.

c.

59 (The Bankruptcy Act,

given to the property and person of a debtor

The

subsequently to the making of a receiving order.

cases are illustrative of protection

following

afforded under repealed

Acts in cases where the liability was not technically a debt

M' Williams, Exp. (1803), 1 Sch. & Lef. 169, attachment for
contempt; B. v. Edwards (1829), 9 B, & G. 652, attachment

under rule

of

ment

non-payment

for

Court

B.

v.

Dunne

(1813), 2

M. &

Master's award;

S. 201, attach-

Lees

v.

Newton

(1866), 35 L. J. C, P. 285, attachment out of Chancery.

Oomp.

Bancroft

43 Eliz.

of

v. Mitchell (1867),
c. 2, s.

Drover

v.

L. E. 9 Q. B. 549, no privilege under

Beyer (1879), 13 Ch. D, 242, refusal

to grant writ of ne exeat regno

L. E. 2 P.

& D.

189, bankruptcy

Digitized

Patterson v. Patterson (1870),

of

co-respondent

by Microsoft

Bates v.

WORDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

101

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which made a composition

binding on creditors as regards any " debts " due
to them from the debtor and provable in bankruptcy,
was held to apply to any contingent liabilities
which would be released by an order of discharge

Words

(a).

in statutes are not infrequently

construed in their popular and not in their technical

Thus, when

meaning.

it

was enacted

&

(5

WilL IV. c. 54) that marriages already celebrated

between persons within prohibited degrees should
not be annulled for that cause, unless by sentence
pronounced in a suit then " depending " it was
;

held that this last word was to be understood in

a popular and not technical sense, and that a suit

was "depending" as soon as the citation had

been issued (b).
Again, " monopoly value " in
Bates (1888), 14 P. D. 17, no privilege under
Act, 1869,

4 of Debtors

s.

from order to find security for wife's costs

Bawley (1876), 45

by

exists where the debt to be set off is enforceable

also Jones v.

Thompson (1858), 27 L.

(1881), 8 Q. B.

Bawley

v.

L. J. Q. B. 675, a right of " set off" only

" penalty "

D. 151.

J.

Q. B. 234

is

claimed to be due within the meaning

of

action.

B.

sum

not a
s.

v.

of

See

Paget

money

6 of the S. J. Act,

1879.
(a)

46 & 47 Vict.

see also

Hardy

c.

52

\. Fothergill,

Flint v. Barnard, 22 Q. B. D. 90

13 App. Gas. 351

Craig's Claim,

Be, [1895] 1 Oh. 267.

(6)

Sherwood v.

11 Moo. P. C. 324
" instituted "
nail,

66 L.

J.

Bay (1837), 43 E. E. 90. See Ditcher v. Denison,

B. v. Brooks, 2 C. & K. 402. A prosecution is
;

by the laying of the information

Q. B. 248

Thorpe

Beardsley v, Oiddings, 73 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Priest-

J.

K. B.

102

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Consolidation Act,
1910, means " capital monopoly value " and is a
lump sum to be definitely fixed upon the grant

14

s.

(1)

Licensing

of the

of the justices' licence (a).

The payment of a fixed sum " in each and every

calendar month " is the payment of an annual
sum within the meaning of the Annuity Act, 1863,
and is therefore subject to Income Tax (b).
For the purposes of s. 42 of the Naval Prize

&

28 Vict. c. 25), only such of His

Majesty's vessels " as are actually present at the

Act, 1864 (27

taking or destroying "

of an enemy's ships are

entitled to participate in the prize

other

may have

ships

Moreover, such
reward,

bounty although

helped in the fight (c).

bounty being purely a naval

the taking or destroying of an enemy's

if

ships results from

the combined

of

eff'orts

His

Majesty's sea and land forces no award of bounty

378

and a written claim

on a

sheriff, is

to goods taken in execution, served

a " proceeding instituted " within s. 2, Married

Women's Property

Act, 1893 (56

Tyson, [1901] 2 K. B. 487.

A. C. 177
(a)

Bex

Bex

Moran
V.

v.

& 57

Vict.

See also Hood Barrs

c.

v.

Nunn

v.

Place, [1896] P. 214.

Sunderland Customs (1914), 83 L.

V. Pilfield,

63)

Heriof, [1897]

J.

K. B. 555

[1919] 2 K. B. 249.

(6)

Cooper, In re (1918), 119 L. T. 303.

(c)

Falkland Islands Battle, In re H.M.S. Ganopus, Exp. (1917),

86 L.

J. P. 47.

See also The Garmania (1916), 32 T. L. E. 395

The Sydney, [1916] P. 300; The Konigsherg, [1917] P. 174;

H.M. Submarine

Vessel

E 14,

Digitized

[1917] P. 85.

by Microsoft

WOEDS CONSTRUED IN POPULAR SENSE.

103

can be made (a). And in like manner where

under the constitution of an association, originally
founded in 1861, there were frequent changes of

membership, technically amounting to the formait was held that

" formed," within s. 4,

tion of partnerships after 1862,

as

the association was

Companies Act, 1862, before the passing of the

Act, the expression must be taken in its popular
sense (6). An Act (c) which authorised the Court
before which a road indictment was "preferred,"
to give the prosecutor costs, was held to confer
authority to award them to the judge, who tried
the indictment at Nisi Prius even after its removal
Queen's Bench

into the

(d)

for

the technical

meaning of the word "preferred" would have

rendered the Act nugatory in a large majority
of cases, road indictments being rarely tried
the Assizes at which they are " preferred "

Where judgment was "recovered"

(a)

H.M.S. Triumph and H.M.S. Usk, In

for

at
(e).

600 on a

re (1917),

86 L.

J. P.

127.
(6)

of

25 & 26 Vict.

c.

Vn.

8 Bdw.

c.

69

89,

s.

i,

repealed and replaced by

see as to earlier Act,

Shaw

v.

s.

Simmons, 12

Q. B. D. 117.
(c) 5 & 6
Bdw. VII. c.

{d)

B.

V.

Will. rv.
15,

s.

()

50,

s.

95, repealed as to costs

Pemhridge (1842), 12 L.

Preston, 7 Dowl. 593

V. Ipstones.

c.

by 8

10 and Schedule.

see also B.

L. E. 3 Q. B. 216

Per Coleridge

J.,

v.

37 L.

J.

Q. B. 47, 259

J.

M.

3 Q. B. 906.

Digitized

B.

Papwortli, 2 East, 413

by Microsoft

0. 37.

v.

B.

104

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

warrant of attorney to secure an annuity of B0,

of which only ^15 were due, it was held that the
defendant was protected from arrest by the enactment that no person should be taken in execution

on a judgment "where the sum recovered does

not exceed ^620." Though technically the judgment was " recovered " for the larger sum, the

sum

was under 20

really recovered

(a).

The

Eailway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which,

while giving companies power to take land for

temporary purposes, provided that they should not

be exempted from " an action " for nuisance or
other injury, was construed as not limited to what
were technically " actions," but included all pro-

Where

ceedings whether at law or in equity (b).

the Quarter Sessions were empowered to order

" the party against whom an appeal was decided,"

pay the costs of the successful party it was

held that the prosecutor who had procured the

to

conviction successfully appealed against,

this purpose the party appealed
(a) 7
s.

& 8

Vict. c. 6,

s.

57, repealed

against,

by 32 & 33

20 and Schedule, see under repealed Act

24 L.
(6)

J. 0.

&

s.

1,

9 Vict.

c.

20,

69 L.

67 L.
J.

c.

83,

v. Harris,

s.
;

32

Fenwick

44 L.

J.

v.

East London B. Co.

Ch. 602.

" Action " as used

Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has been

similarly construed:

525

Viot.

Johnson

P. 40.

(1875), L. E. 20 Bq. 544

in

was for
though

J.

Ch. 347

Harrop
;

v.

Ossett (Mayor), [1898]

and see FieUen

v.

Ch. 314, A.C.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ch.

Morley Corp. (1900),

WOKDS CONSTRUED
lie

was not so on the

IN

POPULAR SENSE.

105

record, or formally, nor even

by being served with notice of the appeal (a).

The convicting justices were not the parties
appealed against, though the Act required that
the notice of appeal should be served on them.

Even the word

" party " has received the sense in

sometimes vulgarly used, of "person,"

when it is plain that Parliament so intended it
as in the repealed Chancery Amendment Act of
1852, which enacted that any " party " who made

which

an

it is

in a suit should be liable to

affidavit

examination

(6).

17 Geo. Ill,

which,

26(c),

c.

cross-

requiring the registration of annuities, to

after

check,

the preamble

as

practice

except

annuities,

states,

the

money by 'the

of raising

is

of

on

charged

annuities

whereof the grantor

pernicious

sale

life

lands

"seised in fee simple or

was construed as including

in this exception a person who was tenant for life
with a general power of appointment for such a
person, though not technically a tenant in fee
fee tail in possession,"

simple,

is

substantially so, since he can dispose

Although the word

of the property absolutely (d).

M.

(a) B. V. Hants, 9 L. J.

Beg.

V.

London

JJ., [1896] 1 Q.

C. 109

35 E. E. 407

B. 616, at

p.

631

64 L.

and see
J.

M.

G.

100.
(6) 15

& 16

Vict. c. 86,

s.

40; Be Quartz Hill

Co.,

21 Gh. D.

642.
(c)

Eepealed by S. L. E. 1861.

(d) Halsey v.

Hales (1797), 7 T. E. 194

Digitized

by Microsoft

Eccles v.

Cheyne

106

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

" children "

children

(a),

illegitimate

more

would be construed as including

children when such seemed to be
it

consonant

Geo.

II.

legitimate

generally confined to

is

the

to

Thus,

intention.

33 (repealed by 4 Geo. IV.

c.

c.

26
76),

which declared void the marriage of minors without the consent of their parents or guardians,

was held to apply to illegitimate children, since

clandestine marriages by them were within the
mischief which it was the object to remedy (6) and
the 4 & 5 Ph. & M. c. 8, s. 3 (c), which made it
penal to take an unmarried girl under sixteen from
;

the possession of her parents, against their wiU,

was held to apply to the taking of a natural

daughter from her putative father (c?).
(1856), 2 K.

&

Oomp. Leach

at p. 681.

J.,

v.

Jay (1878), 47

L. J. Oh. 876.
(a) B. V. Helton, Burr. S. 0. 187

8 Q. B. 410; B.
(1873),

li.

Maude

v.

E. 6 H. L. 265

see jper

E. By. Co., 33 L. J. Ex. 91

iV.

B.

v.

BirmingJiam (1846),

(1842), 65 E. E. 753

PoUook

Dorin

Hill v. CrooJc

G.B., Dickinson v.

v. Dorin,

L. E. 7 H. L.

568.
(6)

B.

V.

Hodnett (1786), 1 T. E. 96

see also B. v. St. Giles

M. G. 197
Edw. VII. c. 45, s. 3 (Punishment of Incest Act, 1908).
Eepealed by 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, s. 1.

(1847), 11 Q. B. 173

B.

Brighton (1861), 30 L. J.

v.

see also 8
(c)

(d) B.

L. E.

As
Be

7.

V.

Cornforth (1742), 2 Stra. 1162.

H. L. 568

to conflict of

Dickinson

Laws and

v.

N. E. B.

33 L.

J.

v.

Dorin,

Ex. 91.

indelibility of bastardy, see Wright,

(1856), 25 L. J. Oh. 621.

Digitized

In Borin

Co.,

by Microsoft

WORDS CONSTRUED

POPULAR SENSE.

IN

107

company incorporated tinder the

Companies Acts is not a company " incorporated
limited

by Act of Parliament " {a).

In a Customs Act, which imposes duties on
imported commodities, the articles specified would
generally be understood in their

sense

(b).

Thus, " Bohea

"

known commercial

tea was understood to

mean, not the pure and unadulterated article to

which the name strictly belongs, and which alone
is

known by

it

in China

but

teas usually

all

So, to
bought and sold at home as Bohea (c).
take an illustration from a contract, a fire policy

which limited the responsibility of insurers to

explosions by " gas," was construed as referring
only to that kind of gas which was popularly

known by
gas

that term, viz.,

common

illuminating

(d).

Where a statute
(a) Smith, Be, [1896]

applied to the United

Kingdom,

See, however, Elve v. Boyton,

2 Oh. 590.

[1891] 1 Oh. 501.

(b)

A.-G. V. Bailey (1847), 17 L. J. Ex. 9

Bailey

v.

Harris

(1849), 18 L. J. Q. B. 115.
(c)

Wehb

Two hundred
V.

chests

of

tea,

Knight, 2 Q. B. D. 530

9 Wheat. 430

see also " Gin,"

" Spirits," A.-G. v. Bailey, sup.

" Grain," Cotton v. Vogan, [1896] A. G. 457

{d) Stanley v.

65 L.

J.

Q. B. 486.

Western Ins. Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 71

The

See as to covenant not to

St. Michael, [1898] P.
carry on the business of a " beerhouse," Holtv. Collyer, 16 Oh. D.

Knight of

718, London

8f

Suburban Land Go.

v. Field,

Nicoll V. Penning, 51 L. J. Ch. 166.

Digitized

by Microsoft

50 L.

J.

Oh. 549, and

108

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

and the technical meaning

words differed in the

parts of the kingdom, the language would

different

he taken in

its

The words

of

popular sense

(a).

of a statute will, generally, be under-

stood in the sense which they bore

when

it

was

For instance, a private Act (6 & 7

c. 100, s. 8), which provided that "no
"
action in any of His Majesty's Courts of Law
passed

(6).

Will. IV.

should

be brought

against

shipowners

certain

without a month's notice, has been held not to

apply to proceedings in the Admiralty Division of
the High Court of Justice

for

when the Act was

and
was not, one of His Majesty's Courts, nor were
the proceedings there called an action (c).
And the same rule has been applied in the more
recent case of " The Burns " in which it was held
that the six months' limitation prescribed by 56 & 57

passed, the Admiralty Court

(a) Sdltoun v. Advocate-General, 3

Lord Advocate, [1894] A. C. 307

Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531.

was not

Macq. 659

Macfarlane

v.

Income Tax Commissioners

v.

A. C. 173

(c)

73 L.

J.

See per Lord Esher M.B., Gas Light and Coke Co.

17 Q. B. D. 621

Bead

See also London County Council

Metropolitan Gas Co., [1904] 1 Ch. 76, C.

(6)

called,

v.

Bex

Sharpe
v.

v. Wahefield,

South

Ch. 136.
v.

Hardy,

22 Q. B. D. 242; [1891]

Woodhouse, [1906] 2 K. B. 501, at p. 530

Lincoln (Bp.), sup. p. 43.

The Longford, 14 P. D. 34.

de Walden, 6 T. E. 338
far this

v.

appUes to

new

See also

things, see p. 144.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Howard
& VI. How

St, Cross v.

see also Chap. XI, Sees. I

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

109

Vict.

c.
61, s. 1 (a) does not apply to an
Admiralty action in rem {a).
In a Consolidation Act (see sup. p. 48), it will
be found that the language bears the meaning

attached to

it

For

in the original enactment.

instance, the provision in the Sheriffs Act, 1887,

requiring sheriffs'

officers not to take arrested

persons to prison for 24 hours, applies only to

on mesne process or Crown debts, such

arrests

being

the

construction

enactment, 32 Geo.

But

II. c.

given

28

the

to

original

(6).

in the interpretation of general

it is

words

and phrases that the principle of strictly adapting

the meaning to the particular subject matter in
reference to which the words are used, finds its
most frequent application. However wide in the
abstract, they are more or less elastic, and admit
of

restriction

matter.

expansion to suit the subject

or

While expressing truly enough

all

that

the Legislature intended, they frequently express

(a)

[1907] P. 137

Committee,

Ofc.

see also Mitchell v. Aberdeen Insurance

Sess. (So.) (1918),

Corp. V. Myers, [1916] 1 A. G.

W.

C.

&

Ins. 0. 206

242 H. L. (B.)

Bex

Bradford
v.

Port of

London Authority ; Kynoch, Exp., [1919] 1 K. B. 176, C. A.

(6)

50 & 51

Q. B. D. 183
C. A.

349,

Vict.

c.

55,

Smith, In re

s.

14;

Hands

v.

Mitchell v.

See also per Lord Watson, Smith

v.

by Microsoft

1,

Baker, [1891] A. C.

and per Lord Herschell, Bank of England

[1891] A. C. 144.

Digitized

Simpson, 25

Andrews, [1893] 2 Oh.

v.

Vagliano,

110

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

meaning and natural force

and it is necessary to give them the meaning
which best suits the scope and object of the
statute without extending to ground foreign to
the intention. It is, therefore, a canon of interpretation that all words, if they be general and
not express and precise, are to be restricted to the
fitness of the matter (a). They are to be construed

more, in their

literal

as particular if the

that

is,

intention be particular

(b)

they must be understood as used in refer-

ence to the subject matter in the mind of the

Legislature, and limited to

it.

"
Thus, enactments which related to " persons

would be variously understood, according to the

circumstances under which they were used, as including or not including corporations (c)
and as
limited to persons born in the King's allegiance,
;

(a)

Bao. Max. 10.

(6)

Stradling

v.

Morgan (1558), Plowd. 204; Bradlaugh

v.

aarhe (1883), A. C. 354, at p. 372; 52 L. J. Q. B. 505, 515;

Coxy. Hakes (1890), 15 A. C. 506; 60 L. J. Q. B. 89.
(c) B. V. Gardner, Gowp. 79; B. v. Tori, 6 A. & B. 419;
B.

Gas

Beverley

V.

Pharmaceutical Soc.
St.

Leonard's

c.

63,

s.

645; Bac.

London Supply

Go., Ltd,,

Stat.

Assoc., 5

Franklin, 3 C. P. D. 377

v.

Union Banking
Vict.

v.

Go., Id.

Uses,

Act and in

all

App. Cas. 857

Supplement,

tit.

52 & 53

" unless

the

See also Stroud's Jud. Diet, and

" Person."

Digitized

By

"
future Acts, " person

includes any body corporate or unincorporate,

contrary intention appears."

57;

Hirst v. West Biding

[1901] 2 K. B. 560, 0. A.

19, in that

43,

by Microsoft

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

Ill

or as including also all foreigners actually within

the British dominions

the high seas

on
or (the meaning in prize and

(6),

(a),

or in British ships

commercial law) only persons domiciled in those

dominions (c). Under the Licensing Act, 1872,
" no person "

may

sell intoxicating liquor with"

out a license, and
any person " selling without

a license

is

made

subject to penalties

but

was

it

held that the sale prohibited was restricted to a

by a person who ought to be licensed, and

sale

did not apply to a servant

who

sold liquor, the

property of his master, by his master's orders

repealed Act

which

(d).

provided for

In a
the
recovery of wages by " persons belonging to a
(e)

would obviously be confined

to persons employed in its service on board while
in one which related to the salvage of " persons belonging to the ship," it would as obviously include
ship," this expression

Hob. 270

(a) Oourteen's Gase,

Low

(b)

Davidson

(c)

Wilson

3 Eob.

c.

V.

{d)

Marryat (1798), 8 T. E. 31

12; and see Oroker

35 & 36 Vict.

dation) Act, 1910)

;

Nga Hoong

v. B., 7

Cox, 489

Boyle

[1901] 2 K. B. 606.

v. Hill,

4 Moore P. C. 339, at

31

V. Boutledge, 35 L. J. Oh. 117, per Turner L.J.

v.

c.
;

v.

The Indian Chief,

Marquis of Hertford (1844),

p. 361.

94,

s.

3 (repealed,

s.

65, Licensing (Consoli-

Williamson v. Norris (1899), 68 L.

Smith, [1906]

1 K. B. 432.

J.

Q. B.

See also Titmus

v.

Littlewood, [1916] 1 K. B. 272.

(e)

17 & 18 Vict.

c.

84,

repealed by 57

Sched. 22.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

.58 Vict.

c.

60,

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

112

passengers as well as crew

The 13

(a).

Eliz. c. 6,

whioh made void, as against creditors, all

voluntary alienation of " goods," was held to apply
only to such goods as were liable to be taken in
execution as the object of the Act was to prevent such property from being withdrawn from
the reach of creditors: consequently, the word
s.

1,

" goods " was held not to include choses in action,

as long as these were not subject to execution (b).

But the same word was held to include them in

the reputed ownership clauses of former bankruptcy

and insolvency Acts

fall

(c)

as they were

deemed

to

within the specific object of the Legislature,

which was to protect creditors against being

deceived by an apparent ownership of property {d).
A bungalow constructed of wood and corrugated
iron erected on a piece of land for the purpose of
(o)

The Fusilier (1865), 3 Moore P. C. N. S. 51 ; see The Cyhele,

and see The Benpor (1883), 8 P. D. 115, C. A.

3 P. D. 8

Bundas

(ft)

53 E. E. 369

v.

Dutens (1790), 1 E. E. 112

12 A. & E. 536.

Byall

(c)

Bank. 17
288,

As

v.

Kidder,

statute,

of,

[1919] 1 K. B. 583

see herein 1

& 2

v. Saddlers' Co.,

Pearce

Vict. c. 110,
;

s.

v. Bulteel,

12.

Exp. Baldwin, 27 L.

Be Muggeridge, 29 L.
10 H. L. Gas. 404.

" Insolvency," camp.

to

Sims

Eor other cases held not within the

v.

Bowles, 1 Ves. Sen. 367

V.

and B.

(d)

Bider

Thomas,

see Denny, Trustee

[1916] 2 Ch. 544

Dodd, 54 E. E. 224

v.

Norcutt

J.

J.

Ch.

goods in possession, order or disposition of a

bankrupt within the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, see 4 & 5 Geo. V,

c.

59,

s.

38

(c).

Digitized by'Microsoft

WORDS EBSTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

and

exhibition

113

but not used or occupied, or

sale,

intended to be used or occupied on the spot on

though clearly a "wooden

structure or erection of a movable or temporary
character," is not within the meaning of those
words as used in s. 13, Metropolis Management
and Building Acts Amendment Act, 1882 (repealed),
see s. 84, 57 & 58 Vict. c. CCXIII., London Building
Act, 1894, and does not require a license in
writing from the County Council for its erection.
The Act was not aimed at such a structure (a).

which

was

it

surveyor

district

under

s.

erected,

however, entitled to notice

is,

145 of the Act

(6).

Damage caused by

a ship to a pier, or by the mainsail gear of a barge

coming in contact with a pile-driving engine fixed
on a wharf, as the barge was sailing past, would
not be " damage by collision " within the meaning
of the County Court Admiralty Jurisdiction Acts,
1868 and 1869 (c). So, in Bankruptcy Acts, the
word " creditor " is found to be limited, usually,

who

to persons

(a) 45

& 46

2 Q. B. 755.

are creditors at the time of the

Viet. c.

14

London

G. G. v.

Gomp. Westminster Council

v.

Humphreys, [1894]

London

G.

G.,

71

L. J. K. B. 244.

V.

(&)

Gity of Westminster Gouncil v. Watson, [1902] 2

(c)

31

& 32

Vict.

c.

71,

The Kate (1888), 57 L.

73 L.

J. P.

s.

J.

32 & 33 Vict.

Q. B. 546

c.

51,

s.

K. B. 717.
4

Bohson

The Normandy (1904),

D. & A. 55; see also The Upcerne (1912), 81 L.

110.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

P.

114

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

bankruptcy and entitled to prove under

it (a)

and

the statute which makes it a criminal offence for

any member of a " co-partnership " to embezzle
the moneys belonging to

it,

has been held not to

apply to the case of an association having for

its

object, not the acquisition of gain, but the spiritual

and mental improvement of its members (b).

The complex term "inhabitant" may be cited
as having frequently furnished illustration of this

adaptation of the meaning to what appears to

most exactly the object of the Act. In the

abstract, the word would include every human

suit

being dwelling in the place spoken

A right

of.

of

way over

a field to the parish church granted to

"
the inhabitants " of a parish would include every
person in the parish (c).
But where the object

Act was to impose a pecuniary burden in

of an

respect of property in the locality (as in the case

(a)

Grace

Bank.
1

Bishop, 25 L. J. Ex. 58

v.

Under

19.

4 & 5 Geo. V.

59,

c.

which see Bulteel and Golmore

32 T. L. E. 661

Booker, In

In

& 32

C. 55.

of 31
(c)

& 32
B.

Poland, 35 L.

J.

[1916]

W.
;

Bankruptcy (1916),

N. 293.

See Paine,

Blackpool Motor Car

[1901] 1 Oh. 77.

re,

(6) 31

M.

Be

v. Trustee in

re,

Be, Bead, Exp. (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. 71

Co.,

Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (repealed by

and re-enacted by s. 44 of that Act, as to
48,

s.

V.

Vict.

Comp. B.
Vict.

c.

116,

c.

v.

116

is

s.

J.

v.

repealed by 6

MasMter (1837), 6 L.

per Littledale

B.

Bobson (1885), 55 L.

Tankard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548.

See also B.

Digitized

by

v.

J.

&

7 Geo. V.

K. B. 121

c.

6 A.

50,

&

s.

48.

E. 165,

Davie (1837), 6 A. & E. 374.

l\/licrosoft<^

J.

Sec. 1

WORDS EBSTRICTBD TO THE MATTER.

115

Hen. VIII. c. 5,
which throws the burden of making and repairing
bridges on the " inhabitants " of the town or
county in which they are situated, and in the
Eiot and Black Acts (a)), the expression would be
of the Statute of Bridges, 22

construed as comprising

holders of lands or

all

houses in the locality, whether resident or not,

and corporate bodies as well as individuals, but
as excluding actual dwellers

who had no

rateable

property in the place, such as servants ; it being

"infinite and impossible " to tax every inhabitant

being no householder, and

upon

trained

for

who

could not be dis-

non-payment, and therefore highly

improbable that the Legislature intended to tax

them (b).

On

the other

hand, where the object

is

to

impose the performance of a personal service

within the locality, the word " inhabitant " would
probably be construed as not comprising either
corporate bodies or non-resident proprietors. Thus,

was held that a person who occupied premises

in one parish and carried on his business in person
it

there, but resided in his dwelling-house in another,

was not an " inhabitant " of the former parish so

So,
as to be bound to serve as its constable (c).
(a)

B.

(6)

2 Inst.

Bayley
(c)

V.

North Ourry (1825), 4 B.

702

B.

v.

North,

&

0. 958, per Bayley J.

Gurry, 4 B.

&

0. 958, per

J.

B.

V.

Adlard, 4 B.

&

0. 772.

Digitized

See also B.

by Microsoft

v. Nicholson,

11

116

iNTEEPEETATlON OF STATUTES.

an Act which authorised the imposition of a rate

on all who "inhabited or occupied" any land or
house, and the appointment of a number of " inhabitants " to collect the rates, was held to throw

the latter duty only on actual dwellers in the

locality (a). But here the word " occupied " would
suggest a meaning for "inhabitants " distinct from
" occupiers."
A furnished house, not lived in

an "inhabited
dwelling-house " and assessable to inhabited house
duty (6).

during the year of assessment,

is

Again, another meaning would be given to the

same expression, where the object was to determine the settlement of a pauper, or the qualificaIn those cases, a person is an
tion of an elector.
inhabitant or resident in the place in which he
usually sleeps (c). What amounts to inhabitancy
E. E. 398;

Williams

v.

Comp.

411.

Jones, Id.

Wethered v

Calcutt, inf. p. 122.

(a)
(6)

Donne

v.

Martyr (1828), 8 B. & G. 62.

14 & 15 Vict.

c.

36,

s.

Smith

Damey

v.

(1904), 73 L. J.

K. B. 646.
(c) St.

Mary

v.

Badclife, 1 Stra. 60, per Parker O.J.

Charles, Burr. Set. C.

Mildenhall, 3 B.

Ford

V.

&

706

B.

Aid. 374

v. Stratford,

Beal

Drew, 5 0. P. D. 59

v.

Biley

v.

11 East, 176

E.

v.

B.

v.

Ford, 3 0. P. D. 73

Bead, 4 Ex. D. 100

A.-G. V. Parker, 3 Atk. 577, per Lord Hardwicke L.O.

modern

on

For

Yarmouth Union

v.

Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L. T. 440 ; TewJcesbury Union

v.

decisions

this

point,

see

Gt.

Upton-on-Severn Union (1913), 83 L. J. K. B. 37

V.

Coventry Union (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 276.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Daventry Union

WORDS RBSTEIOTED TO THE MATTER.

in this sense,

it is

impossible to define.

117

Sleeping

in a place once or twice does not constitute it;

and, on the other hand, such residence generally

in a place, in this sense,

much

absence from

is

quite compatible with

But

it (a).

if

an Act requires

residence for a certain time at least, as a quahfica-

would be understood to make actual bodily

presence in the place for that time indispensable
as was held in the construction of the Act con-

tion, it

the congregation of the University of

stituting

Oxford

(b).

The same expression has received another

meaning where the object of the Act was to
preserve information as to the place where a
person was to be found at times when it was
most likely that he should be sought as in the
enactment which requires a solicitor to indorse
his "place of abode " on the summons which he
;

issues;

or a witness to a bill of sale, to add to

his signature a description of his occupation

(a)

B.

V. Mitchell,

110; Taylor

v. St.

George's, Id. 47.

Ford
V.

V.

10 Bast, 518

Mary

Abbotts,

Wescomb's Case, L. E. i Q. B.

40 L.

See also Whithorne

Pye, L. E. 9 C. P. 269

and

Ford

J. C. P.

v.

v.

45; Bond

v. St.

Thomas, 7 M. & Gr. 1

Hart, Id. 273

McDougal

Paterson, 87 E. E. 869; Bunston v. Paterson, 28 L. J. 0. P.

185

Powell

v.

Q. B. D. 426

Bonoghue

,v.

Guest,

Beal

v.

34 L.

J. 0.

Town Clerk of

Brooh, 57 L.

J.

B.

V.

Spittall v. Brooh,

Exeter,

Q. B. 122

Bethnal Green Union (1907), 97 L.

(6)

P. 69

Gt.

440.

Oxford (V.C.) (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 471.

Digitized

by Microsoft

18

20 Q. B. D. 300
Yarmouth Union v.

118

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

In these cases

"residence."

has been held,

it

considering the object which the Legislature had

in view, that the place of business constituted the

abode or residence intended (a). But in general

the place of business of a person would not be
regarded as his " place of abode " (b). It has
been held to be his " address " as a witness to a

under

bill of sale

Sale Act, 1882

(c)

indorsement

for

action

8-9 and schedule of the Bills of

but not to be his " address"
on a writ as plaintiff in an

ss.
;

(d).

clerk or servant does not " carry

in the place

meaning

where he

is

on business "

employed, within the

County and
other Courts over persons who dwell or carry on
of Acts giving jurisdiction to

business within

limits

their

(e)

but

the words

would receive a wider meaning when the object

of the enactment had reference to the distribuBrowne (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 220.
See also B. v.
(6) See B. v. Hammond, 21 L. J. Q. B. 153.
Deighton, 13 L. J. Q. B. 241 B. v. Coward, 20 L. J. Q. B. 359.
()

Thorp

(c)

45

V.

& 46

Vict.

L. J. Ch. 252.

59

S. J.

75

c.

43

Simmons

See also Brandon

Woodward

v.

Hill, Ltd.

v.

(1892), 61

Lamb

Boddington, In re (1915), H. B. E. 183

(1914),

Bonard,

In re (1916), 85 L. J. (K. B.) 393.

{d)

748.

Etdes of

use his
2

Ir.
(e)

S. G.

Order IV.

r.

Stoy v. Bees, 24 Q. B. D.

In Ireland a magistrate suing in his

ofl&cial

place of business, B.

v.

ofl&cial

capacity

may

JJ. Go. Tyrone, [1901]

E. 497.

Graham

v. Lewis,

22 Q. B. D. 1

Digitized

58 L.

by Microsoft

J. Q.

B. 117, 0. A.

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER.

tion

of

Courts

business between

119

Bankruptcy

different

(a).

Under the

provisions of the County Courts Act,

which gave the Superior Courts concurrent jurisdiction when the parties dwelt more than twenty
miles apart, the principal office of a railway company was its dwelling (b) but not its other offices
or stations (c).
But the manufactory or shop,
where the business is substantially carried on,
and not its registered office, is the dwelling, within
the meaning of the same provision, of a manufacturing company (c?). For fiscal purposes, a
corporation is regarded as residing where the
govening body carries on the supreme management, though the scene of its operations and
sources of profit, and even the majority of the
shareholders, are out of the country, and though
it has a foreign domioil and is registered abroad (e).
;

(a) Breull,
(6)
V.

Adams

Exp. (1880), 16 Oh. D. 484

v.

Growland Gas

Co.,

26 L.

J.

Jt

W. B.

Co.,

Co. (1861),

23 L.

J.

Ex. 254

50 L.

30 L.
;

J.

Minor

Ch. 384.

J.

Ex. 124; Taylor

v.

L.

&

N. W. B.

C. P. 39.

(c) Shiels V.

L.

G.

G. N. R. Co. (1861), 30 L. J. Q. B. 331

N. W. B. Co. (1863), 32 L.

J.

Brown

v.

Q. B. 318.

Baher (1864), 33 L. J. Ex. 41. See also

Aberystwith Pier Co. v. Cooper, 35 L. J. Q. B. 44.
(e) Newhy v. Colt's Arms Co., L. E. 7 Q. B. 293 ; Haggin v.
(d)

Keynsham

v.

Comptoir d'Eseompte (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 519

Carron Iron Co.

v.

58 L,

Maclaren, 5 H. L. Gas. 459.

Alexander, L. B. 10 Ex. 20.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B. 508

See A.-G.

v.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

120

A foreign

corporation which had any estahKshment

country would for the same purpose be

considered as resident here, as regards the question
in

this

of jurisdiction (a).

however, somewhat whittled

down by the decision of the Court of Appeal in
Okura & Co. v. Forsbacka Jemverks Aktiebolag (6)
This proposition

is,

which it was held that a London Firm of

Merchants who acted as agents for various firms,
in

including the defendants,

did not

represent

so

their principals as to constitute service

upon them

of a writ as valid service on their principals.

Again, the word "occupier" has received different

meanings, varying with the object of the enactment. Ordinarily, the tenant of premises is the
" occupier" of them, although he may be personally absent

from them

officer

who

virtute

officii,

But
s.

is

(c)

while a servant or an

in actual occupation of premises,

would not be an " occupier " {d).

in the Bills of Sale Act, 1854 (repealed

23, 41

&

42 Vict.

c.

31),

by
which provided that

(o) Cesena Sulphur Co. v. Nicholson, 1

(h)

[1914] 1 K. B. 715, C. A.

(c)

B.

Spurrell,

V.

Poynder, 25 E. E. 345

35 L.

(d) Clark v.
Boberts, 3

J.

M.

Bury

Ex. D. 66

Ex. D. 428.

83 L.

J.

1 B.

&

K. B. 561.
0. 178,

and see B.

v.

C. 74.

St.

B.

Edmunds, 26 L.
v. Spurrell,

V.

Prichard, 20 Q. B. D. 285.

c.

12,

s.

J. C.

Bent

v.

McClean

See in this connection 44 Vict.

24.

Digitized

P. 12

L. E. 1 Q. B. 72

by Microsoft

WOEDS EESTKIOTED TO THE MATTER.

121

personal chattels should be deemed in the possession of the grantor of a bill of sale so long as they

were on the premises " occupied " by him, actual

personal occupation, and not merely tenancy, was

and therefore the owner of chattels in

rooms which he did not personally occupy was
intended

not in the " apparent " possession of them, within

that Act

(a).

This restriction of meaning

may

be carried

still

promote the real intention, and not

exceed the object and scope of the enactment.
Thus, an Act which, reciting the inconTenienoes
arising from churchwardens and overseers making

further to

clandestine rates, enacted that those officers should

permit " eyery inhabitant " of the parish to inspect

the rates, under a penalty for refusal, was held

not to apply to a refusal to one of the church-

who was

wardens,

object of the
(a)

As
M.

word

0. 242

Sellers,

761; Penn

J.

36

c.

BoUnson

v. Briggs,

40 L.

J.

of

Ex. 17.

" traveller," see Taylor v. Humphreys, 30 L. J.

Fisher

28 L.

As the

an inhabitant.

Act was limited to the protection

17 & 18 Vict.

to the

also

v.

M.

Howard, 34 L.

C. 12

J.

M.

C. 42

Saunders^. S. E. B.

Go.,

Atkinson

49 L.

J.

v.

Q. B.

M. 0. 65; and in Ireland

6 Edw. VII. c. 39, s. 3
in England 10 Edw. VII., 1 Geo. V.
" lodger " and " occupier," Bradley v. Baylis, 8
c. 24, s. 61
Q. B. D. 195, 210 Morton v. Palmer, 51 L. J. Q.B. 7 Heawood
v.

Alexander, 62 L. J.
;

V.

Bone, 13 Q. B. D. 179.

Eettie, 192,

and as

See also Bishop

v.

Duffy (1894), 22

to hours of sale, Bristow v. Piper, [1915] 1

K. B. 271.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.

122

only

those inhabitants

previously no

who had

the churchwardens
had), the meaning of the term " inhabitants " was
access to

limited to

rates (which

the

them (a).

In another
the Queen's

case, the majority of the

Bench went

Judges of

further than the Chief

Justice thought legitimate, in giving an unusual

and even

artificial

meaning to a word,

for

the

purpose of keeping within the apparent scope of

the Act. The treaty between Great Britain and
the United States of 1842 and the 6
c.

76

(6),

&

7 Vict.

passed to give the Executive the neces-

sary powers for carrying its provisions into effect,

having provided that each State should, on the

requisition of the other, deliver

up to justice

all

persons who, being charged with murder, " piracy,"

or other

therein mentioned, committed

crimes

within the jurisdiction of either State, should seek

an asylum, or be found within the territories of

the other; it was held that the word "piracy"
'

was confined to those acts which are declared

piracy by the municipal law of either country,
such as slave-trading, and did not include those
which are piracy in the ordinary and primary
(a)

B.

V.

Wethered

v.

Bavie (1837), 6

N. E. 409.

Calcutt (1842), 5 Scott,

Mashiter (1837), 45 E. E. 433

A&

6 L.

J.

B.

v.

B. 374.

Eepealed by 33 & 34 Vict.

52,

s.

Extradition Act, 1906 (bribery inclusion).

(6)

See also

K. B. 121

Digitized

o.

by Microsoft

27.

See also The

BENEFICIAL CONSTEUOTION.

sense of the word, that

is,

123

jure gentium

for as the

was within the jurisdiction of all

States, and was triable by all, and the offenders
could not, consequently, be said to seek an asylum
in any State, since none could be a place of safety
for them, that species of the crime was not within
the mischief intended to be remedied by the treaty
or the Act (a).

latter offence

SECTION

II.

BENEtlCIAL

It is said to be the

CONSTRUCTION.

duty of the judge to make

such construction of a statute as shall suppress

the mischief and advance the remedy (6).

Even

where the usual meaning of the language falls

short of the whole object of the Legislature, a

more extended meaning may be attributed

words,

if

susceptible of

fairly

to the

If there

it.

are

circumstances in the Act showing that the phraseology

is

used in a larger sense than

meaning, that sense

may be

given to

the Legislature having intended

(a)

33 L.

Ternan, Be,

J.

M.

its

ordinary

it (c).

when

Thus,

passing the

See also A.-G.

v.

per Lord Kenyon, Turtle

v.

G.

201.

Kwok-a-Sing, L. E. 5 P. 0. 179.
(b)

Heydon's Case, 3 Eep. 7b

Hartwell, 6 T. R. 429
C. P. D. 530.

See

per Cockbuxn

ex. gr.

Be

BicTc,

O.J., Twycross v. Grant,

[1891] 1 Oh. 426.

Per Lord Bsher M.E., Barlow v. Boas (1890), 24 Q. B. D.

381, at p. 389; 59 L. J. Q. B. 183, and see Gross in the goods of
(c)

(1904), 73 L. J. P. 82.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

124

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, that every

workman in the prescribed trades should be
entitled

compensation,

to

it

ought to be con-

strued so as, as far as possible, to give effect to its

primary provisions
(s.

54

(4),

&

25

26 Vict

of shipowners

injury done

The repealed enactment

(a).
c.

among

where,

"by

is

63) Hmiting the liability

other things, the

reason of the improper naviga-

tion" of their ships, extends to a case where a

collision was owing, not to any default of the
crew, but to the breakdown of the steering gear

from the negHgence of engineers on shore, who

had improperly fixed it{b). It would extend to
every case where the negligence

is

that of any

person for whose negligence the owner

unless

sible,

latter

(c).

is

respon-

occurred with the privity of the

it

Where

empowered
construct bridges, and pro-

a cplonial statute

municipal councils to

vided that in certain circumstances the authorities

"adjacent" districts should contribute to the

was held that the word "adjacent" has
not by ordinary usage a precise and uniform meaning, and is not confined to places adjoining, but
of

cost, it

(a) .60

& 61

Vict.

and see Fleming

(6)

see

s.

(c)

v.

c.

37

Lysons

Loehgelly Iron

v.

&

Enowles, [1901] A. G. 79,

Coal Go. (1902), 4 P. 890.

The Warkworih (1884), 9 P..D. 145; as to existing law,

503 of 57 & 58 Vict.
Id. per Brett

c.

60.

M.E. See

also

Canada Shipping

Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society (1889), 58 L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co. v. British
J.

Q. B. 462.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

125

that the degree of proximity which would justify

its

application

stances

frequently a question of circum-

is

A young

(a).

person whose work

is

partly

indoor and partly outdoor, the outdoor work being

some

from the shop where he is

employed, is when employed in outdoor work
employed "in or about a shop " within the Shop
Hours Act, 1892 (b). To supply beer at a pubUchouse to a drunken man and his sober companion,
would be to " sell " the liquor to the drunken man,
although it was ordered and paid for by the sober
at

distance

A driver who

companion (c).

leaves a carriage and

horses standing in the highway leaves

them while
they are "passing" upon such highway within
s. 78, Highway Act, 1835 {d).
Acts which gave a
"single woman" who had a bastard child the
(a)

773.

L. J.

Mayor of Wellington v. Mayor of Lower Hutt, [1904] A. C.

But see Kimberley W. W. Co. v. Be Beers Mines, 66
P. C. 108 Bateman and Parker, Be, 68 L. J. Gh. 330.

(6)

55 & 56 Vict.

c.

62; Gollman

v. Roberts,

[1896]

il

Q. B.

457.
(c)

35 & 36 Vict.

c.

94,

s.

13

this section repealed as regards

England by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.

As

to existing law, see

and see Badford

v.

Johnson, 57 L. J.
inf. p.
(cf)

c.

24,

s.

112, Sched. VII.

75 of Licensing Consolidation Act, 1910,

Williams (1914), 78 J. P. 90

M.

Scatchard

See, however, Gundy v.

0. 41.

Le

v.

Gocq,

186.

& 6

Q. B. 768
V.

s.

Will. IV. c.

50

Phythian

v.

Baxendale, [1895] 1

Nuttall v. Pickering, [1913] 1 K. B. 14

Parker (1914),

"W.

N. 200.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Chatterton

126

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

right to sue the putative father for its maintenance

have been held to include in that expression, not

only a widow (a), but also a married
apart from her husband
of the Acts being to

(b)

for,

woman

living

the general object

compel men to contribute to

the support of their illegitimate offspring, even a

married

woman

living under circumstances

patible with marital access,

language a single woman,

incom-

though not in popular

is

nevertheless, for the

purposes of the Acts, and therefore in the contemplation of the Legislature, as " single " as a

woman who has no husband. So where by s. 141,

Army Act, 1881, assignments of or charges upon
pensions received by officers in respect of past
services are forbidden, but nothing is said in terms

about executions or attachments,

it

has been held

that these must be regarded as included

wise the object to be effected,

as other-

viz., to

secure a

provision which should keep the pensioners from

want, and enable them to maintain a respectable

social position,
(a)

Antony

v.

would be frustrated (c),

Cardenham, 2 Bott, 194

B.

v.

soldier

Wymondham, 2

Q. B. 541.
(6)

L. J.

B.

M.

V.

Pilkington, 2 B.

0. 153

9 E. E. 406.

B.

& B.

v. Gollingwood,

Comp. Stacey

Barnes, [1901] 1 K. B. 118

546,

17 L.

v. Lintell,
;

J.

nom. Exp. Grimes, 22

M. C. 168 B. v. Luffe,
;

4 Q. B. D. 291

Jones

v.

see also Beigate Union v. Croydon

Union, 14 App. Gas. 465.

(c)

Be

44 & 45 Vict.

c.

58

Lucas

v.

Harris, 56 L. J. Q. B. 15

Saunders, 64 L. J. Q. B. 739.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

who has gone

127

into barracks with a view to being

"a

drafted to the seat of war is

military service" within

s.

soldier in actual

11, Wills Act, 1837(a).

The authority given by the Municipal Corporations

Act to expend the local funds upon " corporate
buildings " was construed as extending to the cost
of lining the corporation pew in the church (b).
Dogs (c), horses, cattle (d), and shares in a limited
company (e), have, by a beneficial construction,
been held to be " goods " within the meaning of
that word as used in certain statutes; while on
the other handj a linen bag has been decided not
to be a " case " in
for the

which gunpowder may be

carried,

purpose of satisfying the requirement of

the Metalliferous Mines Eegulation Act, 1872, that

explosives shall not be taken into a

26

Hiscock, Be,

Knee, [1902] P. 99

and see

(a)

1 Vict.

c.

612; StaUe, In

re,

[1901] P. 78

34 T. L. E. 626; Tollemache's Estate, In

(5)

B.

V.
(c)

&6

re,

Hale, In

Wm.

IV.

c.

[1916] P. 47
re,

[1915] 2

&

3 Vict.

c.

Gattward

71,

v.

Ir.

re,

J.

re (1918),

[1917] P. 246;

Anderson's Estate, In

re,

E. 362.

76 (repealed 45 & 46 Vict.

Warwick (1846), 15 L.
2

Kitchen, In re (1919), 35 T. L. E.

[1919] P. 10; Thomas' Estate, In

Heywood's Estate, In

[1916] P. 49

mine except in

c.

50,

s.

J.

M.

5)

Q. B. 306.

s.

40; B.

s.

23 (repealed 57 & 58 Vict.

v. Slade,

57 L.

0.

120.
(d)

39 & 40 Vict.

Richmond Hill
(e)

c.

80,

65 L.

Go. v. Trinity House,

E. S. 0. 1883, Order L.

r.

J.

Euans

Ch. 216.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

60)

Q. B. 561.
v.

Barnes, [1893] 2

128

INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES,

a "case or canister," as such a case would not

by affording protection against ignition from sparks (a).

An English
effect the object of the statute

trade-mark and goodwill are property within the

Stamp Act, 1891, and so

On

a share in a colonial

is

enactment in
the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Improve-

patent

(6).

ment Act,

similar grounds the

which, after authorising local

1875,

authorities to purchase land for such dwellings,

provides that

rights or easements relating to

all

the purchased land should be extinguished, but

compensated

for, has been held to include under

the word " rights " inchoate as well as complete

rights

(c).

pany

to

An Act which
make,

the

for

required a railway com-

accommodation

of

owners and occupiers of the adjacent lands,

the
suffi-

from trespass,
and the cattle of the owners and occupiers from
straying thereout, was held to include in the term
cient fences for protecting the lands

(a) 35

& 36

Vict. c. 77,

(6)

s.

23 (2 6); Foster

s.

59

54 & 55 Vict.

39,

c.

(1)

Brooke

2 Q. B. 356; Smelting Co. of Australia

Q, B. 175
B.

v.

BiphwysOasson

D. 428.

Slate Co., 18 Q. B.

electrical

energy

is

v. Inl. Bev.,

v. Inl. Bev.,

property, see 9

[1896]

[1897] 1

Edw. VII.

c.

34,

19.
(c)

38 & 39 Vict.

70; Barlow

v.

c.

Boss,

36,

Butter, [1892] 1 Q. B. 668

ment

"

was construed

V. Sutcliffe (1895),

20, repealed

s.

24 Q. B. D.
;

61 L.

J.

s.

J.

Q. B. 729.

Digitized

c.

v.

Q. B. 146, where " ease-

in its strictest sense.

64 L.

53 & 54 Vict.

Gomp. Hawkins

22,

381.

by Microsoft

And

see Howorth

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

129

"occupier" a person who merely had put his

on land with the license of the occupier (a).
And the same word, even when coupled with
cattle

"owner"

in an Act of Parliament

has been
construed, with the view of promoting the object
(6),

of the enactment, as including a person standing

on a spot in a park or place where he had no more

right to stand than any other person (c).
So it
has been held under a repealed Act that cows
agisted on the terms that the agister should take
their milk in exchange for their pasturage, were
taken in to be fed at a "

fair price " (d),

that an

agreement by a shareholder with a company to

set off a present liability of the company to pay
cash to him against future calls on his shares was
a payment of the calls " in cash " (e), that the
attendance of an uncertificated midwife at the
Dawson

(a)

Midland By.

v.

Kiitow V. Liskeard, 44 L. J.

Go.,

M.

42 L.

G. 23.

J.

Ex. 49.

As

tinguishing a license from a demise, see Smith

ment Committee (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 585,

52 L.

V.

J.

M.

C.

at.

See also

for principles disv.

pp. 593

Lambeth Assess-

et seq. ;

affirmed,

1.

(6)

See Chap. XI., Sec. IV.

(c)

See Boggett

v.

Gatterms (1864), 34 L.

Fenwick (1874), 43 L.

M.

J.

C.

Bacecourse Co. (1899), 68 L. J.

107

J.

C. P. 46

Bows

Kempton Park
Q. B. 392; Brown v. Patch
;

Powell

v.

(1899), Id. 588.

(d)

46 & 47 Viet.

London
(e)

&

Yorks.

Bank

30 & 31 Vict.

Jones Lloyd

&

61,

c.

Co.,

c.

v.

s.

45 (repealed by 8 Edw. VII.

c.

28)

c.

69)

Belton, 15 Q. B. D. 457.

131,

s.

25 (repealed by 8 Edw. VII.

Be, 41 Ch, D. 159.

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

130

confinement of the wife of an elector,

who was

sent

and paid for by the relieving officer, was

"medical assistance," so that the relief afforded
did not disqualify the elector from being registered (a), that an antenuptial agreement for a
to her

was a " marriage settlement "(6), and that "bedding" to the value of
5, which is protected from seizure by s. 147,
County Courts Act, 1888, which is incorporated

marriage

settlement

Law

into the

includes a bedstead

Table

Amendment Act, 1888,

Member " in Art. 27 of

of Distress

"

(c).

Companies Act, 1862

to the repealed

which provided that any increased capital should

be offered to the " members " joto mto, -^included
the representatives of a deceased member whose
name was on the register (rf). A statute which
requires a railway company to keep in repair a
" bridge " carrying a highway over their lines,
requires them also to maintain the roadway upon

(a)

note,
(&)

48 & 49 Vict.
s.

9)

c.

Honeyhone

41 & 42 Vict.

Q. B. 192
(e)

see also

c.

46,
v.

31,

Be

51 & 52 Vict.

2 (repealed by 7

s.

s.

Wenman

Vansittart,

21,

c.

&

8 Geo. V.

c.

64,

Hamhridge, 18 Q. B. D. 418.

s.

v.

Lyon &

Co.,

[1891] 2

[1893] 1 Q. B. 181.

4; Davis

v.

Harris (1900), 69

L. J. Q. B. 232.
(d)

L.

J.

25

& 26

Oh. 284.

L. J. Oh. 266.

Table

Vict. c. 89

James

See also Allen

v.

Buena Ventura

v.

like condition is

A appended

to 8

Edw. VII.

Digitized

Syndicate, 65

Gold Beefs of West Africa, 69

c.

contained in Article 42 of
69.

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTBUCTION.

the bridge

A fishing-boat

(a).

131

of ten tons provided

with masts, which unshipped, and

used for

sails

but which was propelled by four oars

in harbour and shallow water, was decided to be a
"ship" within the Merchant Shipping Act, 1862,
which pro\ddes that when a collision between two

going to

sea,

" ships " takes place, the master of each ship is

bound to render assistance to the other, on pain of
the cancellation or suspension of his certificate.
2 of the repealed Merchant Shipping
Act, 1854, enacted that the term " ship " should

Though

s,

"have the meaning" thereby "assigned"

viz.,

that

it

to

it,

should " include every description of

by oars "(6),
this was considered not to be a definition, and as
not excluding vessels which it did not include (c).
On the other hand, a. steam launch used for the

vessel used in navigation not propelled

(a)

&9

Vict.

c.

20,

s.

46

Lancashire

&

Yorks. By. v. Bury,

North of England By. v. Langhaurgh, 24 L. T. 544.

See also as to a " book " within the repealed 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45,
14 A. C. 417

s. 2.

See Maple

&

Go. v. Junior

A.

&

Oable V. Marks, Id. 107; Davis v.

N.

Stores,

Comitti,

52 L.

54 L.

J.

J.

Ch. 67

Ch. 419.

For an exhaustive disquisition on the Copyright Act, 1912, see

Clerk and LindseU on Torts, tit. "Copyright." And as to a
" boiler " within

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

22,

B.

v.

Boiler Explosions Act

Gommissioners, 60 L. J. Q. B. 544.
definition of " vessel," see

57 & 58 Vict.

(6)

For

(c)

Ferguson and Hutchinson, Exp., L. E. 6 Q. B. 280.

The Mac, 7 P. D. 126; Gapp

v.

60,

s.

742.

Gomp.

Bond, 19 Q. B. D, 200; Glyde

Navigation v. Laird, 8 App. Cas. 658.

Digitized

c.

by Microsoft

INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

132

purpose of carrying passengers on pleasure trips

round an artificial lake has been held not to be

a " vessel used in navigation " so as to need the
suspension on board of a Board of Trade certificate (a).

And perhaps

as a general proposition the

words of a statute should be construed in accordance with the dictum of Lord Watson, who says
with regard to deeds, in an unrecorded case, "the

deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain

the true meaning of

its

several clauses,

and the

words of each clause should be so interpreted as

them into harmony with the other

provisions ... if that interpretation does no violence to the meaning of which they are naturally
to

bring

susceptible "

{h).

Another instance of beneficial construction is

s. 3 of the Common Lodging Houses
Act, 1853, which forbids the keeping of " a comafforded by

mon

lodging-house " unless

approved, and

registered.

it

has been inspected,

The

ment (which is repealed except

PoHce District by 38 & 39 Vict.

object of the enactas to Metropolitan

c.

65,

s.

343) being

to secure for the poor using these houses condi-

(a)

health

safeguarding

tions

17 & 18 Vict.

c.

104, ss.

2,

and preventing

318 (repealed by Merchant

Shipping Act, 1894); Mayor of Southport

1 Q. B. 359
(b)

the

v. Morriss,

[1893]

see also Salt Union v. Wood, [1893] 1 Q. B. 370.

North-Eastern By.

v.

Hastings {Lord), [1900] A. 0. 260, at

p. 267.

Digitized

by Microsoft

"

BENEFICIAL OONSTEUOTION.

spread of disease, which people

133

better

off

are

supposed to be able to secure for themselves,

was held to apply to a shelter kept

purpose and not for gain {a).

it

for a charitable

debtor residing abroad " keeps out of the way

to avoid service " of process, within the meaning

Bankruptcy Eules for substituted service (b),

and under s, 15 (7), Friendly Societies Act, 1875
of the

(repealed

Friendly Societies Act,

35,

s.

1896),

which provides that registered friendly societies

shall be entitled to the privilege of having " any

money
which

or

property belonging to the

shall be in the possession of

any

society,"
officer of

the society upon his bankruptcy, handed over to

the society in preference to any other debts or
claims against his estate,

the society

entitled

is

has been held that

it

to be

paid out of such

estate any balance due to it, in respect of moneys

received by him for it, even though he has not in
his possession those moneys in specie, and they

cannot be traced

(c).

The statutes which require notice of action

(a)

401

16 & 17 Vict.
Logsdon

v.

Talhot, 76 L. J. Oh. 8
(6)

Logsdon

Id.

617.

v.
.

Booth, [1900] 1 Q. B.

See, however,

Gilbert v. Jones, [1905] 2

Parker

v.

K. B. 691.

Bankruptcy Eules, 1886, Eule 154 (now Bankruptcy

Eules, 1915, Eule 156)

(c)

41

c.

Trotter,

for

38 & 39 Vict.

Q. B. 324

c.

Eilheck,

Be

60,

Be

s.

Urquhart, 59 L. J. Q. B. 364.

15 (7)

Be

Miller (1893), 62 L. J.

(1910), 79 L, J. K, B. 265.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

134

anything "done" under them, are construed as

including an omission of an act which ought to
be done as well as the commission of a wrongful

one

Even

(a).

criminal statutes, which are subject

what has been called a strict construction, will

be found to furnish abundant illustrations of giving
an extended meaning to a word (b).
A statute which requires something to be done
to

by a person would, except in cases subject to the

principle that delegatus non potest delegare, be complied with, in general, if the thing were done by
another on his behalf and by his authority for it
would be presumed that there was no intention to
;

prevent the application of the general principle of

law that qui facit per alium facit per

Wilson

(a)

Halifax, 37 L. J. Ex. 44

v.

See also Davis

L. J. 0. P. 225.

Newton

(1893),

J. Q.

Poulsum

v. Curling,

B. 337

15 L,

Edwards

unless

v. Thirst,

J.

36

Q. B. 56

v. Islington,

58

Rarman v. Ainalie (1904), 73 L. J. K. B. 639

1 K. B. 698.
The Public Authorities Protection Act
56 & 57 Vict. c. 61, has repealed nearly all the statutes

L. J. Q. B. 165
[1904]

24 L.

v. Ellis,

se

and substituted therefor by

requiring notice of action,

s.

1 (a)

a general period of six months.

(fe)

As

See Chap. X.

to appeal in a " Criminal cause or

matter," see Woodall, Bxp., 57 L. J.

M.

C. 71

Schofield,

Exp.

'
'

(1891), 60 L.

J.

Pulhrooh, Exp.,

80 L.

J.

M.

61 L.

K. B. 57.

" insane "

B.

C. 157; B. v. Tyler, [1891] 2 Q. B. 588;

v.

No

J.

M.

C.

91; Exp. Savarhar (1911),

right of appeal in cases of " guilty " but

Taylor (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1671

see also

Felstead v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1914), 83 L. J. K. B.

1192.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.

135

was something either in the language or in

the object of the statute which showed that a
there

On

personal act was intended.

this ground, an

Act of Parliament which requires that notice of

appeal shall be given by churchwardens is complied with if given by their solicitor (a).
So in
the absence of any provision to the contrary in
the Bills of Sale Acts, it has been held that a bill
of sale may be executed by attorney, and the
grantee

purpose

may be the attorney of the grantor for such

(b).
And the repealed (c) Dramatic Copy-

right Act, 1833, 3

& 4 Will. IV. c. 15,

which required

the written consent of the author of a drama to

representation,
if

was held

sufficiently

complied with

the consent were given by the author's agent

When

its

(d).

an Irish statute, after giving to tenants for

more than fourteen years, the right of

any trees which they had planted, required

lives of for
felling

B.

(a)

20 L.

J.

V.

M.

0.

Button (1891),

60 L.

J.

M.

M. C. 42 B. v. Carew,
Un. B. v. Kent, 42 L. J. M. C. 112 France v.
60 L. J. Q. B. 488 B. v. St. Mary Abbotts (1891),
52 Walsh v. Southwell, 20 L. J. M. C. 165 B. v.

Middlesex (1850), 20 L.

C.

V.

L.

J. C. P.

&

Power

19 L.

368

Be

J.

M.

Oharles

Lancaster, 3 Oh. D. 498

imposing

J.

v.

Blackwell,

Mousell Bros.

As to effect
Banh of Bengal

K. B. 82.

liability,

see

Chatty (1916), L. E. 43 Ind. App. 48, P.

Hudson (1893), 62 L.

(6)

Furnivall v.

(c)

Eepealed by 1 & 2 Geo. V.

(d)

C. 127;

N. W. By. (1917), 87 L.

of Attorney in

Bamanathan

Huntingdonshire,

46 L.

J.

Morton

v.

Copeland, 24 L.

Digitized

c.

46,

J. C.

J.
s.

Oh. 178.
36, Sched. 2.

P. 169.

by Microsoft

of
v.

INTEEPEETATIOK OF STATUTES.

136

that "the tenant so planting"

them should

file

an affidavit within twelve months, in a form

given by the Act, which purported throughout

made by the tenant

to be

Act

of Lords construed the

struction,

it

The

House
by the

stricter con-

was said, would have rendered the

Act inapplicable to most

in view

satisfied

as

agent.

of the tenant's

affidavit

personally, the

of the cases

which

it

had

(a).

principle

well illustrated by two decisions

is

under the partially repealed (6) 6

&

7 Vict.

c.

18,

which required that the person who objected to a

voter should sign a notice of his objection, and
deliver it to the postmaster.
This was held to
require

personal

signature

delivery or receipt (d).

(c),

but not personal

was material that the

It

person objected to should be able to ascertain that

he really was objected to by the objector, which

he could not so easily do if a signature by an agent

was admitted

just as, to guard against persona-

tion, the signature

of a voting paper under the

former Municipal Corporations Act must be personal and not by agent

(a) Mountcashell v. O'Neill (1856),

51 & 52 Vict.

c.

37,

s.

See 7 & 8 Geo V.

(c)

Toms

31 L.

5 H. L. Gas. 937.

See also

1.

(6)

V.

But there was no

(e).

c.

64,

s.

47, Sched. 8

Cuming (1845), 14 L.

J.

C. P. 67

Lewis

v. Roberts,

J. C. P. 51.

(d)

Cuming

(e)

& 6

v.

Toms (1844), 14 L.

Will. IV.

c.

76,

Digitized

s.

J, 0. P. 54.

32, repealed 45

by Microsoft

& 46

Vict. o. 50,

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
valid reason

137

for supposing that the Legislature

did not intend to give effect to the rule, qui facit

per alium facit per

in the case

se,

The knowledge

delivery.

mere

of the

of the servant

may

be

constructively that of the master within the mean-

ing of an Act, even

penally responsible (a).

when making

An Act

authorises justices to

(18

&

19 Vict.

London) which
summon a person by whose

121) (repealed except

c.

the master

act a nuisance arises, or,

as

if

to

that person cannot be

ascertained, the occupier of the premises in

exists,

it

was held

the occupier,

if

summoning

to authorise the

the person

which

who had

of

actually done

the act was his servant, since in law the act of the
latter is that of the

On

former

the same principle

it

(b).

has been held that

s.

3,

Truck Act, 1831, which provides that the entire

amount of wages earned by an artificer shall be
actually paid to
s.

which

5,

latter

Act

him
is

in the current coin of the

modified by 7 & 8 Geo. V.

Tart (1859), 28 L. J. Q. B. 173.

See also Monhs

c.

64

B.

v. Jackson,

v.

46

L. J. C. P. 162.
(a) Gore v. James, L. E. 7 Q. B. 135,

Pain

V.

Boughtwood, 59 L.

L. E. 1 Q. B. 702.
tit.

"

6th

ed., pp.

(&)

J.

M.

0.

per Lush
45)

B.

(But see

J.
v.

Stephens,

See also Stroud's Judicial Diet. & Supp.,

Knowingly," and Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, chap.

2,

6266.

Barnes

v.

Aekroyd, 41 L. J.

of this, see Sherras v.

De

M.

0. 110.

For the converse

Butzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918

supplying Uquor to a constable on duty.

Digitized

by Microsoft

a case of

INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.

138

realm, would be satisfied by payment being

made

to his authorised agent (a).

On the other
Amendment Act,

hand,

Statute of Frauds

the

1828, 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, which

requires an acknowledgment " signed by the party

chargeable thereby," to take a debt out of the

Statute of Limitation, has been held to require

personal signature, and not to admit of a signature

by an agent

But

(b).

this construction

was based

partly on the circumstance that another Statute

of

made express mention

Where an Act required that

Limitation

agent

(c).

of

an

notices

should be signed by certain public trustees, or by

was held that the signature of the

clerk of their clerk, who had a general authority
from his employer to sign all documents issuing
from his ofiS.ce, was not a compliance with the
Act (d).
And a lithographic indorsement of a
their clerk, it

& 2
when

(o) 1

as to

Will. IV.

c.

37

a " set off "

is

Hewlett

v. Allen,

[1894] A. C. 383

admissible, see Williams v. North's

Navigation Collieries, [1904] 2 K. B. 44, at p. 55, C.'A.

see also

Thomson (1918), S. C. (J.) 34. As to what

an iUegal contract under the Act, see Kemp v. Lewis, [1914] 3

Summerlea Iron
is

Co. v.

K. B. 543.
(6)

Hyde

v.

Johnson (1836), 2 Bing. (N. G.) 776.

Swift V. Jewsbury, L. E. 9 Q. B. 301

L. T. 232

Barwiek

v.

Williams

See also
Mason, 28

v.

English Joint Stock Bank, L. E. 2 Ex. 259

Hirst V. West Biding Union Banking Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560

Citizens Life Assurance Co. v.
(c)

Sup. pp. 68-69.

(d)

Miles

V.

Brown, [1904] A. 0. 423, P. G.

Brough, 32 B. 845

Digitized

61 E. E. 409

by Microsoft

Inglis v.

BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.
solicitor's

name

not a compliance with the

is

the County Court

provision of

139

Eules that he

should "indorse on the particulars his name or

firm,"

but the

solicitor's

authorised clerk will suffice

name

by his

written

(a).

Again, where the statute required that the act

should be done by the party " himself," it would
hardly admit of

being done by an agent, as in

its

the case of the provision that a nomination paper

a candidate for municipal

of

delivered

the

to

town

clerk

office

should be

by the candidate

himself, or his proposer or seconder

(6).

statute

which provides that a person, not a party to an

election petition,

who

is

charged with corrupt

have an opportunity of being heard

himself" and of calling witnesses, does not

practices, shall

"by

authorise his appearing by counsel or solicitor

So, where an

Act required a special

G. N. By. (1852), 16 Jur. 895,

H. L.

(Sc.)

(c).

qualification

and see Brown

v.

Tombs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253.

(a)

Order VI.

County Court Eules, 1903-1918

9,

r.

per Pry L.J., B.

v.

Lord Bsher M.E. dissenting.

(6) Monks V. Jackson, 46 L.
Harford

amended

v.

(c)

29

J. 0.

P. 162, distinguished in

Linskey (1899), 1 Q. B. 852, at p. 861.

The much

Municipal Corp. Act, 1882, omits " himself "

repealed 3rd Schedule, part

to voting

by proxy, see 7 & 8 Geo. V.

c.

84,

c.

51,

v.

Jackson, 46 L. J. C. P. 162.

Digitized

38; B.

in the

and 3rd Schedule.

Monks

s.

For present provisions as

2, s. 7.

46 & 47 Vict,

see also

so held

Fitzroy-Cowper (1890), 59 L. J. Q. B. 265

v.

Mansel Jones, 23 Q. B. D.

by Microsoft

INTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

140

As, for example, under the

for doing anything.

Pharmacy Act,

1868, which by

s.

16 prohibited

under a penalty the sale of poisons by unqualified

shopman

persons, the

of a qualified employer, not

himself qualified, was held liable to a penalty for

selling,

except under the personal supervision of

his employer (a)

receives an order for poison and forwards

who

a manufacturer

who

but an unqualified person

supplies

it

it

to

directly to the

customer, has not the conduct and management of

the sale so as to constitute
the meaning of the Act

The

him the

seller within

(h).

which enacts that in any contract

for letting a house for habitation by persons of
the working classes there shall be an impKed
" condition " that the house is fit for habitation,
has been construed as importing a promise by the
landlord to that effect, and so giving the tenant a
right to sue on it, for the purpose of giving effect
statute

to the intention
fied

& 32

31

(a)

Vict.

And

(c).

by 9 Edw. VII.
c.

121,

repealing in part the

first

also 8

Bdw. VII.

24 Q. B. D. 683
80 L.
58 L.

J.

J.

c.

55,

s.

15

s.

14.

and see 32 & 33

Vict.

15 sections of the earlier Act

;

Pharmaceutical Socy.

v.

117,

c.
;

see

Wheeldon,

see also Pharmaceutical Socy. V. Nash (1911),

K. B. 416
Ch. 39

s.

44,

c.

this principle is ampli-

Oomjp. Lewis v. Weston-super-Mare (1888),

40 Ch. D.

(6)

Pharmaceutical Socy.

(c)

48 & 49 Vict.

c.

55.

v.

72,

White, 70 L. J. K. B. 386.
s.

12; Walker

Q. B. 93.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Hohbs, 59 L. J.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

141

Sometimes the governing principle of the

remedial enactment has heen extended to cases
not included in

language, to prevent a failure

its

of justice and consequently of the probable intention.

Thus,

Common Law

60,

s.

Procedure

Act, 1854, which empowered a Court (upon the

application of either party to a cause supported

by the

such party, of his belief that a

affidavit of

material

document was

opponent) to order

time

it

did not admit the affidavit of the solicitor

of the party, even

was

its

in the possession of his

production, though at one

satisfied

when the

by the

solicitor's affidavit,

making an

of

forming a belief

(b),

affidavit,

and

tended to persons other than

have power

make no

make one only by

(a)

Christophersen

v.

affidavit, or

(1864),

the affidavit

33 L.

Frederici v. Vanderzee (1877), 46 L. J. 0. P. 194

Clarh, 25 L. J. Ex. 113.

Now

Andrews (1897), 42 L.

V.

Kingsford

PatM Frires

J., p.

v.

Cinema, Ltd.

v.

121;

positively

competent de-

68.

United Electric Theatres, Ltd.,

[1914] 3 K. B. 1253, C. A.

Per Erie

C. P.

Herschfield v.

G. W. B. Co., 16 C. B. N. S. 761.

(6)
(c)

{d)

J.
;

any one who can

testify to the requisite facts is accepted as a

ponent, Hallett

should

as a cor-

could formerly

their soHcitor,

Lotinga

and

ex-

The

(c).

all suitors

of getting discovery (d)

poration could

now

is

solicitors

governing principle being that

in-

perhaps of

or,

power

this

(a),

where the

and consequently

party was a corporation,

capable

party was abroad

C.J., Id.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

142

was considered a substantial com-

of the latter

pliance with the Act.

provision of 3

after depriving

&

4 Will IV.

42, which,

c.

the parties to a reference under a

rule of Court or judge's order of the

power which

they formerly had of revoking the authority of

their arbitrator, enacted that a judge might from
time to time enlarge the time

for

make

thought confined to

his award,

was

at first

the arbitrator to

had been attempted (a)

or, at all events, applicable only where the arbitrator had no power to enlarge the time, or had
not yet made his award (b) but it was afterwards
held that a judge had power to enlarge the time
in all references made by judicial order (c) and to
do so even when the arbitrator issued his award
after the time to which he was limited had expired, and the award was consequently, so far, a
cases where a revocation

nullity (d).

The

beneficial spirit of construction is also well

by cases where there is so far a conflict

between the general enactment and some of its

illustrated

(a) Potter v.

(6)

Newman

Per Tindal

and per Patteson

(c)

C.J.,
J.,

(1836), 5 L. J. Ex. 93w.

Lambert

Doe

v.

M. &

Gr. 858,

Leslie v. Bichardson, 17 L. J. C. P. 324.

(d)

Be Ward, 32

L. J. Q. B. 121

L. J. Q. B. 53

Knowles

[1900] 2 Q. B., at p. 257.

r.

v. Hutchinson,

Powell, 7 Dowl. 539.

&

Lord

See also E.

14a.

Digitized

v.

Lee (1868), 37

Sons, Ltd. v. Bolton

by Microsoft

S.

Gorporation,

C, Order LXIV.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

143

subsidiary provisions, that the former would be

limited in the scope of

were not

restricted.

its

An

operation

Act which, after autho-

rising the imposition of a local rate

piers

of

the latter

if

land in a parish, gives

on

all

occu-

dissatisfied

ratepayer an appeal, but at the same time requires

the appellant to enter into recognisances to prosecute the appeal, presents such a conflict.
it

Either

excludes corporations from the right of appeal,

because a corporation

is

recognisances

extends the right to them,

or

it

incapable of entering into

without compHanoe with that special requirement.

And

the latter would be unquestionably the bene-

ficial

way

The general

of interpreting the statute.

and paramount object of the Act would receive

full effect by giving to corporate bodies the same
right of appeal against the burthen imposed on

them

and the subsidiary provision would be

understood as apphcable only to those who were
;

capable of entering into recognisances

(a).

The Act De Prerogativa Eegis, which provides

that the lands and tenements of lunatics " shall

no wise be aliened," does not prohibit the

Court from giving up an interest in the real estate

in

of a lunatic in order to acquire for

and more valuable

estate.

The

him a

statute

larger

was passed

with the object of preserving the estates of lunatics,

(a) Gortis v.

Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. & 0. 314.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

144

and a contrary interpretation would not have

carried out that intention (a).

The Charitable Uses Act,

1735, 9 Geo. II.

o.

36,

which prohibited the disposition of lands to a

charity by other means than by a deed executed
a year before the donor's death, was open to the
construction that it applied only to lands which
passed by deed, and therefore not to lands of copyhold tenure

But

(b).

as the object of the statute

all

lands of whatever

prohibition, the

only consequence

was, manifestly, to include

tenure in

its

that would have followed,

if

mode

of

impossible that the

had been thought

conveyance provided

it

by the statute should operate to transfer copyholds, would have been that copyholds would
have fallen within the general prohibition absolutely, and would have been incapable of passing
to a charity by any mode of conveyance (c).
Except in some cases where a statute has fallen
under the principle of excessively
tion, the

tended to
(a)

language of a statute

new

17 Edw.

S. S. B.,

In

re,

is generally ex-

things which were not

II. c.

10;

Be

re,

[1906] 2 Ch. C. A., at

Adams

(6)

Gomp. Smith

(c)

Per Lord Tenterden, Doe

v.

known and

Sefton, [1898] 2 Oh. 378; see also

[1906] 1 Gh., at pp. 724, 725

Walters Contract, In

As

strict construc-

and Gashell and

p. 10.

(1855), 24 L. J. Ch. '268.

v.

Waterton, 3 B.

&

to the presumption of enrolment in such cases, see

West, [1893] 2 Q. B. C. A., Lindley L.J., at p. 31.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Aid. 151.

Haigh

v.

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

145

could not have been contemplated by the Legisla-

was passed. This occurs when the

Act deals with a genus, and the thing which afterwards comes into existence is a species of it (a).
Thus, the provision of Magna Charta which
exempts lords from the liability of having their
carts taken for carriage was held to extend to
degrees of nobility not known when it was made,
as dukes, marquises, and viscounts (6).
The partially repealed Poor Belief Act, 1743, which gave

ture

when

it

parishioners the right of inspecting the accounts

of churchwardens and overseers under the poor
law of BHzabeth, was held to extend to those of
guardians, officers who were created by Gilbert's

Act (22 Geo. III.), passed in 1783 (c). 13 Eliz.

made void (as against creditors)
c. 5, which
of
transfers
lands, goods, and chattels (d), did not
originally apply to copyholds or choses in action,

(a)

Per Bovill

G.J.,

per Holt CJ., Lane

Eaymond, 746

Smith (1870), L. E. 1 C. C. 720

B.

v.

v.

Cotton

H.

(1866), L. E. 1

Mod. 485,

(1701), 12

Bock

referred to in Mersey

L., at p. 124,

1.

Ld.

Trustees v. Gibbs

and Bainbridge

v.

Postmaster

General, [1906] 1 K. B. C. A., at p. 186.

(b)

1 Inst. 35.

(c)

17 Geo.

1871); B.

V.

II. c.

38

Edwards, 7 B. & G. 586

(d)

22 Geo. III.

&

For cases held not

[1914] 2 K. B. 691

C.

S.

L. E.,

541; Bennett

v.

6 Bing. 230.

to be within the statute, see Benny,

Trustee of v. Benny, [1919] 1 K. B. 583

re,

83 (repealed

c.

Great Farringdon, 9 B.

Pearce

v. Bulteel,

Bavid and Ackland, In

[1916] 2 Ch. 544.

10

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

146

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

were not seizable in execution (a) but

when they were made subject to be so taken
as these

&2

(1

of the

Vict.

they

110),

c.

fell

The Act

Act (b).

within the operation

of Geo. II.,

which pro-

tected copyright in engravings by a penalty for

etching,

engraving,

piratically

or

otherwise,

or

"in any other manner" copying them, extends

A telegram
to copies taken by photography (c).

may

be a forged instrument according to the true

The telemeaning
of
phone is a "telegraph" within the
the Telegraph Acts, 1863 and 1869, though not
invented or contemplated in 1869 (e). Every company (including a private company) (/) registered
interpretation of the Forgery

(o)

Sims

V.

(6) Norcutt

Dodd

V.

(c)

Edmunds

8 Geo.

Gambart

II.

(1841),

c.

54 E. E. 224;

Barrack

v.

Smith, L. E. 1 G. 0. 270, per

JR. v.

Edmunds, [1904] P. 362.

v.

13; see 1 & 2 Geo. V.

32 L.

v. Ball,

P. 166

J. 0.

A.-G. V. Lockwood, 9

0. P. 410;
staengl v.

(d).

Thomas, 12 A. & E. 536.

McCulloch, 26 L. J. Ch. 105

Bovill C.J.

Act

c.

and note;

46,

Graves v. Ashford, L. E. 2

M. & W. 378; Comp. Hanf-

Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1

Id. v. Newnes, [1894]

3 Ch. 109; note also cases cited inf. Chap. X., Sec. I; for an

exhaustive j-esume of the subject in

XXI.
& 25 Vict.

Clerk and Lindsell on

Torts, Chap.
id)

24

c.

98,

b.

38,

partially

B.

V. Biley,
(e) 26.

&

65 L.

J.

M.

27 Vict.

Edison Telephone

c.

Co.,

re,

V.

c.

and
27;

C. 74.

112

32 & 33 Vict.

6 Q. B. D. 244

[1913] 1 Ch. 231.

Digitized

c.

73

A.-G. v

Postmaster General v.

National Telephone Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 621.

(/) White, In

repealed

& 4 Geo.

re-enacted by the Forgery Act, 1913, 3

by Microsoft

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

147

under the Companies Acts is a " public company "

within s. 5, Apportionment Act, 1870 (a).
It is hardly necessary to

remind the reader that

beneficial construction is not to be strained so as

to include cases plainly omitted from the natural

meaning

the words

of

For instance,

(6).

the,

repealed Sunday Closing (Wales) Act, which required that

public-houses

certain hours

should be closed at

on Sundays, was held incapable

being consiJrued as extending to Christmas

but this incapacity

now remedied by

is

of

Day (c),
the 6th

Schedule to the Licensing (Consolidation) Act,

And

1910.

in like

from the decision

manner the anomaly

of the

resulting

Court of Appeal

(d) that

the statutory rule directing that applications for

new

by a jury should be made

trials in cases tried

to the Court of Appeal, could not be extended to

by an

cases tried

official

cured by legislation
(a)

33

& 34

Vict.

c.

referee has

now been

(e).

35

Be LysagU, [1898]

1 Oh. 115

Baven, In re (1915), 111 L. T. 938.

(6)

Sup. pp. 25-26.

(c)

44 & 45 Vict.

c.

61,

s.

Forsdike

v.

Colquhoun, 11 Q. B. D.

71.
{d)

53 & 54 Vict.

(e)

62 Vict.

c.

44,

s.

Gower

v.

ToUtt, 39

c. 6, s. 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

W.

E. 193.

CHAPTER
CONSEQUENCES

TO

III.

CONSIDEEED

BE

PKESUMPTION

THE LAW BETOND

THE SPECIFIC OBJECT OF THE ACT MENS BEA

AGAINST ANY ALTEEATION

OE

IN CBIMINAL LAW.

Bepoeb adopting any proposed construction of a

passage susceptible of more than one meaning, it
is

important to consider the effects or consequences

which would result from it (a), for they often point

out the real meaning of the words (b). There are
certain objects which the Legislature is presumed
not to intend
and a construction which would
;

lead to any of

them

therefore to be avoided.

is

It

is not infrequently necessary therefore to limit the

words contained in an enactment

(especially general words), and sometimes to
depart, not only from their primary and literal
meaning, but also from the rules of grammatical
construction in cases where it seems highly improbable that the words in their wide primary
effect

of the

or grammatical
(a) Grot,

meaning actually express the

de B. & P.

b.

2,

c.

16,

s.

2 Oranoh, 390.
(6) Puff.

L. N.

b. 5, c. 12, s. 8.

Digitized

by Microsoft

4; U. S.

v.

real

Fisher,

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

intention of the Legislature

it

being more reason-

able to hold that the Legislature

expressed

intention

than

in

slovenly manner,

meaning should be given

149

that

its

them which could not

to

have been intended.

One of these presumptions is that the Legislature

does not intend to make any substantial alteration
in the law beyond what it explicitly declares {a),
by clear implication
or, in other words, beyond the immediate scope
and object of the statute. In all general matters
beyond, the law remains undisturbed. It is in
either in express terms or

the last degree improbable that the Legislature

would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe

rights, or depart from the general system of law,
without expressing

its

and to

intention with irresistible

any such effect to

general words, simply because they have that
meaning when used either in their widest, their
usual or their natural sense, would be to give
them a meaning other than that which was
General words and phrases,
actually intended.
therefore, however wide and comprehensive they
clearness

may

(b)

be in their

give

literal sense,

must, usually, be

construed as being limited to the actual objects

(a)

Per Trevor

J.,

Arthur

v.

Bokeriham, 11 Mod. 150

Earhert's Case, 3 Eep. 13b; the above passage cited

Cory V. France, 80 L.

J.

K. B, 346

and see

(6) 2 Cranch, 390.

Digitized

by Microsoft

inf. p.

see also

by counsel,

313.

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

150

the

of

beyond

and

Act,

not

as

law

the

altering

(a).

"any"

Thus, a statute which authorised

or

"the nearest" justice of the peace to try certain

cases, would not authorise a justice to try any

own

such oases out of the territorial limits of his

any in which he had a disor which he

qualifying interest or a bias (c)
was incapacitated from hearing by any other

jurisdiction

(b)

or

law

general principle of

them by any other course

(d)

to hear

less

still

proceeding than that

of

by law (e).
So, the Debtors Act,
"
any (inferior) Court " to
1869, empowering
commit for default of payment of a debt, in pursuance of an order or judgment of " that or any
other competent Court," did not authorise such a

established

(a)

See per Sir

Eomilly, Minet

J.

v.

Leman, 20 Beav. 278

Biver Wear Commissioners v. Adamson, 1 Q. B. D. 564, per

MeUish LJ., 2 App. Gas. 743 Sv. A.-G. v. Exeter Corp. (1911),
;

80 L.
(6)

K. B. 636.

J.

Hawk.

P. 0.

80 L.
(c)

Q.

1
Gt.

J.

B.

c.

65,

& C. 438

Fylingdales, 7 B.

s.

45

Sv.

The Peerless, 1 Q. B. 153

per Darling

J.,

Be

B.

v.

Bros. (1911),

K. B. 147.
V.

Cheltenham, 55 E.

B. D. 173

B.

v.

L. C.

E. 321
0.,

61 L.

B.
J.

v.

Meyer

M.

C. 75.

(1876),

B.

v.

Yarmouth JJ. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 525.

(d)

Bonham's Case, 8 Eep. 118a

2 Stra. 1173

B.

v.

Great Charte

v.

Sainslury (1791), 2 E. E. 433

Kennington,
;

Lawson

v.

Beynolds, [1904] 1 Ch. 718.

(e) Dalt. c. 6,

s.

Guerin, In re (1888), 53 J. P. 468

Button, Exp. (1911), 75. J. P. 558.

Digitized

by Microsoft

camp.

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

151

Court to commit, unless the debtor was subject to

its

general jurisdiction by residence or business

An

(a).

Act wbioh authorised a distress would not

authorise a seizure of goods in custodid

The provision

in

26

s.

(8),

legis (6).

Judicature Act, 1873,

that the Court might grant an injunction in

all

which it should consider it "just and

convenient" that such an order should be made,
did not extend the authority of the Court beyond
cases in

cases where there

was an invasion

of recognised

The

provisions in

legal or equitable

R.

1,

E.

Order LY, E.

S.

rights
S.

(c).

C. 1875 (now E.

and the repealed (d)

C.)

s.

LXV,

Ord.

1,

Eailway

28,

Canal Traffic Act, 1873, that the costs

&

and

of

incidental to proceedings should be in " the discretion of the Court "

was construed as giving no

than
had always been exercised
wider discretion
by the Court of Chancery, and therefore as not
authorising an order on a successful defendant to

pay a portion of the

(a)

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

62

plaintiff's costs

Washer

v. Elliott,

(e),

45 L.

P. 144,

J. G.

explained in Ives, In re (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 665, at pp. 669, 670.

(h)

17 & 18 Viet. c. 104,

58 Vict.
(c)

c.

60,

s.

Beddow

v.

693

s.

523 ; repealed and re-enacted by 57 &

The Westmoreland (1845), 2 Eob.

Beddow, 9 Oh. D. 89

H. L. 193.

See also Jackson

1 Ch.
(tZ)

(e)

238 C.

Day

v.

394.

Brownrigg, 48

v.

v.

Barry Bailway

o.

25.

Bos, L. E, 5

[1893]

Co.,

A., at p. 249.

Eepealed by 51 & 52 Vict.

Foster

and per Lord Hatherley, Beuss

L. J. Oh. 173

W.

v.

G. W. E. Co. (1882),

Digitized

8 Q. B. D. 516

by Microsoft

Mills'

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

152

" Fresh evidence " within the meaning of

Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women)

s. 7,

Act, 1895,

which gives magistrates jurisdiction to rescind

a separation order previously made under s. 4 of

means the same sort of evidence as that

upon which a new trial would in the ordinary
that Act,

course be granted

An Act which

provided that a mayor should not

by reason of

be,

councillor
eligible

(a).

his office, ineligible

would

alderman,

or

when he acted

not

as a town
make him

in the judicial capacity of

returning officer at the election

for it

would not

be a just construction of the language used, or a

legitimate inference from

had intended

it,

that the Legislature

by a mere side-wind the

principle of law that a man cannot be a judge in
his own case (b).
So, an Act which directed the
election of officers, would be understood as authoEstate, Be,

to repeal

34 Oh. D. 24

Lamhton

v.

Parkinson (1887), 35

W.

E.

545,
(a)

13

58 & 59 Vict.

Dodd

c.

39

Dodd, [1906] P. 189,

V.

& A.
what is

Johnsons. Johnson, 69 L. J. P. D.

As

at p. 199.

to

" fresh evidence," see Timmins v. Timmins, [1919] P. 75.

As

the character of evidence which a justice should require

when

making an

order, see Terry v. Terry (1915),

Camp. MurtagJi
(h)

37 L.
B.

v.

v.

Barry, 24 Q. B. D. 632,

Owens (1859), 28 L.

B.

v.

J.

Q. B. 285

B.

Weymouth, 48 L.

1 Q. B.

504

B.

v.

J.

J.

M.

C.

519.
v.

Tewkesbury,

4 Q. B. D. 332, S. C. nom.

139;

B.

v.

Morton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 39.

Digitized

32 T. L. E. 167.

inf. p.

Q. B. 316

v. Milledge,

to

by Microsoft

Henley, [1892]

PRESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

153

rising such election only

on a lawful day, and not

on a Sunday (a)

the statute declared that

the candidate

and

if

who had

he deemed elected,

the majority of votes should

would he construed as not

it

intending to override the general principle, that

voters

who

vote for a person

whom

they

he ineligible, throw away their votes

know

to

(b).

In the same way, a statute requiring a recognisance would not be understood as giving com-

women

petency to minors and married

themselves by such an instrument

may

women

since

possessed of separate estate

enter into recognisances, and

that the rule in the

it

would seem

of infants is not

case

of

The Statute of Westwhich gave a judgment creditor the

universal application

minster

to bind

But

Women's Property

the passing of the Married

Acts married

(c).

2,

(d).

writ of elegit to take half the lands of his debtor,

did not authorise the issue of the writ against the

(a)

B.

V. Butler, 1

W.

Bl.

649; B.

v.

Bridgewater (1774),

Cowp. 139.
(b)

B.

Coaks

V.

Pritchard

v.

23 L.

(18S'4),

J.

Bangor Oorp. (1888), 13 A. 0. 241

V.

Sandhurst (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 316

s.

B.

V.

558

B.

V.

(c)

Q. B. 183, discussed in

How, 33 L.

J.

M.

C. 53

B.

Wimbledon Loc. Board, 51 L.

Bennett

v.

Watson, 3

M. &

S. 1

see 7
v. St.

J.

Williams, Exp. (1824), 13 Price. 673.

Digitized

Beresford-Hope
c.

64,

Matthew, 32 L. T.

Q. B. 219.

Barrow, Exp., 3 Yes. 554

Hussey's Case, 9 Eep. 73.

(d)

& 8 Geo. V.

by Microsoft

154

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

heir of the debtor during his minority

s. 7,

43

Eliz,

in

c. 2,

So,

(a).

making the mother and grand-

an illegitimate child liable to maintain

it, did not reach them when under coverture (h)
and an Act which punished " every person " who
deserted his or her children would not apply to

mother

of

woman, without separate

her husband had deserted (c).
a married

And now by

estate,

virtue of the Married

woman

Property Acts a married

whom

Women's

entitled to

is

by will of personal prois bequeathed subject to

renounce or disclaim a

gift

perty notwithstanding

it

a restraint on anticipation

{d).

Again, the enactment which gave a vote for the

town councillors to every " person" of

election of
full

age

who had occupied

a house for a certain

time, and provided that words importing the masculine gender should include females for aU pur-

poses relating to the right to vote,

was

held,

having regard to the general scope of the Act, to

remove only that

disability which was founded on

but not to affect that which was the result of
marriage as well as sex, and therefore not to give
sex,

(a)

2 Inst. 395.

(6) Gustodes

Bulstr. 345
s.

v. JinJces,

Coleman

v.

Styles,

283

Draper

Birmingham, 50 L.

J.

21,

Married Women's Property Act, 1882.

(c)

Peters

(d)

v.

Cowie, 46 L. J.

Wimperis, In

re,

M.

C. 177.

[1914] 1 Oh. 502.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

v.

Glenfield,

G. 92

but see

PEESUMPTION AGAINST GENEEAL ALTERATIONS.

women

the right of voting to married

now removed by

dieability is

(a),

but this

the Eepresentation

An Act which

of the People Act, 1918.

155

simply

left

the determination of a matter to a majority of

vestrymen "present

meeting" would not

common law

affect the

demand

at the

a poll

and

right of the minority to

the " meeting " would there-

fore be understood as continuing until the

the poll

R.

(b).

7,

XXXVII,

Order

E. S.

end

of

C, under

which the Court has power in any cause or matter

at any stage of the proceedings to order the
attendance of any person for the purpose of pro-

may

ducing any documents which the Court

which such person could

to be produced, and

fit

think

be compelled to produce at the

trial,

does not

authorise an order for the production of documents

in the case of a person not a party to the litiga-

when

tion,

there

is

no

trial or application

and the production is not necessary

out an order already made (c).
32 & 33 Vict.

(a)

173

L. J. Ch. 143
5

(6)
c.

V.

s.

B.

12 Ad. & E. 139

54 L.

J.
J.

0.

76,

How, 33 L.

L. J. C. P. 1;

(c)

55,

Beresford-Hope

& 6 WUl. IV.

50; B.

51 L.

c.

B.

v.

V. St.

C. 53;

v.

Q. B.

by 45 & 46

Be

Vict.

White v. Steele, 32

Mary, 47 E. E. 613; B.

See B.

J.

Be March, 54

Sandhurst, sup. p. 153.

18, repealed

M.

J.

54 E. E. 553

Ch. 624.

v.
s.

for carrying

Barrald, 41 L.

see Ghorlton v. Lings, 88 L. J. C. P. 25

pending,

v.

B'Oyly,

Ghillington Iron Co. (1885),

Wimlledon Loc. Board (1882),

Q. B. 219.

Elder

v. Carter,

25 Q.

Digitized

D. 194

O'Shea

by Microsoft

v.

Wood, [1891]

156

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

In making copyholds devisable, the Wills Act,

1837, 1 Vict.

c.

26,

was construed

as not intend-

ing to interfere with the relation of lord

and

and consequently the devised copyholds

did not vest immediately in the devisee, but
remained in the customary heir until the devisee's
admittance (a). So, 39 Eliz. c. 5, which gave to
"all persons" seised of lands in fee, power to
tenant

found hospitals, was construed as not conferring

that power on corporate bodies which were dis"
abled from alienation though the word " persons
;

was wide enough

and
indeed extended to those corporate bodies which
possessed the power of alienation, such as municipalities (6). Again, the Wills Act of Hen. VIII. (c)
which empowered " all persons " to devise their
to include

corporations,

lands, did not legalise a devise of land to a cor-

nor would

have enabled lunatics

or minors to make a will, even if the 34 & 35

poration

(J),

it

P. 237, 286
secus

under 42 Vict.

23 Q. B. D.
(a)

Straher v.

BeynoUs (1888), 22 Q. B. D. 262. But

c. 11, s. 7
Howard v. Beall (1889),
;

1.

Garland

v.

Mead, 40 L.

J.

Q. B. 179

(1872), L. E. 7 Q. B., at p. 685.

Bishop

V. Curtis (1852),

88 E. E. 819

2 Inst. 721

(c)

Eepealed by 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict.

(d)

Newcastle Corp.

32 Hen. VIII.

Uses, 78

Hawes,

Branetli

c.

v.

v. Ivatt

v. A.-G.,
c.

12

CI.

26,

&

F. 402.

s. 2.

Jesus College Case, Duke, Charit.

Havering,

Id.

83

Id. 84.

Digitized

Bveringham

18 Q. B. 878.

(b)

See as to choses in action,

by Microsoft

Christ's Hospital v.

PRESUMPTION AGAINST GENERAL ALTERATIONS.

Hen. YIII.

c.

1 (a),

157

had not been passed to prevent

The

of

the

Legislature was, obviously, only to confer a

new

a different construction (6).

object

power of disposition on persons already of capacity

to deal with their property and not to abolish an
existing disability from disposing or taking those
who were under such incapacity.
A statute which enacted that " every conveyance " in a particular form should be "vahd,"
would not thereby cure an initial defect of
title (c).

in declaring maps
"
"
provisions,
satisfactory evidence

the Tithe Act,

So,

made under its

of the

1836,

matters therein stated, as not necessarily

evidence on

a question of

between land-

title

owners, that being a matter foreign to the scope

of the

Act

But such evidence has been held

"manor map" made

(d).

admissible in the case of a

long anterior to the date of action by a deceased

(a)
(&)

Eepealed by 1 Edw. VI.

Beckford

v.

Joachim, 1 App. Cas. 82

at p. 291.
c.

75, see

5 B.

&

(c)

Eccles.

And

c.

12.

Wade, 17 Ves. 91.

;

and see Tooth

as to married

women,

Willoch v. Noble, L. E. 7

Comp.
v.

O'Shanassy

v.

Power, [1891] A. C,

before the 45 & 46 Vict.

H. L. 580

Boe

v.

Battle,

Aid. 492.

Ward

v.

Com.,

Scott,

47 L.

Camp.

J.

Oh.

c.

71,

284.

See also Whidhorne

129; Forbes

v.

Eccles.

v.

Com., 42

L. J. Ch. 97.
(d)

6 & 7 Will. IV.

s.

64

Wilberforce v. HearfieU, 46

L. J. Ch. 584.

Digitized

by Microsoft

158

INTEBPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

person conversant witli the district

built in

England

for a foreigner

(a).

So, a ship

would not be a

"British ship" within the provisions requiring

registration
still

and transfer by

bill

of sale, even while

the property of the English builder (&),

Sec.

Bankruptcy Act, 1869 (c), which made a

composition accepted under certain circumstances
by creditors binding on all creditors " whose names
are shown in the debtor's statement," with the
proviso that it " shall not affect any other
126,

creditor," excluded only non-assenting creditors,

but not creditors whose names were not stated

in the debtor's statement, who, in fact, assented
for it

was understood

as not intending to interfere

with the general principle that

competent to
a person to bind himself by such an assent (d).
12 Car. II. c. 17 (e), which enacted that all persons
it is

presented to benefices in the time of the

wealth, and

Common-

who should

confirm as directed by the

Act, should be confirmed therein, " notwithstanding

any act or thing whatsoever," was obviously not

Uster (1895), 64 L.

(a)

Smith

(6)

Union Bank

V.

v.

J.

Q. B. 154.

Lenanton, 47 L. J. 0. P. 409.

See

s. 1,

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

(c)

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

For present rules as

s.

71, repealed

by 46 & 47

to compositions, see 4

Viet.

c.

52,

s.

& 5 Geo. V.

169.

c.

59,

16.
(d) Campbell v.

(e)

Im

Thurn, 45 L. J. C. P. 482, discussed in

Brown (1878), 3 A. C,
Eepealed S. L. E., 1863.

Breslauer

v.

Digitized

at p. 689.

by Microsoft

RESTRICTION TO SPEOIFIO OBJECT.

intended to apply to a person

simoniacally presented
literal

(a).

It

is

159

who had been

evident that a

cons|truotion would, in these

carried the operation of the Act far

have
beyond the

cases,

intention.

Habeas Corpus Act, 1679, which, for

the prevention of unjust vexation by reiterated
commitments for the same offence, enacts that no
person who has been discharged on habeas corpus
shaU be imprisoned again for " the same offence,"
except by the Court wherein he is bound by recogSo,

s.

6,

nisances to appear, or other Court having jurisdiction in the cause, would not extend to a case
where the discharge was made on the ground that

the

commitment had been made without

jurisdic-

which he was arrested

on the second occasion was the same for this
was obviously beyond the object of the Act (b).
So, it was held that s. 26, Keal Property Limitation Act, 1833, 3 & 4 WiU. IV. c. 27, which
tion,

though the offence

for

deprives the owner of lands of the right of suing

in equity for their recovery, on the ground of fraud,

from a purchaser who did not know or have reason

to believe that any such fraud had been committed,

should be construed as subject to the

presumption that the Legislature did not intend,

(a)
(b)

Crawley

31 Car.

v. Phillips, 1 Sid.

II. c.

A.-G.

222.

v. Eiook-a-Sing,

42 L.

J. P. 0.

64;

B. V. Brixton Prison {Govt.) Slattmann, Exp., [1912] 3 K. B. 424.

Digitized

by Microsoft

160

by

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
its

general language, to subvert the established

on the subject of constructive

notice
and was therefore to be read as meaning
that the purchaser did not know or have reason to
believe, either by himself, or by some agent whose
principles of equity
;

knowledge or reason
equivalent to his

believe

to

own

(a).

is,

Sec.

47,

equity,

in

Fines and

Recoveries Act, 1833, which excludes the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in regard to curing
defects in the

execution of the powers of

Act to tenants in

position given by the

tail,

dis-

and

the rectifyiug under any circumstances of the

want of execution

powers of disposition,

of such

has been held not to exclude the jurisdiction of

the Court from amending a deed

Act so

make

as to

parties.

The

it

made under the

effect the intention of the

object of the

Act being to prevent

the application of equitable doctrines so as to

alter the effect of a

deed executed according to

the intention of the parties, and not to exclude

the power of the Court to rectify a deed which, by

an

error, did

not conform to that intention

The Act which exempts

secution
(a)

Vane

(6) 3

& 4

in
v.

the

Montague, In

Courts

Tane (1872), L. E. 8 Ch. 383.

c. 74, s. 47
Hall Dare

re,

[1896] 1 Ch. 549

v. Small,
;

Meeking

N. 367.

Digitized

v.

See also Banhes

Gh. D. 251.

W.

Dissenters from pro-

Ecclesiastical

Will. IV.

(b).

by Microsoft

for

not

Hall Dare, 31

36 Ch. D. 716
v.

Meeking, [1916]

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

161

conforming to the Church of England, does not

exempt a clergyman of the Church who has

seceded from it, from prosecution in those Courts
for performing the Anglican Church service in a
dissenting chapel not licensed by the bishop for
this is a breach of discipline, and not within the
scope and object of the Act (a). 27 Geo. III. c. 44,
s. 2, which enacted that no suit should be commenced in any Ecclesiastical Court for inconti;

nence or brawling after the expiration of eight

months from the commission of the offence, would
apply only to suits which might be brought

laymen

against

as well as against clergymen.

It

would therefore apply to a suit against a clergyman, when its object was the reformation of his
manners, or his soul's health but it would not
apply to a suit for deprivation for the same
;

matter of Church govern-

offences, for this is a

ment, foreign to the object and

statute

The Factors Act,

(b).

scope of the

1889, enacts inter

bys. 2 (1) that any mercantile agent entrusted

with goods or the documents of title to goods
alia

be entitled to pledge the same provided

shall

they are

in

(a) 1 "Will. IV.

c.

48; Barnes

v.

his

c.

18,

now

(6)

s. 4,

with

the

consent
& 35

repealed in part by 34

Shore (1846), 15 L. J. Q. B. 296.

Clerical Disabilities Act,

can

possession

1870 (33 & 34 Vict.

c.

91), a

v.

Burgoyne, 31 E. E. 2

5 B.

&

C. 400.

11

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

the

clergyman

relinquish his office.

Free

Vict.

By

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

162
of

But

the owner.

this

transactions entered into

in the ordinary course of
cantile agent,

proviso

is

confined to

by a mercantile agent
his business qua mer-

and consequently does not validate

a pledge of household furniture, not in the

way

of trade, made by an agent to whose possession it

had been entrusted (a). So a Colonial Insolvent

which provided that no distress for rent

should be levied after an order of sequestration

Act,

had been made, was construed as limited to

To apply
distress on the goods of the insolvent.
a stranger taken on the
it to the goods of
insolvent's premises, would have extended the
operation of the Act to effects and consequences
beyond the policy (&). The exception does not,
however, apply in England or, to a modified
extent in Ireland (c). It has been decided that
an Act which empowered the directors of an incorporated company to make contracts and bargains
with workmen, agents, and undertakers, would be
construed as conferring on them authority to bind
the company by such transactions without consulting their shareholders

but not as so altering the

general law as to dispense with those formalities

(a)

Waddington

North Western
(6)

v.

Bank

Neale (1917), 96 L. T. 786 Div.

Bailton v. Wood, 59 L. J. 0. P. 84.

Lowe, 26 L. J. Q. B. 107.
(c)

Cole v.

(1875), L. E. 10 0. P. 354, p. 372.

See 8 Edw. VII.

c.

53.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See Brocklehurst

v.

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

163

by which alone a corporation can bind itself to

contracts, that is, by writing under the corporate
seal (a), but this has since been overruled (b), and
it is now enacted by 8 Edw. VII. c. 69, s. 76, that
any contract made on behalf of a joint stock
company, within the scope of its business, is valid
provided it be made in the manner which if it
were the contract of a private person would render
the same kind of contract vaHd against him.
So,
Married Women's Property Act, 1882,
46 Vict. c. 75, that " a married woman shall

s.

1 (2),

45

&

be capable of suing and being sued in

as if she

were a feme

all

respects

sole," is limited to actions

relating to herself personally, and does not

make

her competent to act as a next friend or guardian

ad

litem

The

(c).

provision in the repealed Friendly Societies

Act, 1829, which required a reference to arbitraof " every

matter in dispute " between a

society and any of its members was, on the same
principle, held to be confined to disputes with

tion

members, as members

and a breach of covenant

by a member to repay a sum borrowed from his
;

society was therefore regarded as not falling within

the arbitration clause, the dispute being with the

(o) East
(6)

London Waterworks

Co. v. Bailey, 4 Bing. 283.

South of Ireland Colliery Co.

v.

Waddle (1868), 37 L.

J. 0.

P.

211; Wells v. Corp. Eingston-on-Eull (1875), 44 L. J. G. P. 257.

(c)' Be Duke of Somerset (1887), 56 L. J. Gh. 733.

Digitized

by Microsoft

164

INTBEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

member

as

member (a)

not as

debtor,

seems clear law in cases within

ing

it

2 of the Build-

remedy

1884, that the

Society Act,

action and

's.

And

by

is

by reference to
Debt Act, 1870, which directs
the Bank of England to keep a list of unclaimed
arbitration

not

(b).

Sec. 62, National

which

to be "

open for inspection at the

usual hours of business," would not entitle a person
who has no bond fide interest in any unclaimed
stock,

is

stock to inspect such

Legislature, intituled for

which declared that

law,

affect

An Act

list (c).

Manx

of the

amending the criminal

its

provisions should not

the right of the Courts to punish contempts

and that the House of Keys, the Clerk

of the Eolls, and the registrars of Ecclesiastical
as before,

"when

Courts, should,

in the execution of their

respective offices," have the power of punishing

contempts in the same manner as a Court, was

10 Geo. IV.

(a)

20.

c.

66,

See also Prentice

Wells, 61 L. J. Q. B.

Fleming

48 L.

J.

46 L.

J.

s.

v.

27

606

0. P. 353

J.

Ex.

Willis v.

Palliser v. Bale, 66 L. J. Q. B, 236

Ch. 649, and Hack

v.

London Provid. Building

Municipal Building Socy.

v.

Socy.

Kent,

Q. B. 290.

47 & 48 Vict.

Western Suburban

c.

41

J.

Q. B. 382

(c)

J.

Self (1854), 24 L. J. Oh. 29; Mulkern y. Lord,

Ch. 745. But comp. Wright v. Monarch Invest. Socy.,

Martin (1886), 55 L.

(6)
V.

J.

Morrison v. Glover, 19 L.

v.

(1883), 52 L. J. Oh. 542;

53 L.

London, 44 L.

33 & 34 Vict.

c.

71

B.

v.

Building Socy.

Bank of England, 60 L.

497.

Digitized

dec.

17 Q. B. D. 609, C. A.

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B.

EBSTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

165

construed as limiting this power to the House of

Keys only when exercising

To

judicial, not legislative

that power when exercising

the latter was obviously foreign to the object of
the Act, though the language, in its primary and
functions.

give

it

included it (a). On similar grounds a

conveyance of property, knowingly (b) made solely
for the purpose of giving a vote contrary to s. 7,
full sense,

&

8 Will. III. c. 25, which declares such conveyances "void and of none effect," is void so far as
7

to prevent the right of voting being acquired

which

is

the whole aim of the Act; but

it is

(c)>

in

other respects valid between the parties, so as to

pass the property (d).

which gives the.

Sec. 19, Judicature Act, 1873,

Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals from

" any judgment or order " save as thereinafter
(s.

47) mentioned, was held not to give an appeal

against an order of discharge of a prisoner on

habeas corpus (though the order was not within

the exception), on the ground partly that as no
provision was

(a)

Be Brown

made

an order of the

for enforcing

(1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 193, 280.

Bowen, 14 L. J. 0. P. 129 but see Hoyland v.

Bremner (1846), 69 E. E. 417 15 L. J. C. P. 133.
(c) This section seems to be repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 64.
(6)

Marshall

v.

(d) PMllpotts V. PhUlpotts (1850),

20 L.

to ia Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik

J. C.

at p. 427.

Digitized

P. 11

referred

v. Hichson, [1906] A.

by Microsoft

C,

166

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

Court of Appeal for re-arresting the prisoner, the

order would therefore be futile, and partly that so

important a change of the law was

And
Order XXXI,

-templated by the Legislature

visions of Eules 1

and

14,

con-

not

(a).

the pro-

E. S.

C,

which entitle a defendant to interrogate a plaintiff,

and to discovery of documents, were held at one
time not to extend to the case of infant

who were not

subject

to

such

plaintiffs

discovery

in

Chancery proceedings before the Judicature Acts

were passed (6). But the law is now altered by
Order XXXI, r. 29.
In 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, which consolidates the
law relating to larceny and analogous offences, the
.provision (s. 23) which imposes a penalty for
"unlawfully and wilfully" killing a pigeon under
circumstances not amounting to larceny, was
construed as not applying to a
tentionally

and without

man who had

in-

legal justification shot his

neighbour's pigeons which were in the habit of

feeding upon hia land

his object being to prevent a

recurrence of the trespass. His act was " unlawful,"

in the sense that

it

was actionable

and"

it

was

Makes (1890), 15 App. Gas. 506 per Lords Halsbury L.C., Watson, Bramwell, and Macnaghten; diss. Lords
Morris and Meld see also Seaman v. Busley, [1896] 2 Q. B.
(o)

Cox

V.

344, 0. A.
(6)

Mayor

v. Collins,

[1891] P. 139

24 Q. B. D. 361.

Curtis v.

Mmdy,

Digitized

See Bedfern

[1892] 2 Q. B. 178.

by Microsoft

v.

Bedfern,

RESTBICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

167

undoubtedly " wilful " also ; but as the object and

scope of the Act were to punish crimes and not

mere

the word "unlawfully" was

"
construed as against the criminal law " (a). So,
civil

injuries,

an Act which visited with

fine

who demanded

road surveyor

and dismissal a

or wilfully received

higher fees than those allowed by the Act, would

not affect a surveyor who, under an honest mistake

demanded a

which he was not entitled (b)

and a sheriff, whose ofl&cer had made
an overcharge by mistake, would not be liable to
the penalty imposed by s. 29, Sheriffs Act, 1887,
upon any sheriff, etc., who takes or demands any
money or reward, under any pretence whatever,
other than the fees or sums allowed (c). An Act
which empowered inspectors to inspect the scales,
weights and measures of persons offering goods for
sale, and of seizing any found "light and unjust,"
was construed as Hmited to cases where the injustice was prejudicial to the buyer, but as not
applying to a balance which gave seventeen ounces
of fact,

fee to

(a)

v. Newman (1863), 32 L. J. M. C. 186; Co\np.

McBae (1863), 33 L. J. M. C. 65. See also Kenyan v.
34 L. J. M. C. 87 Daniel v. Janes, 2 0. P. D. 351

Tayhr

Hudson
Hart,

V.

Spicerv. Barnard, 28 L. J.

72 L.

J.

Miles v. HutcMngs (1903),

Badger, 25 L. J. M. C. 81.

B.

(c)

50 & 51 Vict.
v.

G. 176

K. B. 775.

(6)

Bagge

M.

V.

c.

55

Lee

v.

Dangar, 61 L.

Whitehead, 61 L. J. Q. B. 778.

Blyih, 26 L. J.

M.

0. 57.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J. Q.

B. 780

See also Bowmfin

v.

168

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

which was unjust against the

since the object and scope of the Act were

to the pound, that

seller

is,

limited to the protection of the former

So,

(a).

where a statute makes it an offence in certain cases

for any person to intimidate any other person, but
provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to

seamen,

has been held that the proviso only

it

committed hy a
seaman, and not where it is committed against a
seaman (6). And the enactment in s. 14, BlQs of
Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, that a biU
of sale shall be no protection in respect of chattels
which but for such bill of sale would have been
liable to distress for rates and taxes, must be
restricted to cases of distress for such rates and
taxes, and has no application where proceedings by
way of execution have been taken in the County
Court under s. 261, Public Health Act, 1875, or
any section of like character in any subsequent
Act, as it could not possibly have been intended
that a bill of sale should be no protection against
operates where the

offence is

(a) Brooke v. Shadgate (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B.

GloiicestersMre
(6)

60 L.

38
J.

actually

Co.

-v.

352

East

Bartholomew, L. E. 3 Ex. 15.

& 39 Vict. e. 86, ss. 7, 16 Kennedy v. Cowie (1891),

M. 0. 170. A seaman within these sections is a person
;

employed on board ship

the sea, but

who

the exception

B.

B.

V. City

B.

and persons whose

calling

is

are not actually so employed, are not within

v.

Lynch (1898), 67 L.

J. Q.

of London Court, 59 L. J. Q. B. 429.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B. 59.

See also

RESTRICTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT.

an execution on a judgment

were

An Act,

if

the goods seized

non-payment

liable to distress for

169

of rates (a).

which, after appointing trustees to pull

down and rebuild a parish church, authorised

them to allot the pews, and to sell the fee simple
of such of them as were not appropriated by
the Act to the inhabitants of the parish, with

power to the owners to dispose of them, was held

not to authorise a conveyance of the soil and
freehold of the land on which the pews stood, but
only the grant of an easement, or right to
the

pew during

divine service

sit

And where

(6).

in

church was buUt, under a similar Act, by subscribers in

trustees

whom

the freehold was vested, and the

had power to

sell

the pews

and a subse-

quent Act, reciting that doubts had arisen as to

the estate and interest which the subscribers and

had in the pews, enacted that the fee

simple should be vested in them, it was held that
it was not the freehold interest in the soil that
proprietors

was vested in them, but a special interest created

by Parhament in the easement (c). So, the Public
(a)

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

43,

s.

14; Wimbledon Loc. Board

v.

Underwood, [1892] 1 Q. B. 836.

(6)

Hinde

v. Chorlton,

L. E. 2 0. P. 104

Wadmore

v.

Dear

(1871), L. E. 7 C. P., at p. 224.

(c)

Brumfitt

v.

BoherU, 39 L.

J.

C. P. 95.

Lancaster (1869), L. E. 5 0. P. 246

Brewer

5 C. P. 269.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Smith

v.

v.

M'Gowen, L. E.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

170

Health Act, 1876, 38

Metropolis

&

39 Vict.

Management Act,

c.

65,

and the

&

19 Vict.

1855, 18

120, which enacted that the streets should

" vest " in the local authority, were construed as
intending not that the soil and freehold should
c.

vest, but only the surface of the soil,

and as much

was necessary for doing all that

was reasonably and usually done in streets (a),
and for so long only as it continued to be a
street (6).
And it is now definitely provided by
41 & 42 Vict. c. 77, s. 27, that all mines and
of

it

in depth as

minerals under any highway shall continue to

belong to the persons entitled thereto although

the surface
authority.

may have become

vested in an urban

authority has therefore

local

power under those Acts to excavate the soil

erect lavatories below the surface of a street

no
and
(c),

or to prevent wires being carried over the street

at a height

the user of

was

which precludes any interference with

the street, and the fact that the street

originally constructed

whom

by turnpike trustees

to

the fee simple of the site was conveyed

(a) Coverdale v. Charlton (1878), 48 L. J. Q. B. 128.

Comp.
Wandsworth Board of Works v. United Telephone Co., 53 L.J. Q. B.
449; Tunhridge Wells v. Baird, [1896] A. C. 434; Battersea

Vestry v. Provincial Electric Co., 68 L. J. Ch. 238.

A.-G.

V.

Dorhing, Si L. J. Ch. 585.

(6) Bolls V. St. George,

(c)

Tunbridge Wells

v.

Southwarh, 14 Ch. D. 785.

Baird, sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

RESTRICTION TO SCOPE OP THE ACT.

makes no

difference

there can be

little

171

But, on the other hand,

(a).

doubt that actual property

{e.g.

drain pipes or things analogous in character) as

distinguished from an easement pass to the urban

authority

(6).

Sec. 12, 35

&

36 Vict.

c.

86,

which enacts that no

action entered in a local Court of record shall be

removed into a Superior Court except by leave of

a judge of a Superior Court in cases which shall
appear

such judge "

to

fit

be tried

to

"

in

Superior Court, would not authorise such removal

unless the action were

more

superior than the inferior Court

The same general

to be tried in the

fit

(c).

principle appears

to govern

the class of cases which establish that enactments

other companies to make,

requiring railway or

to persons interested in hereditaments taken or

" injuriously affected " by the companies, full com-

pensation not only for the land but for

all

damage

sustained by reason of the exercise of such parlia-

mentary powers, are limited to cases where the

damage would have been actionable but for the

Act. The general principle relates, therefore, not
(a) Finchley Electric

Light Co. v. FincMey U. B. C.

(1903),

71 L.J. Oh. 450; 72 Id. 297.

(6)

Tstradyfodwg

&c.

Sewerage

Bd.

v.

Benstead,

[1906]

1 K. B. 294.
(c)

Banhs

v.

Hollingsworth (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 239

V. Pearson, [1911]

2 K. B. 412

Digitized

80 L.

J.

K. B. 1069.

by Microsoft

BonMn

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

172

by

to the person or business of the party prejudiced

way authorised by the

the user of the railway in the

Act

after it is

opened to the pubHc, but only to

damage resulting from the construction of the railway and works, to his estate or right in the land in
its original condition, without regard to any use to
might be put (a). In other words, the
object of the enactments is not to create new
rights, but to give compensation for actual injury {b)
where the right of action has been taken away.

which

And

it

away only when the

this right being taken

powers are in

respects duly exercised, the pro-

all

visions for compensation do not extend to cases

See per Cockburn

(o)

&

2 E.

L. E.

E. 435, p. 442
3 C.

L. E. 4 H. L. 171
'B. Co.,

225

2 B.

B.

V.

&

S.

617

v.

Comp. Metrop. Board

B. Co.

Be

V.

Biver Co,

v.

Co.

Board of Works, 88 L.

v.

&

(1868),

Crystal Pal.

Q. B. 201

J.

MacCarthy, L. E. 7 H. L. 243

Glasgow

But see the exception,

Q. B. 251, upheld by H. L. in

v.

Acton (1889), 58 L. J. Q. B. 594, applied in

v.

London,

Tilbury

59 L. J. Q. B. 162, and illustrated by Horton

J.
tit.

B.

Brand

Walker's Trustees (1882), 7 App. Gas. 259.

Gower's Walk Schools

(6)

v.

West End

Senior v. Metropolitan B. Co., 32 L. J. Ex.

Stockport B. Co., 38 L. J.

Supp.,

Johnson (1860),

Hunter, L. E. 2 So. App. 78.

Cowper-Essex

77 L.

v.

Bechett v. Midland B. Co.,

J.,

Chamberlain

Metropolitan

Caledonian B. Co.

New

Hammersmith B.

94;

P.

C.J.,

per Willes

K. B. 215.

&
v.

Southend B.

Colwyn

Bay

Co.,

U.

C,

See also Stroud's Judicial Dicty. and

" injuriously affected."

V.

Poulter

(1887),

57 L.

J.

Q. B. 138

Liverpool &c. B. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 128.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Mercer

v.

KESTEICTION TO SCOPE OF THE ACT.

173

where injury has been done through their improper

or negligent exercise (a).

The repealed Bills

Act which required the

of Sale

registration of bills of sale of " personal chattels,"

under which expression fixtures were expressly

in-

cluded, gave rise to several decisions governed by

the principle in question.

The object

ment obviously did not extend

registration of every

of the enact-

to requiring the

mortgage under which

fixtures

might happen to pass, for this would include most

mortgages of real property and it has been held
that the Act apphed only to cases where the
fixtures were dealt with as
separate things.
Accordingly, a mortgage of a house for a term of
years, with such a separate assignment of the
fixtures that the mortgagee might sever and deal
with them as distinct from the house, required
but a mortgage for a term of years
registration (b)
;

(a) Clothier v. Webster,

Bocks, 27 L. J. Ex. 321

357.

12 0. B. N.

Buck

v.

S.

790

c.

See also 45 & 46 Vict.

v.

Gihbs v. Liverpool

v. Fellowes (1861),

S. 780.

17 & 18 Vict.

Hawtrey

Williams (1858), 27 L. J. Ex.

See the cases collected in Whitehouse

10 G. B. N.
(b)

36 (repealed by 41 & 42 Vict.

43, 53

c.

31,

c.

& 54 Vict. c. 53, 54 & 55

s.

23).

Vict. c. 35

Butlin (1878), 42 L. J. Q. B. 163; explained in

Southport Banking Co. v. Thompson (1887), 57 L. J. Oh. 114

Exp. Daglish, 42 L.

Bank. 102

J.

Waterfall

v.

Penistone, 26

L. J. Q. B. 100, on which see Walmsley v. MiVne, 29 L. J. C. P. 97

Me

Trethowan, 46 L.

V. Coles,

58 L.

J.

Q.

J.

Bank. 43

B.

Be

346; Small

Digitized

Eslick, Id.
v.

30

Climpson

Nat. Prov. Bank, 63

by Microsoft

174

INTBEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

and with a general

power of sale over the mortgaged property, not
authorising a separate dealing by the mortgagee
of a house with its fixtures,

with the fixtures, did not require registration

(a).

Sec. 10, Judicature Act, 1875, which provides that

in the administration of the assets of a person

dying insolvent, the same rules shall be applied as

to the respective rights of secured

and unsecured

and as to the debts provable, as are in

been the subject

creditors,

force in bankrupcy, has similarly

operation

the

decisions limiting

of several

scope

of

its

(b).

The Metropolitan Building

Act, 1855

which

(c),

gave a right to raise any party structure authorised

by the Act, on condition of " making good aU

damage" occasioned thereby

to

the

adjoining'

premises, was held not to authorise the raising of

a structure

which obstructed the ancient,

See also Marsden

L. J. Gh. 270.

lights of

Meadows, 50 L,

v.

J,

Q. B.

536.
(a) Barclay, Exp.,

L. J. Ch. 361

43 L.

J.

Tates, Be,

Oh. 449

57 L.

Mather

Fraser, 25

v.

Ch. 697, and see Johns

J.

v.

Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. 359.

(b)

See Maggi, Be, 51 L.

J.

Oh

560,

and the cases

cited there,

but this case was in great part overruled by Whttaker,

70 L.

J.

Ch. 6

WCausland

See also Whitaher, In

re

v. O'Callaghan,

Whitaher

v.

[1904] 1

Be
I.

(1900),

E. 376,

Palmer, [1904] 1 Oh. 299

Leng, Be, 64 L. J. Oh. 468.

(c)

Eepealed by London Building Act, 1894, 57 & 58 Vict.

c. ccxiii.

Digitized

by Microsoft

RESTEICTION TO SCOPE OF THE ACT.

the adjoiBing premises

for the only

175

damage con-

templated by the Act was structural, and not that

which resulted from the invasion

And,

of a right.

having regard to the scope of the enactment, the

expression " making good " was understood to

mean

that the

adjoining

premises were

be

to

restored to their original state, not that pecuniary

compensation should be made (a).

Some decisions on the construction of

74,

s.

Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847,

illustrate the principle

under consideration.

That

owner of a vessel is to be
answerable for any damage done by it, or by any
person employed in it, to a harbour, pier or dock,

section enacts that the

except

when the

licensed

pilot,

literally,

as

it

made an owner

vessel

is

in charge of a

compulsorily

duly

Construed

taken.

was by the Queen's Bench

(6), it

responsible for the injury done by

ship to a pier, after she had been driven

aground and necessarily abandoned by her crew
and was dashed by the storm against the pier.

his

But

converso

House

of -Lords held,

that the

owner was not liable, on the ground that the

general scope and object of the Act were merely
to collect the clauses which Parliament usually
inserted in local harbour bills, and to give facilities
(a) Crofts V. Haldane, L. E. 2 Q. B. 194.
(5)

10

&

11 Vict.

c.

27

Dennis

v. Tovell (1872),

33.

Digitized

by Microsoft

42 L.

J.

M. 0.

DJTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

176

of procedure to the undertakers of

such works;

and that the section did not create a new

liability,

but only facilitated proceedings against the registered owner

On

this

when damages were

recoverable

(a).

general principle of construction,

statute which made in unqualified terms an act

criminal or penal, would be understood as not

applying where the act was excusable or justifiable

on grounds generally recognised by law. Thus, a

statute which imposed three months' imprisonment and the forfeiture of wages on a servant who
" absented himself from his service " before his
term of service was completed, would necessarily
be understood as confined to cases where there
was no lawful excuse for the absence (&).
A
statute which made it felony " to break from
prison," would not apply to a prisoner who broke
out from the prison on fire, not to recover his
and one which
liberty, but to save his hfe (c)
;

declared

it

piracy to "

make a

revolt in a ship,"

would not include a revolt necessary to restrain

the master from unlawfully killing persons on
board

(d),

(o) Biver
(6)
s.

17)

L. J.
(c)

{d)

even

could be justly called a revolt.

Wear Commissioners

4 Geo. IV.
;

if it

c.

34,

s.

Turner, Be, 15 L. J.

M.

0.

1.

v.

Adamson, 2 App. Gas. 743.

& 39

3 (repealed by 38

M.

0. 140.

Vict.

c.

86,

But see Eider v. Wood, 29

See also 21 Hen. VIII.

c.

13

Gibs.. Cod. 887.

2 Inst. 560.

11

& 12

Will. III.

c.

7, s.

B.

v.

Bose, 2 Cox, 329; The

Shepherdess, 5 Eob. C. 262.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MENS BBA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

And a seaman would not

who was driven by tlie
leave his ship

The

(a).

177

be guilty of " deserting,"

cruelty of his officers to
sheriff

who

a warrant the driver of the mails,

is

under

arrests

not indictable

knowingly and wilfully obstructing and retarding the mail (b).

for

As Mens Eea,

some

or a guilty mind, is with

exceptions, an essential element in constituting

a breach of the criminal law,

ever comprehensive and unqualified

language,

is

how-

statute,
it

be in

its

usually understood as silently requir-

ing that this element should be imported into

it,

unless a contrary intention be expressed or implied

" the general rule

offence "

(c).

general

terms

unless the con-

is that,

Mens Eea enters into every

for instance, which in

trary is expressed.

statute,

enacted that every person

who

committed a certain act should be adjudged a

felon, would not include a child under seven, or
an idiot, or a lunatic during the loss of his
reason

(a)

(d)

whether caused by intoxication or any

Edward V.

TrevelUck, 24 L. J. Q. B. 9

Limland

v.

Stephens

(1801), 3 Bsp. 269.

(6)
(c)

U. S. V. Kirby, 7 Wallace, 482.

Per Lord Eussell

of Killowen C.J., Williamson v. Norris

(1899), 68 L. J. Q. B. 34,
{d) 1

Hale, 706

Stat. (I.) 6.

Eyston

v. Studd,

See Exp. Stamp, 1

Plowd, 459a

De Gex,

Bac. Ab.

346.

12

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

178

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES,

other voluntary act {a)

would be unreasonmere use of an unqualified

able to infer from the

for it

term, and intention to repeal the general principle

that such persons are not capable of a criminal
intention.

Drunkenness, although producing tem-

no defence to a crime (b), but

such that the intention of

porary insanity, is

where the crime

the accused

is

is

a constituent element,

it

may

be

taken into consideration in determining whether

the accused formed the intention necessary to
constitute the crime in question

On

(c).

the same principle, an act done under an

honest and reasonable belief in the existence of a

state of things,

which

if

true would have afforded

a complete justification both legally and morally

would not, in general, fall within a

statute which prohibited it under a penalty (cZ).
Thus, a woman who married a second time within
seven years after she had been deserted by her
husband, under a bond fide belief on reasonable
grounds that he was dead, would not be guilty of
bigamy (e). A licensed victualler who supplies
for

such

act,

& K.

(o)

B.

(6)

1 Hale, 32; but seeiJ.v. Jfeade(1909),78L. J.(K.B.)476.

(c)

B.

inf. p.

L. J.

V.

Moore, 3 0.

319.

Bolerty (1887), 16 Gox, 306.

Comp. West

v. Francis,

290.

See

(d)

Beade
(-e)

V.

v.

ex. gr.

Lee

24 & 25 Vict.

M.

v.

Simpson (1847), 16 L. J. 0. P. 105

Conquest (1862), 11 0. B. N. S. 479.

c.

100,

s.

57; B.

v.

0. 97.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Token (1889), 68

MEKS BEA IN OBIMINAL LAW.

179

"whom he

liquor to a police constable

bond, fide

believes to be off duty, is not guilty of supplying

liquor to a police constable while on duty within

s.

16

Licensing Act, 1872, repealed by

(2),

Licensing

(Consolidation)

Act,

1910

s.

78 (16),

(a).

And

under a statute which made it felony for persons

tumultuously assembled to demolish a church or
dwelUng, they could not be convicted
lition

legal

was done in the bond, fide

right, though there was a riot

man

So, if a

cut

down

if

the demo-

assertion of a
in doing

it (6).

a tree or demolished a

house standing on land of which he was in undisturbed possession, and believed himself to be the
owner, he would not be punishable under statutes

which prohibited such acts in general terms;

though it turned out that his title was bad and
that the property was not his (c). If he demanded
goods with threats, bond

fide believing that

they

belonged to him, he would not be guilty of robbery,

though

(a) Sherras v.

Cundy
(6)

V.

B.

Le

De

& M.

and Mullins

2 Moo. C. C. 252

602.

he forcibly took

Bufzen, [1896] 1 Q. B. 918: but comp,

Gocq, inf. p. 186,

V. Phillips,

ford, Car.

If

civilly liable {d).

See B.

v.

v. Gollins, inf. p. 190.

S. C.

nom. B.

v.

Lang'

Badger, sup. p. 167.

Eaym.
0. & P.

(c)

B.

V.

Burnahy, 2 Lord

900.

(d)

B.

V.

Hall (1828), 3

409.

See also B.

v. Knight,

Ford (1907), 12 Canada Cr. Cas. 556, it

was held no robbery forcibly to retake money won from the
73

J.

P. 15.

In B.

V.

defendant at cards in the bond fide belief that prosecutor had

cheated.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.

180

under sixteen from the custody of her

guardian, in the honest but mistaken belief that
a

girl

he was, himself, invested with that character, and

acted

simply in

the

his

of

exercise

right

as

guardian, he would not be guilty of the criminal

offence of abduction, though that is defined as

" unlawfully taking a girl under sixteen out of

the possession and against the will of the person

having the lawful care of her"

A man who

(a).

fished in a tidal river, in the

assertion

of the

general right which the law gives to fish in such

and in ignorance

rivers (6),

or in contestation of

the exclusive right of fishing in

it

claimed by

another, would not be liable to conviction for

"unlawfully and wilfully" fishing in the private

fishery

of

another

On

(c).

principle

this

may

perhaps rest the general rule of law that the

jurisdiction given to justices of the peace, to try

an offence summarily,
right or title is set

(a)

44 L.

B.
J.

P.

&

Carter v. Mureot, 4 Burr. 2163.

B.

(d)

V. Stimpson,

But see Hudson

Per Blackburn
v.

But see B.

F. 513.

(6)

Beece

a claim of
(d)

v. Prince,

0. 122, inf. p. 181.

(c)

167.

when

up on reasonable grounds

V. Tinkler (1859), 1

M.

ousted

is

MUler, 51 L.

32 L.
v.

J.

M.

WBae, 33
White

J.,

J.

M.

0. 208.

L. J.

M.

v. Feast,

0, 64

See sup. pp. 1660. 65.

L. E. 7 Q. B. 353;

Mann

v.

Nurse <1901), 17

T. L.E. 569; and as to the whole question, see Musselly. Biirch

(1876), 35 L. T. N. S. 486.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MENS REA

though their duty

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

such cases

iii

is,

181

not to acquit,

hut to forbear from adjudicating.

But how

far ignorance or erroneous belief of a

which is essential to the offence is material,

a question which has given rise to some controversy and conflict of decisions.
The substance

fact
is

of these decisions

however, that

is,

to look at the object of each

is

under

far

know-

Act that

consideration to see whether and

ledge

necessary

it is

how

of the essence of the offence created

is

Thus, the offence of unlawfully taking a

girl

(a).

under

sixteen out of the possession and against the will

would be committed, although

the offender believed, from her appearance and
asseverations, contrary to the fact, that she was
of her parents,

older

The

(6).

object of the

and wicked invasion of

to prevent a scandalous

parental rights,

Legislature being

must be supposed that they

it

intended that the wrongdoer should act at his

peril

not

If,

(c).

fall

as

it

has been held, a person would

under the enactment which punishes the

pursuit of

game on

the land of another without

the consent of the owner,

whom

of the person

(a)

Per Stephen

(h)

B.

J.,

if

he had the consent

he honestly and reasonably

Cundy

v.

Le

V. Prince, sup. p. 180.

Cocq, 13 Q. B.

See also B.

v.

D. 207.
Tinkler, sup.

p. 180.
(c)

Per

Stephen

J.,

B.

v.

Tohon

(1889),

190.

Digitized

by Microsoft

23

Q.

B. D.

INTBKPBETATION OF STATUTES.

182

he would yet be liable

to conviction if he trespassed on land which he
beHeved to be part of the property over which he

believed to be the owner

had the

license, but

which was in

person

of a different

(a),

(6),

fact the property

the statute infringed not

being a mere criminal statute, but one passed for

the purpose of protecting the peculiar rights of
those entitled to shoot game (c). The Contagious
Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, and an Order in

Council under

it,

which imposed a penalty on any

person having in his possession an animal affected

with a contagious disease who did not give notice

of

it

"with

all

practicable speed " to a constable,

was held to apply only where the person knew

that the animal was diseased (d). Where a railway Act which " for the better prevention of
accidents or injury which might arise " on the
railway " from the unsafe and improper carriage
of certain goods," enacted that every person

gunpowder

should send

or

similarly

who

dangerous

by the railway should mark or declare

their nature, under a penalty enforceable by imprisonment, it was held that guilty knowledge was
articles

(a) 1
(b)

&2

Will. IV. c. 32,

Morden v.

s.

30

Porter, 29 L. J.

B.

M.

v.

stitute a valid defence, see Dickinson v.

(c)

Watkins

v.

Cridland, 27 L. J.

C. 313.

Ead

As to what

M.

G. 28.

will con-

(1914), 78 J. P. 326.

M. C. 164.
M. G. 105. For the converse

Major, 44 L. J.

(d) Nicholls V. Ball,

42 L*

J.

this proposition, see Mousell Bros. v. L.

d;

2 K. B. 837.

Digitized

by Microsoft

N. W. B.

Co.,

of

[1917]

MENS RBA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

183

and that an agent who

dangerous goods hy a rail-

essential to a conviction,

had sent some cases of

way, without mark or

declaration,

not only in

ignorance of their nature, but misinformed of

by

it

had

answer to his inquiries,

not incurred the penalty ; on the ground that his
his principal in

ignorance, under such circumstances, proved the

and yet he was under no

legal duty to send the goods, and he might have
refused to do so without actual inspection. A
similar conclusion was come to where, although
there was no knowledge, there were means of
knowledge which were neglected. Under 9 & 10
Will. III. c. 41 (6), which after reciting that convictions for embezzhng Government stores were
absence of mens rea

{a)

found impracticable, because direct proof of the

immediate taking could rarely be made, but only

that the goods were found in the possession of
the accused, and that they bore the King's mark,
enacted that the person in whose possession goods

marked should be found, should forfeit the

goods and JB200, unless he produced at the trial an
official certificate of the occasion of their coming
into his possession it was held by the Court for
so

(a)

Eearne

v. Garton,

28 L.

J.

M.

C. 216.

of this proposition, see Mousell v. L.

& N.

For the converse

W. By.

Go.,

[1917]

2 K. B. 837.
(&)

Vict.

Bepealed and re-enacted with ampUfications, 38 & 39

c.

25 (Public Stores Protection Act).

Digitized

by Microsoft

184

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

Crown Cases Eeserved, that such

liable to conviction, in

a person

was not

the absence of proof that

knew (though he had reasonable means of

knowing) that the goods bore the Government
mark (a). This decision, however, might be queshe'

tioned on the authority of another case, which

was not

where the Court of Exchequer held

cited,

that a dealer in tobacco was liable to the penalty

imposed by the statute

having adulterated

for

tobacco in his possession, though ignorant of the

adulteration

It

(b).

may

vigilance

be doubted whether the

the

language, enforcing

for the protection

of the public from

construction

literal

of

danger or robbery, by visiting negligence (c) as weU

as misdeed with penal consequences, would not
B.

(a)

44 L.

J.

30 L.

Sleep,

V.

3 Cox, 28i

B.

M. C.

M.

J.

C. 170; B. v. Willmett (18^8),

Cohen, 8 Cox, 41.

v.

See also Hopton

49.

See Aberdare

v.

v. Thirlwall, 9 L. T.

Hammett,
N.

S. 327,

where a person found to " have in his possession the young of

s. 15, Salmon Kshery Act, 1861,
was held not liable to conviction, who,
though he knew he was in possession, did not know the fish
was salmon.
(fe) 5 & 6 Viofc. c. 93
amended by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 15, s. 25
B. V. Woodrow (1846), 16 L. J. M. C. 122. See also per

salmon," in contravention of

24 & 25 Yict.

109,

c.

Parke B., Bumby

v.

2 Bast, P. C. 821

JB. v.

(c)

Compare B.

Coppen

v.

Trade &c.
L.

&

v.

Moore {No.
v.

Bollett,

Stephens
2),

16 M. &

W.

644

B.

v.

Trew,

Dixon, 15 E. E. 381.
(1866),

35 L. J. Q. B.

[1898] 2 Q. B. 306

Bell (1902), 71 L. J. P. C. 109, A, C,

N. W. B. (1917), 87 L.

Digitized

J.

K. B. 82.

by Microsoft

251

Commissioners of
;

Mmsell

v.

MENS EEA IN CBIMINAL LAW.

185

have been more in harmony with the intention,

and have more completely promoted the object
of the Legislature.

The innocent

which, owing

spirits

natural

to

exuded from the wood and collected

of a cask, does not render the

possession of
causes,
at the

owner

have

bottom
under

liable

the Finance Act, 1898, which provides that " a

person shall not subject any cask to any process for

the purpose of extracting any spirits absorbed in

the wood thereof ; or have on his premises any cask

which
spirits

being subjected to any such process, or any

extracted from the wood of any cask " (a).

is

At the present time there

is

a large body of

municipal law which has been framed in such

terms as to make an act criminal without any

mens

By-laws which impose regulations in

rea.

the interest of the health or convenience of the

public are generally so conceived, and the

mere

them is sufficient to constitute an

Under s. 117, Public Health Act, 1875,

breach of
offence.

which empowers a justice to order the destruction of unwholesome meat which is exposed for
sale and intended for food, and to impose a fine or
imprisonment on the person to whom it belongs,
the Court decided that in order to support a
conviction of the owner under the Section it was
not necessary that there should be any proof that
(a)

61 & 62 Vict.

c.

10,

s.

|(1)

Bohinsm

L. J. K. B. 717.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Dixon, 72

186

INTBEE14ETATI0N OF STATUTES.

he had actual personal knowledge of the condition

of the meat, the object of the enactment being
that people should not be exposed to the danger
of eating poison

So the

(a).

sale

of

an

article

of food or a drug not of the nature, substance,

demanded, is to the
prejudice of the purchaser and is an ofifence
under s. 6, Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875,
though the seller (who may be a corporation) was
unaware of the fact (b). On similar grounds it has
been held that a pubhcan would be guilty of an
and quality of the

article

offence against
s.

75,

s.

13, Licensing Act,

1872 (repealed,

Licensing (Consohdation) Act, 1910),

sold liquor to a drunken person, even

he

if

though the

purchaser had given no indication of intoxication,

and the publican did not know that he was intoxicated (c). He would not, however, in such a
(a)

38 & 39 Vict.

Blaker

v.

Tillstone,

chester Corp., (1910),

case of Williams
(6)

38

& 39

c.

55 (extended by 53 & 54 Viet.

[1894] 1 Q. B. 345

79 L.

J.

v. Allen,

Vict. c. 63

771; Pearks Gunston

K. B. 1123

[1916] 1

59);

and see the interesting

K: B.

o.

see also Hohbs v. Win-

425.

D.

Betts v. Armstead (1888), 20 Q. B.

Ward,

v.
Pain v.
[1902] 2 K. B. 1
BougMwood, 24 Q. B. D. 353 Dyke v. Gower, [1892] 1 Q. B.
220; Spiers & Pond v. Bennett, i[1896] 2 Q. B. 65; Parker v.
;

Adler, [1899] 1 Q. B. 20

In Smithies

v.

Goulder

v.

Book, [1901] 2 K. B. 290.

Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13, the appellant

held to have been rightly convicted for selling

ficient in fat,

Cundy

v.

was
de-

although the milk had not been adulterated

see also Fitzpatrick v. Kelly,

(c;

new milk

Le

inf. p.

562.

Cocq, 18 Q. B. D. 207

Digitized

by Microsoft

but camp. Sherras

v.

MENS EEA

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

187

case be guilty of permitting drunkenness on his

premises

But

(a).

witMn the general

a servant,

if

scope of his employment,

a drunken

sells liquor to

person, though in the absence of and contrary to

the orders of the publican, the publican

is

guilty of

an offence under that section (6). The offence of

receiving two or more lunatics in an unlicensed
house is committed, though the persons were
received in the

based on reasonable grounds,

belief,

they were

that

not

lunatics

(c).

The

honest

by a licensee that a bottle is properly sealed,

no defence to an information under s. 2, Intoxi-

belief
is

cating Liquors (Sale to Children) Act, 1901 (repealed,

s.

68, Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910),

which renders the

sale of liquors to children

under

fourteen illegal, unless in corked and sealed vessels,

if

But

in fact the bottle is not properly sealed (d).

who

a license holder

nor concurred at a

has not delegated his authority,

cannot be convicted under

sale,

the same section by reason of a barman selling to

Be
V.

Butzen, [1895], sup. pp. 137

Johmon, sup.

(a) Somerset v.
(6)

113.
(c)

(d)
V.

Wade

See also Collman

8 & 9 Vict.
c. 5, s.

Brooks

v.

See, however, Seatehard

179.

(1894), 63 L. J.

Commissioner of Police

53 Vict.

&

p. 125.

c.

315

v.

v.

C. 126.

Cartman (1896), 65 L.

J.

M.

44, repealed

and re-enacted by

100,

s.

B.

Bishop (1880), 49 L. J. M. C. 45.

v.

Mason, [1902] 2 K. B. 743.

Orawshaw, 72 L. J. K. B. 389

Jones V. Shervington, 77 L.

C.

Mills (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. 170.

J.

Digitized

Macey

v.

See also Mitchell

MeKenzie, 67 J. P. 251

K. B. 771.

by Microsoft

188

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

Under a special Act

which empowered a gas company to make the
a person under fourteen

necessary works

penalty

for

(a).

business, subject

its

to

should " suffer any washings to be

if it

conveyed or to flow" into any stream or place,

corrupting or fouling the water, the

company was

held liable to the penalty in a case where the

washings percolated through the bottom of its gas

tank and polluted a well, without the knowledge
of its servants (6).

The

principle that unless the Legislature has

indicated the contrary intention, the infliction of

presumed to be confined to cases

where the offender has the mens rea, is well illustrated by those cases in which it has been sought
penalties

is

to be

to render a master penally responsible for the acts

Thus a sheriff, though unquestionably liable in damages for the act of his officer in
seizing things exempt from seizure, would not be
liable to the penalty imposed by s. 29, Sheriffs Act,
1887, in respect of such wrongful aot(c); and a
of his servant.

surveyor could not be convicted of having caused

a heap of stones to be laid

(a)

Emary

upon a highway, and

of

As

to

Nolloth (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 629.

v.

exclusion of children from bars of licensed houses, see Ghildrens

Act, 1908,

s.

120

(6) Hiplcins v.
(c)

Pilkington v. Boss, [1914] 3 K. B. 321.

Birmingham Gas

60 & 51 Vict.

c.

55,

s.

29

Go.,

30 L.

Bagge

v.

following Lee v. Dangar, sup. p, 167.

Digitized

J.

Ex. 60.

Whitehead, sup. p. 167,

by Microsoft

MENS KB A IN CRIMINAL LAW.

having allowed

189

to remain there at night to the

it

danger of any person thereon, where the stones

had been laid and allowed to remain there by a
carter acting under the orders of a person to

whom

the surveyor had given general directions as to

repairing the road, the surveyor having

knowledge of the

&

Act, 16

So, under the repealed

fact (a).

17 Vict.

c.

no personal

128,

ss.

1, 2,

in order to

support a criminal charge against an owner or

occupier of trade premises within the metropolis

employed thereon
so that the smoke was not effectually consumed,
it was held that evidence of personal negligence
was essential, and that evidence of negligence on
of negligently using a furnace

the part of a servant was insufficient

No

(6).

doubt the legal presumption is that whatever a

servant does in the course of the employment

with which he

entrusted, and as part of

is

it, is

the master's act, unless the contrary be shown

(c),

may

consequently be penally responsible for the act of his servant as if it were his
own act, unless he can show that what was done

and a master

(a)

61 L.

W.

&

J.

6 Will. IV.

M.

R. 311

(6)

C. 101

c.

Pendlehury

Chisholm

V.

50,

s.

56

Hardeastle v. Bielby (1892),

but see contra Taylor

v.

v.

Greenhalgh, 24

Greenhalgh, 45 L. J. Q. B.

3,

Doulton a889), 58 L. J. M. 0. 133.

Prummond v. Nicholson (1915), 79 J. P. 525.

Barnes
(c) A.-G. V. Siddon, 35 R. E. 701
;

L. R. 7 Q. B. 474.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

C. A.

But

see

Akroyd (1872),

190

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

was in contravention of his

ground a baker has been held

liable to

this

a penalty

which his servant had mixed

for selling bread in

alum (a);

On

orders.

whose waggoner had

carried in the carrier's waggon game not sent
by a qualified person (when the 5 & 6 Anne,
c. 14, was in force), was properly convicted of
carrying the game (b) a licensed victualler was
and a

carrier,

under

held penally responsible,

Vict. c. 94 (repealed,

78

s.

35

16,

s.

&

36

Licensing (Con-

(lb).

solidation) Act, 1910), for the act of his servant

in knowingly supplying liquor to a constable on

duty

(c),

the act being within the scope of the

employment (d) and where gaming had

taken place upon licensed premises to the knowledge of a servant who had been placed in charge
of the premises, it was held that the licensed
person had "suffered" gaming to be carried on
on the premises within the meaning of s. 17,
servant's

Licensing Act, 1872 (repealed,

knowledge
(a)

B.

V.

(b)

B.

V.

-of

Act,

(c)

Marsh, 2 B. & C. 717

M.

Foot, 61 L. J.

M. &

S. 11.

but see per Brett

J.,

B.

M.

C. 110

M.

0. 67.

See also

but see Sherras

v.

Butzen (1895), sup. p. 186.

{d)

Per A. L. Smith

J.,

v.

0. 122.

Mullins V. Collins (1874), 43 L. J.

V.

79, Licensiag

1910),

Dixon (1814), 15 E. E. 381

Prince (1875), 44 L. J.

Brown

s.

though he had no
the gaming, and had not connived

(Consolidation)

Newman

Digitized

v.

Jones, 17 Q. B.

by Microsoft

D. 137.

De

MENS EEA IN CRIMINAL LAW.

191

and under the Merchandise Marks Act,

1887, a master is criminally liable, if his servants,
within the general scope of their employment,
sell goods to which a false trade-mark or false
description has been applied, although contrary to
their master's orders unless the master can show,
that he has acted in good faith and done everything he reasonably could to prevent the commission of offences by his servants. That is to
say, under this Act the burden of proof is shifted,
and is not in accordance with the ordinary rules
and principles of criminal law, in that the prosecution has not to prove a mens rea ; but if the
defendant is able to prove an absence of any mens
at it (a)

rea,

then he

is

to be acquitted

The

(6).

decisions

were based upon

the view of the Court that, having regard to the
language, scope, and objects of the Acts, the
in these

and other

like cases

Legislature intended to fix criminal responsibility

upon the master

done by his servants in

the course of their employment, although such
acts were not authorised, and might -have been
{a)

Bond

v.

for acts

Evans (1888), 57 L.

Dames, 45 L. J. M. C. 27
V. Hole,

(6)

Bedgate

v.

J.

%.

C. 108

Bosley v.

Haynes, Id. 65

Crabtree

43 J. P. 799.

50 & 51

Vict. c. 28,

[1898] 2 Q. B. 306

Lemy

v. Watson,.

s.

(2)

Cop^pen v.

Moore {No.

Christie v. Cooper, [1900] 2 Q.

[1915] 3 K. B. 781; Holmes

1 K. B. 57.

Digitized

by Microsoft

2),

B. 522

v. Pipers,

[1914]

192

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

But

expressly forbidden.

that there

servant

as soon as

no delegation

is

it

appears

of authority to the

his act cannot be considered as that

(a),

of the master,

and

it is

necessary to show that the

had personal knowledge of the incriminating

circumstances in order to ensure conviction. Thus

latter
.

the committee of a club cannot properly be convicted of selling liquor without a proper license,

where the

sale

has been by the steward contrary

and withand where

to the express orders of the committee,

out their knowledge

assent (&);

or

gaming had taken place upon licensed premises

knowledge of a servant who was employed
upon the premises, but there was no evidence to
show any connivance or wilful bUndnfess on the
part of the licensed person, and it did not appear
that the servant was put in charge of the
premises, it was held that the justices were right
to the

to convict

in refusing
suffering

the licensed person

gaming on the premises

of

Where,

(c).

however, the facts are such as to constitute prima

(a)

See per Collins

referring to the

J.,

Somerset v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 576,

judgment

of

Stephen

(1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249, at p. 255

(6)

Newman

v. Jones,

in

J.,

17 Q. B. D. 132

35 & 36 Viet.

solidation) Act,
77.

o.

1910

94,
;

See also Massey

s.

v.

17, repealed,

s.

K. B. 119.

79, Licensing

Somerset v. Hart (1884), 53 L. J.

v.

Morris,

63 L.

J.

comp. Somerset v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 574.

Digitized

Hvans

but the person actually

selling is liable, Caldwell v. Bethell, [1913] 1

(c)

Bond

57 L. J. M. G. 105.

by Microsoft

M.

0.

185

(Con

M.
;

C.

and

MENS REA

IN CRIMINAL LAW.

a case, which though not

facie

positive proof of

193

amounting

to

knowledge on the part of the

licensed person, nevertheless indicate connivance,

such indication

is

evidence upon which a magis-

may find knowledge {a). But, on the other

hand, it may be remarked that a master would
trate

not be liable to be convicted for an unauthorised

false representation

made by

weight of sacks of coal

{b)

his servant as to the

secus, if

the represen-

was made by the servant in the course of

his employ (c).
There is a class of eases where the absence of

tation

mens rea does not control the language of a statute

and that is where the offence has been committed
;

in ignorance or misapprehension of the law, and the

statute prohibiting the act does not expressly

make

malice or wilfulness or other intent an essential

element of the offence

For instance, though a

{d).

person in possession of naval stores

is

not

liable to

conviction unless he knows that they bear the

Government mark, he would not escape on the

ground that he did not know that the possession
of such marked goods was prohibited.
A man who
Taylor (1912), 23 Cox, C. 0. 220.

(a)

Lee

(&)

52 & 53 Vict.

L. J.
(c)

M.

v.

c.

21,

s.

29 (2)

Boherts v. Woodward, 59

0. 129.

Baker

v.

Herd, 58 J. P. 413

and see Franklin

v.

Godfrey

(1894), 63 L. J. 239.
(d)

See Ellis

2 0. P. D. 351

v. Kelly,

Hunter

30 L.

J.

M.

v. Clare, [1899]

0. 35

Daniel

1 Q. B. 635.

13

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Jones,

194

INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

unlawfully fished in a non-tidal river, or trespassed

on land in

game, would not escape

of

search,

conviction because he honestly believed that the

public

was entitled

a right not being

who absented

to fish or shoot there (a); such

known

An apprentice

to the law.

himself from his master's service,

did not escape the penal consequences by proving

that he had done so in the honest though erroneous

founded on his lawyer's advice, that his

belief,

indentures were void, and that he was consequently

who

cabman

So, a

at liberty to leave his service (h).

on the premises of
a railway company, after being requested to remove
it, is penally liable for " wilfully trespassing and
refusing to quit," though he was under the persuasion, which was unfounded, that there existed
persists in placing his cab

a legal right to place his vehicle there

It

is

Hudson

(a)

(1915),

Id.

v.

17.

v.

J.

Vine,

M.

0. 178

v.

G.

Gooie

207

WatkiTis v. Major,

9 Q. B. D. 162.

Scotcher,

e.

34,

s.

repealed by 38

Cooper v. Simmons (1862),

apprenticeship to a corporation
Carson, [1891] 1 Q. B.
(c)

M. C. 65; Smith
30 L. J. M.

J.

v.

not to

See also The

Dod. 387.

4 Geo. IV.

(6)

Leatt

Biddarm, 44 L.

164; Pearce

Charlotta, 1

s.

McBae, 33 L.

v.

79 J. P. 245

Margreaves

(c).

necessary, as regards mens rea,

Foulger

v.

valid

is

& 39

Vict.

c.

86,

31 L. J. M. 0. 138, an
:

Burnley Sc. Society

v.

,75.

Steadman, 42 L. J. M. C.

& E. 20. There

London raUway stations.
Taylor, 1 B.

Digitized

are

no longer

by Microsoft

3.

Comp. Jones

v.

privileged cabs at

MENS EGA IN CEIMINAL LAW.

195

confound a guilty mind in the legal sense of the

expression, with a guilty conscience, for an inten-

tion to do an act prohibited by the penal provisions

On

of a statute constitutes mens rea.

the other

hand, the absence of mens rea really consists in an

honest and reasonable belief in the existence of

would make the act innocent (a). A. statute which prohibited an act would
be violated, though the act were done without
evil intention, or even under the influence of a
good motive. Thus, in order to constitute the

facts which, if true,

offence of applying a false trade

description to

goods with intent to defraud, within the meaning

Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, s. 2 (1), it is

not necessary that there should be any fraud, in
of the

the sense of intent to supply a worthless or inferior

article,

but

it

is

an

sufficient that

article is in-

tended to be supplied of a different description

from that which the customer intends to purchase,

and believes he is purchasing (6). So a man who

an obscene publication is subject to the

penalty imposed therefor by 20 & 21 Vict. c. 83,
although his object was not to deprave the mind
sells

(a) Sherras v.

Be

Bufzen, sup, p. 179

Bank of N.

S.

Wales

v.

Piper, [1897] A. C. 383.

(&)

50 & 51

(1889),

59 L.

EirsherAoim

v.

28

Vict. c.

J.

M.

0. 13

Salmon

&

North Eastern Breweries

Starey v. GMlworth Gwipowder

Wood

v.

Burgess, 59 L. J.

Qluckstem (1898), 67 L.

v.

Digitized

Gibson (1904), 68

by Microsoft

M.

J. Q.

J. P. 356.

Co.

C. 11

B. 601

196

INTBRPBETATION OP STATUTES.
the reader, but

expose the tenets of a

religious sect (a). The master of a ship who, under
general instructions to complete his cargo on the
of

to-

terms, traded with the enemy, would be guilty

iTest

though he acted solely

under the motive of serving his employer to the
best advantage (c). A railway company which had
suffered a weighing machine in its possession to
of the crime

{b) of

barratry,

continue out of repair for a fortnight, so that

it

indicated more than the true weight, was held to

fall

within the enactment which imposed a penalty

for being

found in possession of a weighing machine

incorrect or otherwise unjust

although

had orders to make a due allowance

when using

So under

it {d).

s.

its

servants

for the defect,

31 of the repealed

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted that where

an undischarged bankrupt obtained credit to the
HieMin (1868), 37 L. J. M. C. 89 Steele v. Brannm,
M. 0. 85. Gomp. Lewis v. Fermor, 18 Q. B. D. 532,
questioned by Hawkins J., in Ford v. Wiley, 28 Q. B. D. 203 ;
B.

(a)

41 L.

V.

J.

as to publication of obscene pictures or advertisements, see B.

Be Marney, [1907]

v.

1 K. B. 388.

Oowp. 143. As to meaning of the

Anonyme Beige des Mines d'Aljustrel v.

Vallejo v. Wheeler, 1

(6)

word enemy, see

Societe

Anglo-Belgicm Agency (1915), 84 L. J. Oh. 849, C. A.

s.

(c)

Earle

(d)

5 & 6 WiU. rV.

25

also

v. Bowcroft,

G. W. B. Co.

Lane

Payne {No.

v.
2),

c.

v.

9 E. E. 385, 8 Bast. 126.

63,

s.

28 (repealed), 41 & 42 Vict.

Bailie (1864), 34 L. J.

M.

0. 31.

49,

c.

See

Bendall, [1899] 2 Q. B. 673; London G. G.

[1905] 1 K. B. 410.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

EBSTEICTIONS OF OPERATION.

extent of

.197

and upwards from any person,

without informing such person that he was an
undischarged bankrupt, he should be guilty of a
misdemeanour, it was no defence to show that
there was no intention to defraud (a).
Probably, it may now be said that in construing
j620

the operative verb of a prescribed offence, in a case

not covered by authority, it is not unusual to see

whether that verb

" knowingly " if
;

applies,

but

word as
the doctrine of Mens Rea

controlled by such a

is

it is,

not, the better opinion

if it is

the

is

exclusion of that doctrine.

Sometimes, to keep the Act within the limits of

its object, and not to disturb the existing law

beyond what the object requires, it is construed as

operative between certain persons, or under certain states of facts, or for certain purposes only,

though the language expresses no such circumscription of

the field of

its

operation

(6).

The

partially repealed Act

which required, among other things, that where
a Bill of Sale was made subject to a declaration

of 1854(c), for instance,

of trust, the declaration should be registered as

46 & 47 Vict.

(a)

sum
(&)

is

now

c.

52

B.

v.

Dyson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 176.

reduced to 10, see 4

For some

& 5 Geo. V.

illustrations, in addition to those

ately follow, see Chap. VII, Sec. III.

(c)

17

& 18

c.

Vict. c. 36,

s. 2.

Digitized

by Microsoft

59,

s.

The

155.

which immedi-

INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.

198

well as the

on pain of invalidity against the

bill,

assignee in the event of execution or bankruptcy,

was held to apply only to declarations

of trust

by

the grantee for the grantor, but not to trusts

declared by the grantee in favour of other persons.

The

the Act

being only to protect

creditors against sham bills of sale, and such
object

of

object being completely attained

by requiring the

registration of the first-mentioned trusts, while

the registration of any others would have been

Act (a). See. 18,

1882, which prohibits the

foreign to the purposes of the

Bills

of

Sale Act,

removal of the goods

for five days after seizure, is

confined to the protection of the person giving the

and gives the landlord no right to complain

of an earUer removal (6) and s. 3, 11 G-eo. II. c. 19,

bill,

which gives to landlords a right of action to

recover double the value of goods fraudulently
carried off the premises to avoid a distress, applies
to goods of the tenant only,

stranger

So,

(c).

the provision in 8

making

109, which, after

c.

(o) Etlls

V.

and not to those

all

&

9 Vict,

wagers nuU and

Shepherd (1858), 1 F. & F. 191

Bobinson v.

See also Hodson

Gollingwood, 34 L. J. 0. P. 18.

of a

v.

Sharjae,

10 E. E. 324.
(6)

461

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

43

Lam

v.

Tyler (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B.

Tomlinson v. Gonsolidated Credit Corp. (1890), 24 Q. B. D.

135.
(c)

Tomlinson

v.

Consolidated Credit Corp., sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

RESTRICTION TO THE SUBJECT.

void, enacts that

recover

no

suit shall be

money won on

199

maintained to

a wager or deposited to

abide the event, was construed as only preventing

a party to the wager from suing to recover his

winning, but not to prevent him from suing the

stakeholder to recover his deposit before

it

has

been actually appropriated (a), and the Gaming

Act, 1892, has not altered the law in this respect (b).
Moreover an action will be by one partner in a
betting business against the other for an account
the partnership dealings

of

language of
(repealed,

s.

299,

s.

419

(3),

which provided

So, the general

(c).

Merchant Shipping Act, 1854

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894),

that,

damage should

if

arise

to

person or property from non-observance of the

be considered as the " wilful

default " of the person in charge of the deck at
the time, was confined, by a due regard to the
sailing rules, it should

object in view, to the regulation of the rights of

the owners of ships in cases of collision, and was

therefore held not to affect the relations between

make

the master and his owners, so as to

(o)

Hampden

v.

Walsh, 45 L. J. Q. B. 238

(1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 721, C. A.

Stock Exchange {No. 2), 65 L. J. Q. B. 178;

Exchange
(&)

538

v. Strachan,

55 & 56 Vict.
Barclay

v.

c.

65 L.
9

J.

Diggle

See also Strachan

v.

v.

the
Higgs

Universal

Universal Stock

Q. B. 429.

Surge

v.

Ashley

Pearson (1893), 62 L.

J.

& Smith, 69 L.
Oh. 636

J.

Q. B.

Shoolbred v.

Boberts, [1899] 2 Q. B. 560, varied, [1900] 2 Q. B. 497, 0. A.

(c)

Keen

v. Price,

[1914] 2 Ch. 98.

Digitized

by Microsoft

200

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

former guilty of barratry, which would have been

altogether foreign to the scope of the Act

(a).

The 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, which, after reciting that

it was expedient to make provision for preventing
the vexatious removal of indictments into the

Queen's Bench, enacted that whenever a certiorari

remove one should be awarded at the instance

of the prosecutor, he should enter into a recognisance to pay the costs if unsuccessful, and that
if the recognisance was not entered into, the
to

indictment should be tried in the Court below,

was held inapphcable to a prosecutor who removed

an indictment against a corporate body which was
unable to appear by attorney in the inferior Court.
In such a case, the removal of the indictment was
a matter of necessity, not option, for

it

could not

be tried by the inferior Court, since the defendant

could not appear there ; and it would have been
unjust to extend the provision to a case clearly

beyond the scope of the Act, which, by its preamble

showed, was only to check vexatious removals (6).

The words of the Arbitration Act, 1889, which

enact that in certain cases an award is to be
(a) Grill V.

37

Id.

205

General Iron Screw Go. (1866), 35 L. J. C. P. 321,

v. Union Lighterage Go. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B.

Price

374.
(6)

B.

V.

Manchester, 26 L.

Smith (1869), 38 L.

J.

Ex. 90.

sheriff to certify for costs.

Cox

Digitized

J,

M.

0. 65.

See also Graven

v.

Overruled as to power of underv.

Eill (1892), 67 L. T. 26.

by Microsoft

RESTRICTION TO THE SUBJECT.

201

" equivalent to the verdict of a jury," have been

construed as not importing

all

the incidents of a

verdict, ex. gr. the right of appeal

that

it is

on the ground

against the weight of evidence, but only

mode

the immediate consequences, ex. gr. the

of

execution (a).

The enactment (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, s. 19) which

made presentment of any draft on a banker payon demand, if purporting to be indorsed (though a forgery) by the payee, a sufficient
authority to the banker to pay the amount, was in
the same way limited in its effect, as in its object,
to the relations between banker and customer;
and did not prevent the latter from recovering
his money from the person who received it (6).
But, on the other hand, s. 3, Truck Act, 1831,
which provides that the entire amount of wages
able to order or

earned by any

him

artificer

shall

be actually paid to

in the current coin of the realm, constitutes a

bar to a deduction from the wages of a debt due

from the workman to his employer

(a)

& 53

52

Vict.

Eep. 62
(6)

Garr

Ogden

v.

v.

49, ss. 14, 15

c.

Handing (1891), 60 L.

J.

Q. B. 110

Sec. 16,

(c).

Darlington

Wagon

Co. v.

Olasbrooh v. Owen, 7 Times

Dougherty, 67 L. J. Q. B. 371.

Benas, 43 L.

J. C.

P. 259

Arnold

v.

Cheque

Banh, Ltd. (1876), 45 L. J. 0. P. 562 ; Fine Art Society v. Union

Bank of London (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 70, C. A. See now s. 60,

Exchange Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61 Gordon v.

London City & Midland Bank (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 215, 0. A.
Bills of

(c)

&

2 Will. rV.

c.

Digitized

37;

Williams

v.

by Microsoft

North's Navigation

202

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, which

provides that no shareholder shall be entitled to
transfer any share after a call, until he has paid
up all caUs due on all his shares, is only a protection to the company, giving it a lien or charge
upon the shares but it does not affect the validity
of a transfer as regards the creditors of the com;

pany,!

if

the

company has assented

to it

(a).

^So

has been held that the provisions of a Railway

Act which placed the management of the company's affairs in the hands of a certain number of
directors, were intended for the protection of the
shareholders merely, and that it was not open to a
stranger to object that they had not been complied
with {b). Sec. 153, Companies Act, 1862 (repealed,
s.
205, Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908),
which declares " void " every transfer of shares in
a company which is being wound up, unless the
Court otherwise orders, was held not to prevent
a broker who had bought and paid for shares in a

it

75 L.

Collieries (1906),

Thomson (1913),
Merihyr
(o)

Collieries,

8 & 9 Vict.

J.

K. B. 334; Summerlee Iron Co.

S. G. (J.) 34,

79 L.

c.

16

J.

H. L.

But

v.

see Keates v. Lewis

K. B. 722.

Uttledale, Exp. (1853), 43 L. J. Oh. 529

discussed in Societe Generate de Paris

v.

Tramway Unions

Co.

14 Q. B. D., at p. 455.
(6) Thames Haven Co. v. Bose (1842), 4 M. & Gr. 552, which
case was criticised in Alma Spinning Co., Be (1880), 50 L. J. Oh.

(1884),

171.

Digitized

by Microsoft

RESTRICTION TO THE SUBJECT.

company

so

principal the

203

situated from recovering from his

money

so paid

(a).

Sec. 23, Bankruptcy Act, 1869, which enacted

that the trustee in bankruptcy might disclaim any

interest of the bankrupt,

and that the property

disclaimed was to be deemed surrendered on the

day of the adjudication, was held to be limited to

the relief of the bankrupt and the trustee in
bankruptcy from liability but not to affect the
rights and liabihties of the lessor and original lessee
or underlessee (i).
Sec. 38, Companies Act, 1867
(repealed by s. 81, Companies (Consolidation) Act,
1908), which requires that every prospectus shall
specify all contracts entered into by the company or
;

by its promoters, before the issue of the prospectus,

and declares every prospectus which does not
specify them fraudulent on the part of the promoters and directors who knowingly issued it, as
regards persons taking shares,

is,

enough to include every contract

wide

literally,

made by

a pro-

moter even regarding his own private affairs but

it was limited in construction to the object of the
;

(a)

Ghwpman

v.

Shepherd, 36 L. J. 0. P. 113

discussed in

Coles V. Bristowe (1868), L. E. 6 Eq., at p. 160.

(6)

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

71

now

59)

Smyth

Walton, 17 Oh. D. 746

Hill v. E.

(4

& 5 Geo. V.

842.

87 L.

c.

See under Act of 1914,

J.

v.

s.

54,

Bankruptcy Act, 1914

North, L. E. 7 Ex. 242

& W. I. Boch

Castle,

In

re,

K. B. 753.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Co.,

53 L.

Exp.

J.

Oh.

[1917] 2 K. B. 725

INTEEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

204

Act, which' was the protection of shareholders. It

was held, therefore, to include only such contracts

were calculated to influence persons in applying

for shares (a) and apparently does not create any
as

duty towards bondholders

Stamp

So, the

Acts,

(b).

which enacted that un-

stamped documents should not be pleaded or given

in evidence, or be available in law or equity, were
construed as meaning only that such documents
should be unavailable for the purpose of recovering
any debt or property (c). The prohibition was,

however, held not to extend to cases where the

validity of the document was impugned on the

ground of fraud or
55 Vict.
23),

c.

illegality (c).

39 (reproducing sec.

which invalidates

imless

expressed in

all

So,

s.

30

&

7,

93 of 54
31 Vict.

&
c.

contracts of sea assurance

and

a poUcy,

(s.

96

(2))

which prohibits giving in evidence any policy

not duly stamped, does not prevent the admission
of the sHp in evidence, on a collateral question of
fraud or misrepresentation

[a)

Tvyycross v.

Grant, 46 L. J. C. P. 636; discussed and

explained in Macleary
lb) Cornell v.
(c) JR. V.

Ponsford

(d).

Hay

v. Tate,

[1906] A. C. 24, at p. 29.

(1873), 42 L.

HawhswortTi, 1 T. E. 450

\.

missory note

J. 0. P. 136.
;

B.

v.

Gompertz, 9 Q.'B. 824

Walton, L. E. 8 0. P. 167.

may be handed

An unstamped

his recollection, Birchall v. Bullough (1896),

(d) lonides v.

The Pacific Insurance

Digitized

pro-

to a witness in order to challenge

Co.,

by Microsoft

65 L.

J.

Q. B. 252.

41 L.

J.

Q. B. 190

RESTRICTION TO THE SUBJECT.

In the same

spirit,

the

205

operation of 7 Anne,

view of securing the

inviolability accorded to ambassadors by the law
of nations, enacted that all processes whereby an
12,

c.

which, with

the

ambassador or his servant might be arrested, or

his goods seized, should be null and void (a), was
held not to extend beyond what might be necessary
for

the protection of the rank, duties, and religion

of the ambassador

who rented

and not to protect his servant,

a house, part of which he let

in

lodgings, from having his goods taken by distress

for

non-payment

of a parochial rate.

Upon

the

principle that, a house of that character not being

absolutely necessary for the servant's residence, to

extend the operation of the Act to such a case

would have been to cover ground foreign to

scope and object (b).
Citizen

Insmance

Co.,

Canada

v.

Parsons (1881), 7 A.

its

0.,

at

125.
(a)
(6)

Be^blie of Bolivia, In re, [1914] 1 Oh. 139.

Novello V. Toogood, 25 E. E. 507. See also Parhinson

Potter (1885), 16 Q. B. D., at p. 161.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

CONSTBUCTION

IV.

TO PEEVENT EVASION.

meant by an
either you
evasion of an Act of Parliament
If you
not.
or
Parliament
are within the Act of
are not within it you have a right to avoid it,
to keep out of the prohibition if you are within
" (a).
The
it, say so, and then the course is clear

"I NEVEB understood what

'

is

'

above

is

perhaps the dictum of a purist in language.

law and sometimes

even in statutes the phrase " evasion " of an Act
of Parliament reaUy connotes an attempt to avoid

In ordinary

life,

in courts of

compliance therewith.
" Everybody agrees th^t

'

evade

is

'

capable of

which suggests
underhand dealing, (2) which means nothing more
than the intentional avoidance of something dis-

being used in two senses

agreeable"

(1)

(b).

As regards the

first of

these senses,

really involve a question of verbal

(a)

84.
(6)

Per Lord Cranworth L.O., Edwards

See post, p. 218.
Simrm

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

does not

construction

v. Hall,

Begiatrar of Probates, 69 L. J

it

25 L.

G. P. 56.

J.

Oh.

CONSTEUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

of a statute at

more than a

207

It is simply fraud

all.

flagitious

attempt to pass

off

no
an exist^it

is

ing state of things as being something other than

that which

it

really

Words,

is.

may

of course,

be used for the purpose of helping to assist in the

though it is rarely that the meaning of

such words will be called in questioi; the question
If so, the
will be, Is an evasion being attempted ?
Court will make short work of it. But when the
second method of avoidance or technical " evasion
is under consideration it merits careful though
not necessarily favourable scrutiny, and if the
result of such investigation shows that the avoid-

illusion,

'

ance

is

in fact,

not,

templated by

within the mischief con-

the statute,

it

is

in a legal sense

neither an evasion nor blameworthy.

The author

beiag proved to have done nothing outside his

In either case it may be said that there

was an attempt at evasion but the attitude of the
Court towards the one will be very different from

right.

that as regards the other.

It is the

struction

duty of the judge to adopt such a conshall

as

avoid the possibility of

any

untruthful evasion which might perpetuate the

mischief (a).
of a statute,

To carry out effectually the

it must be so construed as to

object

defeat

attempts to do, or avoid doing in an indirect

or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited
all

(a)

Magdalen

College Case, 11 Eep. 71b.

Digitized

by Microsoft

208

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

or enjoined

(a).

In fraudem

legis facit,

qui, salvis

and a
statute is understood as extending to all such
circumventions, and rendering them unavailing.
Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne, per
verbis legis, sententiam ejus, circumvenit (6)

quod devenitur ad illud

shown that the

(c).

"

Whenever

acts of the parties

it

can be

are adopted

effecting a thing which is proand the thing prohibited is in consequence

effected, the parties have done that which they
have purposely caused, though they may have
done it indirectly " {d). When the thing done is
for the purpose

hibited,

substantially that

which was prohibited,

falls

it

within the Act, simply because, according to the

true construction of the statute,

it is

the thing

(e).
Whenever Courts see such
attempts at concealment, " they brush away the

thereby prohibited

cobweb varnish," and show the transaction in

They

true light (/).

its

men

see things as ordinary

Whatever might
{g), and so see through them.
be the form or colour of the transaction, the law
do

(a)

Bac. Ab. Statute

(6) 3 Dig.

(J.)

Com. Dig. Parlmt.

(E.) 28.

1, 3, 29.

(c)

2 Inst. 48.

{d)

Per Blackburn

J., Jeffries v.

Alexander (1860), 31 L.

J.

Ch.

14; discussed in Bobson, In re (1881), 18 Ch. Div., p. 163.

(e)

Per Lord Cranworth, L.O., PMlpott

v. St. George's Hospital,

6 H. L. Oas. 338.
(/) Per Wilmot
(g)

C.J., Collins v. Blantern, 2 Wils. 349.

Per Lord Brougham, Warner v. Armstrong, 3 Myl. & K.

Digitized

by Microsoft

45.

OONSTEUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

209

For this purpose the

Courts go behind the documents and formalities,
and inquire into the real facts. They may, and

looks to the substance

(a).

therefore must, inquire into the real nature of that

An Act is not to be evaded by

documents which give a false
the matter (6). In all such cases,

which was done.

putting forward
description of

in truth, rather the

it is,

particular transaction

than the statute which is the subject of construction and if it is found to be in reality within the
;

statute, it is not suffered to escape

tion of the law

which

its real

by means

character

from the opera-

of the disguise under

masked.

is

Thus, when either of the Acts against Usury

(c)

was in force, it was said that if the contract really

was an usurious loan of money, the wit of man
could not find a shift to take it out of the Act (d)
and accordingly transactions which were ostensibly
;

a sale of land(e), of goods (/), or of stock

(a)

Per Lord Tenterden,

Solarte v. Melville, 1

(5) WaUon, Be (1890), 59 L.

(1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 227.
(c)

For a

they were
(d)
(e)

list

all

of them, see 17

J.

& 18

Vict. c.

90by

v.

204.

Thomas

which Act

Per Lord Mansfield, Floyer v. Edwards, 1 Oowp. 114.

Doe V. GoocJi, 3 B. & Aid. 664 Doe v. Chambers, 4 Camp.
;

(/) Floyer v. Edwards, sup. ;

Harvey v. Archbold, 3 B. & C. 626.
Tate

(gr)

Madell

or

repealed.

Davis

612

Man. & Ey.

Q. B. 394

(</),

v. Wettings,

White

3 T. E. 531

v. Wright, 3

v.

Boldero

v.

JacJcsm, 11 Bast

B. & 0. 273.

14

I.S.

Digitized

1.

Hardacre, 2 Camp. 375

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

210

an agency (6), or a partnership (c),

when in reality usurious loans, were held to fall
within the Act.
So, if a contract be a wager
in substance, no matter how the end is brought
about, it would be void, though the object were
a lease

or

(a),

concealed in the form given to the transaction

And whether

(jd).

a document ought to be registered

under the Bills of Sale Acts is not concluded by

its terms or form, but depends on the evidence as
to the real nature of the transaction, as to the

Thus,

real intention of the parties.

if

be the

owner of goods, and B the pretended owner

and B by a document purports to let the goods

real

Bedo

(a)

Sanderson, Cro. Jac. 440; Jestons v. Brooke, 2

v.

Cowp. 793.
(6)

Harris

(c)

Enderhy

v. Gilpin,

Qrisewood

(d)

v. Boston,

Phillips, Exp.,

Camp.

Blane

v.

30 L.

J.

Gaminada

v.

v.

J.

K. B. 794

Be

M.

1982

at p.

Jackson

v.

v.

356

Gomp.

538.

Jeffries

53 Id. 532

which comp. B.

Hyams

v. Stuart

Deerhurst, 60 L. J. Q. B. 411.

Minty

For

Note especially the remarks

Truck Acts, Gould v. Haynes, 59 L.

V.

Simpson, 46 L. J. 0. P. 192

J.

of

(1916), 84 L. J. K. B.

Both (1918), 35 T. L. E. 59.

of

M.

G. 9.

As

by Microsoft

to evasion

See Higginson

Summerlee Iron Co.

(1913), S. C. (J.), 34.

Digitized

v.

King,

v. Director Public Prosecutions

v. Sylvester

v.

Eardy, 4 Q. B. D. 685.

C. 116, with

see also

(1916), 84 L. J. K. B. 354.
J.,

B.

Anderson, 52 L. J. Q. B. 219

Hulton, 60 L. J.

recent decisions, see Bottomley

Darling

C.

per Wilde B.,

Thacker

Stoddart, 70 L. J. K. B. 189

77 L.

11

(1857),

Bkcy. 1

Alexander, 8 H. L. Gas. 594

See also Bead

348.

5 Moo. 571.

v.

Thomson

CONSTEUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

A with

to

may be

this

liberty to

211

in a certain event to seize,

construed as a license by A, the real

owner, to B.

If it be found as a fact that it

was

so given, then however absolute in form the document may be, it comes within the operation of the
Act and if it be not registered, it is void (a). An
Act which prohibited under a penalty the perform;

ance of plays without license, would extend to a

performance where the actors did not come on the
stage, but acted in a chamber below it, and their

were reflected by mirrors so as to appear

to the spectators to be on the stage (b).
Sec. 2,
Libel Act, 1843, which requires, under certain
figures

circumstances, the insertion of a

apology in

would not be compHed

the apology, however suitable in its terms,

a newspaper for a
with,

full

if

libel,

was printed in such type or in such a part of the

paper as would be likely to escape the attention
of ordinary readers

An

(c).

assignment of lease-

holds to a trustee with the object of protecting

(a)

41 & 42 Vict.

also 53

& 54

Assets Go.,

c.

60 L.

31,

35

Vict. c.
J.

s.

4; 45

& 46

54 & 55 Vict.

Q. B. 493;

Vict.

Maas

c.

35

c.

v.

43, ss. 3, 9

see

Beckett v. Tower

Pepper (1905), 74

L. J. K. B. 452; Johnson v. Bees (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1276.

(6)

L. J.

&

7 Vict.

M.

0.

149

c.

68,

s.

see also 53

& 54

Day

v.

Vict.

c.

Simpson (1865), 34
59,

s.

51,

and Syers

V. Conquest, 37 J. P. 342.

(c)

As
V.

6 & 7 Vict.

to the

c.

96; Lafonev. Smith (1859), 28 L. J. Ex. 33.

measure of punishinent under

Truemm, [1913] W. N.

a.

5 of this Act, see Bex

198.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

212

them from

the mortgagee of

liability to

nants, after the trustee in bankruptcy

the cove-

had

dis-

claimed, was treated as an attempt to evade the

sham

repealed Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and was a

and therefore void (a).

The repealed Act of 1854
which required the registration of bills of sale of
personal chattels was held to extend to agreements
for a bin of sale, constituting

ment

And where

(fc).

an equitable assign-

the grantor of a

bill of sale of

furniture remained in possession as the servant of

the grantee, with leave to use the furniture as part

of his salary, it

in possession

was held that the grantee was not

his servant, but that the grantor

by

was in possession withiu the meaning, for the case

was within the mischief, of the Act (c). The Acts
which protected the monopoly of the Bank of
England by prohibiting bodies of more than six
(a)
s.

54
(6)

46 & 47 Vict.
(6)

c.

52,

55 (6); see 4

s.

17 & 18 Vict.

c.

36,

and 45 & 46

42 L. J. Bank. 68; Edwards

Brantom

v.

Griffits

48 L. J. Bank. 1

105

50 L.

v.

(1877), 46
see,

Vict.

J. Q. B.

536

c.

59,

v.

Madell

43

Machay, Exp.,

Edwards, 45 L. J. Oh. 391

however, Allsopp

Woodgate

c.

L. J. 0. P. 408

Byerley v. Prevost, L. E. 5 0. P. 144

Be, 59 L. J. Q. B. 394
V.

& 5 Geo. V.

Smith, Be, 59 L. J. Q. B. 554.

v.
;

Bay, 31 L.

J.

Ex.

Marsden v. Meadows,

Godfrey, 5 Ex. D. 24
v.

Odell, Exp.,

Thomas, sup.

p.

209

WaUon,
Cochrane

Matthews, 10 Ch. D. 80 n.
(c)

Pichard

v.

Marriage, 45 L. J. Ex. 594.

Hichson, 55 L. J. Q. B. 119

also Stallard v. Marks, 3 Q. B. D. 412.

Digitized

See also Gibbons v.

Exp. Lewis, L. E. 6 Oh. 626.

by Microsoft

See

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

persons "to borrow, owe, or take up

213

money on

their bills or notes, payable at less than six

months

from the borrowing," were construed to make it

illegal for such a body of bankers to accept a
customer's

months for the

such a transaction would admit of competition with the Bank of England by the issue
of bills and notes (a).
And they were also held
to prohibit a joint stock bank from engaging with
a foreign bank that their manager, who was not
bill at less

than

six

effect of

a partner, should accept the bUls of the foreign

bank, and that they should provide funds for their

payment (b). All such transactions were held to

come more or less directly within the prohibition
to " owe, borrow, or take up money on bills or
notes "(c).

tenant

who covenanted

not to assign his

lease without his landlord's license,

would be held

have broken his covenant by giving a warrant

of attorney to confess judgment, if he gave it for
the express purpose of enabling the judgment
to

creditor to take the lease in execution;

for this

was, in affect and intention, an assignment of the

lease (d).
(a)

The

transaction would be unobjection-

Banh of Ungland v. Anderson, (1837), 7 L. J. Oh. 265.

Banh of England, 7 01. & R 509 J/ap. Bandleson,

(b) Booth y.

Mont. & M'Arth.

86.

Bradshaw (1850), 20 L.

(c)

See also O'Connor

(d)

Boe V Carter, i E. E.
H. L. Oas, 739.

v.

586.

Ex. 26.

See, however, Croft v. Lumley

(1858), 6

Digitized

J.

by Microsoft

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES,

214
able

divested

if

covenant

(a).

the

break

to

intent

the

of

similar warrant of attorney, given

by an insolvent to enable a favoured creditor to

take his goods in execution, would, in the same
way, be within the provisions against fraudulent
transfers of property

The
c.

36(c),

(6).

Uses Act, 1735, 9 Geo.

Charitable

II.

which prohibited the disposition to a

money

charity of land, or

to be laid out in the

purchase of land, otherwise than by deed executed

twelve months before the donor's death, to be

months from its execution,

immediately, and without power

enrolled within six

and to take

effect

any reservation

of revocation or

for the benefit of

the donor, has frequently been the subject of such

money

Thus, a bequest of

experiments.

the

to

committee of a school, on condition that they

would provide land for a charitable purpose, would
fall

within the Act

name from

but in

(o) Bills V. Smith,

such a transaction

for

differs

a purchase of the land and a

34 L.

Q. B. 68

J.

Vautin, In re, [1900]

2 Q. B. 325.
(6)

Sharpe

Cas. 672.

v.

46 & 47 Vict.
Griffith,

Thomas, 6 Bing. 416

See 32 & 33 Viet.

c.

For an exception to this

(c)

66 L.

Eepealed save

J.
s.

Be

rule, see

71,

&

52); repealed 4

Exp., 52 L. J. Oh. 717

1 Q. B. 607

c.

Croft v. Lumley, 6
s.

92; (repealed,

5 Geo. V.

Goldsmid, 56 L.

New's Trustee

v.

o.

J.

Digitized

& 52

Vict.

by Microsoft

c.

42,

s.

48.

44;

Q. B. 195.

Hunting, [1897]

Q. B. 554, 0. A.
5 by 51

59,

H. L.
g.

s.

13.

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

devise

The

of it (a).

testator

directly devise the land;

215

did not, indeed,

but he gave money in

consideration of land being 'given to a charity,

which was substantially the same thing.

So,
mone^ bequeathed to be laid out in building
houses, where there was no land already in mortmain (b) to build them on, would have been
construed as an indirect instruction to purchase
land for the purpose

So a legacy to trustees

(c).

by them towards the

of a chapel to be applied

discharge of a mortgage on the said chapel

Where

void((/).

is

owner of land, with the

the

object of evading the statutes, executed a deed,

which he kept concealed tUl his death, whereby

he covenanted that he or his executors would pay
to trustees for certain charitable purposes, a large

sum
(o)

money, which would necessarily have to

of

Gas. 349
See,

27 L.

v. St.

Provision of

23

George's Hospital (1857), 6

Oh. 70, also sup. p. 208, and

J.

however. Mortmain

and Charitable

Uses

H. L.
221.

inf. p.

1891.

Act,

5 no longer applies to land assured by will

s.

an elementary school-house

for the purpose of

c,

See also judgment of Lord

A.-G. V. Davies, 9 Ves. 535.

Oranworth, L.C., PMlpott

42,

s.

(6)

Comp, Brodie

2 Edw. VII.

(5).

v.

Chandos,

Bro.

0. G. 444 n.

and

Pritchard v. Arhouin, 27 E. E. 106.

(c)

A.-G.

E. E. 229

Tyndall,

V.

6 L.

e converso for

J.

Ambl. 614

Oh. 380

Mather

v. Scott (1837),

Giblett v. Hohson, 41 E.

a reason therein specified, see Biggar

wood (1886), 19 L. E.
(d) Gorbyn v.

Ir.,

at p. 65.

French (1799), 4 Vesey, 418.

Digitized

by Microsoft

44

E. 144, but
v.

East-

216

INTBBPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

be raised out of his land, this was held to fall

The
within the prohibition of the statute.
creation of a fictitious debt on which execution

might

and the land be taken, was but an

issue,

indirect

mode

of

making

So, a settlement,

a gift of the land (a).

under the Poor Law, by rent-

ing a tenement, was not obtained where the renting was colourable or fraudulent

It

{b).

has been

woman pregnant with an

held that where a

ille-

gitimate child was fraudulently removed by the

officers of

the parish in which she was settled

(c)

to another parish, the child's place of settlement

was not the parish where it was born, but that

in which it would, but for the fraudulent removal,
have been born (d). Indeed, it has been held that
where an unmarried woman was removed to a
parish by order of justices, and gave birth to a
child there, and the order was quashed on^ appeal,
the child was to be regarded as born in the parish
where he ought to have been, and not where he
8 H. L. Cas. 594

(a) Jeffries v. Alexander,

Attree v.

Hawe, 47 L.

and per

Cur.,

Comp. Bohson, Be, 51

Oh. 863.

J.

L. J. Oh. 337.
(6)

180

(c)

Woodland, 1 T. E. 261

B.

V.

B.

V. St. Sepulchre, Id. 924.

See B.

v. Astley,

3.

Compare B.

Halifax, 2 B.

B.

v.

Tillinghcm, 1 B.

&

Ad.

4 Doug. 389.

(d) Masters v. Child, 3

Bott.

v.

& Ad. 211

Salk. 66

Mattersey,
;

and B.

Tewheshury

4 B.
v.

Twyning, 2
;

B.

v.

Birmingham, 32 E. E.

332.!

Digitized

v.

& Ad. 211

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

actually was born

Where

(a).

woman,

217
after fail-

ing to obtain a bastardy order where she resided,

removed to a neighbouring borough

avowed
purpose of trying to get the order there, it was
held that the justices of the borough had no jurisdiction to make it, under the Act which gives such
authority to justices of the place where the woman
" resides " (b). It would have been different if she
had not removed for the sole object of getting into
another jurisdiction

On

(c).

general

this

for the

Courts

the

principle,

have

Mandamus,

repeatedly refused to review by

or

otherwise, the proceedings of an inferior Court, in

when a writ of
Where the payment

a matter within its jurisdiction,

Qertiorari is not granted (d).

of rates constitutes a personal qualification, the

Act would not be complied with if they were paid

i)y another person on behalf of him who claims
the qualification
(a)
Id.

Much Waltliam

532

(6)

B.

(e).

v.

Peram, 2 Salk. 474

B.

v.

V.

Myott (1863),

M. & S.
32 L. J. M.

Great Salkeld, 6

Westbury

v. Coston,

408.
C. 138; B. v. Allendale,

3 T. E. 382, 385.
(c)

B.

Hughes, 26 L. J.

V.

M.

C. 133

Massey

v.

Burton, 27

L. J. Ex. 101.
{d)

B.

V.
(e)

B. V. TorJcsMre (1834), 5 B. & Ad. 1003, and 1 A. & B. 563

Haton, 1 E. E. 436.

B.

Durant

V.
v.

Bridgnorth (1839), 50 E. E. 334

Withers, 43 L. J. 0. P. 113.

Bridgewater,

T. E.

550;

Digitized

Hughes

v.

by Microsoft

8 L. J. M. C. 86
But compare B. v.

Chatham (1843), 13

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

218

however, essential not to confound what is

actually or virtually prohibited or enjoined by the
It

is,

language, with what

is really

beyond the enacting

may

be within the policy, of the

Act; for it is only to the former case that the
principle under consideration applies, and not to

though

part,

it

cases where, however manifest the object of the

Act may

be, the

An Act

it.

language

is

not co-extensive with

of Parliament is always

evasion in this sense

subject to

no obligation

for there is

not to do what the Legislature has not really

prohibited, and it is not evading an Act to keep
outside of

This

it (a).

strikingly illustrated

is

by

case from Australia decided by the Privy

Council and in which the very word " evade

came

in question

By

(b).

s.

27 (South Australia),

Succession Duties Act, 1893 (which corresponds

.

with
16

8 (English) Succession Duty Act,

s.

&

17 Vict.

L. J. C. P.

\U

B.

V. S. Kilvington,

13 L. J. M.l C.

Evans (1864), 11 H. L. Oas. 115

(1882) 19 Oh. D. 539.
Chinnery

(a)

v.

See per Lord Cranworth, Edwards

p. 206,

1863,'

51), property comprised in any

c.

and per Lord Selborne,

Harlock

v.

v.

3.

See

Ashberry

Hall (1853), sup.

Macbeth, v. Ashley (1874), L. E.

2 So. App. 359.

(6)

Simms

v. Registrar

See also Bullivant

645

Payne

Duties

V.

v.

v.

of Probates (1900), 69 L. J. P. 0. 51.

A.-G. for Victoria (1901), 70 L. J. K. B.

Begem, 71 L. J. P. C. 128

Byrnes, [1911] A. 0. 386

also A.-G. V. Seacombe,

80 L.

Digitized

J.

Gommr. for Stamp

80 L. J. P. C. 114.

K. B. 913.

by Microsoft

See

CONSTEUOTION AGAINST EVASION.

219

non-testamentary disposition, or representing any

debt incurred, " with intent to evade the payment

was rendered

liable to double

In the Colonial Court from

whom the appeal

Way

C.J., said that,

of Succession Duty,

duty.

to the Privy Council came,

in that provision, " evade,

means some device

or

stratagem, some arrangement, trust, or other device

(whether concealed or apparent) by which what

really part of the estate of the deceased is

made

is

to

appear to belong to somebody else in order to

escape payment of Duty. "

That ruling was upheld

by the Privy Council, and, accordingly, it was held
that a covenant by the deceased in that case to
pay j6200,00O to his children which conferred on
them a complete ownership of the debt, and which
(not having been paid during his life) diminished

by that amount his net assets liable to Duty (even

though the covenant was a " disposition of property " within the meaning of the Act), was not
entered into " with intent to evade " the Duty,
there being no evidence to show that the cove-

nant was not a genuine transaction, or anything

to

impeach

its bond, fides.

So, a lately deceased

Duke

of

Eichmond, being

minded that his successors should escape Estate

Duty, conceived the idea to and did disentail and
acquire the fee simple of certain estates in Scotland,

and procured a valuation of the present duke's

interest in the estates which came to ^6415,000,

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

220

and another of the present duke's son's interest

which came to 287,000. These sums with interest
thereon were charged on the estates and were
assigned by the present duke and his son to trustees
upon trust to pay the income thereof to the present

duke

for life

and

after his

death to his son.

No

however, was paid on them, and the late

from time to time gave bonds for such

interest,

duke

amounting

interest

When

to ^88,314.

died in 1903, the Inland

the duke

Eevenue claimed Estate

was held
that none was payable, because the said sums and
interest amounted in the aggregate to more than
the value of the said estates that passed on the
death of the late duke (a)
A hiring for a few days less than a year, though
avowedly for the purpose of preventing the servant
from acquiring a settlement, was not regarded
as any evasion of the Act, which gave a settlement on a year's service (6). Where a testator

Duty

in respect of these estates

but

it

after devising a piece of land in a certain

in fee simple, directed that

if

hamlet

any person should,

within twelve months after the testator's decease,

Buke of Richmond (1909), 78 L. J. K. B. 1, in
Lord Shaw (one of the two dissenting Lords)
I do not think that the scheme was in this case accom-

(a) A.-G. V.

H. L.
said

998

Id.

"

plished without a contravention of the letter, as well as a very

plain violation of the spirit; of the statute."
(6)

B.

V. Little

GoggesJiall,

6 M. & S. 264

T. E. 694.

Digitized

by Microsoft

E.

v. Mursley, 1

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

at his or her

own

221

expense, purchase and give a

suitable piece of land for almshouses, the trustees

sum

of the will should pay a

money

of

to the

charity so instituted, hut so that no part should be

laid out in the purchase of land

the bequest was valid, and did not

Charitable Uses Act, 1735

was held that

it

fall

And

(a).

within the

again, where

a testator devised land to two persons absolutely,

and signed an unattested paper expressing a desire,

with which they were unacquainted until after his
death, that
poses,

it

did not

it

should be applied to charitable pur-

was held that the devise was valid, and

within that Act for there was no

fall

binding trust for charitable purposes

(b).

Although a beershop-keeper who is licensed to

sell beer only to be drunk off the premises, evades
the Act if he sells beer to be drunk on a bench
which he provides for his customers close to his
shop, the intention making it, virtually, a sale for
consumption on the premises (c)
a mere sale
through a window, to a person who stood on the
road outside, has been held not to be an evasion,
;

(a)

p.

215

PMlpott
;

Bent

George's Hospital, 6

V. St.

30 Beav. 835.

v. Allcroft,

H. L. Oas. 338, sup.

See also Edwards v.

Hall, 25 L. J. Gh. 82.

(b) Wallgrave v.

Tehhs,

25 L.

J.

Gh. 241; Jones

v.

Badley

(1867), L. E. 3 Bq. 635.

(c) Gross V. Watts,

32 L.

Heighes (1876), 45 L. J.

M.

Digitized

J.

M.

C. 73.

0. 68.

by Microsoft

See also Brigden

v.

222

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

though the buyer drank the beer immediately on

receiving

it (a).

sell liquor

during prohibited hours for consumption

licensee

the premises, by

off

(repealed,

s.

61

(3),

s.

10,

is

not authorised to

Licensing Act, 1874

Licensing (Consolidation) Act,

which allows the sale of liquor at any time

to bond fide travellers, by a person licensed to seU
liquor on the premises (6).
The occupier of a field
adjoining a turnpike does not evade, though he
avoids, payment of toll, by making a semicircular
road between two gaps in his hedge, one on each
side of the toll bar, and driving by it instead of
along that part of the highway which forms its
1910),

Nor does a shipowner evade harbour

dues charged on goods landed in it, by landing

chord (c).

a few yards

his goods

the harbour

outside the boundary of

[d).

An enactment which

imposed a duty on legacies,

did not extend to a gift to take effect on the donor's

death,

made by

revocation
(a)

Deal

v.

a deed which contained a power of

though such a gift had aU the essential

SchofieU (1867), 37 L. J.

M.

C. 15

a doubtful

case decided on particular facts, and probably nullified by

s.

66
(6)

(1),

Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.

37 & 38 Vibt.

c.

49

Mmntifield v. Ward, 66 L. J. Q. B.

246.
(c)

Harding v. Meadington, 43 L. J. M. C. 59

27 L. J.
{d)

M.

Veitch v. Exeter,

C. 116.

WiUon

V. Bobertson,

24 L. J. Q. B. 185

Regis, 38 L. J. Ex. 141.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Harvey

v.

Lyme

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

incidents of a legacy
a tax, indeed,

is

(a).

statute

223

which imposes

always construed strictly

above decision which

but the

no longer law shows that

if legislation closes only one of two doors, it is no
evasion to use the other, which may have been left
open.
So, s. 87 of the (repealed) Bankruptcy Act,
is

1869, which provided that the sheriff should retain

for

fourteen days the proceeds of goods sold in

when exceeding 50,

he received
notice of the debtor's bankruptcy, should pay them
execution

and,

to the trustee in bankruptcy, did

if

not prevent a

more than 50 from signing judgment

than that amount, though he did so

creditor for
for less

avowedly to escape from the operation of the Act (6).

An agreement that the rent of demised premises
should be reduced when and as soon as the income
tax was aboKshed, was held not to
prohibition contained in

Act, 1842, of

all

s.

fall

within the

73 of the Income Tax

contracts binding the tenant to

pay the income tax without deducting it from his

rent (c). But a contract by a tenant to reimburse
his landlord the
(o) Tompsonv.
See, however, 44
s.

amount paid

in respect of tithe

Browne (1835), 3 M. & K. 32; 5 L.

Vict. c. 12, s. 38, and 52 & 53

J. Oh. 64.

& 45

Vict. c. 7,

11.

Beya, Exp., 46 L. J. Bank. 122.

(6)

Ch. 80; and see 4

(c)

& 5 Geo. V.

c.

59,

See Abbott, Exp., 50 L.

s.

Colbron v. Traverse (1862), 31 L. J. 0. P. 257

Fitton,

90 E. E. 885.

See also Lamb

v. Brewster,

277, 421.

Digitized

J.

41.

by Microsoft

Davies V.

48 L. J. Q. B.

224

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

rent-charge has been held to be prohibited by the

(a). A railway company, prevented
from raising money by loan, may yet procure

Tithe Act, 1891

money by a sale of a portion

for the sum which it requires,
by hiring it
sum which
interest

of its rolling stock

retaining the stock

on payment of an annual
the purchase-money with

for a term,

repays

(b).

A warrant of attorney which

authorised the issue

on a rectory as often as
an annuity granted by the incumbent was in arrear,
was held invalid
as this would amount to a
of a writ of sequestration

charging of a benefice to pay the annuity, contrary

to 13 Eliz.
s.

1)

c.

20 (repealed 57 Geo.

But where the warrant

(c).

III. c. 99,

of attorney pur-

ported to be merely to secure the payment of an

annuity mentioned in a bond which had been

given for

payment, the Court refused to

its

set

aside the judgment entered up on the warrant,

was not a charging of the benefice although

it appeared, by affidavit, that the object of the
parties was, that the judgment should enable the
as it

annuitant to obtain a sequestration of the grantor's

(a)

54 & 55 Viot.

K. B. 531

(V) TorhsMre

comp.
(c)

WautUer
FligU

o.

8,

s.

1 (1)

Ludlow

v.

Pike, [1904] 1

Tuffy. Draper's Go. (1913), 82 L. J. K. B. 174.

Bailway Wagon Go.

v.

v.

Maelure, 21 Oh. D. 309

Wilson (1911), 27 T. L. E. 582.

V. Salter,

85 E. E. 413

Saltmarshe

E. E. 436.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Hewett, 40

CONSTRUCTION AGAINST EVASION.

annuity should

living, if the

The Act which required

that

fall

225

into arrear(a).

all bills

of sale of

personal chattels should be registered within 21

days from execution, on pain of being void against

was held not to invalidate an arrangement by which a fresh bill of sale was to be given
every 21 days, and none were to be registered
until the debtor got into difficulties.
Although
such an arrangement was considered to be detrimental to the interests of the revenue, and to be
calculated to defeat and delay creditors, and so
was contrary to the general policy of the Act,
since it left the debtor apparently the owner of
property which he had transferred; it was held
not to be prohibited by its*language, and the last
bill of sale, which was duly registered, was held
valid against an execution creditor (b).
This
device, however, is now rendered nugatory by
creditors,

41

& 42

Vict.

c.

31,

s. 9.

has been found necessary to suffer an evasion

or breach of an Act, where intolerable inconIt

venience would otherwise result.

Though

(a) Colebrooh v. Layton (1833), 2 L. J. K. B. 95

314.

Comp. Doe

8 T. E. 300, and

v. Garter,

8 H. L. Gas. 594, sup. pp. 208, 209.

(6) Smale v. Burr, 42 L. J. C. P. 20.
L. J. Bank. 17

38 E. E.

Comjp. Exp. Cohen, 41

but see Sales Agency

Bamsden

15

I.S.

by Microsoft

v.

v. Elite Theatres,

[1917] 2 K. B. 164, C. A.

Digitized

17,

Jeffries v. Alexander,

Exp. Stevens, L. E. 20 Bq. 786

Lupton, 43 L. J. Q. B. 17

s.

226

33

54

INTBBPKETATION OP STATUTES.

&
&

34 Vict.

c.

55 Vict.

c.

document which

and

97 (repealed
39,

s.

14),

re-enacted

enacted that no

not properly stamped should

is

be receivable in evidence, and

(s.

54,

now

s.

38,

Stamp Act, 1891) that a person who received a

bin of exchange or cheque not duly stamped could'

not recover upon

purpose whatever

or

it,

it

make

it

available for

has been held that

if

any
the

cheque sued upon has a stamp sufficient on its

face,

was post-dated to the knowthe holder, and so was not sufficiently

the fact that

ledge of

it

stamped, did not affect

its

admissibility in evidence

on the ground that a different decision

would have

introduced the greatest difficulty in the administration of justice,. involving an interruption of the
trial

by collateral inquiries

as to facts

accompanying

the giving of the instrument (a).

SECTION

II.

OONSTBUCTION TO

PREVENT ABUSE OF

POWEES.

On the same general principle, enactments which

confer powers are so construed as to meet

all

attempts to abuse them, either by exercising them

in cases not intended

by the

(a) Qatty v. Fry, 2 Ex. D. 265.

V.

Bunyard, 6 B.

&

S.

[1894] 2 Q. B. 715.

687

statute, or

See per Blackburn

J.,

AusUn

Boyal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham,

But compare Glarhe

Q. B. D. 170.

Digitized

by refusing

by Microsoft

v.

Roche (1877), 3

TO PREVENT ABUSE OP POWERS.

227

them when the occasion for their

exercise has arisen (a).
Though the act done was
ostensibly in execution of the statutory power, and
within its letter, it would nevertheless be held not
to come within the power, if done otherwise than
honestly, and in the spirit of the enactment.
For
instance, the power given by Bankruptcy Acts to
a majority of creditors to make arrangements with
their debtor (6)
which were made by statute
binding on the non-assenting minority, would not
to

exercise

be validly exercised so as to have this binding

effect, if

the conduct of the majority were tainted

with fraud; or even if, from motives of benevolence,

the majority had agreed to a composition dispro-

portioned to the assets

So, the creditor

(c).

who

voted for a composition with his debtor under

s. 126 of the repealed Bankruptcy Act, 1869, was
bound to vote bond fide for the benefit of the
creditors
and if it a,ppeared that he gave his vote
for the benefit of the debtor, and not for that
;

(a)

See

jper

L. J. Oh. 411

Turner
;

L.J., Biddulph v. St. George's Vestry, 33

and see Vernon

St.

v.

James'

Vestry

(1880),

16 Oh. D. 449.
(6)

See 4 & 5 Geo. V.

(c)

Gowen, Exp. (1867), L. E. 2 Gh. 563.

c.

69,

s.

16.

570; Bussell, Exp., 44 L. J. Bank. 42

119

Terrell,

Be, 4 Ch. D. 293

Ball, Exp., 51 L. J. Ch. 911.

As

See per Lord Cairns,

Page, Be, 45 L. J. Bank.

Aaronson, Exp., 7 Gh. D. 713

to

powers

a scheme of arrangement, see Webb, In

re,

Court to approve

Board of Trade, Exp.

(1914), 88 L. J. K. B. 1386.

Digitized

of

by Microsoft

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.

228

of the creditors,

Malpractice by

it

would have been rejected

(a).

the debtor in obtaining a single

vote sufficed to vitiate a creditor's resolution for

liquidation

by arrangement, under the Bankruptcy

Act of 1869 (b).

Where, as in a multitude of Acts, something is
left to be done according to the discretion of the
authority on whom the power of doing it is conferred, the discretion must be exercised honestly
and in the spirit of the statute, otherwise the act
done would not fall within the statute. " According to his discretion" means, it has been said,
according to the rules of reason and justice, not
according to law and not
private opinion (c)
humour it is to be, not arbitrary, vague and
;

fanciful,

but legal and regular (d)

to be exercised

not capriciously but on judicial grounds and for

substantial reasons

(e).

And

it

must be exercised
man com-

within the limits to which an honest

petent to the discharge of his

(a)

Gohh,

Exp. (1873), 42 L.

Bank. 63

J.

office

ought to

and see McHenry,

Exp. (1883), 24 Ch. Div. 35, C. A.

(6)

Baum, Be

(c)

Boohe's Gase, 5 Eep. 100a

Lee

V.

(d)

(1878), 7 Ch. D. 719, C. A.

;

Keighley's Case, 10 Eep. 140a

Bude B. Co., L. E. 6 0. P. 580, 581, per WUles J.

Per Lord Mansfield, B. v. Wilkes (1769), 4 Burr. 2527; and

per Lord Halsbury L.O., Sliarp v. Wakefield, [1891] A. C. 179.

(e)

Per Jessel M.E., Taylor, Be, 4 Ch. D. 160

Blackburn, Doherty

v.

Allman, 3 App. Cas. 728.

Digitized

by Microsoft

and per Lord

TO PEEVENT ABUSE OF POWERS.

confine himself (a)
for the objects

dicta

may

that

is,

within the limits and

intended by the Legislature.

summed up

be

229

These

Lord

in the statement of

Esher that the discretion must be exercised without taking into account any reason which is not
a legal one. If people who have to exercise a
public duty by exercising their discretion take into
account matters which the Courts consider not to
be proper for the guidance of their discretion, then
in the eye of the law they have not exercised their

discretion

Thus,

(b).

was long ago settled that the power

given by the 43 Eliz. to the overseers of parishes
it

poor rate by taxation of the parishioners

competent sums as they thought fit, did
not authorise an arbitrary rate on each parishioner,
but required that the rates should be equal and
to raise a

in such

proportionate to the
So, the

means

Highway Act,

which provided that

of the contributors

1835, 5
if

&

6 Will. IV.

c.

(c).

50,

any complaint was made

against the road surveyor's accounts, the justices

at special

(a)

highway sessions should hear

Per Lord Kenyon, Wilson

Avdly, Salk. 526

(6)

B.

V.

595.

B.

v. Wavell, 1

Bastall, 4 T. E. 757

B.

v.

Doug. 115.

Pancras (1890), 24 Q. B. D. at

p.

375.

See,

Board of Education (1910), 79 L. J. K. B. 595.

Earhyes Case, 2 Bulstr. 354 Marshall v. Pitman, 9 Bing.

however, B.
(c)

St.

v.

and

it,

v.

See Jones

v.

Mersey Docks (1864), 35 L.

Whitchurch V. Fulham Board (1866), 35 L. J.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

M.

M.

0. 1

C. 145.

and

INTEBPEKTATION OF STATUTES.

230

"make such

order thereon as to

seem meet," would not authorise

illegal expenses,

them should
them to allow

such as a charge for the use of

the surveyor's horses, contrary to

expressly forbidden to be incurred at

who were

overseers,

Vict. c. 61 (b), to

required by

certify

which are

46,

s.

&

2 of 3

s.

whether

So,

all (a).

applicants for

beer licenses were real residents and ratepayers of

the parish, were not entitled to refuse the

certifi-

cate on the ground that in their opinion there

were already too many public-houses, or that the

beer-shop was not required. They had no right
to shut their eyes to thq facts,

when they were

certify,

and to refuse

to

satisfied that the appli-

cant possessed the quahfioatioris required by the

Under a repealed enactment which

Act(c).

pro-

vided that no license should be refused by justices

except on one or more of four specified grounds,

was held that justices, in refusing, were bound

to state on which of the grounds they based their

it

as

refusal,

otherwise they might,

their powers, refuse

to

B.

on other grounds than those

which they were limited

(a)

Barton

v. Piggott,

44 L.

J.

M.

(6)

Eepealed in part 32 & 33 Vict.

(c)

B.

V.I

V.

Withyham, 2 Com.

Law

The power

(d).

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

27,

s.

Digitized

to

C. 5.
c.

27,

s.

21.

Eep. 1657.

See, however,

Kensington (1847), 17 L. J. Q. B. 332, in which

it

was held

was not compulsory.

that the giving of a certificate

{d)

abuse of

in

JB. v.

Sykes, 1 Q. B. D. 52

by Microsoft

Exj,,

TO PREVENT ABUSE OF POWEES.

231

take certain lands for the purpose of their undertaking, given to railway and other companies, or
to municipalities for their public works, consti-

them

tutes

sole judges as to

whether they

will

take the lands, but they must act honA fide for
the purposes authorised by the Act, and not for a
collateral purpose (a)

and the lands must only be

used for the purposes for which they were taken {b),
;

unless authoritative sanction be given to their

being otherwise used

are not assignable

Vn. and

(a) Stockton

Lewis

V.

and, semble, the powers

(d).

Smith, 3 Q. B. D. 374.

10 Edw.'

(c)

See Gorman, Exp., [1894] A. 0.

1 Geo. V.

By. Go.

v.

24,

c.

Brown

112, Sched.

s.

9 H. L. Cas. 246;

(1860),

Weston Loc. Bd., 40 Ch. D. 55

See

23.

7.

Stroud

v.

Wandsworth

Board of Works, 63 L. J. M. C. 88; Tracey v. Pretty, 70

L. J. K. B. 234 ; and compare Goldberg v. Liverpool Corp. (1900),
82 L. T. 362.
(b)

London County Council

Mersey, B., 76 L. J. Ch. 568

Tramways

Co.

Gloucestershire
Corp.,
(c)

80 L.
A.-G.

J.
V.

79

(1910),

Water

Co.y

A.-G.

v.

Ecclea Corp. v. South Lancashire

L.

78 L.

Ch.

J.
J.

759;

Oh. 746

A.-G.

A.-G.

v.

West

v. Leicester

Ch. 21.

Hanwell (1900), 69 L.

Pontypridd (1905), 75 L.
(d)

A.-G., 71 L. J. Ch. 268

v.

J.

J.

Ch. 626; A.-G.

v.

Ch. 578.

Edinburgh Street Tramways Co.

v.

Edinburgh (1894), 63

L. J. Q. B. 769; Eceles Corp. v. South Lancashire Tramways Co.,

sup., in

which case Cozens-Hardy M.E.

franchise of this kind

is

said

"

A parliamentary

not a bit of property which the owner

can dispose of just as he might a stick or a table or an acre of

land."

Digitized

by Microsoft

232

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

Although where the discretion has been settled

by practice, it seems right that this should not be
departed from without strong reason (a)
yet in
;

cases where a statute confers a discretionary power,

an exercise of

it

in the fetters of self-imposed rules

would
Thus, where an Act

of practice, purporting to bind in

not be within the Act

gave the Court

of

(6).

all cases,

Quarter Sessions powej,

if it

fit, to give costs in every poor law appeal,

would be bound to exercise a fair and honest
discretion in each case, and would not be entitled
to govern itself by a general resolution, or rule of
practice, to give nominal costs in aU cases (c)
for
this would be in effect to repeal the provision of

thought

it

now

So, a Hcensiag Act,

the Act.

repealed

(d),

which empowered justices to grant licenses to

innkeepers and others, to sell liquors, as in the
exercise of their discretion they

would not

justify a general

licenses in a certain locality

deemed

proper,

resolution to refuse

(e),

or to persons

who

did not consent to take out an excise license for

the sale of

(a)

See B.

2 Inst. 298.

See also Godd

v.

(6)

See A.-G.

(c)

B.

V.

addition to the license for

spirits, in

v.

Chapman

(1838), 8 0.

&

P. 558.

Cale (1876), 1 Ex. D. 352, 0. A.

v.

Emerson (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 56.

B. v. Glamorganshire

Merioneth (1844), 6 Q. B. 163

{d)

M. G. 172.
See 10 Bdw. VII. and

(e)

B.

(1850), 19 L. J.

V.

1 Geo. V.

c.

24,

s.

Walsall (1854), 3 Com. L. E. 100.

Digitized

by Microsoft

112, Sched,

7.

TO PREVENT ABUSE OP POWERS.

the sale of beer (a),

233

or in consideration of the

grant of the license to pay a

sum

money

of

for a

But, on the other hand, it has

(i).
been held that a licensing authority may in the
exercise of their discretion impose a condition

public purpose

that the

applicant shall not

apply to another

authority for a different species of license

(c).

So, where a similar Act, after fixing the hours

within which intoxicating liquors might be sold,

authorised the licensing justices to alter the hours
in

any particular

locality,

within the

district, re-

was held that they had no

right to alter the time in every case by virtue of
a general resolution to which they had come(cZ).
And though their resolution was limited to a
portion of the locality, yet as this portion comprised every licensed house of the whole district,
the limitation was regarded as a mere attempt
quiring other hours

to evade the Act.

it

The

decide, in the honest

and

statute required

them

to

exercise of their

bond, fide

judgment, what particular localities required hours

for opening and closing other than those specified

by the Act

and they were bound to

satisfy

selves as to those special circumstances

(a)

B.

V. Sylvester

discussed in Sharp

v.

(1862), 2 B.

&

S.

322

Wakefield, [1891] A.

C,

Bowman, [1898] 1 Q. B. 663.

West Biding 0. C, [1896] 2 Q. B.

(6)

B.

V.

(c)

B.

V.

{d)

Macbeth

v.

by Microsoft

the

31 L. J. M. G. 93
at p. 180.

386.

Ashley (1874), L. E. 2 So. App. 352.

Digitized

themof

234

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

which by taking them out of

the general rule laid down by Parliament, required
that an exception should be made (a).
The statute
laid down a general rule, and permitted an exception
but here the exception had swallowed up
the rule and that which might fairly have been
an exercise of discretion, became no exercise of
the kind of discretion meant by the Act (6).
particular locality,

(o)

See judgment of Lord Selborne L.C., 2 Sc. App. 359.

(6)

Per Lord Cairns L.C.,

Digitized

Id. 357,

by Microsoft

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

PEESUMPTIONS

V.
ESTAB-

OUSTING

AGAINST

LISHED, AND CEEATING NEW, JUBISDICTIONS.

It

perhaps, on the general presumption

an intention to disturb the established state

is,

aga;inst

of the law, or to interfere with the vested rights of

the subject

(a),

that so strong a leaning

now

exists

against construing a statute so as to oust or restrict

the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts

this feeling

may owe

its origin to

although

the pecuniary

Judges in former times, when their

emoluments depended mainly on fees (6). It is

interests of the

supposed that the Legislature would not make

so important an innovation, without a very explicit

expression of

its intention.

ferred, for instance,

to a

It

would not be

from the grant

in-

of a jurisdiction

new tribunal over certain cases,

that the Legis-

lature intended to deprive the Superior Court of

L. E. 20 Bq.

(a)

See Jacobs

(6)

Per Lord Campbell,

Oram

v.

v. Brett,

1.

Scott v. Avery, 5

Brearey (1877), 2 Ex. Div. 346.

H. L. Gas. 811
So

contracts, Scott v. Avery; Tredwen v. Holman, 1

Edwards

v.

Aberayron Insurance

V. Fitzgerald,

45 L.

J.

Socy., 1 Q.

Ex. 893.

Digitized

by Microsoft

in construing

H. &

B, D. 563

C. 72;

Dawson

236

INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.

the jurisdiction which

already possessed over

it

the same cases.

that
it

Thus, an Act which provided

any question arose upon taking a distress,

if

should be determined by a commissioner of

would not thereby take away the jurisdiction of the Superior Court to try an action for
an illegal distress (a). Nor would that Court be
ousted of its preventive jurisdiction to stop by
injunction the misapplication of poor rates, by
taxes,

reason of the statutory power given to the poor

law commissioners to determine the propriety of

all such expenditure (b). Nor did it follow in either
case,

that because authority was given to the

was taken away from the Court.

Acts which gives justices and other inferior

commissioners,

it

tribunals jurisdiction in certain cases are not only

not to affect

when

on the subject,
the power of control and supervision

generally understood,

silent

which the Superior Court exercises over the proceedings of such tribunals but are even strictly
construed when their language is doubtful. Thus
;

enactments to the effect that " no Court shall

intermeddle" in the cases (c), or that the case
(a)

43 Geo. III.

Shaftesbury

Canal Co.
(6)

v.

99 (repealed 43 & 44 Vict.

Bussell (1823), 25 E. E. 534.

B.

V.

c.

19,

s.

4)

See also Bochdale

King, 14 Q. B. 122.

A.-G. V. Southampton, 17 Sim.

Beav. 499
(c)

v.

c.

Smith

v.

Whitmore, 1

6.

See Birley

Hem. & M.

Moreley, 2 Burr. 1041.

Digitized

by Microsoft

576.

v. Chorlton,

AGAINST OUSTING JURISDICTION.

shall be "

heard and

finally

237

determined " below

(a),

would not be construed as prohibiting such interference and enactments which expressly provide
that such proceedings shall not be removed by
Certiorari to the Superior Court have no applica;

tion

when

the lower tribunal has overstepped the

making the order (b),

or is not duly constituted (c), or where the party
who obtained the order, obtained it by fraud (d),

limits of its jurisdiction in

for the prohibition obviously applied only to cases

which had been entrusted to the lower

The saying has been

jurisdiction.

Lord Mans-

attributed to

field that nothing but express words can take away

the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts (e) but it
;

seems
B.

(a)

also

v.

Chadwich
(6)

B.

&

B.

certainly be taken

Mod. 95; 2 Hawk. P.

V. Plowright, 3

L. E. 20 Eq. 1

Chambers

Paveley, 1 0. P. D. 418

Bridge

See Jacobs
Haioes

may

it

v. Brett,

54 L.

v. Ball,
V.

C. 816

B.

Be Penny,

Kenyon, 299

v. St. Albans,

B.

v.

S.

c.

27,

s.

23.

Branch, Id. 633

22 L.

J.

B.

M.

v.

Somersetshire, 5

C. 142

B.

Wood,

v.

Wales B. Co. (1849), 13 Q. B. 988

& B. 660

7 E.

C.

Green, Id. 552

J. Q. B. 396.

Derbyshire, 2

5 E. & B. 49

v.

v.

away by

B.

v.

Hyde, 7 E. & B. 859 n.

Bradlaugh, Exp., 3 Q. B. D. 509.

(c)

B.

V.

see Colonial

Cheltenham (1841), 55 E. E. 321

Bank

1 Q. B. 467

of Australia v. Willan (1874), 5 L. E. P.

and

C,

at pp. 443, 444.

(d)

B.

V.

Cambridge, 4 A.

Gillyard, 12 Q. B. 527

& E.

Colonial

Lord Denman B. v.
Bank of Australia v. Willan,

121, per

L. E. 5 P. C. 417.
(e)

B.

V.

Abbot (1780), Doug. 553,

Digitized

by Microsoft

238

INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES,

implication (a).

Thus, a provision that

if

pute arises between a society and any of its

be lawful to refer

it shall

any

dis-

members

to arbitration, ousts

it

the jurisdiction of the Courts over such disputes (6).

It is obvious that the provision,

would be superfluous and

from

useless,

made

receive a construction which

if it
it

nature,

its

did not

compulsory,

and not optional, to proceed by arbitration. On

similar grounds it was held that no action lay in
the Superior Courts on a County Court judgment.
The provisions made by the County Court Act
for enforcing such judgments would have been
defeated, if the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts
to entertain such an action

had not been ousted

(<?).

Where an Act vested in the trustees of a loan

all its money and effects, and the right of

society

Per Ashhurst

(a)

V. Henhest,

20 Bq. 6

Ghadwich

Gates v. Knight, 3 T. E. 445,

J.,

4 T. E. 116

per Jessel M.E., Jacobs

v. Brett,

per Pollock B., Oram v. Brearey, 2 Ex. D. 346.

v. Ball,

See also Marshall

Wright

Nicholls (1852), 18 Q. B. 882;

Socy. (1877),

Socy. (1883),

L. E.

See also

14 Q. B. D. 855, which overrules the last case.

Grisp V. Bunhury, 34 E. E. 747.

(6)

and Shipman

46 L.

J.

52 L.

Oh. 649

J.

Hack

Ch. 541

v.

v.

v.

Monarch Investment

London Provident Bldg.

Municipal Bldg. Socy.

v.

Kent

(1884), 9 App. Gas. 260.

(c)

& 10

9 Ex. 288; Moreton

Edwards

v.

& 52

Vict. c. 43,

& B. 805.

See Austin

Vict. c. 95, repealed 51

BerJeeley v. Elderhin (1853), 1 B.

v.

Courts Act, 1888, a

Holt (1855),

10 Bx. 707.

Under
judgment may be removed

Goombe, 41 L.

J.

C. P. 202.

Court,

Digitized

by Microsoft

s,

151,

s.
v.

188
Mills,

Gompare

County
High

into the

AGAINST OUSTING JURISDICTION.

239

bringing and defending actions touching the property and rights of the society, and, after enabling

them

to lend

money under

and to take notes

for

certain circumstances,

such loans in the name of

their treasurer for the time being, to secure repay-

ment, authorised a justice, at the suit of the

payment by distress it was

was limited to that
He had no rights but such as the

treasurer to enforce

held

that

remedy

the

(a).

statute

treasurer

gave him, and therefore could not sue

except in the manner directed

But another

(6).

Court held that the trustees might sue on such

notes in the Superior Courts (c). Where an Act

imposed penalties and took away the Certiorari

and a subsequent one, after increasing the penalties
and extending the restrictions of the first, provided
that

" the

all

powers,

provisions,

exemptions,

and things" contained in the earlier

statute should, except as they were varied, be as
effectual for carrying out the latter Act as if reenacted therein it
it was held that the clause
which took away the Certiorari was incorporated
matters

(a)

Bundalk By.

Co. v. Tapster (1841), 1 Q. B. 667.

MulJeern T. Lord (1879), 4 App. Gas.

Compare

82, for limitations

on the

proportion discussed in the text.

(&)

Timms

(1875), L.

225

(c)

V. Williams,

11 L. J. Q. B. 210

10 C. P. 679; Willis

v.

Prentice v. London

Walls,

Palliser v. Dale, [1897] 1 Q. B. 257, 0. A.

Albon

V.

Pyhe, 11 L.

J. C.

Digitized

P. 266.

by Microsoft

[1892J 2 Q. B.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

240
in the

new Act, and consequently

diction of

that the juris-

the Superior Courts was ousted

(a).

Where, indeed, a new duty or cause of action is

created by statute, and a special jurisdiction out of
the course of the common law is prescribed, there
is

no ouster of the

jurisdiction of the

Courts, for they never

repealed Act

ordinary

Thus, where a

had any.

created penalties of 50 and J610

(6)

and, after enacting that the former should be

recovered in the Superior Courts, authorised
justices to impose the latter, with powers of miti-

gation

it

was held that the Superior Courts had

no jurisdiction in respect of the lower penalty (c).

Where it was enacted, by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855, that the owners of the houses
which formed a street should pay the vestry the
estimated cost of paving it, and that the amount
should, in case of dispute, be ascertained by, and
recovered before, justices

pecuniary obligation and the

was held that the

it

mode

of enforcing

it

were so indissolubly united, that no direct action

owner

lay against an

B. & Ad. 380.

(a)

B.

(6)

25 Geo. III.

(c)

Gates v. Knight, 3 T. E. 442.

V. Fell (1830), 1
c.

51, repealed 2

4 T. E. 109; Leigh
1

for his contribution (d).

H.
{d)

WiU. IV.

c.

120,

Compare Shipman

v.

s. 1.

Menhest,

Kent, 3 T. E. 362; Balls v. Attwood,

Bl. 546.

18 & 19 Vict.

L. J. C. P. 243.

L. J.

v.

&

M.

c.

120;

St.

Pancras

See also Blackhurn

v.

Batterbury (1857), 26

v.

ParUnson

C. 7.

Digitized

by Microsoft

(1858), 28

AGAINST CEEATING

The repealed 11
enacted that

if

&

NEW

241

JUEISDICTION.

12 Vict.

123

o.

(a),

which

the owner of the offensive premises

does not remove the nuisance, the guardians

may

and that the costs and expenses incurred by

them shall be deemed money paid for the use of the
owner, and may be recovered as such by them in
the County Court, or before two justices, was held
do

so,

to give exclusive jurisdiction to those tribunals

(b),

though now by the Public Health Act, 1875, action

may be taken in a Superior Court. But as it is not
to be presumed that the Legislature would in any
oust the jurisdiction of a Superior Court

case

without a distinct expression of

intention, a

its

construction which would impliedly have this effect

is

to be avoided; especially

when

it

would have

the effect of depriving the subject of his freehold,

any common law

or of

right,

such as the right of

by jury, or of creating an arbitrary procedure (c).

It has been said that the words
conferring such a jurisdiction must be clear and
unambiguous (d) and that an inferior Court is not to
trial

(a)

Eepealed by 29 & 30 Vict.

(b)

Hertford Union

(c)

Warwick

Eaym.

v.

White,

v.

c.

90,

s.

69.

Eimpton (1865), 25 L.

Bunb. 106

1269, cited by Lord

Denman,

B.

v.

J.

M.

0. 41.

Baines, 2

Lord

Fletcher y. Calthrop (1845),

6 Q. B. 891; per Best G.J.,ia esfcioned in OuretonY. Begina

(1861), 30 L. J.

{d)

M.

C. 149; Looker v. Halcomb, 4 Bing. 188.

V. Cotton, 1

B.

& E.

Per Keating

J.,

James

See B.

203

Exp. Story, 3 Q. B. D. 166.

v. S.

W. B.

Co.,

L. E. 7 Ex. 296.

16

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

242

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

be construed into a jurisdiction

instance,

(a).

An

Act, for

which, in providing that compensation

sustained damage in
carrying out certain works, enacted that " in case

made

should be

to all

who

of dispute as to the amount,"

it

should be settled

been held to be confined strictly

to cases where the amount only was in dispute,
and would not authorise a reference to arbitration,
where the Kability to make any compensation was

by

arbitration, has

in dispute

However,

(6).

effect

must

of course

be given to the intention, where the Act, without

conferring jurisdiction in express terms, does so by

Thus, an Act

and necessary implication.

plain

which, without expressly empowering any tribunal

try

to

person
triiless

he

is

the

imposed penalties on any

offence,

who exposed diseased animals for sale,

he showed, " to the justices before whom
charged," that he was ignorant of the

condition of the animals, and gave

if

he

"by

aggrieved

felt

justices,"

was construed

jurisdiction

over the

Per Portesoue

(6)

B.

V.

Metrop.

Brierley Hill Local

J.,

adjudication

of

as plainly giving justices

offence

statute gives a right to

(a)

the

him an appeal

(c).

But where

recover expenses in a

Pierce v. Hopper, 1 Stra. 260.

Com. Sewers,

Board

v.

B. & B. 694.

But

see

Pearsall (1884), 54 L. J. Q. B. 25

(H. L.).
(c)

Gullen v.

TrimUe

(1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 416

Colam, L. E. 10 Q. B. 544

B.

113.

Digitized

Johnson

v.

M.

C.

v. Worcestershire, 23 L. J.

by Microsoft

AGAINST CREATING

NEW

243

JURISDICTION.

Court of summary jurisdiction from a person not

otherwise liable the jurisdiction of the
is

ousted except by

way

of appeal

(a).

One enactment has been considered

jurisdiction

The 31

&

High Court
as granting

by implication, in a remarkable manner.

was
desirable that some County Courts should have
Admiralty jnrisdiction, and authorising the Queen
in council to confer such jurisdiction on any of
those Courts, empowered them to try certain
.classes of cases over which the Court of Admiralty
had jurisdiction directing the judge to transfer
any case to the Admiralty, where the amount
claimed exceeded ^6300, and giving also to the
32 Vict.

c. 71, after

reciting that

it

latter Court, in all cases, not only

power

an appeal, but

any suit instituted in

Act passed
supplementary
a

to transfer to itself

the lower Court.

By

in the following session (32

&

33 Vict.

c.

51),

the

County Courts on which Admiralty jurisdiction

had been thus conferred, were further authorised
to try any claim arising out of any agreement
made in relation to the use or hire of any ship,
or in relation to the carriage of any goods in any
where the claim does not exceed ^300. The
Court of Admiralty had no jurisdiction over these
cases before the Act was passed, but it followed
that in thus giving the County Court this jurisdiction, the statute also gave, by mere implication,
ship,

(a)

Barradough

v.

Digitized

Brown, [1897] A. G. 615.

by Microsoft

244^_

INTERPRETATIOK OF STATUTES.

to the Admiralty Court, not only appellate, but

original jurisdiction also

besides introducing the

anomaly of dealing with small cases on different

while the
principles of law from large ones
apparent object of the enactments was merely to
distribute the existing Admiralty jurisdiction (a).
;

SECTION

II.

THE CEOWN NOT AFFECTED

IF

NOT NAMED.

On, probably, similar grounds rests the rule com-

monly stated in the form that the Crown is not

bound by a statute unless named in it. It has been
said that the law is primd facie presumed to be
made for subjects only (6) at all events, the Crown
is not reached except by express words or by necessary implication, in any case where it would be
;

ousted of an existing prerogative or interest

is

It

(c).

presumed that the Legislature does not intend

See The Alina (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227

(a)

L. E. 5 C. P. 428

Brown

V.

cited.

See also The Zela, [1893] A. 0. 468

788.

Everard

v.

Kendall,

Cargo, ex Argos (1873), L. E. 6 P. C. 134

(1872), L. E. 5 P. C. 134,

Gaudet

L. J.

The Theta (1894), 63

Adm. 160 and note Davidsson v. Bill (1901), 70 L. J. K. B.

The claims formulated in the following cases have been
;

held outside the jurisdiction, B. v. City of London Court

(1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 28
City of

London

The Zeus (1888), 13 P. D. 188

Court, [1892] 1 Q. B.

Willion V. Berkley, Plowd.

(b)

son,

and the cases there

236

273
;

61 L.

J. Q.

per Cur., A.-G.

(1)

B. v_

B. 337.
v.

Donald-

62 E. E. 540

(c)

Inst. 191, A.-G. V. Allgood, Parker, 3

(B.) 5

(c);

Co. Litt. 43b;

Digitized

Bae. Ab. Prerogative

Chit. Prerogative,

by Microsoft

382; Ascough's

CONSTRUCTION AS EEGAEDS THE CROWN.

Crown

to deprive the

property, unless

it

any prerogative, right or

expresses its intention to do so

in explicit terms, or

Where,

of

245

makes the inference irresistible.

therefore, the language of the statute

is

and in its wide and natural sense would

away any prerogative or right from
the Crown, it is construed so as to exclude that
effect {a).
When the King has any prerogative
estate, right, title, or interest, he shall not be barred
of them by the general words of an Act of Pargeneral,

divest or take

Hament

&

(60

Thus, the Land Transfer Act, 1879

(6).

61 Vict.

c. 65),

which vests the

legal estate

in the personal representatives of a deceased, does

and the legal estate in

escheated land does not, under s. 1, vest in the
Solicitor to the Treasury as the Crown's nominee (c).

not bind

And

the Crown,

the compulsory clauses of Acts of Parliament,

which authorise the taking

of lands for railway or

other purposes, such as are contained in the Lands

Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, would not apply

Crown

to

property, unless

made

so applicable in

Nor

express terms or by necessary inference {d).

Case, Cro. Car.

526

Wright (1834), 1 A.

Muggins

& E. 434

v.

Bamhridge, Willes, 241

n., p.

437

Perry

v.

B.

V.

Barnes (1891),

60 L. J. Oh. 345.
(a)

Bac. Ab. Prerog. (E.) 5

(&)

Magdalen

College Case,

Grooke's Case,

Show. 208.

11 Eep. 74b, and see Perry

v.

Barnes (1891), 60 L. J. Ch. 345.

Hartley, Be, 68 L. J. P. D.

(c)

60 & 61 Vict.

(d)

8 & 9 Vict. c. 18; Guckfield Board,

c.

65

Digitized

& A.

16.

Be (1854), 24 L. J. Ch. 585.

by Microsoft

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

246

would a provision in a local Act ordering that the

revenue of a corporation should be expended in a
specified vsray, and " should not be appHed for any
other purpose whatsoever," take

away the duty

of

paying income tax to the Crown in the absence of

Again, as it is a
express words to that effect (a).

Crown not

pay toUs or rates,

or other burdens in respect of property, it was long
since established that the Poor Act of Elizabeth,
which authorises the imposition of a poor rate on
prerogative of the

to

every " inhabitant and occupier " of property in the

Crown, or to its direct

and immediate servants, whose occupation is for
the purposes of the Crown exclusively, and so is,
parish, did not apply to the

occupation of the Crown

in fact, the

itself (6).

Thus, property occupied by the servants of the

Crown exclusively for public purposes, as the Post
OflBlce (c),

(a)

the Horse Guards

Mersey DocJcs

Burial

Board

v.

the Admiralty

Lucas (1883), 8 App. Gas. 891

Bevenue

Inland

v.

(d),

Gommissioners

(e),

Paddington
(1884),

53

L. J. Q. B. 224.
(&)

43' Eliz.

V.

2.

c.

Mersey Docks Go.

v.

Per Lords Westbury and Cranworth,

Gameron (1864),

Sommers, 2 T. E. 372

JR. V. St.

B.

v.

11.

H. L. Gas. 443

Amherst

Harrogate (1850), 15 Q. B. 1012

Martin's, L. E. 2 Q. B. 493.

M. C. 105 note remarks

oiry Ia-J., in Bray V. Lancaster JJ. (1889), 58 L.J. M. G., at p. 55.
(d) Amherst v. Sommers (1788), 1 E. E. 497
B. v. Jay, 27
(c)

Smith y. Birmingham (1867), 26 L. J.

L. J.

M.

G. 25.

(e)

B.

V. Stewart,

27 L. J. M. G. 81.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION AS EEGARDS THE CROWN.

247

by a volunteer corps (a), by a County Association

under Territorial and Eeserve Forces Act, 1907 (6),
and even by local police (c), by the judges, as
lodgings at the assizes

by a county court

(cZ),

(e),

or for a sessions house (/), or a jail (g), or by the

commissioners of public works and buildings in

respect of a toll-bridge of which they were in

occupation as servants of the Crown

exempt from poor rate

(a)

Pearson

volunteer

And

(i).

(h),

was held

property in the

Holborn Union, [1893] 1 Q. B. 389

v.

drill hall is

but a

not exempt from the operation of the

sanitary provisions of the Metropolis

Management

Act, 1855

Westminster Vestrij v. HosJeins, [1899] 2 Q. B. 474.

(6)
(c)

V.

Wixon

V.

Thomas, 80 L.

Lancashire

v. Stretford,

J.

K. B. 104.

27 L.

J.

M.

Gomp. Showers

0. 209.

Chelmsford Union, [1891] 1 Q. B. 339.

(d)

Hodgson

Justices,
(e)

B.

v.

Carlisle,

8 B.

& B. 116; Goomber

v.

BerJcs

9 App. Cas. 81.

v.

Manchester, 23 L. J.

M.

0. 48.

(/) Nicholson v. Holhorn Assessment Committee, 18 Q. B. D.

161.

But

see Worcestershire C. G. v. Worcester Union,

66 L. J.

Q. B. 323.
{g)

M.
of

B.

V.

C. 224

Shepherd, 1 Q. B. 170

Blackburn

J.

Beds

v.

Lydford, 3 B.

Cameron, 11 H. L. Cas. 443; Leith Comm.

L. E. 1 Sc. Ap. 17; Tunnicliffe

Bray

v.

v.

Inspectors,

Durham

C. G. v.

[1891] 1 Q. B. 330.

McCann, L. E. 3 Q. B. 677.

(h)

B.

(i)

Compare Bute

V.

Poor

v.

BirUale, 20 Q. B. D. 450;

Lancashire Justices, 22 Q. B. D. 484

Ghester-le-Street,

Paul, 21 L. J.

v. St.

& B. 346. See judgments

and Lord Cranworth C, Mersey Bocks Go. v.

Gamhier

61 E. E. 128; B.

v.
v.

Grindall, 1 T. E. 338

Shee, 62 E. E. 266; B.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B.

v.

Ponsonby,

v. Stewart, 27

248

INTERPBBTATION OF STATDTE8.

occupation of the sovereign would, also, not be

the

liable to

common law burden

of sewers rate

one reason assigned being that they could not be

enforced (a). So, the Eoyal Dockyards at Dept-

were held not assessable to the land tax (b).

is not bound by s. 150, Public Health

f ord

The Crown

Act, 1875, and therefore

on which property in

of paving a street

pation abuts

But

(c).

not liable for the cost

is

occu-

its

the tax attached to the

if

and not to its owner or occupier, this rule

would not be applicable and land charged with
it in the hands of a subject would not become
exempted on vesting in the sovereign (d).
On the same general principle, the numerous
Acts of Parliament which have, at various times,
taken away the writ of Certiorari, have always
been held not to apply to the Crown (e). So,
s. 5, 13 Geo. II. c. 18(/), which limits the time for
land,

L. J.

M.

C. 81.

3 T. E. 519
(a)
V.

M. & W.

28 L.
v.

J.

M.

Keats, i

B.

v. Cook,

C. 227.

Hagg. 279

A.-G.

117.

A.-G. V. Hill (1836), 2

on the facts

M. & W.

As

160.

where

to cases

this rule does not apply, see Colchester (id.) v.

Kewney (1867), 36 L.
(c)

v. Perkins,

Per Dr. Lushington, Smith

Donaldson, 10
(6)

See Bro. Ab. Prerog. du Eoy, 112

Westover

38 & 39 Vict:

Ex. 172.

J.

c.

55

Hornsey U. B.

C. v. Hennell,

[1902]

2 K. B. 73.

Kewney

(1866), 36 L. J.

(d)

Colchester (Ld.) v.

(e)

See, for example, B. v. Cumberland, 3 B.

Allen,

15 East, 333

(/) Eepealed

B.

S. L.

v. Boulibee,

43 E. E. 412.

E. 1888.

Digitized

Ex. 172.

&

by Microsoft

P. 354

B.

v.

CONSTRUCTION AS EEGARDS THE CROWN.

issuing that writ to six

the conviction (a), and

249

months from the date

s.

5,

&

12

13 Vict.

c.

of

45,

which authorises the Quarter Sessions to give

costs to the successful party in any appeal (6), do
not apply to the Crown (the prosecutor), but only
to the defendant.
Although now by virtue of the

Summary

Jurisdiction Acts a Court of

Summary

Jurisdiction has power to award costs for or against

the

Crown

in proceedings taken by the

under any of the Inland Eevenue

Crown

Statutes

(c).

But apparently the right of the Crown as to proceedings in the Exchequer touching the revenue
or property of the Crown is not affected by the
County Court, or Judicature, or Companies (1862)
.Acts(d!).
The Statutes of Limitation (e) and
Bankruptcy ( / ) have always been held not
(a)

B.

B.

V. Farewell,

V. Berkley,

B.

J.

M.

v.

James, 1 East, 304 n.

1 KenyoD, 80.

(6)

B.

(c)

Thomas

id)

Mountjoy

V.

2 Stra. 1209

Beadle (1857), 26 L.

V.

0. 111.

[1903] 1 K. B. 209.

v. Pritchard,

Wood, 1 H. & N. 58

A.-G.

v.

GonstaUe, 48

L. J. Ex, 455; A.-G. v. Barker, 41 L. J. Ex. 57.

Stanley v. Wild (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 318

Ch. D. 469.
(1884),
(e)

54 L.

Be Henley

See also
(1878), 9

See also Oriental Bank, In re; The Grown, Exp.

J.

Gh. 327.

11 Eep. 68b and 74b

6th point

to bind

Bustomjee

v. B., 1

Lambert

v. Taylor,

Q. B. D. 487

4 B.

&

C. 138,

2 Q. B. D. 69.

(/) Bussell, Exp., 19 Yes. 163; Postmaster-Gen., Exp., 10 Oh. D.

595.
See Be Thomas, 67 L. J. Q. B. 574. It is now, however,

provided by 4 & 5 Geo, V.

of this

c.

59,

s.

151, that "... the provisions

Act relating to the remedies against the property of a

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

250

the Crown; so, also, the Debtors Act, 1869(a),

and 5 & 6 Edw. VI. o. 16, against the sale of
offices

The Interpleader Act,

(&).

&

2 WiU. IV.

was held not to apply to cases where the

Crown was interested (c). The provision of the
Statute of Frauds, which made writs of execution
binding on the goods' of the judgment debtor only
c.

58,

from the time of the delivery of the writ to the

was held not to affect the

earlier rule of law (which bound the goods from
the teste of the writ), where an extent was issued
The Statute of
at the suit of the Crown (d).
Amendments of 4 Edw. III. s. 1, c. 6, which
sheriff for execution,

provided that clerical errors in records should be

amended at once, without giving advantage to

"the party" who had challenged the misprision,
did not include the Crown; for, it was said, it
had never been named " a party " in any Act of
Parliament (e). The Locomotives Act, 1865, which
debtor, the. priorities of debts, the effect of a composition or

scheme

of

arrangement and the

effect of discharge, shall

bind

the Crown."
(a)

Be

(6)

Muggins

(c)

Eepealed 46 & 47 Vict.

Smith, 2 Ex. D. 47.

Bambridge, Willes, 241.

v.

Maugham, 13 L.

J. 0.

(d) JR. V. TFi/wn,

Bunb. 39

Kennedy, 3 Atk. 739

Sumner, 2
(e)

32 L.

B.

W.

Bl.

J. C.

1251

V. Tuchin,

c.

49,

B.

v.

s. 3,

but see

s.

Candy

v.

P. 17.
;

Mann, 2

B.

2 Lord

v.

Burden

v.

ZTppom

v.

Edwards (1853), 23 L.

Eaym.

P. 216, and Thomas

Digitized

754

& P. 72

Stra.

Giles v. Grover, 1 01.

v.

1066.

Ex. 42.

See also Tobin

B. (1874), 44 L.

by Microsoft

J.

J.

v.

Q. B.

B.,
9.

CONSTEUOTION AS EEGAEDS THE CROWN.

251

regulates the speed of locomotives on highways,

does not bind the Crown

The Crown, however,

(a).

is sufficiently

named

in a

maxim, when an
intention to include it is manifest. For instance,
20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, which entitles (by s. 2) either
party, after the hearing, by a justice, of " any
information or complaint " which he has power to
statute, within the

meaning

of the

determiae, to apply for a case for the opinion of

one of the Superior Courts

(by

s.

4) the justice

and

after authorising

to refuse the application,

if

he deems it frivolous, provides that it shall never

be refused when made by, or under the direction
of, the Attorney- Greneral, and directs (by s. 6) the
Superior Court, not only to deal with the decision

make such

appealed against, but to

deems

order as to

was held by the Queen's

Bench to include the Crown, and to authorise an
order against it for the payment of costs.
The
language of the 2nd section was wide enough to
include the Crown and as the 4th referred to the
Crown as plainly as if it had spoken expressly of
Crown cases, the language of the 6th authorising
costs was construed' as applying to such cases also,
as weU as to oases between subject and subject (b).
costs as

it

fit,

(a)

28 & 29 Vict.

K. B. 164.
s.

c.

83,

s.

Cooper

v.

See also Motor Car Act, 1903

HawMna, [1904] 2
(3 Edw. VII. c. 36,

16).
(6)

Moore

v.

Smith (1869), 28 L. J.

Digitized

M. C.

by Microsoft

126.

See Theberge

v.

252

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

Summary Jurisdiction has, by reason

Summary Jurisdiction Acts, power to award
for or against the Crown in proceedings

Court of

of the

costs

taken under the Eevenue Acts (a). But, although

the Crown be named in some sections of a statute,
this does not necessarily extend to it the operation
of other parts thereof (h).

when the

It is said that the rule does not apply

Act

is

made

for the public good, the

and

of religion

advancement

justice, the prevention of fraud, or

the suppression of injury and wrong

(c)

"for

and truth are the sure supporters

and diadems of kings " (d)
but it

religion, justice,

of the crowns

is

probably more accurate to say that the Crown

is

not excluded from the operation of a statute

where neither

its

prerogative, rights, nor property,

The

are in question.

Statute de Donis

Laudry, 2 App. Cas. 102, and CusMng

409

Moses
(a)

Tennant
V.

(c)

Bupuy, 5 App. Cas.

Bank of Canada, [1894]

0.

v. Pritchard,

43,

s.

18,

and 42 & 43

Exp. Postmaster-General, 10 Oh. D. 595

J.

A. C. 31

Vict.

c.

49,

s.

53

[1903] 1 K. B. 209.

[1891] 1 Oh. 658; Wheatonv.

62 L.

the

Parker, [1896] A. C. 245,

11 & 12 Vict.

Thomas
(6)

Union

v.

v.

(e)

Maple

&

Co.,

Perry

v.

Fames,

[1893] 3 Oh. 48;

Oh. 963.

Case of Ecclesiastical Persons, 5 Eep. 14a Magdalen College

;

Case, 11 Eep.

70b-73a

Ab. Prerogative (B.)

{d)

5 Eep. 14b.

(e)

13 Edw.

I.

JJ. v.

Armagh, [Archhp.), Stra. 516

Bac.

5.

Willion v. Berkley, Plowd. 223

Digitized

by Microsoft

11 Eep. 72a.

CONSTRUCTION AS REGAEDS THE CROWN.

253

Statute of Merton, against usury running against

minors

(a)

the 52 Hen. III.

22 (Marlbridge),

c.

against distraining freeholders to produce their

deeds

title

the 32 Hen. VIII., concerning dis-

(6)

continuances

(c)

the 13 Eliz.

10, respecting ecclesiastical leases

c.

the 31 Eliz., against simony (d)

were held to apply to the

named
70,

c.

(e),

Crown, though not

them (/). So, 11 Geo. IV. &

which was passed for the better
in

tion of justice, and

1 Will. IV.

administra-

enacted that writs of error

upon judgments given in any

of

the Superior

Exchequer
Chamber, was held to apply to a judgment on
an indictment (g), and on a petition of right (A)
Courts,

should

be returned

to the

although the Crown was not

to in the

Act.

this construction

the

20 Hen.

L. E.

(c)

prerogative was effected by

(z).

Although by common law

III.,

1872

to dismiss at pleasure a civil

repealed as to B. S. L. E., 1863, as to

Ir.

2 Inst. 89.

Eepealed as to E.

(6)

1872

(I.),

or referred

No

Crown has power

(a)
S.

named

S. L. E., 1863, as

to Ir. S. L. E. (I.)

2 Inst. 142.
2 Inst. 681.

(d) Co. Litt. 120a, note 3.

(e)

5 Eep. 14a

11 Eep. 68b

B.

v.

Armagh

16.

(/) See Bac. Ab. Prerog. (B) 5.

(g) B. V. WrigM, 1 A. & B. 434.
(h)
(i)

Be Bode
Per

v. B.,

13 Q. B. 364.

Cur., Id. 379.

Digitized

by Microsoft

{Archbp.), Stra.

254

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

or military officer, a colonial statute (a) manifestly

intended for the benefit of

with such a condition, restricts

Crown (b).
The Crown can

and inconsistent
the power of the

officers,

direct the Treasury Solicitor to

any matter in which the Crown

has an interest, and if he so acts he becomes the
solicitor for the subject and is entitled to recover
any costs awarded the subject, notwithstanding
the fact that he has no certificate under the
Solicitors Act (c).
act for a subject in

(a)

New

South Wales Civil Service Act, 1884.

[1896] A. C. 575.

(6)

Gould

V. Stuart,

(e)

B.

Ganterhury (Archhp.), [1903]

V.

K. B. 289;

Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874, 37 & 38 Vict.

c.

s.

12,

68, refer-

ences to "attorney" in this section repealed from ".provided

always," S. L. E. (2), 1893.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

^PRESUMPTION

VI.

AGAINST INTENDING AN

EXCESS OF JUBISDIOTION.

Anothee general presumption

is

that the Legis-

lature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction.

Primarily, the legislation of a country

The general

torial.

rule

is,

that extra territorium

jus dicenti impune non paretur ;

The laws

non obligant (a).

its

subjects

and to

all

is terri-

leges extra territorium

of a nation apply to all

things and acts within

its

including in this expression not only

territories,

ports and waters

which form, in England, part

its ships, whether
armed or unarmed, and the ships of its subjects on
the high seas or in foreign tidal waters, and foreign
its

of the adjacent country, but

private ships within its ports.

to

They apply

also

foreigners within its territories (not privi-

all

leged like sovereigns and ambassadors) as regards

criminal

(&),

police, and, indeed, all other matters

(a)

Dig.

(&)

So that an American committing a crime

flying to

2, 1, 20.

England

poses of extradition
A.-G.

V.

is
:

regarded as a Dutch

B.

v.

in

Holland and

subject for the pur-

Ocmz, 51 L. J. Q. B. 419.

See also

Kwoh-a-Sing, L. E. 5 P. 0. 179; The Indian Chief, 3

Bob. C. 12.

See also Piot, Exp. (1883), 48 L. T. 120, and note

especially B. v. Governor Holloway Prison (1912), 76 J. P. 310.

Digitized

by Microsoft

256

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

except some questions of personal status or capacity,

in which, by the comity of nations, the law of their

own

country, or the

applies

octAs or

lex loci

contractus,

This does not, indeed, comprise the

{a).

whole of the legitimate jurisdiction of a State ; for

has a right to impose its legislation on its sub-

it

jects natural or naturalised

world

(c)

and on such matters as personal status

or capacity

it

understood always to do so {d)

is

(a) See Nihoyet v. Niboyet, 4 P.

Teodoro

San Teodoro, 5 P. D. 79

v.

in every part of the

(6),

D.
;

per Brett L.J.

1,

Worms

comp.

v.

De

San

Valdor,

Le Sueur v. Le Sueur, 1 P. D. 139 Firebrace

Be Goodman's Trusts, 50 L. J. Ch. 425,
V. Firebrace, 4 P. D. 63
and note Le Mesurier v. Le Mesurier (1895), L. J. P. C. 97, dis49 L.

J.

Oh. 261

approving Niboyet
(b)

v. Niboyet, supra.

Co. Litt. 129a

Story, Confl. L.

s.

21

Sussex Peerage, 11

& M. 117.
has
at different times made treason, treason(c) Our law
felony, burning the King's ships and magazines, breaches of
CI.

&

P. 85, 146

Mette v. Mette, 28 L.

J.

P.

the Foreign Enlistment Act, homicide, bigamy, procuration

48 & 49 Vict.

(see
s. 1),

and

c.

69,

s. 2,

amended by 2 & 3 Geo. V.

slave-dealing, punishable v^hen

subjects in

any part

of the

& 58

Vict.

c.

60)

20,

world ; also any offences committed

by them on board any foreign ship

(57

c.

committed by British

also, offences

to

which they do not belong

by them

in or in relation to

& 6 Geo. V. c. 61, ss. 124-129), in

Turkey, China, Siam, and Japan, and such other States as are
within the provisions of 53 & 54 Vict. c. 37 and in some parts
of Africa and Polynesia (34 & 35 Vict. c. 8
35 & 36 Vict. c. 19
38 & 39 Vict. c. 51).
(d) See ex. gr. Brooh v. Brooh, 27 L. J. Ch. 401
9 H. L. Cas.
native States in India (5

193

Story, Confl. L.

s.

114

Digitized

LoUey's Case, Euss.

by Microsoft

&

Ey. 237.

AGAINST EXCEEDING JURISDICTION.

257

that exception, in the absence of an

but, with

intention clearly expressed or to be inferred either

from

its

language, or from the object or subject

matter, or history of the enactment, the presumption is that Parliament does not design its statutes

on

to operate
limits

its subjects

Kingdom

United

the

of

beyond the

therefore, to be read, usually, as

effect

had been inserted

woman who

(a).

They

are,

words to that

if

them

in

territorial

Thus, a

(6).

married in England, and afterwards

married abroad during her husband's

was

life,

held not indictable under the repealed statute

of

James

I.

against bigamy

was

for the offence

committed out of the kingdom, and the Act did

not in express terms extend
subjects abroad

But

(c).

s.

its

prohibition to

57, Offences against the

Person Act, 1861, which enacts that " whomsoever

being married shall marry any other person during
the life of the former husband or wife, whether the
second marriage shall have taken place in England
or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony "
See also Story, Confl. L.

s.

100

et seq. ;

Wheat. Blem. Internat. L.,

pt. 2, c. 2, ss. 6, 7.

(a)

Bose

v.

Himely, 4 Cranch, 241, per Marshall C.J.

Cope
Swab. 96, per Dr. Lushington
367 Poll v. Bamhe, [1901] 2. K. B. 579.

Zollverein,

K. &

J.

v.

The

Boherty, 4

and
(6) Per Pollock C.B., Bosseter v. Caklmann, 8 Ex. 361
P.
N.
S.
471.
The
Amalia,
1
Moo.
C.
per Cur.,
(c) 1 Jac. I. c. 11; 1 Hale P. C. 692; Macleod v. A.-G. for
;

N.

S. Wales,

[1891] A. C. 455.

17

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

258

INTEHPEETATION OF STATUTES.

extends to a second marriage celebrated beyond

the King's dominions

An

(a).

act of bankruptcy

by a British, subject committed abroad, such as an

assignment by a trader of all his effects, did not
make him liable to the bankrupt laws until they
were amended by extending them expressly to
acts whether within the realm or elsewhere (b).
But the power conferred on the Court by s. 27,

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, now repealed and replaced

by s. 25 (6) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, to order
that any person who, if in England, would be
liable to be brought before it under the section,
shall be examined in Scotland or Ireland, " or
in any other place out of England," does not
apparently extend to places abroad which are not
within the jurisdiction of the British

Crown (c).

which authorised a Court to make an

order against a British subject after he had been
served with a summons, was held not to give
jurisdiction to make it when the service had been
effected abroad [d). And it has also been held that
a provision that service may be effected by leaving
statute

(a)

24 & 25 Vict.

(6) Ingliss v.

533.

100

See 6 Geo. IV.

46 & 47 Vict.
Geo. V.
(c)

c.

c.

v. Bussell,

52,

c.

16,

c.

s.

s.

[1901] A. 0. 446.

Norden

v.

James, 2 Dick.

32 & 33 Vict.

and see as

c.

71,

s.

to existing law, 4

&

59.

Drucker,

{d) 7

B.

Grant, 5 T. E. 530

& 8

Be

Viet.

(No. 2), [1902] 2 K. B. 210.

c.

101

B.

v. Lightfoot (1856),

115.

Digitized

by Microsoft

25 L.

J.

M.

C.

AGAINST EXOEEDING JURISDICTION.

the

summons

259

at the " last place of abode " of the

person to be served,

not to be interpreted as

is

meaning that the summons may be left at his last

place of abode in England, where he had subsequently obtained a place of abode abroad

(a).

The alleged father of a bastard child who left

England before the child's birth and did not return
tUl the child was more than twelve months old,
was held to have "ceased to reside in England
within twelve months after the birth of such child,"
so as to give the justices jurisdiction to adjudicate

upon a summons taken out within twelve months

after his return

&

(6).

6 Will. IV.

pealed and re-enacted by 41

&

o.

42 Vict.

63

(re-

c.

49,

15 and 86), which prohibits the sale of liquids

otherwise than by imperial measure, would not be

ss.

considered as affecting a contract between British

palm

subjects for the sale of

and

delivered

on

the

oil,

coast

measured

to be

Africa

of

(c).

construction would have involved the

different

absurd supposition that the Legislature intended

that

(a)

L.

J.

English
35

M.

& 36
0. 57

subjects

Vict.

B.

v.

c.

65,

163.

But

aliter
v.

4;

Berkeley

v.

Thompson, 54
;

Burbury

Grococh v. Grococle, [1919]

where he has not obtained a place

Webb, [1896] 1 Q. B. 487.

Evans, [1896] 1 Q. B. 228.

(6)

B.

(c)

Bosseter v. CaJilmann, 8 Ex. 361.

V.

English

carry

Farmer, [1892] 1 Q. B. 637

Jackson, [1917] 1 K. B. 16

abroad; B.

S,

should

Digitized

by Microsoft

of

v.

W. N.
abode

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

260

measures abroad

(a)

besides setting aside, by a

side-wind, the general principle that the validity

of a contract is determined
of its performance.

by the law

of the place

Under that general

principle,

any statute which regulated the formalities and

ceremonials of marriage, would, in general, be
limited

in

similarly

effect

jurisdiction of Parliament

to

the

territorial

(6).

But a different intention may be

readily collected

of the enactment.
The whole aim
and object of the Eoyal Marriages Act, 1772 (12
Geo. III. c. 11), for instance, which was, according

from the nature

to the preamble, to guard against

members

of the

royal family marrying without the consent of

the sovereign, and which makes null and void
the.

marriage of every descendant of George

II.

without the consent of the reigning sovereign,

would have been defeated, if a marriage of such

a descendant in some place out of the British
dominions had not fallen within it. It was accordingly held that the statute imposed an incapacity,
which attached to the person and followed him all
over the world (c) though the marriage were valid
according to the law of the country where it was
celebrated (d).
So, the Marriage Act, 1836 (5 & 6
;

L.

(a)

Per Parke

(&)

ScrimsMre

s.

(c)

B., Bosseter v.
v.

OaMmann,

at p. 363.

ScrimsMre, 2 Hagg. Cons. 395

221.

The Sussex Peerage, 11

Id) Swift V. Kelly, 3

01.

&

P. 85.

Knapp, 257.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Story, Gonfl.

AGAINST EXCEEDING JURISDICTION.

Will. IV.

c.

which declared "

64),

261

marriages

all

between persons within the prohibited degrees "

null and void, was held to create a personal incapacity in

all

British subjects domiciled in the

United Kingdom, though married in a country

where such marriages are valid (a). Where an
Englishman, after marrying an Englishwoman in
England, became domiciled in America, it was
held that he continued subject to the Matrimonial

Causes Act, 1857

The Fatal Accidents

(b).

Acts,

1846 and 1864, apply for the benefit of the representatives of a deceased foreigner, who while on
the high seas in a foreign ship sustains a fatal
injury owing to the negligence of a British ship

The

(c).

Elementary Education Act, 1870,

which vacates the seat at the board of any member
who had been punished with imprisonment for any
rule of the

comihitted

includes crimes

crime,

Crown out

of

England

against

the

(d).

This wider effect has been given even to a

(a) BrooJc v.

Brook, 27 L.

Story, Confl. L.

s.

86,

and

J.

Ch. 401

also

s.

9 H. L. Cas. 193.

100; 7 Bdw. VII.

c.

See

47, vali-

dates marriage with a deceased wife's sister.

(6)
r.

P. D.
(c)

Beck (1860), 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 see Bond

and see Niboyet v. Niboyet (1878),
(1860), Id. 143

Deck

Bond
1,

V.

0. A.

& 10

Vict.

c.

93

27 & 28 Vict.

95

c.

Davidsson

v. Eill,

[1901] 2 K. B. 606.
(d)

33 & 34 Vict.

c.

75, Sohed. II., Pt.

I., r.

London School Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 118.

Digitized

by Microsoft

14

Gonybeare

v.

262

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

criminal

where suoh must have been

The Slave Trade Act,
intention.

statute,

manifestly

its

1824 (6 Geo. IV. c. 113), which made it felony for

" any person " to deal in slaves, or to transport
them, or equip vessels for their transport, was held
to apply to British subjects committing any such

on the coast of Africa, the notorious scene

of the crimes which it was the object of the Act to
offences

suppress (a)
also (6)

if

not in every other part of the world

though

was not in

it

express

terms

As the Courts
British Colonies were empowered by Act of

declared to be applicable abroad.

of

Parliament to punish certain offences committed

at sea with,

among

other things, transportation,

the Act which abolished transportation and sub-

was held to extend to the

made no mention of them (c).

stituted penal servitude,

Colonies, though

SECTION

II.

it

PRESUMPTION

AGAINST A VIOLATION OF

INTEENATIONAL LAW.

Under the same general presumption that the

Legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction, every statute is to be so interpreted
(a)

C. P.

R.

317

V. Zulueta, 1
;

Car.

& K. 215

and

Santos v. Illidge, 28 L. J.

overruled on anotber point, 29 L. J. 0. P. 348.

(6)

Seeder Bramwell

(c)

12 & 13

20 & 21 Vict.

Viofc. c.

c.

E.

B.,

29 L.

J. 0.

96 (amended 23
v.

P. 352.

&

24 Vict.

Mount, L. E. 6 P. C, 283.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

88,

s.

1)

HARMONY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

263

applied, as far as its language admits, as not to be

inconsistent with the oomity of nations, or with

the established rules of international law

any such

therefore, it designs to effectuate

it

must express

its

it

for if

If,

object,

intention with irresistible clear-

ness, to induce a Court to beheve that

tained

(a).

any other construction

is

it

enter-

possible,

would be adopted, in order to avoid imputiag

such an intention to the Legislature (b).
All
general terms must be narrowed in construction

it

to avoid

it (c).

For instance, although foreigners are subject to

the criminal law of the country in which they
commit any breach of it, and also, for most purposes, to its civil jurisdiction, a foreign sovereign,

an ambassador, the troops of a foreign nation, and

its public property are, by the law of nations, not
subject to them (d), and statutes would be read as
Per Maule J., Leroux v. Brown, 12 C. B. 801 Bluntschli,
Voelkerrecht, s. 847 per Dr. Lushington, The Zolherein, Swab.
(a)

96,

and The Annapolis, Lush. 295.

Boustead (1896), 66 L.
(6)

Per

J.

See also Rochefoucauld

Cur., U. S. v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 390,

Charming Betsy,

Per Lord StoweU, Le Louis

(d)

Wheat. Blem.

(1879), 4 P. D. 39.

and as

v.

(1817), 2 Dods. 229.

Int. L., pt. 2, c. 2

see the oases collected

in The Parlement Beige (1880), 5 P. D. 197

and Murray

Id. 118.

(c)

110

v,

Ch. 75.

The

Constitution

See also The Ripon City (1897), 66 L.

J. P.

to the general principle, Mighell v. Sultan of Johore

(1893), 63 L. J. Q. B. 593.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

264
tacitly

embodying

this

Hence

rule.

whilst the

ambassador of a foreign State is in this country,

and accredited to the sovereign, the Statute of
does not begin to run

Limitation

against

his

he could not be served with process

during that period (a).
So, it is an admitted
principle of public law that, except as regards
creditors, as

nomadic races

pirates jure gentium, and, perhaps,

and savages who have no

political organisation (6),

a nation has no jurisdiction over offences com-

mitted by a foreigner out of

its territory,

including

and waters as already mentioned (c)

and the general language of any criminal statute
ships

its

would be so

restricted in construction as not to

violate this principle.

9 Geo. IV.

s.

s.

of the repealed

31 (re-enacted by

c.

(a)

21 Jac.

Musurus Bey

Thus,

I. c.

& 5 Anne,

s.

10,

v.

Gadban, [1894] 2 Q. B. 352

16,

s.

19

&

7 Anne,

16

c.

24

c.

25
12,

Repvhlic of

Bolivia Exploration Syndicate, In re (1914), 83 L. J. Oh. 226.

(6)

See

ex. gr. Ortolan, Dipl.

Vict. c. 8, offences

de

la

Mer,

i.

By

285.

34 & 35

committed within 20 miles from our West

African Settlements on British subjects, or residents -within

those settlements, by persons not the subjects of any civilised

power, are

made

cognisable by the Superior Courts of the

Settlements.

s.

Sup. 255.

The Parlement Beige, 5 P. D. 197

1 0. C. 161

B.

See Wheaton's Blem. Internat.

(c)

V.

B.

V.

Seberg, Id. 264

Lopes, 27 L. J.

M.

B.

C. 48; B.

v.

but see Carr

v.

Fracis Times

Digitized

&

Co.,

v.

L., pt. 2, c. 2,

Anderson, L. E.

Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76

v. Lesley,

See as to ships, the judgment of Lindley

63

B.

J.,

29 L.

B.

v.

J.

M.

Keyn, 2 Ex. D.

[1902] A. 0. 176.

by Microsoft

C. 97.

HARMONY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Vict.

c.

100),

wMoh

enacted that

265

when any person,

feloniously injured

abroad or at sea, died in

England, or receiving the injury in England,
died at sea or abroad, the offence should be dealt

with in the country where the death or injury

occurred, would not authorise the trial of a
foreigner

who

ship,

which the

of

England

inflicted a

So,

(a).

wound

sufferer

at sea in a foreign

afterwards died in

has been repeatedly decided in

it

America that an Act of Congress which enacted

that any person committing robbery in " any vessel
on the high seas " should be guilty of piracy,
applied only to robbery in American vessels, and
not to robbery in foreign vessels even by an
American citizen (b). An Act of Parliament which
authorised the commanders of our ships of war to
seize and prosecute "all ships and vessels " engaged
in the slave trade was construed as not intended
to affect any right or interest of foreigners contrary

(a)

B.

26 L.

V. Lewis,

J.

M.

C. 104.

See also

JB. v.

Depardo,

& P. 458 Nga Hoong v. B.,

7 Cox, 489 B. v. Bjomsen, 34 L. J. M. C. 180. As to offences
oonmiitted -within Territorial Waters, see 41 & 42 Vict. c. 73.
Sec. 267 Merc. Shipping Act, 1854 (repealed by Merc. Shipping
9 E. E. 693

B.

v.

Be

Mattos, 7 C.

seem

to

have been Umited to British subjects.

Harris

v.

Franconia, 2 C. P. D. 173.

Act, 1894), would

See also
(6)

610

cited

s.

527

U. S. V.

Howard, 3 Wash. 340

U. S. V. Klintoch, 5

by Cockburn

C.J.,

Wheat. 144
B.

Digitized

v.

U. S. v. Palmer, 3

Wheat.

U. S. v. Kessler, Bald. 15,

Keyn, 2 Ex. D. 172.

by Microsoft

26f5

INTBEPBETATION OP STATUTES.

to the law of nations

(a).

Though speaking

in just

human

beings,

terms of indignation of the

it

name

spoke only in the

Its

traffic in

of the British nation.

prohibition of the trade as contrary to the

principles of justice, humanity,

and sound

applied only to British subjects

it

unlawful as regarded foreigners

the law of his

did not render

it

(6).

who was not

held that a foreigner

own country from

policy,

Ifc

was even

prohibited by

carrying

it

on,

was entitled to recover in an English Court

damages for the seizure of a cargo of his slaves by
a British man-of-war for, our Courts being open
to all aliens in amity with us, and the act of the
man-of-war being wrongful, the only question was
what injury the plaintiff had sustained from it (c).
But a British subject resident in an enemy
country is not empowered by s. 6 of the repealed
Naturalisation Act, 1870, to become naturalised
in that enemy country during time of war with
this country, and the act of becoming naturalised
;

under such circumstances constitutes the crime of

high treason {d).
(a) Le Louis, 2 Dods. 214 ; St. Juan Nepomuceno, 1 Hagg. 265 ;
The Antelope, 10 Wheat. 66. See also B. v. Serva, 1 Den. 104.

Compare The Amedie, 1 Aeton, 240.

(&)

Per Best

J.,

3 B.

(c)

Madrazo

v.

Willes,

&

Aid. 358.

22 E. E. 422.

Blidge, 29 L. J. C. P. 348.

See also Santos

v.

Compare Forbes v. Cochrane, 22 E. E.

402.
(d)

33 & 34 Vict.

c.

14

Digitized

practically re-enacted

by Microsoft

by 4 & 5

HARMONY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

267

Although a foreigner residing in England (a) who

contracts debts, eten abroad (6), and commits an
act of bankruptcy in England, would be liable to
the English bankrupt laws
he would not fall
;

within them

if he committed the act of bankruptcy

abroad, although the enactment made it an act of

bankruptcy, whether committed "in England or

elsewhere " (c).
The Kules of Court, 1883 (now
cancelled), directing how writs were to be served
on persons sued in the name of their firm, did not
give jurisdiction over foreign firms whose location
was abroad (rf). So an EngKsh Court would have
Geo. V.

c.

See B.

17.

See also Dawson

Oommanding

c.

v.

46 & 47 Vict.

59,

s.

(6) JExp. Pascal,

D. 522

52,

c.

168, Sched. 6

Cooke

s.

Be

45 L.

J.

6 (1 d)

(d)
rr. 1,

J.

42 L.

Bateman v,

Bank. 18
J.

Bank.

102

5 Geo. V.

Blain, Exp., 12 Oh.

See also Smith, Exp.,

Cowp. 402

Service,

Davis

&

111.

v.

BuTkeley

6 App. Cas. 386

Park, 42 L.

v. Schutz,

O'LogMen,

Oh. 673

J.

Exp.

65.

Order IX.,r.6, cancelled; seeforpresent practice Order 48 a,

3

&4

1 Q. B. 304
Festi,

M. B. E.

Pearson, Be, [1892] 2 Q. B. 263.

40 L.

v.

Bank. 81.

cited in Alexander v. Vaughan, 1

Crispin,

repealed by 4

Norris, 5

Vogeler, [1901] A. G.

V.

L. E. 3 P. 0. 764
Exp.,

K. B. 167.

J.

Officer Middlesex Begiment, [1917] 2 K. B. 129.

(a)

(c)

72 L.

v. LyncJi (1903),

Meuli (1918), 16 L. G. E. 308, and Bex

E. S.
;

0.,

1891

Western Nat.

Bank

v. Perez,

Bussell v. Cambefort, 23 Q. B. D. 526

[1891] 2 Q. B. 92

See also Lysaght

v.

Grant

v.

1 Q. B. 784; Maclver

St.

Gdbain Co.

v.

v.

by Microsoft

Heinemann

v.

Firbank, [1894]

Burns, [1895] 2 Ch. 630.

Digitized

v.

Moyermann's Agency,

Worcester Banking Go.

v.

[1891]

Dohson

Anderson, [1892] 1 Q. B. 108.

Clark, [1891] 1 Q. B. 552

Hale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 83

[1893] 2 Q. B. 96

268

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

no jurisdiction to wind up a foreign company

having no branch in England (a). And s. 17,
4 & 5 G-eo. V, c. 17, replacing s. 2, Naturalisation
Act, 1870, which enacts that "real and personal
property

of

every

may

description

be

taken,

and disposed of by an alien in

the same manner in aU respects as by a naturalborn British subject," has been held in a case
decided under the earlier Act not to entitle a
Wni to probate here which was made by an alien
whose domicile of origin was English, but who
was domiciled abroad at the time of making such
WiU and of her death, the Will having been
executed according to the forms required by
English law, but not in manner required by the
law of the country of her domicile (b). And an
Act which gave the Court of Admiralty jurisdiction over "aU claims whatsoever" relating to
salvage reward for saving lives has been held not
to extend to the salvage of life on a foreign ship
acquired, held,

or the supply of necessaries

when the

vessel

more than three marine miles from our shore

Lloyd

(a)

Italiano, Be,

3 P. C. 764.

24 & 25 Vict.

(6)

26;

c.

v.

(c)

182.

544

17

Bulheley v. Schutz, L. E.

114; Bloxamy. Favre, 53 L, J. P. D. & A.

(1)

see

re,

[1919] 1 Gh. 80;

[1916] 1 Ch. 502.

re,

& 18

But

(c).

Heddon, 25 Q. B. D. 129.

Lyne's Settlement Trusts, Gihhs, In

Simpson, In

s.

29 Ch. D. 219

See Colquhoun

is

Vict.

c.

104,

ss.

458, 476

The Johannes, Lush.

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58

The

Pacific,

Vict.

c.

60),

[1898] P. 170, on which see Jorgensen

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

HARMONY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

So, as

property

a rule of

it is

is

269

systems of law that real

all

exclusively subject to the laws of the

State within whose territory

any Act which

it lies,

dealt in general terms with the real estate of a

bankrupt or lunatic testator, for instance, would be

construed as not extending to his lands abroad (a),
or in our Colonies, unless

it

clearly appeared that

But a
(6).
which imposed a stamp duty on all conveyances of land executed in England would obviously

the Act was intended to reach them

statute

not be so limited in construction

(c).

It being also a general principle that personal

property has, except for some purposes, such as

no other situs than that of its owner,

the right and disposition of it are governed by the
law of the domicile of the owner, and not by the
law of their local situation (e). The Bankruptcy
probate

Neptune

(d),

4 Eraser, 992.

Co.,

See also Laws

v.

Smith (1883),

9 A. 0. 356 (P. C).

2 Eose, 311

(a) Selkrig v. Davis,

See

P. 0. 133.

2 Id. 402

Bq. 23

Hunter

Cocherell v. DicJeens, 3

Worswieh, 1 H. Bl. 665

Sill v.

v. Potts,

2 E. E. 353

Blithman, Be, L. E. 2

Frehe v. Garbery, L. E. 16 Bq. 461

Ch. D. 674

Duncan

23 Oh. D. 743

v.

Pepin

Waite

Lawson, 41 Ch. D. 394

v.

Moo.

Phillips v. Hunter^

Bruyere (1902), 71 L.

J.

v. Bingley,

21

Hawthorne, Be,

Ch. 39

Story,

Gonfl. L. ss. 428, 551, etc.

(6)

See Hewitt's Estate, Be, 6

W.

E. 537.

Comp. International

Pulp Co., Be, 45 L. J. Ch. 446.

Be

(1855), L. J. Bx. 49.

(c)

Wright,

(d)

See Hart

(e)

Story, Oonfl. L.

v.

Herwig, L. E. 8 Ch. 860.

s.

376. See ex. gr. Elliott, Be, 39

Digitized

by Microsoft

W. E.

297.

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

270

an assignment of
a bankrupt's personal property, would properly
be construed as applying to such property elsewhere (a).
When an Act imposes a burden in respect of
personal property, it would be construed, as far as
Acts,

therefore,

which

affect

language permitted, as not intended to contra-

its

vene the general principle

Thus, 36 Geo. III.

(&).

which imposed a duty on every legacy

given by any " will of any person out of his
personal estate," and the Succession Duty Act,
1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), which imposed a duty
on every "disposition of property " by which " any
person " became " entitled to any property on the
death of another," were held not to apply where
the deceased was a foreigner, or even a British
subject domiciled abroad, though the property was
But they would affect personal
in England (c).
property abroad, if the deceased was domiciled
62,

c.

(a)

See Atkinson, Be, 21 Gh. D. 100.

(6)

See ex.

(c)

Be

222
in

Thomson

Lawson

v.

v. Inl.

&

J.

436; Arnold

v.

144; Sully

J. P. C.

Be

Atkinson, sup.

524

Queensland

Oomp. A.-G.

Cigala's Settlement, 7 Gh.

14 App. Gas. 493

;

Ex. 465.
Arnold, 39 E. E.

Gl.

& F.

Bev. Commissioners, [1896] 2

(1898), 67 L.

2 Q. B. 378

J.

v.

The Adv.-Gen. (1848), 12

approved in Harding

Be

45 L.

gr. Grenfell v. Inl. Bev.,

Bruce, 2 Or.

Digitized

29 L.

discussed

E. 418, and

J.

of Stamps

Ex. 464;

Campbell, L. E. 5

D. 351

Colquhoun

London Bank of Mexico

San Paulo By.

Commissioner

v. A.-G.,
v.

Jr.

Co. v. Garter,

by Microsoft

H. L.

v.

Brooks,

v. Apthorpe,

[1891]

[1896] A. G. 31.

HARMONY WITH INTEENATIONAL LAW.

England, though a foreigner

in

271

Foreigners

(a).

residing abroad but carrying on business in

England

by agents obtaining orders in England, are liable

to income tax on profits so made (unless all
contracts for the sale and aU deliveries of the
merchandise to customers are made in a foreign
country)

Schedule

(b),

&

of 16

17 Vict.

o.

34,

imposing liabihty to assessment on persons resident

abroad, but deriving profit from trade carried on in

The old jurisdiction of Interpleader

did not empower our Courts to bar the claim of a

this country.

foreigner residing abroad

(c).

It is hardly necessary to add, however, that if

language of an Act of Parliament, unambiguously and without reasonably admitting of

the

any other meaning applies to foreigners abroad,

or is otherwise in conflict with any principle of
international law, the Courts must obey and
administer it as it stands, whatever may be the
(a) A.-G. V. Napier,

20 L. J. Ex. 173; Blackwood

v.

Beg.

(1882), 52 L. J. P. 0. 10.
(6) Pommery v. Apthorpe (1886), 56 L.

J.

Q. B. 155; Werle

Grainger

v.

Gough, [1896] A. C.

Colqahoun, 57 L. J. Q. B. 323
325.

But see

phone Co.

K. B. 448
(c)

Kodale, Lim. v. Glarhe, 72 L. J. K. B. 369

V. Stanley,
;

Be

Patorni

11 L.

J.

Beers Mines

v.

K. B. 834

v. Hoioe,

Goerz

75 L.

Gamplell, 13 L. J. Ex. 85

J.
;

73 L. J.

K. B. 858.

Lindsey

v.

Barron, 6

But see Credits Gerundeuse v. Van Weede, 12 Q. B. D.

on which see Be Busfield, 55 L. J. Oh. 467, approved in

C. B. 291.
171,

Gramo-

v. Bell,

v.

Dubout

V.

Macphereon (1889), 58 L.

Digitized

J. Q.

B. 496.

by Microsoft

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

272

responsibility incurred

by the nation to foreign

powers in executing such a law (a) for the Courts

cannot question the authority of Parliament, or
;

assign any limits to

They could
construction upon

power

its

not, therefore, properly put a

(6).

a statute diflEerent from that which they would

otherwise give to

would otherwise

merely because

it,

fail

language

to give to a foreigner the full

advantage of the provisions of a treaty

Sec. 4, Statute of Frauds,

(c).

which enacts that " no

action shall be brought " in respect,

of contracts not to

its

among

others,

be performed within a year,

unless they be in writing, was construed literally

as regulating the procedure of

our Courts, and,

therefore, as prohibiting a suit in

contract

made

England on a

in France and in accordance with

French Law, but not in conformity with the

(a)

Per

The Marianna Flora, 11 "Wheat. 40 The ZollSwab. 96 The Johannes, Lush. 182 The Amalia, 32

verein,

Cur.,

M. & A. 191 Ellis v. McEenry (1871), 40 L. J. C. P.

As to the Hovering Acts (39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 179
(amended by 50 & 51 Vict. c. 7), embodying the 16 & 17 Vict.
c. 107, s. 212), see Le Louis, 2 Dods. 245
Church v. Huhhart, 2
Cranch, 187. See also 2 & 3 Vict. c. 73, repealed by Slave
L. J. P.

109, 115.

Trade Act, 1873.

(6)

in

Comp. Bonham's Case (1609), 8 Eep. 118a, commented on

Kemp

v. Neville (1861),

Savadge, Hob. 87

1 Kent
(e)

Comm.

31 L.

J. C. P. 158.

London {City

of) v.

See also Bay

447.

Californian Fig Syrup Go., Be, 40 Ch. D. 620.

Digitized

v.

Wood, 12 Mod. 688

by Microsoft

AS TO CONFERRING RIGHTS ON FOREIGNERS.

273

by our law (a). But this conand having

struction has been questioned (b)

formalities required

regard to the principle under consideration, the

enactment might reasonably have been confined

to those contracts which it was within the province
of Parliament to regulate.

SECTION

III.

HOW

FAR STATUTES CONFERRING RIGHTS

AFFECT FOREIGNERS.
It

may

be added, in connection with this topic,

how far statutes which

that as regards the question

confer rights or privileges are to be construed as

extending to foreigners abroad, the authorities are

It

less clear.

has been said, indeed, that

personal rights are conferred, and persons

when
filling

any character of which foreigners are capable are

mentioned, foreigners would be comprehended in
the statute (c). On the other hand, it has been laid
down that, in general, statutes must be understood
as applying

to those

who owe

only

(a) Leroux v. Brown, 22 L. J. C. P.

Mellor JJ., Jones

(6)

v.

See Williams

recognised by

Lush and

Victoria Graving Dock, 2 Q. B. D. 323.

v.

Wheeler, 8 0. B. N. S. 299; Gibson v.

Holland, L. E. 1 0. P.

8,

per Willes J.

and Mostyn

v.

Fabrigas, 1

V. Darnell,

3,

obedience

See also Story, Confl. L.

s.

285

n.,

and the notes to Birhmyr

Sm. L. 0., 12th ed., p. 699.
;

observing on Acebal

v.

Levy,

38 E. E. 469.
(c) Per Maule J., Jefferys
commented on and explained

L. J. Ch. 697

v.

Boosey, 4

H. L. Cas. 895;

in Fairley v. Boosey (1879), 48

note especially judgment of Lord Blackburn.

18

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

274

INXBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

to the Legislature which, enacts them,

interests

tect

it is

that

and whose

the duty of that Legislature to proits

is,

own

subjects, including in that

expression, not only natural born

and naturalised

subjects, but also all persons actually within its

territorial jurisdiction

but that as regards aliens

resident abroad, the Legislature has no concern to

protect their interests, any

more than

it

has a

In

legitimate power to control their rights (a).

would be presumed, in interpreting a

this view, it

the Legislature did not intend to

statute, that

legislate either as to their rights or liabilities

and

to warrant a different conclusion, the words of the

statute ought to be express, or the context of

very clear

On

{b).

it

was

this principle, mainly, it

held that the Act of Anne, which gave a copyright

of fourteen years to " the author of any work," did

not apply to a foreign author resident abroad

The

decision would probably have been different

the author had been in England

(a)

See per Jervis

C.J., Jefferys v. Boosey,

per Lord Oranworth, Id. 955

4 K.

&

J.

367

Q. B. D. 135.

Boutledge
(6)

609

per

Wood

(c)

v.

when

Adam

v. British

his

if

work

4 H. L. Gas. 946

V.C., Cope v. Boherty,

per Lord Bsher M.E., Colquhoun

See also

v.

Heddon, 25

and Foreign Steamship

Comp. per Lord Westbury,

(1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 844.

Go.

(c).

Low, L, E. 3 H. L. 119.

Per Turner
and see B.
8 Anne,

c.

L.J., Cope

v.

Keyn

19

v.

Doherty (1858), 27 L.

(1876), 46 L, J.

M.

Digitized

v.

Oh.

4 H. L. Gas. 816
Low, L. E. 3 H. L. 107.

Jefferys v. Boosey,

dubitante Lord Cairns, Boutledge

J.

0. 17, at p. 54.

by Microsoft

AS TO CONPBRBING EIGHTS ON FOBBIGNEES.

was published (a).

ss.

It is

now provided by

275
s.

35,

4 of the Copyright Act, 1911, that where in the

case of an unpublished work, the making of which

extended over a considerable time, the conditions

Act conferring copyright shall apply if the

author was during any substantial part of that
of the

period a British subject or a resident within the

parts of His Majesty's dominions to which the Act

extends

was held that a foreigner was

entitled to maintenance, and to gain a settlement, under the poor laws(c). And it has been
It

(6).

decided that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9

Vict. c. 93),

which gives a right

&

10

of action to the

personal representative of a person killed by a

wrongful and actionable act or neglect, extends to

the representative of a foreigner who has been

on the high seas, in a foreign ship, in a

collision with an English vessel (d).
On the other hand, it has been held that the
7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, which empowered the mother

killed

of a natural child to sue its putative father for its

maintenance, did not extend to a foreign woman

who had become pregnant in England, but had
given birth to the child abroad

(e).

The

history,

(6)

Per Lord Granworth 0., Jefferys v Boosey, sup. p. 274.

And see Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, tit. " Copyright."

(a)

(c)

E.

(d)

Davidsson

(e)

B.

V. Eastbourne,

V.

i East, 103.

v. Hill, cited sup. p.

261.

Blane, (1849), 13 Q. B. 769.

Digitized

by Microsoft

276

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

as well as the

language of the enactment, showed

that the liability arose from the birth of the child

But, on the other hand, the

mere fact that the child was born abroad does not
prevent an order being made when it is shown the
in this country

of the

status

law

(a).

child

is

not governed by foreign

and in the converse case of conception

abroad and birth in England, the law would extend
to the mother (c).
The benefit of those enactments which, prior to the repealed Merchant
Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862(d), limited
the liability of shipowners for damage done (e),
(6),

without their

own

by

fault,

their

servants, to

other ships, was held not to extend to foreign

vessels (/);

one reason being that the object of

the Legislature, in giving such a privilege, was to

encourage the national shipping only, by removing

the terrors of a Hability commensurate with the

damage done

(g).

Per Coleridge

(a)

J.,

But they were held

to protect

Id. 773.

Humphreys Ward, Exp., [1914] 3 K. B. 1237.

Hampton v. Bichard, 43 L. J. M. G. 133.
B.

(6)
(c)

V.

(d)

Eepealed by 57 & 58 Viet.

(e)

See 57 & 58 Vict.

60,

c.

s.

e.

60,

502

745.

s.

Asiatic Petroleum Co. v.

Lennard's Carrying Co., [1914] 1 K. B. 419, G. A.

Boyle

V. Services

Ingram

&

Maritime du Treport, [1914] 1 K. B. 541, G. A.

(/) But see now 57 & 58

Vict. c. 60,

s.

503

Hagg. Adm.

The Oscar

II.,

[1919] P. 171.
(g)

Cope

The Carl Johann

V.

(1821),

Doherty (1858), 4 K.

Digitized

&

cited,

J. 367.

113;

See notes on this case.

by Microsoft

REMEDIES GOVERNED BY LEX

277

FORT.

a British ship in a suit by a foreign ship, whether

the collision took place in British waters

the high seas (b).

In the

the protecting enactment

case,

latter

on

(a) or

applied in express terms to foreign as well as

and though it would probably

have been read as if the words " within British
jurisdiction " had been inserted (c), if the Act had
been considered as exceeding the legislative powers
of Parliament to control the natural rights of
British shipowners

no such encroachFor the nature and

foreigners, there was, in fact,

ment on

its full operation.

extent of legal remedies are governed by the

lex

and it is no breach of international law,

or any interference with the rights of foreigners,
to determine what redress is to be given to suitors

fori;

who

resort

to

our Courts

(d).

foreigner, for

instance, was liable to arrest in this country for

a debt contracted abroad, though

B.

y.

Keyn, 46 L.

L. J. P.

M. &

A. 49

J.
;

M. C,

p.

95;

would have

it

The Wild Banger, 32

The Leon (1881), 50 L.

J.

Adm.

59.

See

The Saxonia, Lush. 410.

(a)

General Iron Screw Go.

v.

Schurmanns, 29 L. J. Oh. 877.

(6)

The Amalia (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. N.

(c)

See The Dumfries, Swab. 63.

{d)

Banh

The

Spittall,

275

Amalia,

of U.

S.

v.

The

sup.;

Donnally,

L. E. 5 C. P. 542

Chartered Merc. Bk.

Q. B. D. 521

v.

Vernon,

S. 471.

8 Peters, 361.

Be Haney's

Bob.

W.

Trusts, L. E.

v.

10 Ch.

Netherlands Steam Navig. Co., 10

Jocohs v. Credit Lyonnais, 12 Q. B. D. 589.

Digitized

316;

See Jackson

by Microsoft

278

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

exposed him to no such peril there

and he would

be barred in our Courts by our Statute of Limita-

though he was not by the prescription of his

own country (a). The provisions of the Admiralty
Court Act, 1861 (b), which give (by ss. 4 and 5) to
the Court of Admiralty jurisdiction over any
tion,

any ship, and also for

necessaries supplied to any ship elsewhere than
in the port to which she belongs, unless the owner
be domiciled in England, were at one time held to
be confined to British ships, on the ground of the
claims, for the building of

the British Parliament had

improbability that

intended

to

legislate

in foreign

foreigners

for

but this no longer represents the law

ports

(c),

And

the seamen of

(d).

a ship of any nation are

wages in the Admiralty Court,
under s. 10 of the same Act, which gives that
Court jurisdiction over any claim by a seaman of
any ship for wages (e). It has been held that as
entitled to sue for

De la Vega v. Vianna, 35 E. E. 298 Don v. Lippmann,

5 CI. & F. 1
Gen. Steam Navig. Co. v. Guillou, 11 M. & W. 877
Lopez V. Burslem, 4 Moo. P. C. 300 British Linen Go. v. Drum(a)

mond, 34 E. E. 595
Finch, 45 L. J. Ch.

L. J. C. P. 781

Ruber

816

Be Beuss

v. Steiner,

43 E. E. 598

Alliance

Bank

Eostritz,

49 L.

of Simla
J. P.

v.

Fincli v.

Carey, 49

& M. 67

The

Leon, 6 P. D. 148.
(6)

24 Vict.

c.

10.

{d)

The India (1863), 32 L. J. P. M. & A. 185.

The Mecca (1894), 64 L. J. P. D. & A. 40.

(e)

The Nina, 37 L.

(c)

J.

Adm.

Digitized

17.

For provisions as to

by Microsoft

relief

REMEDIES GOVERNED BY LEX FORI.

279

the English sailing rules are not binding on foreign

ships on the high seas, a foreign ship

was

pre-

cluded, in a collision suit, from imputing to the

British ship with which the collision occurred, a

on the ground that

it had no right to the benefit of rules by which it
was not, itself, bound {a).
breach of any of those rules

and repatriation
abroad, see 6
(a)

of distressed

Bdw. VII.

o.

seamen and seamen

48, ss. 28 et seq.

The ZoUverein, Swab. 96.

Digitized

by Microsoft

left

behind

CHAPTER
SECTION

I.

EEPUGNANCTEEPEAL

ACTS

An

VII.

IN,

BY IMPLICATION

OB INVOLVING, THE NEGATIVE.

author must be supposed to be consistent

witb himself; and, therefore,

has expressed his mind

presumed that he

if

in one place he

clearly, it

ought to be

same mind in
another place, unless it clearly appears that he
has changed it (a). In this respect, the work of
the Legislature is treated in the same manner as
that of any other author; and the language of
every enactment must be construed, as far as
is still

of the

accordance with the terms of every

possible in

other statute which

it

does not in express terms

The law,

modify or repeal (6).

therefore, will not

allow the revocation or alteration of a statute by

when the words may be capable of

proper operation without it (c). But it is impossible
construction

to construe absolute contradictions

N.

(a) Puff. L.

See sup.

p. 61.

As

(c)

Per Bridgman

C.J.,

inf. p.

318.

2 Q. B. 272

consequently

b. 5, c. 12, s. 9.

(6)

122,

to Eepeal, see inf. p. 727 et seq.

Lynv. Wyn, Bridg. Eep. by feannister,

Per A. L. Smith

and see Felton

Digitized

v.

J.,

Eutner

v. Phillips,

[1891]

Bowers, [1900] 1 Q. B. 598.

by Microsoft

REPUGNANT SAVING CLAUSE.

if

281

the provisions of a later Act are so inconsistent

of an

with, or repugnant to, those

that the two cannot stand together

(a)

the earlier

stands impliedly repealed by the later (6).

posterioves

confrarias

priores

been

difference, indeed, has

Leges

Ubi

ahrogant.

eontrarise leges sunt, semper antiquse ohrogat

Act

earlier

duse

nova

(c).

said to exist in

between the effect of a Saving Clause

or Exception, and a Proviso in a statute. When
the proviso appended to the enacting part is
repugnant to it, it unquestionably repeals the

this respect

enacting part [d)

when

that

but

is

it

said

by Lord Coke

the enactment and the saving clause

(which reserves something which would be otherwise included in the words of the enacting part
are repugnant

as where

vests in
of A.

him the manor

the saving clause

manor

a statute vests a

in the King, saving the rights of

all

persons, or

of A. saving the rights

is

to be rejected, because

otherwise the enactment would have been

(a)

654.

Ham

Wegt

(6)

St.

Co. Litt. 112

V.

v.

McDowell (1857), 6 H. L. Oas. 142,

Leonards.
;

Shop. Touchst. 88

Doughty, 5 Ves. 243

Ves. 100

Morrall

v. Sutton,

Grot. b. 2,

Livy, b. 9,

(d)

A.-G.

(e)

Co. Litt. 47a

V.

c.

65 E. E. 434

34.

Shep. Touchst. 78.

Digitized

16,

s.

Brownv. G. W. B.

Chelsea Waterworks, Pitzg. 195.

;

e.

Constantine v. Oonstantine (1801), 6

(1885), 9 Q. B. D. 753, per Field J.

(c)

made

Fourth City Building Society, [1892] 1 Q. B.

See O'Flaherty

dictum of Lord
Sims

v.

(e)),

by Microsoft

Co.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

282
in vain

(a).

proposition

Duke

One authority which he

cites for this

the case of the reversal of

is

of Norfolk's attainder,

the

by an Act of Mary.

That Act declared that the earlier statute of

38 Hen. VIII., which had attained the Duke, was
no Act, but utterly void, providing, however, that
this reversal should not take from the grantees

Henry VIII. or Edward VI. any lands of the

Duke which those Kings had granted to them
of

and

this provision

was held inoperative

the rights of the grantees.

But

to save

this resulted, it

not because the saving clause was repugnant to the enacting part, but because the
is

said,

declaring the attainder void, in effect

latter in

established also that the lands of the

Duke had

never vested in the Crown; that none, conse-

had ever passed to the grantees; and

that there was thus no interest to be saved on
which the clause could operate (b).
The illustrations given by Coke are cases of
conveyance of land; and the rule as regards the
quently,

construction of repugnant passages in a convey-

ance by deed has always been that the earlier of

them prevails (c). But it may be questioned
(a) Alton

Woods

Case, 1 Eep. 47.

(1878), 10 Gh. D. 518;

affirmed 6
(&)

Ir.

v.

Simmons
35,

Bq. Eep. 288.

Walsingham's Case, Plowd. 565.

MaUn, 23 Maine,
(c)

See Yarmouth

aeUandY.Ker{lMB),6Iv. Eq. Eep.

See Savings

Institution v.

370.

Go. Litt.112; Shep. Touchst. 81

Digitized

Gather v. Merrick, B.Sivd.

by Microsoft

REPUGNANT SAVING CLAUSE.

283

whether there is any solid ground for this distinction between a saving clause and a proviso in a

The

statute.

later of

two passages

in a statute,

being the expression of the later intention, should

prevail

over

would,

the

earlier

as

it

unquestionably

were embodied in a separate Act.

It has been held that where a statute merely
if it

re-enacts the provision of an earlier one,

it is

to be

read as part of the earlier statute, and not of the

re-enacting one,

is

if it

in conflict with another

but before the last Act and

therefore does not repeal by implication the intermediate one (a). Where a passage in a schedule
passed after the

first,

appended to a statute was repugnant to one in the

body of the statute, the latter was held to prevail

Where

(6).

(as often

happens) a proviso

who

inserted to protect persons

is

are unreasonably

apprehensive as to- the effect of an enactment

where there
94; Furnivall
Williams

v.

really

is

no question of

54=4.

Boyal British Banh, 1 C. B. N.

v.

Willes J., citing Wallace v. Blachwell, 3

B.

V.

Bove, 3 B.

(&) JB. V.

640,
V.

jper

&

Patteson

Clarice

V.

Drew. 538.

S. 87,

per

See also

Aid. 596.

Baines, 12 A.
J.

Green, 8 P. D. 79

Institute

application

Coomhes (1843), 63 E. E. 455; explained in

v.

Hathaway (1877), 6 Ch. D.

(a) Morisse

its

B.

& E. 227

v. Bussell,

Allen v. Flicker, 10 A.

Cox, Exp. (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B. 532.

See

As

to Statutory Eules, see

v. Loclewood,

[1894] A. C. 360, sup.

Gaut, 22 L. J. Ex. 67.

of Patent Agents

& B.

18 L. J. M. C. 106; Dean

p. 93.

Digitized

by Microsoft

284

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

to their case, the

enactment

not to be construed

is

against the intention of the Legislature so as to

impose a

liability

apprehensive

When

upon people who were not

(a).

the later of two general enactments

couched in negative terms,

For instance,

it.

if

is

avoid

difficult to

it is

the inference that the earlier one

repealed by

so

impliedly

is

general Act

exempts frojn licensing regulations the sale of a

certain kind of beer, and a subsequent one enacts
that " no beer " shall be sold without a license,

would obviously be impossible to save the former

from the repeal implied in the latter (6). The
Highway Act, 1835, which enacted that " no
action " for anything done under it should be
it

months from

begun

after

action,

was

actions

against justices,

three

inconsistent,

clearly

so

But even when the

West

(a)

Derby

statute

is

Metropolitan Life

v.

it

(c).

later

Guardians

II.

months, that

six

necessarily repealed the latter

as regards

the 24 Geo.

with

which limited the time to

cause of

the

in

the

Assurance,

[1897] A. C. 647.
(6)

Vict.

Bead

(c)

Vict.

21,

c.

Sched.

C. 110 remedied by 24 & 25

by
10 Bdw. VII. c. 8, s. 96, and
now repealed

v. Storey,
s.

3,

30 L.

J.

M.

6.

5 & 6 Will. IV.

c.

61),

s.

c.

50,

24 Geo.

II.

s.

c.

109
44,

(repealed by 56
s.

12 A. & E. 470.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Bix

t.

& 57

Barton,

KKPEAL BY IMPLICATION.
affirmative,

it

negative which makes

ment
c.

(a).

74,

s.

found

often

is

to

285

involve

that

to the earlier enact-

it fatal

The requirements of 3 & 4 Will. IV.

40, which empowered a married woman

to dispose

by deed of land which she held in

fee,

provided she did so with the concurrence of her

husband and by deed acknowledged, were impliedly

repealed by the Married Women's Property Act,
1882, which enables her in general terms to dispose of

all

property as

real

if

she were a feme

Act requires that a juror shall have

20 a year, and a new one enacts that he shall
have 20 marks, the latter necessarily implies, on
If an

sole (b).

pain of being

inoperative, that the earlier

itself

be necessary, and

quaHfication shall not

repeals the

Act

first

company

railway

An Act empowering

(c).

to

thus

erect

any

on

station

scheduled lands within the limits of deviation

would

Metropolis
s.

75,

the

override

the

of

Management Amendment

which forbade the erection

beyond the general

(a)

provisions

earlier

Act, 1862,

of buildings

line of buildings in a street {d),

Bac. Ab. Stat. (D)

Foster's Case, 6 Eep. 59.

See Lord

Blackburn's judgment, Garnett v. Bradley, 48 L. J. Ex. 186.

See, however,
(jb)

Brummond
(c)

{d)

Vict.

inf. p.

45 & 46 Vict.

329

c.

75

et seq.
;

and see 7 Bdw. VII.

Jenk. 2nd Cent. Case, 73

25 & 26 Vict.
c.

c.

18,

s.

Be

(1891), 60 L. J. Ch. 258.

ccxiii,

s.

c.

102,

s.

215, Sohed. 4

Digitized

1 Bl.

75
;

s.

City

Comm.

89.

75 repealed by 57

&

by Microsoft

& 58

South London By.

v.

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

286

but this rule

tion

(a).

is

The

not necessarily of universal applica53 Geo. III. c. 127, giving power

two justices to enforce the payment of a church

rate when its validity was undisputed and the sum
due was under ten pounds (provided that where
the validity was disputed, the justices should forbear from adjudicating), entirely takes away the
jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts over complaints for non-payment of church rates where the
amount claimed does not exceed JIO in spite of
the proviso that nothing in the Act should alter or
to

affect the jurisdiction of

the Ecclesiastical Courts

to decide cases touching the validity of the rate

&

(b).

which authorised
the Secretary of State to remove to Bethlehem
Hospital any prisoner confined in the Queen's
prison who was of unsound mind, was held, as
Sec. 16, 6

6 Vict.

c.

22

(c),

regards such prisoners, to repeal impliedly the

earlier enactment of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 102,
which provided that a prisoner for debt of unsound

mind should be discharged

London

G.

C, [1891] 2 Q, B. 513

Bd., [1892] 2

Water
(a)

Co.,

Q. B. 606;

after certain inquiries

London

UchfieU U.

0. C. v.

I>.

C.

London School
Crowhorough

v.

[18991 2 Q- B. 664.

London County Council

Wandsworth

v.

&

Putney Gas Co.

(1900), 82 L. T. 562.
(6) Bichards

v.

Byhe

(1842),

Q.

B.

Bodenham, 48 E. E. 384.
(c)

Eepealed by

S.

L. E, (No.

Digitized

2),

1888.

by Microsoft

256

Bichetts

v.

REPEAL BY IMPLICATION.

287

and formalities (a). Where an Aot of Charles II.

enabled two justices of the peace, " whereof one to
be of the quorum," to remove any person likely
to be chargeable to the parish in

to inhabit

which he comes

and another, after reciting this proit, and enacted that no person

vision, repealed

should be removable until he became chargeable,

which case "two justices of the peace" were

empowered to remove him it was held that the
later Act dispensed with the qualification of being
of the quorum (b).
The provision of 43 Bliz. which gave an appeal
without any limits as to time against overseers'
accounts, was impliedly repealed by a subsequent
Act, which gave power to appeal to the next
in

Quarter Sessions

(c).

The repealed Nuisances Removal and Diseases

Prevention Act, 1848, in providing that the costs

and executing an order of justices

under the Act against an owner of premises should
be recoverable in the; County Court,- imphedly repealed, as regards such cases, the enactment of
the County Courts Act, that those Courts should
of obtaining

(a)
(6)

Gore
13

Ss

v.

Llangian, 4 B.
(c)
s. 6),

Grey, 32 L. J. C. P. 106.

43 Eliz.

Gar. 11.

&

o.

12,

aud 35 Geo. III. o. 101

Oookburn C.J.

B.

v.

S. 249, dissentiante

c. 2, s.

and 17 Geo.

6 (repealed in part by 81 & 32 Vict.

II. c. 38, s.

i; B.

v.

397.

Digitized

c.

122,

Worcestershire, 17 E. E.

by Microsoft

288

INTBEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

not take cognisance of cases where title to real

property was in question for it would have been
;

inoperative

if

the Court could not

decide

the

and this ruKng still

So, where justices were
(6).
empowered to punish summarily acts of malicious
damage to property, except when done " under a
fair and reasonable supposition " of a right, it
was held that this proviso impliedly repealed,
pro tanto, the general principle which ousts the
question of ownership

(a),

represents the law

jurisdiction of justices

when

a bond, fide claim of

is asserted; and that the justices were not

bound to abstain from adjudicating until satisfied
that the act had been done under a fair and
reasonable supposition of right (c). So, where
one Act empowered justices to enforce the payment of' costs given by the Queen's Bench on
appeal against convictions, except where the party
liable was under recognisances to pay such costs
and a later one authorised the Quarter Sessions to
give costs in " any appeal," to be recovered in the
manner provided by the first Act it was held that
the exception in that Act was impliedly repealed,

right

(a)

11

& 12

Vict.

c.

and 9 & 10

123,

s.

3 (repealed

Vict. c. 95,

s.

by 29 & 30

Vict. c. 90,

58 (repealed by 51 & 52 Vict.

s.

69),

c.

43,

s.

(6)

Fordham

(c)

White V. Feasl (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 353; Brooks

Hamlyn

188)

Harden (1852), 22 L.

B.

v.

v.

Akers (1864), 33 L.

J.

(1899), 79L. T. 734.

Digitized

J.

Q. B. 299.

Q. B. 67.

by Microsoft

v.

KEPEAL BY IMPLICATION.

and that a

289

warrant had been properly

distress

issued against the party liable, though he was

An

under reoognisances (a).

the

authority

the

of

Judicature

enacting that the costs of

the

High Court

shall

made under

order

Act,

1875,

proceedings

all

in

be in the discretion of the

Court, and that where an action

by a jury
the costs shall follow the event unless the Judge
at the trial, or the Court, otherwise orders, was
held to repeal so much of the Act of 21 Jac. I.
c. 16,

is tried

as deprived a successful plaintiff of costs in

an action of slander when he did not recover as

as forty shillings damages (Z).
An enactment that the Custos Botulorum shall nominate a

much
fit

person to be Clerk of the Peace quamdiu bene

se

impliedly repealed an earlier one which

gesserit,

authorised the appointment durante bene placito;

for a grant

under the former would be inconsistent

with one under the latter of the above Acts(c),

Where a

statute

made it

actionable to sell a pirated

copy of a work with knowledge that

(a) 11

Vict.

30 L.

c.

& 12

Vict.

43, 88. 4, 5)

J.

M.

c.

43,

s.

27 (repealed in part by 47 & 48

12 & 13 Vict.

(6) Oarnett v. Bradley, sup. p.

N.

c.

45,

s.

Freeman

v.

Bead,

285

Bockett v. Olippingdale,

See also per Jessel M.E., Mersey Bochs

Lucas (1881), 51 L.

(c)

was pirated,

0. 123.

[1891] 2 Q. B. 293.

C. B.

it

J.

Q. B. 116;

Gardner

v.

v.

Whitford, 4

S. 665.

Owen

V.

Saimders, 1

Wales Gunpowder

Co.,

Lord Eaym.

158.

See also Be North

[1892] 2 Q. B. 220.

19

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

290

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

and a subsequent Act contained a similar provision

but without any mention of guilty knowledge, it
was held that the earlier Act was so far abrogated
that an action was maintainable for a sale made
in ignorance of the piracy (a).
Where one Act
imposed a penalty of 5s. for killing or selling a wild
bird between March and August, unless it was
proved that the bird had been brought from abroad
this

March

and a later one,

enactment was insufficient

before

after reciting that

for

the protection

of wild birds during the breeding season, imposed

a penalty of 20s. for killing or " possessing " a wild

between February and July, it was held

that the later Act impliedly repealed the proviso
of the earlier Act, which admitted the excuse that
the bird had been imported (6). Where an Act
bird

required that a consent should be given in writing

attested

by two witnesses, and a subsequent Act

made the consent

valid

in writing, but

if

made

no mention of witnesses, this silence was held

&

Gambart v. Sumner, 29
on Copyright Act, 1911, see
Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Chap. XXI. See Mens Bea, sup.
West

(a)

V. Francis,

For

L. J. Ex. 98.

6 B.

Aid. 737

disquisition

p. 177.
(b)

35 & 36 Vict.

43 & 44 Vict.

c.

35,

See 43 & 44 Vict.

and 44 & 45
For

later

0.

78,

s.

7)

c.

35

Vict. c. 51

protective

4 Edw. VII.

c.

and 39 & 40
Whitehead
Earris

v.

Taylor

v.

legislation,

8 Bdw. VII.

Digitized

c.

Vict. c.

29 (repealed by

v. Smithers,

2 C. P. D. 553.

Lucas, [1919] 2 K. B. 291

Rogers, 50 L. J.
see.

11,

57

s. 2.

by Microsoft

& 58

M.

G. 132.

Vict. c.

24;'

BEPEAL BY IMPLICATION.

291

to repeal by implication the provision whioli re-

them (a). 1 Eliz. c. 1, which empowered

the Queen to authorise ecclesiastical persons to
quired

administer ex

officio

oaths to supposed offenders,

was impliedly repealed by 16 Car. I., which took

away the oaths (6). Where an Act exempted from
impressment all seamen employed in the Greenland fisheries, and a later one exempted seamen embarked for those fisheries whose names were registered and who gave security, it was held that the
earlier was repealed fro tanto by the later Act (c).

curious comphcation of legislation involving a

repeal

by implication

is

afforded

by the Judicature

Act, 1873, and the County Courts Acts of 1876

and 1888. Under the Judicature Act, 1873, s, 45,

which came into operation in 1875, it was enacted
that from a decision of a Divisional Court on
appeal from a County Court there should be no
further appeal without the leave of the Divisional

Court.

came

But the County Courts Act,

into operation the

1876, which

following day, enacted

that there should be an appeal without leave from

the Divisional Court, if the latter " altered " the
{d)

Cumberland

v.

Copeland, 31 L. J. Ex. 353

Kyle

V. Jeffreys,

Derby

v.

Bury Commissioners,

(6)

Birch

v.

Lake, 1 Mod. 185.

(c)

Exp. Caruihers, 9 East, 44.

525

per Jervis

C.J.,

H. L. Oas. 943 and per Lord Wensleydale,

3 Maoq. 611. See Hodgson v. Bell, 24 Q. B. D.

Jefferys v. Boosey, i

Digitized

inf. p.

310.

by Microsoft

292

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

judgment of the County Court in an Admiralty

cause, and consequently pro tanto repealed s. 45 of
the Judicature Act.
The County Courts Act,
1888, repealed the provision of the County Courts
Act,

that

but provided

referred to,

1876,

the

repeal should not revive any enactment not in

force

when

was passed.

it

consequently did not revive

1873, so far as

it

that

its

s.

45, Judicature Act,

was impliedly repealed by the

County Courts Act, 1875

Where

This express repeal

(a).

a statute contemplates in express terms

enactments wiU repeal

by
argument

earlier Acts,

their inconsistency with them, the chief

or objection against repeal by implication is re-

moved, and the

earlier

Acts

may

be more readily

Thus, after a local Act had

treated as repealed.

directed the trustees of a turnpike to keep their

accounts and proceedings in books to which " all

persons" should have access, the Turnpike Roads

Act, 1822, 3 Geo. IV.

great importance

c.

of one

which recited the

126,

uniform system being

adhered to in the laws regulating turnpikes, and

enacted that former laws should continue in force,
except as they were thereby varied or repealed,
directed that the trustees should keep their ac-

counts in a book to be open to the inspection of

0.

(a)

36 & 37 Vict.

43,

s.

188

c.

66

38 & 39 Vict.

c.

50,

The Bart, [1893] P. 33.

[1896] P. 40.

Digitized

by Microsoft

s.

10

51 & 52 Vict.

See also The Delano,

EBPEAL BY IMPLICATION.

293

the trustees or creditors on the tolls, and that

the book of their proceedings should be open to the
it was held that the
power of inspection of the proceedings given by
the first Act to " all persons " was repealed (a).
Again, if the co-existence of two sets of provisions would be destructive of the object for
which the later was passed, the earHer would be
repealed by the later.
Thus, when a local Act
empowered one body to name the streets, and to
number the houses in a town, and another local
Act gave the same power to another body, the
earlier would be superseded by the later Act
for
to leave the power with both would be to defeat
the object of the Legislature (b). But if one Act
imposed a toll, payable to turnpike trustees, for
passing along a road, and another transferred

inspection of the trustees;

the duty of repairing the road to another body,

prohibiting also the trustees from repairing

it,

the

would not be thereby impliedly repealed (c).

A later Act which conferred a new right, would
repeal an earlier one, if the co-existence of the

toll

(a)
(&)

V.

JB. V.

Daw

Northleach, 5 B.

V.

& Ad.

978.

Metropolitan Board, 31 L. J. 0. P. 223.

See Cortis

Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. & G. 314; -R. v. Middlesex,

& Ad. 818 Bates v. Winstanley, 4 M. & S. 429.

2 B.

(e)

Phipson

v. Harvett, 1

Cr.

M. & E.

G. W. B. Co., 51 L. J. Q. B. 529.
Socy. V. Knight, [1892] A. 0.

298

Comp. Brown

v.

Be Kirkleatham Local Board,

[1893] 1 Q. B. 375.

Digitized

473.

See also Tabernacle Bldg.

by Microsoft

294

INTEBPKBTATION OF STATUTES.

right which

venience

gave would be productive of inconthe just inference from such a result

it

for

would be that the Legislature intended to take the

earlier right away (a). Thus, the Country Bankers
Act, 1826 (7 Geo. IV.

ing and varying the

members

c. 46),

which, besides Umit-

common law

habihties

of

banking companies, provided that

suits against such companies should and lawfully
might be instituted against the public officer, was
of

held to take away by implication the

right of suing the individual

the nature of the case, this

the Legislature intended

common law

members (&), for from

must have been what

(c).

In other circumstances,
or incongruity of keeping

also,

the inconvenience

two enactments

in force

has justified the conclusion that one impliedly

presumed
Thus the re-

repealed the other, for the Legislature

not to intend such consequences.

pealed 9 Geo. IV.

c.

61,

is

which prohibited keeping

open public-houses during the hours of afternoon

divine service, was held repealed by implication

&

pro tanto by 18
(a)

See

inf.

19 Vict.

Chap. VIII., Sec.

c.

118,

which prohibited

I.

Chapman v. Milvain,
(6) Steward v. Greaves, 12 L. J. Ex. 109
19 L. J. Ex. 228; Davison v. Farmer, 20 L. J. Ex. 177;
;

O'Flaherty v. McDowell, 6 H. L. Gas. 142.

1

App. Cas. 513

See also Green

Boles v. Mosewell and

Hardy

v.

v. -B.,

Dern, 5

T. E. 538.
(c)

157.

Per Lord Cranworth, O'Flaherty

See Cowley

v.

v.

McDowell, 6 H. L. Cas.

Byas, 5 Oh. D. 944.

Digitized

by Microsoft

REPEAL BY IMPLICATION.

295

the sale between three and five o'clock p.m,, the

usual hours of afternoon divine service. If both

Acts had co-existed,

it

would have been in the

power

of the clergyman of every parish to close

the public-houses for four hours instead of two,

by beginning the afternoon

service at one

or at

an intention too singular to be lightly

attributed to the Legislature (a).
So, the charges
contained in the Distress for Eent Eules, 1888

five p.m.,

(made under

s.

Act, 1888, 61

8,

&

Law

Amendment

of Distress

52 Vict.

21),

c.

have superseded

the charges in the schedule to the Distress (Costs)

Act, 1817, 57 Geo. Ill o. 93 (h).

An
from

intention to repeal an Act

may

be gathered

repugnancy to the general course

its

of

Thus 7 Geo. I. c. 21,

which prohibited bottomry loans by BngHshmen to
subsequent legislation.

foreigners on foreign ships engaged in the Indian

was held to have been silently repealed by

the subsequent enactments which put an end to
the monopoly of the East India Company, and
trade,

(a)

B.

L. J.

M.

B.

V. Senior,

L.

Knapp, 22 L.

Hnd

& N. 143

WMteley, 3 H.

V.

See Harris

C. 217, S. 0.

&

J.

C. 401

M.

B.

v.

(6)

c.

J. M. C. 183
& B. 447 B. v.

30 L.

See examples of a similar

v.

Better (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 623.

Digitized

New

The present
those prescribed by 10 Bdw. VII.

Taylor, [1899] A. C. 41.

24, Sched. 6.

Walker

v. Lyons, 22 Ch. D. 287, and

Statutory Closing Hours are

1 Geo. V.

Whiteley v. Heaton, 27

Bucks, 2 E.

0. 139, S. C.

in Manchester [Mayor)

Windsor Corporation

v.

v. Jenns,

by Microsoft

296

INTBRPBKTATION OF STATUTES.

threw

trade open to foreign as well as to

its

British ships

SECTION

all

(a).

II.

CONSISTENT

APFIEMATIVE ACTS.

But repeal by implication

A sufficient Act ought not

is

not favoured

(6).

to be held to be repealed

by implication without some strong reason (c).

is

It

a reasonable presumption that the Legislature

did not intend to keep really contradictory enact-

ments on the statute-book,

or,

on the other hand,

to effect so important a measure as the repeal of

a law without expressing an intention to do

Such an interpretation,
adopted, unless

not to be

therefore, is

be inevitable.

it

Any

reasonable

construction which offers an escape from

more

so.

it

is

consonance with the real

likely to be in

intention.
It is

sometimes found that the conflict of two

statutes
different,

(a)

is

apparent only,

and the language of each

The India

Northleach, 5 B.

(JVo. 2),

33 L.

& Ad. 978

Socy.,

[1892] 1 Q. B. 654.

Scott,

6 0. B. N. S.

Trusts,

as their

J.

M. & A. 193.

P.

West

is

Ham

v.

therefore

See also B.

v.

Fourth Gity Building

Gomp. per Ex. Oh., Shrewsbury

v.

See other illustrations in Tearwood's

1.

Be, 5 Oh. D. 545

objects are

B.

v. Inl.

Bev., 21 Q. B.

D. 669

B.

v.

West Biding, [1891] 1 Q. B. 722.

(6) Foster's Gase,
(c)

11 Eep. 63a.

Per Lord Bramwell, G. W. By. v. Swindon

9 App. Oas., at p. 809.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

Gheltenham By.,

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

297

restricted, as pointed out in the preceding chapter,

own

to its

language

is

object

or

When

subject.

their

so confined, they run in parallel lines,

Thus the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. o. 27), which
without meeting.

limits the time for suing for the recovery of land

(which

is

defined to include tithes) to 20 years

after the right accrued,

was found not

to affect the

provision of the Act of the preceding session, 2

&3

IV. c. 100, which enacts that claims to

exemption from tithes shall be valid after nonpayment for thirty years for the former Act dealt
Will.

with conflicting claims to the right of receiving

which are admittedly payable

while the
latter related to the liability to pay them (a).
In
the one case, tithe was real property in the other,

tithes

a chattel
So,

s.

(&).

&

13, 1

2 Vict.

c.

110,

which enacted that

a judgment against any person should operate as

a charge on "lands, rectories, advowsons, tithes,"

and hereditaments in which the judgment debtor

had an interest, was held to be limited to the
(a)

Ely {Dean of)

(6)

Ely (Dean of)

Everett, 1 E.

S. C.

Hunt

v. Gash,
v. Bliss,

& B. 273
v. Gt.

Adey

15 L.

J.

Ex. 341.

De G. M. &
v. Trinity

Northern By.

Go.,

G. 459.

See also B.

v.

House, 22 L. J. Q. B.

3,

20 L.

J.

Q. B. 349

Grant

M. & W. 113 Manning v. Phelps, 24 L. J. Ex. 62

Hesketh, 4 H. & N. 175.
Gomp. B. v. Everett, sup.
Be Knight, 17 L. J. Ex. 168 Irish Land Gommission v. Grant
V. Ellis,

Hordon

v.

(1884), 10 App. Gas. 14.

Digitized

by Microsoft

298

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

property of debtors

who had the power

their property, that

is,

of charging

to lay rectories, advowsons,

and tithes, and so did not

by implication 13 Eliz. c.

with or repeal

conflict
10,

which makes void'

chargings of ecclesiastical property in ecclesi-

all

astical

hands

Act which provides one

TJie

(a).

course of proceeding for the habitual neglect to

send a chUd to school, does not conflict with

another which provides a different

mode

of pro-

ceeding for a neglect which was not habitual but

occasional only, and both therefore can stand

55 Geo. III.

c.

137,

s.

(6).

6 (c), which imposed a penalty

by the common informer by

on any parish officer who, for his own
supplied goods for the use of a workhouse,

of aBlOO, recoverable
action,
profit,

was held unaffected

76, which inflicted a

or for the support of the poor,

by

77,

s.

fine

&

5 Will. IV.

c.

summarily, half for the

of 5, recoverable

informer and half for the poor rates, on any such

officer

who

It

the passing of the later

(a)

Hawkins

Ashhurton (Ld.)
(6)
s.

14

39

& 40

(1));

an
had been decided before
Act (which, indeed, was

supplied goods for his profit to

individual pauper {d).

v.

Gathercole (1854), 24 L. J. Ch. 338

v. JVocfow,

Vict.

e.

79,

s.

11 (amended by 7

Murphy, Be (1877), 46 L.

Attwater, Exp., 46 L. J.

Bank.

(c)

Section repealed 31

(d)

BoUnson

v.

and see

[1915] 1 Oh. 274, 0. A.

& 32

J.

M.

C. 193.

c.

43,

See also

41.

Vict.

c.

122,

Emergon, 4 H. & C. 852.

p. 98.

Digitized

Edw. VII.

by Microsoft

s.

44.

See, however, sup.

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

299

passed in consequence of that decision), that the

earlier enactment applied only to a supply for
the poor generally, hut not to the supply of an

individual pauper
in

The

(a).

prohibition contained

the Trade Union Act, 1871, against a Court

entertaining any legal proceedings for the purpose

of enforcing an agreement for the application of

the funds of a trade union to provide benefits for

members, has been held not to be impliedly

repealed by the provision of the Trade Union Act

Amendment

Act,

1876,

that

member may

nominate any person to receive any moneys due

to such member from his trade union on his
decease, and that the trade union shall pay such
sum to the nominee the object of the later enactment being, not to depart from the policy of the
;

earlier one,

but to enable members to give away

small sums due to them, without incurring the

trouble

of

probate

(b).

making a Will,

The 56 Geo.

III.

c.

or the

expense of

50 (relating to the sale of

farm stock in execution), in providing that no

assignee in bankruptcy or under a bill of sale, and

no purchaser of farm stock, should be entitled to

dispose of any stock intended for use on the land
(a) Proctor v.
(J)

Manwaring, 3 B. & Aid. 145.

34 & 35 Vict.

c.

31,

s.

4,

and 39 & 40

Vict. o. 22,

(extended by 46 & 47 Vict.

c.

KnigU, [1892] 1 Q. B. 702

67 L. J. Q. B. 466.

Digitized

47, ss. 2, 3, etc.)

by Microsoft

a.

10

Crocker v.

300

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

any other manner than that by which the

tenant ought to have disposed of it, was limited in
construction to the purchases from tenants but
was regarded as not affecting 2 & 3 W. & M. c. 5,
in

which imposes on the landlord the obligation of

selling distrained goods at the best price, and
therefore as not justifying him in selling under
the conditions of the 56 Geo. III.

The

c. 50,

s.

1 (a).

later Act showed no intention to modify the

law of
So,

distress.

an Act

(h)

which imposed,

for police purposes,

a penalty for retailing excisable liquors without a

magistrate's license, would not be affected by an
excise Act of later date, which, after imposing a

duty on persons licensed by magistrates, provided

that nothing contained therein should prohibit a
person duly licensed to retail beer, from carrying

on his business in a booth or tent, at a fair or

race (c).
1 Will. IV. c. 64, which imposed on
beer retailers licensed by the Excise a penalty
of from j610 to 20 on conviction before justices,
for selling beer

(a)

Bidgway

made otherwise than

v. Stafford (1851),

Bose, 23 L. J. Q. B. 281;

20 L.

Hamkins

J.

malt and

of,

Ex. 226

Wilmot

v.

Walrond, 1 C. P. D.

v.

280.
(5)

48 Geo.

(c)

B.

660.

V.

III. c. 143,

See Buckle

35 L. J.

M.

s.

5,

repealed by S. L. E., 1872 (No.

Hanson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 519

v.

WrigMson, 34 L.

J.

M.

0. 169.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B.

v.

2).

Downes, 3 T. E.

C. 43

Ash

v.

Lynn,

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

or for mixing any

hops,

drugs with

301

or for

it,

was held not to affect 56 Geo. III.

0. 58, which punished with a penalty of ^200
any retailer of beer who had in his possession, or
put into his beer, any colouring matter or preparation in lieu of malt and hops partly because the
objects of the two enactments were not identical,
the later one having solely a sanitary object in
view, and the protection of the consumer; while
the earher was aimed as much at the repression

diluting

it,

of frauds

on the revenue

that 56 G-eo. III.

also,

in force by 1 Will. IV.

before 1 Will. IV.

Where

c.

It is to be added,

(a).

was expressly kept

51 (6), passed a week

58,

c.

c.

64.

a general intention

is

expressed, and also

a particular intention which

is

incompatible with

the general one, the particular intention

sidered an exception to the general one (c).

when

is

con-

Even

the later, or later part of the enactment

in the negative,

it is

is

sometimes reconcilable with

the earlier one by so treating

it.

If,

for instance,

an Act in one section authorised a corporation

to sell a particular piece of land, and in another
(a) A.-G. V.

Lochwood (1842), 9 M. &

W.

378.

See Palmer

v.

Thatcher, 3 Q. B. D. 346.
(6)

Eepealed, except

(c)

Per Best

ss.

22-24, by 43 & 44 Vict.

G.J., Ohurchill v. Crease, 5

ex. gr. Pilkington v. Cooke,

17 L.

J.

Ex. 141

4 Oh. D. 395.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

Bing. 180.
;

20,

s.

49.

See also

Taylor v. Oldham^

302

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

prohibited

it

from selling " any land," the

first

would be treated not as repealed by the

sweeping terms of the other, but as being an
exception to it (a).
In this manner two Acts
section

passed in 1833 were construed as reconcilable.

Sec. 42, 3

&

4 Will. IV.

c.

that no action for rent, or for

which provided
interest on money

27,

charged on land, should be brought after 6 years,

and the 3 & 4 Will. lY- c. 42, passed three weeks

later, which provided that no action for rent
reserved by lease under seal, or for money secured

by bond or other specialty, should be brought

after 20 years (now by s. 8, Real Property Limitation Act, 1874, 12 years), were construed as reconcilable, by holding that the later enactment was
an exception out of the former. And the effect of
the conjoined enactments (which do not repeal
the statute of James

(6)

so far as relates to simple

contract debts charged on land, but stand with

is,

it)

that no action to enforce a simple contract

whether charged on land or not, shall be

brought after 6 years, unless interest has been
paid or an acknowledgment given and as to any
specialty debt, whether charged on land or not, no
action shall be brought after 12 years, either on a
debt,

covenant or for a remedy against land, unless

(a)

Per Romilly M.E., Be Winton

v.

Brecm, 28 L.

600.
(6)

The Limitation

Act, 1623 (21 Jac. I.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

16).

J.

Oh.

303

CONSISTENT APFIEMATIVE ACTS.

given

(a).

may

It

been paid or an acknowledgment

has

interest

be observed,

that two statutes

also,

may

expressed in negative terms

be affirmative

and not contradictory, though negative as

regards a third at which they are avowedly aimed.
They may make two holes in the earlier Act,
which can stand side by side without merging
into one (b). For instance, 12 Anne, st. 2, c 16 (c),
having made void all loans at more than 6 per
cent, interest, the 3 & 4 Will, IV. c. 98, enacted
that " no " bill or note payable at three months
or less should be void for usury and the 2 & 3
inter se,

Vict.

c.

S7{d), that

"no

"

bill

or note payable at

12 months or less should be void on that ground,

but with the additional provision that the Act was

not to apply to loans on real security
(a)

Himter

v. NocJcolds,

19 L.

J.

and

it

was

Oh. 177 (but see Suiton

v.

22 Gh. D. 511, per Cotton L.J., at p. 518) Barnes v.

Glenton, [1899] 1 Q. B. 885 Paget v. Foley, 42 E. E. 698 Sims v.

Sutton,

Thomas, 12 A.

& E. 536

Htmfrey

v.

Gery, 7 0. B. 567.

Fearnside v. Flint, 52 L. J. Ch. 479

L. J.

K. B. 355

Bank. 120

Kirhland

Smith, Be, [1893] 2 Oh. 1

Biehens

v.

Wiggens, 32 L. J.

specialty debt within the 32

& 33

M.

Per Maule

(c)

Eepealed by

{d) Id.

(No.

J.,

2),

Glack

0. 144.

Bent

is

Vict. c. 46, in the administra-

v. Sainsbury,

11 G. B. 695.

S. L. E., 1867.

1874.

Digitized

72

Deere, Be, 44 L. J.

Hastings, 47 L. J. Gh. 137.

(6)

See also

v. Peatfield,

Shrewsbury, 42 L. J. Gh. 877

Talhot v.

tion of assets,

by Microsoft

Be

304

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

held that the last-mentioned Act did not repeal

& 4

The negative words, in which

both were expressed, had reference to the Act of
Anne but inter se, they were affirmative statutes,
and the proviso of the later one, therefore, did not
affect the short loans dealt with by the Act of
WiU. IV. (a).
3

Will. IV.

Further,

it

is

down

laid

the later enactment

generally, that

when

worded in affirmative terms

is

any negative expressed or implied,

it does not repeal the earlier law (5).
Thus, an
Act which authorised the Quarter Sessions to try
only, without

a certain offence, would involve no inconsistency

with an earlier one which enacted that the offence

should be tried by the Queen's Bench or the

and would therefore not repeal it by

implication (c). The statute which made it a
misdemeanour to carnally know a girl above twelve
Assizes,

and under thirteen, with or without her consent,

did not prevent a conviction for rape, under an
enactment, upon a

earlier

ages

&

Sec. 4, 7

{d).

303

Exp. Warrington, 22 L.

(5)

Co. Litt. 115a

(c)

Muir

(d)

V.

Still

J.

those

34

which

Nixon

Bank.

c.

(e),

v. Phillips,

21 L.

J.

33.

Anon., Lofft, 465.

Sore (1877), 47 L.

24 & 26 Vict.

(repealed, 48
(e)

between

8 Will. III.

(a) Clack v. Sainsbury, sup. p.

Ex. 88

girl

c.

& 49 Vict.

100,
c.

69,

s.
s.

J.

48,

19)

M. 0. 17.
and 38 & 39

c.

94,

s.

B. v. Batcliffe, 10 Q. B. D. 74.

on the Statute Book.

Digitized

Vict.

by Microsoft

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

provided

that

when

305

Quaker refused to pay

tithe or church rates, it should be lawful for

two justices to order and enforce payment if the
sum due was under J610, was held not to repeal
27 Hen. VIII. c. 20 (a), which gave jurisdiction to
the Ecclesiastical Courts in such matters (6).
Sec.

11,

Lunacy Eegulation Act, 1862

cellor

(repealed, 53

& 54

342), which enabled the Lord Chanto make an order for the payment of the

Vict. c. 5,

s.

expenses incidental to the presentation of a petition

an inquiry as to the sanity of an alleged lunatic,

and to order that such expenses be paid by the

for

parties

who

or out

either present or oppose the petition,

of the estate of the alleged

lunatic, did

not take away the right of a person to sue a

lunatic, so found by inquisition, and his committee,
for the recovery of expenses so incurred, without
having obtained any order (c). So, an Act which im-

poses a liability on certain persons to repair a road,

(a)

Eepealed (with saving),

(6)

B.

V. Sanchee, 1

S. L. E., 1887.

Lord Eaym. 323.

Many of

the clergy, in

the 18th century, persisted, in consequence, in suing Quakers

in the Ecclesiastical Courts for such trivial

order to

inflict

sums as

heavy costs and imprisonment.

Church

to alter the law, but the

or

5s. in

Walpole

tried

cried out that

is.

it

would be

persecution to compel the clergy to recover before magistrates

a due of divine origin

Lecky, Hist. Bug., in 18th Cent.,

vol.

i.

p. 260.
(c)

See

s.

109 Lunacy Act, 1890, and Brockwell

(1889), 22 Q. B. D. 567

v.

Bullock

a decision under the repealed Act.

20

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

306

would not be construed as impKedly exonerating

the parish from its common law duty to do so (a).
A by-law which authorised the election of " any
person " as Chamberlain of the City of London was
not deemed inconsistent with an earlier one which
required of the candidates a certain qualification,

but was limited to eligible persons

(6).

local

Act, in directing that the chimneys of buildings

should be built of such materials as the Corporaapproved, did not affect the provisions of

tion

the earlier general Act (3

&

4 Vict.

o.

86,

s. 6), (c)

which required that chimneys should be built of

stone or brick (tZ). A by-law made under s. 74,
Elementary Education Act, 1870, requiring children
to attend school as long as it was open (which was
at

least

30 hours in the week), did not repeal

the provision in the Workshop Eegulation Act,

1867, which requires that children under thirteen

employed in a workshop shall be sent to school

for at least 10 hours weekly (e).
An Act which
B.

(a)

V. St.

George's,

Southampton, 21 L. J.

Hanover Square, 13 E. E. 792

M.

0. 201

Gibson

B.

39 L.

v. Preston,

v.
J.

Q. B. 131.
Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B.

(6)
JR. V.

(c)

Eepealed as regards Metropolis by 7 & 8 Vict.

which

is itself

{d) Hill V.
(e)
s.

&

0. 838

Saddlers' Go. (1863), 32 L. J. Q. B. 337.

107

repealed by 18

Bury

Vict.

c.

122,

s.

e.

84,

s.

1,

109.

Hall (1876), 45 L. J. M. C. 153.

30 & 31 Vict.
;

& 19

v.

c.

146,

s.

14 (repealed by 41 & 42 Vict.

Cherryholm, 1 Ex. D. 457.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

16.

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACfS.

30?

provided that if a person suffered bodily injury

from the neglect of a mill-owner to fence dangerous

machinery, after notice to do so from a factory

inspector, the mill-owner should be liable to a
penalty, recoverable by the inspector, and appHcable to the party injured or otherwise, as the

Home

Secretary should determine, would

not

common law right of the injured party

sue for damages for the injury (a). A bond

affect the

to

by a

collector,

with one surety, good under the

ordinary law, would not be deemed invalid because

the Act which required it enacted that the col-

good security by a joint and

bond with two sureties at least (6).
The repealed 30 & 31 Vigt. c. 142, which authorised a judge of the Superior Court in which an
lector should give

several

action

is

brought, to send the case for trial to a

County Court, was construed as not impliedly

repealing the earlier enactment of 11 G-eo. IV. c. 70,
which authorised any judge of the Superior Courts
to transact the chamber business of the other
Courts as well as his own but the later Act was
read with the earlier, and the expression "judge of
;

(a)

& 8

Vict. e.

subject, see ss. 10

15 (repealed

for the present

and 136, Factory and Workshop Act, 1901)

Gasswell v. Worth, 25 L. J. Q. B. 121.

Midland By.
(6)

Peppin

law on the

Co.,

23 L. J. Q. B. 17.

v.

Cooper (1819), 2 B.

&

See Amhergate By. Oo.

v.

See Austen

v.

Aid. 431.

Howard, 7 Taunt. 28, 327.

Digitized

by Microsoft

08

liJTEBPEE'rATIOJj

OP STATUTES.

the Court in which the action was brought," was

thus construed

as

equivalent to

any judge of

any of the Superior Courts of law (a). Sec. 52,

65 Geo. III. c. 184(&), which directed that all
affidavits required- by existing or future Acts for

when

the verification of accounts should, unless

otherwise expressly provided, be

made

before the

Commissioners of Stamps, was held unaffected by

9 Geo. IV. c. 23, s. 7, which empowered justices of
the peace to administer the oath in similar cases.
Although the later Act did " otherwise provide,"

make the

did not

it 3

the

Act{c).

earlier

&

provision inconsistent with

The Highway Act,

1835,

c. 50, which enacted that no

action for anything done under it should be begun

6 Will. IV.

until 21

days' notice of action

had been given,

did not repeal (as regards the notice of action

to justices)

s.

1,

24 Geo.

justices the privilege of

44 (rf), which gave

a month's notice when
II. c.

sued for anything done in the execution of their

office (e)

though, as already mentioned,

it

was

the same time held to repeal the provision

at

(a)

Owens

v. Jones,

For County Court

37 L. J. Q. B. 159.

Eules in remitted cases, see Order XXXIII., Eules 1913-1918.

(&)

by

s.

Eepealed by 54 & 55 Vict.

(c)

B. V Greenland, 86 L.

(d)

Eepealed.

(56

& 57

(e)

c.

38,

s.

28,

and replaced

24.
J.

M.

C. 37.

See Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893

Vict. c. 61).

Bix

V.

Borton (1840), 12 A. & E. 470.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See sup. 284.

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

309

same Act which limited the time

of the

to six

months.

The 28 Hen. VIII. c. 11, which gave the curate

who served during a vacancy an action for his
stipend against the next incumbent, remained unaffected

by

&

2 Vict,

on the avoidance

c.

106,

which enacted that

of a benefice, the stipend of the

curate during the vacancy, fixed by the bishop,

should be paid by the sequestrator;

both Acts

being in the affirmative, and not so inconsistent as

to be incompatible with both standing (a)

though

the later Act suggested ground for contending

that as a Court of law could not determine what

the salary should be,

assist the

it

was not competent to

curate in recovering any

(6).

Where

one Bankruptcy Act empowered the Court to

make the bankrupt an allowance, and a later one
enacted

the

that

creditors

should

determine

whether any and what allowance should be made

to him, it was held that the former power was still
in force when the creditors did nof exercise that
given

them by the

Hen. VIII.

c.

(d),

(a)

DaMmv. Seaman

(6)

Per Parke

(c)

Ellerton, Exp.,

on

{d)

J.

Act(c).

Sec.

2,

32

which prohibited on pain of

(1842), 9

M. & W.

777.

B., Id. 789.

this point, see

44 L.

later

s.

As

33 L. J. Bank. 32.
58,

to the present

law

Bankruptcy Act, 1914, and Gordon, Exp.,

Bank. 97.

Eepealed by 60 & 61 Vict.

Digitized

c.

65,

s.

11.

by Microsoft

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

310

forfeiture the sale of

titles to

any " pretended " rights or

land (which included

for these

rights of entry,

all

were not transferable at

common

was not impliedly repealed as regards

rights of entry

by

s. 6,

&

law),

fictitious

9 Vict. c. 106,

which

enacted that rights of entry might be disposed of

by deed. But it was so far repealed as to cease to

affect good and real rights of entry (a).
Where a power was given by a local Act to
commissioners to make
lands, after giving

drains through private

28 days' public notice, with

power to the persons interested to appeal

and
the subsequently passed Nuisances Eemoval Act
for England, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, ss. 21 &
22) (6), gave the same power to the same commissioners, without requiring notice, it was held
that they were at liberty to act under either
The notice was not a right given to the
statute.
parties interested, but a mere restriction; and
there was no more inconsistency in the coexistence of the two powers than in the co;

existence of the ordinary covenants in a lease to

repair

notice

and to repair
Where an Act (13

simply,
(c).

51 L.

Jenkins

(6)

Eepealed by 38 & 39 Vict.

J.

&

a month's

14 Vict.

c.

97)

Q. B. 438.

(a)

v. Jones,

after

c.

55,

s.

343, as regards

England (excluding London). Eepealed as regards London by

54 & 55 Vict. c. 76, s. 142.
(c) Derby v. Bury Commissioners (1868), 38 L. J. Ex. 100.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

311

imposed a duty of 35s. on the transfer of a mortgage, and a second (24 & 25 Vict. c. 91, s. 30)
provided that when the transfer was made by
several deeds, only 5s. should be charged on all
but the first, and a third Act (28 & 29 Vict. c. 96,
s. 17) repealed the first by imposing a stamp of
sixpence per JElOO, it was held that the second
Act was not impliedly repealed by the third (a).
The Thames Conservancy Act, 1857 (20 & 21
Vict. c. colvii), which by s. 96 makes the owner of

Thames responsible for

damage done to the Conservators' property, by
any of the boatmen "or other persons belonging
to or employed in " the vessel, was held not to
affect the provision of s. 388, Merchant Shipping
Act, 1854 (repealed and re-enacted by s. 633
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), which protected
owners from liability, where the damage was
a vessel navigating the

occasioned by the fault of a compulsorUy employed

pUot, who, therefore, was not included in the words
" other persons " (b). The 33 Geo. III. c. 54 (now

which protected members

of friendly

Comp., however, such eases as Cumberland v.

Copeland, sup.

obsolete),

p. 291.

(a) Foley v. Inl. Bev., 37 L. J.

repealed by 33 & 34 Vict.

o.

99,

Ex. 109.

All these Acts are

and Schedule.

The

existing

duty on transfer of mortgage (except marketable securities)

6d. for each 100.
(b)

Thames Conservators

v.

Digitized

Hall (1868), 37 L.

by Microsoft

J. C. P. 163.

is

312

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

from poor law removal until they became

actually chargeable, was not impliedly repealed by
societies

which extended that protection

to all poor persons for though the latter seemed
to supersede the former by making it unnecessary,
yet it differed from it in declaring that an
unmarried woman pregnant was to be deemed
chargeable, while under the earlier Act, the
35 Geo.

III. c. 101,

daughter

pregnant

of

member

society was not removable

c. 38,

of a friendly

Sec. 4, 17 Greo. II.

(a).

which empowered the Quarter Sessions, upon

an appeal against a poor

rate, to order costs to

be

paid to the successful party, was held unrepealed

by s. 5, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, which, in substance,

empowered the Quarter Sessions to direct the
unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the successful party to the clerk of the peace, who was
to pay them over to the successful party so that
the order for costs might be made in either
form (b).
;

The 43
Car. II.

Bliz. c. 6, 21 Jac. c. 16,

c. 9,

having provided that a

action for slander,

who recovered

&

23

plaintiff in

an

and 22

much

damages, was to be entitled only to as

c.

24, after expressly

(a)

B.

V.

(b)

B.

V.

B&

S.

425

repeaKng the

Idle (1818), 2 B.

&

Huntley, 23 L. J.
;

Comv. B.

costs

first

4 Vict.
and third

Aid. 149.

M.

v. Hellier,

Digitized

40s.

&

the damages amounted to; the 3

as

than

less

C. 106

21 L.

J.

M.

by Microsoft

Gay
C.

v.

3.

Matthews, 4

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTS.

of those Acts, without

enacted

that

313

mentioning the second,

who, in such cases,

plaintiff

recovered less damage than 405., should not be

any

entitled to

certified that

costs, unless the presiding

the slander was malicious

was held that

judge

and

it

enactment did not

16, and that the effect
of the judge's certificate was merely to remit the
plaintiff to the rights which that statute gave
later

this

impliedly repeal 21 Jao.

him (a).

The 5

Vict.

o.

c.

27, which, after reciting

would be advantageous to ecclesiastical

benefices if incumbents were empowered to grant
leases with the consent and under the restrictions
mentioned in the Act, gave them power to grant,

that

it

with the consent of the patron, leases for 14 years

at the best rent, and with numerous special
covenants by the lessee, was held not to abridge
the power which every parson had at
as modified

by 13

common

law,

Eliz. c. 10, to grant leases for

21 years or three Hves, the lease being confirmed

by the patron
SECTION

III.

(b).

GENERALIA

SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT.

but a particular appKcation of the general

presumption against an intention to alter the law
It is

(a)

Evans

v. Bees,

L. J. Q. B. 85.

Wrightup
(6)

in B.

v. Greenacre,

Green
V.

30 L. J. 0. P. 16

See also Bavies

v. Jenkins,

Medway

10 Q. B.
29 L.

J.

v.

Marshall

Griffiths,

v.

8 L.

Martin, 39
J.

Ex. 70

1.

Ch. 505.

See other illustrations

Union, L. E. 3 Q. B. 383; Northwich v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

St.

INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

314

beyond the immediate scope of the statute (sup.

p. 149), to say that a general Act is to be construed
as not repealing a particular one, that is, one
directed towards a special object or a special class
of

objects

(a).

general

later

law

does not

abrogate an earlier special one by mere implication

Generalia specialihus non derogant

(6).

(c)

or,

in other words, "

where general words in a later

Act are capable of reasonable and sensible applica-

them

tion without extending

by

dealt with

and special legislation

is

"... that

earlier

not to be held indirectly

derogated from merely by

altered, or

repealed,

to subjects specially

earlier legislation

force of such general words, without any indication of a particular intention to do so " {d). In such
Paneras, 22 Q. B. D. 164

Q. B. D. 164

Mitford Union v. Wayland Union, 25

Pollock v. Lands Improvement Co., 37 Ch. D. 661.

(a)

Per Lord Hatherley, Garnett

(6)

Per Page-Wood V.-C, London

house, 3

K. &

J.

123

Thorpe

[1891] 2 Q. B. 272

45; Baird

v.

&

Blackmail By.

v. Phillips,

Ashton-under-Lyne

Tunhridge Wells, 64 L.

v.

J.

(c)

(d)

Cas.,

2),

67 L.

J.

E. v.

per A. L. Smith

J.,

Pugh, [1898] 1 Q. B.
Q. B. 151; Lodge

Huddersfield Corp. {No. 1) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 568.

(No.

Lime-

v.

Adams, L. E. 6 C. P. 125

v.

Champneys, Id. 384; Kutner

Bradley, 3 App. Cas. 950.

v.

See

v.

S. 0.

Q. B. 571.

Jenk. 3rd Cent. 41st Case.

Seward
at

Do M. &

v.

68

p.

The Vera Cruz, per Lord Selborne C, 10 App.

Hawkins v. Gathercole, per Turner L.J., 6

G., at p. 31

Lyn

v.

Wyn, Bridg. 122,

M. Smith J. Thames Conservators v.

per Bramwell B., Dodds v. Shepherd,
;

Digitized

inf. p.

318, per

Hall, L. E. 3 G. P. 421,
1

Ex. D. 75.

by Microsoft

and

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENEEAL ACTS.

315

presumed to have only general cases in

view, and not particular cases wMcli have been
already otherwise provided for by the special Act,
or, what is the same thing, by a local custom (a).
oases

it is

Having already given

its

attention to the particular

and provided for it, the Legislature is

reasonably presumed not to intend to alter that
subject,

by a subsequent general enact-

special provision

ment, unless

that

intention

is

manifested

in

language

(b), or there be something which

shows that the attention of the Legislature had
been turned to the special Act, and that the
general one was intended to embrace the special
or
cases provided for by the previous one (c)
something in the nature of the general one making

explicit

it

an exception was intended as

unlikely that

The general

regards the special Act.

statute

is

read as silently excluding from

its

operation the

which have been provided

for

by the special

cases
one.

Thus, the rules of the Supreme Court as to

(a) Go. Litt.

H5a;

Harhert's Case,

Gregory's Case, 6 Eep. 19b

V. Player, Bridg.

272

B.

v.

3 Eep. 13b, note U.;

Pugh, 1 Doug. 188

HutcMns

Piatt v. Sheriffs of London, Plowd. 36.

(6) Per Wood V.-G., Fitzgerald v. Ohampneys, 2 Jo. & H. 54

and per Lord Hobhouse, Barker v. Mger, [1898] A. G. 754.
(c) Per Lord Hatherley, Garnet v. Bradley, 3 App. Gas. 950.
See also per Gur., B. v. Poor Law Com., 6 A. & E. 48 and
see The Dragoman (1895), 11 T. L. E. 428, per Bruce J., at
;

p. 428.

Digitized

by Microsoft

316

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

costs do not operate to repeal the provisions of

special statutes giving special costs in particular

And

cases (a).

in

Kke manner the language of the

Sale Acts requiring the

Bills of

by which

agreements

registration of

a charge

a right to

security on personal chattels

is

or

conferred, although

enough to include debentures of a

company, were held not to include such
instruments, as the registration of them had been
otherwise provided for by the Companies Clauses
Consohdation Act, 1845, and the repealed Companies Act, 1862 (b). Sec. 7, Admiralty Court
Act, 1861, which gives jurisdiction to that Court
" over any claim for damage done by any ship,"
has been held not to authorise an action for
damages for loss of life under Fatal Accidents Act,
1846 (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93); actions under that
Act being in respect of a special class of claims
clearly wide

joint stock

involving numerous and important considerations,

which the Legislature cannot be supposed to have

had in contemplation in using words of so general
(a)

Beeve

Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B.

v.

(1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 419.

2 K. B.
(6)

25 &

Ir.

652

See also Quinn

v.

Hasher

v.

Wood

M'Einlay, [1902]

315.

41 & 42

Vicfc. e. 31,

26 Vict. c. 89,

L. J. Oh. 292.
gages, charges,

s.

43

45 & 46 Vict.
;

& 9

Vict. e. 16,
Co.,

60

as to registration of mort-

contained in

s.

93 of the Companies

(Consolidation) Act, 1908.

Digitized

43, 8

Be Standard Manufacturing

The present law

etc., is

c.

by Microsoft

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTS.

a ohaoraoter

and in no case does

(a),

the benefit of aliens abroad,

it

it

apply for

being clear law

that an Act of the British Parliament

allocution addressed urhi

317

is

not an

Again, where

et orbi (b).

a local Act, for completing a bridge across the

Thames, exempted the owners of the adjoining

ground, which was to be embanked at their expense, from aU taxes and assessments whatsoever,
it was held that later general Acts imposing taxes
and rates in respect of lands and houses, did not
repeal that exemption (c), but this apparently is
no longer good law(cZ).
After 13 Eliz. c. 10
(sup. p. 313), had declared all leases of ecclesithan

astical property void, other

for 21 years

or

three lives, leases of house property in towns were

excepted from

operation by 14 Eliz.

its

when, 4 years

and

18 Eliz.

later,

o.

c.

11,

11
after

had already begun of

granting reversionary leases of Church property,
enacted that " all leases hereafter to be made,"

reciting that

by

a practice

ecclesiastics,

of

24 & 25 Vict.

10

(a)

L. J. P. D. & A.
(6)

Adam

c.

Seward

v.

The Vera Cruz (1884), 54

9.

British

v.

Church "lands, tenements

and Foreign Steamship Go. (1898), 67

L. J. Q. B. 844.
(c)

Williams v. Pritchard and Eddington v.

4 T. E. 2 and
[d)

Perchard

N. E. By.

Co.,

Borman

(1790),

4.
v.

Seywood, 53 E. E. 128, and Duncan

L. E. 2 Sc. App. 20.

Corp. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 369

Digitized

See Sion College

v. Scottish

v.

London

[1901] 1 K. B. 617, at p. 621.

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

318

and hereditaments," should be void, if the old

lease was not expired or
determined within
3 years from the grant of the new it was held
that this last Act did not apply to the property
dealt with by 14 Eliz. (a).
So the general pro;

vision of the Married

Women's Property

Act, 1882,

which gave power to a married woman to dispose by Will of any real or personal property in
the same manner as if she were a feme sole, has
been held not to override the special provision of
43 Geo. III. c. 108 (repealed as to Ireland by 14
& 15 Vict. c. 71), which enacts that the powers
conferred by that Act of making a gift by WiU for
the purpose of erecting a church shall not extend
to the case of a married

woman

concurrence of her husband

acting without the

(b).

Where an Act took away the right of bringing

an action respecting certain disputes which were
referred to the

summary

adjudication of justices,

was held that the subsequently established

County Courts acquired no jurisdiction to try
such cases, under the general authority to try
" aU pleas " (c).

it

(o)

Per

Sir O.

Bridgman, Lyn

v.

Wyn, Bridg. E. by Bannister,

122. This ease is not reported in the original edition of Bridgman's

judgments, and the Court seems to have been equally divided.

(6)

45 & 46 Vict.

c.

75,

s.

SmitTi's Estate,

Be, 35 Oh. D.

589.
(c)

L.

&

Payne, Exp. (1849), 18 L. J. Q. B. 197.

N. W. By. (1863), 32 L.

Digitized

J. Q.

B. 318.

by Microsoft

See also Brown

v.

SPECIAL NOT ArFBCTED BY GBNEEAL ACTS.

The

319

provision of the Judicature Act, 1875, that

except where

otherwise provided hy the Act

it is

or the rules annexed to

it,

the judgment of the

Court shall be obtained by motion, was held not

to affect the (repealed) County Courts Act of
1856 (re-enacted s. 65, County Courts Act, 1888),
which,

Superior Courts

the

authorising

after

to send certain cases to the

County Courts for trial,

had directed that the judgment might be signed in
accordance with the result as certified by the
registrar {a). The general provisions of Order LIX.
rr. 9, 17, as to appeals to the Queen's Bench
Division

from

the special provisions of

London Procedure

do

Courts,

inferior

s.

Actj

not

repeal

S, Mayor's

Court of

to

imposing

as

1857,

the obligation on the party appealing from that

Court in certain cases to give security for costs

c.

(6).

The Turnpike Eoads Act, 1822, 3 Geo. IV.

126, which empowered turnpike trustees to

and provided that all contracts for

letting them should be valid, though not by deed,
" any Acts of Parliament or law to the contrary
thereof notwithstanding," was held unaffected by
8 & 9 Vict. c. 106, which in the most general
let

the

38 & 39 Vict.

(a)
s.

26

tolls,

c.

77,

Order

40,

Scutt V. Freeman, 2 Q. B.

r.

D. 177

19 & 20 Vict.
;

Johnson

v.

c.

108,

Wilson

(1882), 46 L. T. 647.
(6)

20 & 21

Vict. e. clvii,

s.

Morgan

L. J. Q. B. 84.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Bowles (1893), 63

320

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

terms declares that " a lease, required by law to

be in writing, of any tenements and heredita-

made by deed."

ments, shall be void unless

was not

It

to be supposed that the Legislature in-

tended by the later Act to

interfere

with the

of the earlier one, which was emphatically

that a deed should not be required for turnpike

poKoy

though necessary by the general law of

the land (b). An Act which declared all debtors
to be subject to the bankruptcy laws, would include debtors who had the privilege of Parliament
tolls (a),

from personal arrest

(c)

but any provisions of

those Acts which authorised the arrest of bankrupts would be held inapplicable
entitled to the privilege.

Unless

contrary intention plainly,

it

to
it

person

expressed a

would be presumed

that* the Legislature did not intend

with

to

interfere

it (d).

Personal Acts and local customs affecting only

certain

persons

in

their

rights,

privileges,

or

property, offer other illustrations of this rule, that

enactments are unaffected by the general

words of a more general enactment. Thus, the
Act aboKshing Fines and Eecoveries (3 & 4
special

(a) Shepherd v.

s.

Hodsman

(6)

B.

(c)

Eor existing law on

V. Salisbury (1838),

(1852), 21 L. J. Q. B. 263.

8 A.

& E.

716.

4 & 5 Geo. V.

this point, see

c.

59,

128.
(d) Newcastle v. Morris (1870), L. E. 4

Digitized

H. L.

by Microsoft

661, inf.

p 546.

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTS.

321

most comprehensive
"
terms, authorises
every tenant in tail " to bar
Will. IV. c. 74), which, in the

his entail in a certain manner, does not apply to

the tenant in

property entailed by special

tail of

Act of Parliament, such as the Shrewsbury, Marlborough, Wellington, and other special Parliamentary entails (a). And in the same way, 1 & 2
Vict. c. 110,

which in general terms enacted that

a judgment of a Superior Court shall operate as a

charge on the lands of the debtor from the time of

the

its registration in

Common

Pleas,

was held

not to repeal by implication the Middlesex Eegis-

which had enacted that no judgment

should bind lands in Middlesex, but from the time

tration Act,

of its registration in the register office for Middle"

"

sex

An

(b).

Act which authorised

to sell beer,

who

any person

obtained a license for the pur-

would not be construed as repealing the

custom or local law of a borough which disqualified
aU persons who were not burgesses from selling
beer (c). An Act which required all persons to
pose,

Per

(a)

Wood

See Abergavenny

V.-C, Fitzgerald
v.

Board, Be, 19 Beav. 153,

(6)

Vict.

1
0.

& 2
26,

inf. p.

6,

Sched.

Blythe, 23 L. J. Q. B. 386.

376

Bnraght

v.

Ghampneys, 2 Jo. & H. 54.

;

and comp.

Cuckfield

325.

13 & 19 (partially repealed 63 & 64

Vict. c. 110, ss.

s.

v.

Brace, L. B. 7 Ex. 145

7 Anne,

o.

20,

18

s.

Westbrook v.

See also Bale's Case, 6 Q. B. D.

Ld. Penzance, 7 App. Cas. 240

Fritz v. Hobson

(1880), 14 Ch. D. 542.

(c)

Leicester v. Burgess, 5 B.

& Ad. 246

11 Geo. IV. & 1

21

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBBPBBTATION OP STATUTES.

322

serve as jurors of the county, in general terms,

would not be construed as extending to a hundred,

when those who served as jurors in the hundred
were by custom exempted from service in the
county (a). So, the repealed 50 Geo. III. c. 41 (&),

which empowered licensed hawkers to set up in

any trade in the place where they resided, was
held not to give them that privilege in a borough
where, by custom or by-law, strangers were not
allowed to trade

had

Where

(c).

a railway

company

authority, under a special Act, to take certain

lands in the metropolis for executing works on

them,

it

was held that

its

powers were unaffected

by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19

Vict. c. 120), which was passed shortly afterwards,
giving the same powers to a pubUc body (d).
So,
an Act which authorised the lord of a manor and
his heirs to break up the pavement of the streets
Will. IV.

153

c.

64,

HutcMns

29

s.

(a) B. V. Pugli,

5 A.

& B. 391

(b)

by

&

See 51

S. L.

R,

B.

comp. HuxTiam v. Wheeler, 33 L. J.

M.

C.

Player, Bridg. 272.

v.

Doug. 188
v. Johnson,

52 Vict.

33,

c.

B.

Gl.

s.

v.'

&

St. James's,

Westminster,

F. 41.

(this section is

now

repealed

1908).

(c)'Smson

& Ad. 543; Llandaff Market

Moss, 2 B.

v.

Co. v.

Lyndon, 30 L. J. M. 0. 105.
(d)

London

L. J. Oh. 164

&
;

161, sup. p. 293.

c.

14,

and

Blachwall By.
comp.

Daw

v.

Co.

v.

Limehouse (1856), 26

Metrop. Board, 12 C. B. N. S.

For Modern Legislation, see 62 & 63

Edw. VII.

c.

39.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Vict,

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTS.

down

of a town, for the purpose of laying

323

water-

pipes to convey water to and through the town,

from his

estate,

would not be affected by a sub-

sequent Act which vested the same streets and

pavements in a public body, and empowered

sue any person who broke them up (a).
In

all

it

to

these oases, the general Act seemed in-

tended to apply to general cases only

and there

was nothing to rebut that presumption. But if

its history something
showing that the attention of the Legislature had
been turned to the earlier special Act, and that it

there be in the Act or in

intended to include the special cases within the

general Act, or something in the nature of either
Act, to render

unlikely that any exception was

it

maxim
be applicable. The

intended in favour of the special Act, the

under consideration ceases to

Prescription Act, 1832 (2

&

3 Will. IV.

c. 71), for

example, in giving an indefeasible right to light

an enjoyment of twenty years, " notwithstanding any local custom," plainly abolished the
custom of London which authorised the owner
after

of an ancient house to build a

new one on

its

any height, though thereby

obscuring the ancient lights) of his neighbour (6).
old foundations

(a)

Goldson

(6) Salters'

v.

to

Buck

(1812), 15 East, 372.

Go. v. Jay, 11 L. J. Q- B.

{Mayor), 16 L. J. Q. B. 185

25 L. J. Ex. 173.

Digitized

173

Merchant Taylors

by Microsoft

B.

v.

London

v. Truscott (1856),

INTBRPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

324

and Inclosure(6) Acts apply to gavelkind lands, though

this local customary tenure is not expressly menIt

has been held that the

Dower

(a)

tioned in either Act.

By

Henry II. and

confirmed by Acts of

Charters granted by King

subsequent

sovereigns,

Parliament, the Corporation of Exeter were en-

and did receive {inter alia) the

Kevenue Fines imposed within their borough, but,
though not mentioned in the Act, that right was
taken away by the general enactment of &. 33 (1),
Inland Eevenue Eegulation Act, 1890 (53 & 54
Vict. c. 21), which enacted that " all Fines, Penalany Act
ties, and Forfeitures incurred under
otherInland
Eevenue,
which
are
not
to
relating
wise legally appropriated, shaU be applied to the

titled to receive

Her Majesty " (c).

Though the sheriffs of the Counties Palatine

use of

Lancaster and

Durham were

of

expressly forbidden

by the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 71, to arrest on

mesne process issuing from the Courts of Westminster for less than 50, this enactment was held
repealed by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 3, which,
after abolishing generally all arrests for debt,

gave

a judge powep, under certain circumstances, to

order such an arrest in every action for any
(a) Farley v.

Bonham, sup.

sum

p. 52.

(6)

Minet

v.

Lemcm, 24 L. J. Ch. 547.

(c)

A.-Q.

V.

Exeter Corporation (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 636.

Digitized

by Microsoft

SPECIAL SOMETIMES AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTS.

for .20 or

1735

The

upwards (a).

325

Charitable Uses Act,

was held to extend to

a corporate body which had been empowered by
an earlier Act to take land by devise and without
license, in mortmain (c).
So, the Lands Clauses
ConsoKdation Act, 1845, and other Acts of a like
character, which authorise the compulsory taking
of lands for works of public utility, such as railways, and give corresponding powers to tenants
in tail or for life, to convey the lands so required,
would apply to tenants in taU under special
Parliamentary entails, such as the Abergavenny
(9

Geo. II.

c.

36

(b),

The County Courts acquired jurisdiction,

entail (rf).

"

under their general authority to hear " all pleas

where the debt or damage did not exceed d620, to
enforce the payment of a rate imposed under a

Act passed before those Courts were established, and which had made such rates recoverable
local

Brown

(a)

32 & 33 Vict.

v.

McMillan (1846), 7 M. &

c.

83,

of Insolvent Court

by

which

S. L.

E. (No.

196; but see

2), 1893'.

Act, 1888 (51

& 52 Vict

c. 42),

see.

Luckraft

Fridham, 46

v.

Morrison v. Genl. Steam Navig.

M.E., Mersey Docks

v.

Be

L.

Co.,

J.

See

Oh. 744.

22 L. J. Ex. 233

Lucas, 51 L. J. Q. B. 116

Whitford, 4 G. B. N. S. 665

Ch. Div.
{d)

W.

repealed, save as to pending business

Eepealed by the Mortmain

(6)

(c)

now

and note Webster

also

per Jessel

Gardner

v. Southey,

v.

36

9, at p. 22.

Cuckfield

Fitzgerald v.

Board (1854), 24 L.

Champneys, sup. p. 321.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Ch. 585; camp.

326

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

only by action in the Superior Courts

(a).

A local

Act which provided that the prisoners of the

borough to which it applied, and which had a
separate Quarter Sessions, should be maintained
in the county jail on certain specified terras, was
held to be superseded by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 95, which
enacted that every borough, which had Quarter
Sessions, should,

the county

when

its

prisoners were sent to

pay the county the expenses,

including those of repairs and improvements (6).
The provision in s. 129 of the Metropohs Management Act, 1855 (c), that the magistrate's decision
on matters under that Act shaU be final and conclusive was impliedly repealed by the Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which authorises any person
questioning a decision of a Court of Summary
jail,

Jurisdiction to apply for a case to be stated

Where
by

its

company had been precluded

Act from charging more than four

a City gas

private

shillings for every

and

quality,

(a) Stewart

summary
see 38

v.

thousand feet of gas of a certain

Metropolis Gas Act, 1860(e),

the

Jones (1852), 22 L. J. Q. B.

& 39

Vict.

c.

55,

s.

Bramston

(c)

18 & 19 Vict.

{d)

See 42 & 43 Vict.

(e)

1.

As

to the

recovery of rates under the Public Health Act, 1875,

(6)

609

(d).

Goodwin

256.

v. Colchester,
c.

25 L. J. M. 0. 73.

120, repealed
c.

49,

s.

33

by 54 & 55
;

v. Sheffield Corporation,

B.

v.

[1902] 1 Q. B. 629.

23 & 24 Vict. c. 125.

Digitized

Vict. c. 76.

Bridge, 24 Q. B. D.

by Microsoft

SPECIAL SOMETIMES AFFECTED BY GENEBAL ACTS.

327

required the City gas companies to supply a better

and more expensive gas at the rate prescribed by

it, which might amount to five shillings and sixpence (s. 40) per thousand feet it was held that the
;

later provision impliedly repealed the earlier pro-

Here, however, the general Act avowedly

appHed to the company ; and it would have been

hibition.

unreasonable that the better gas which it required

should be supplied at the price mentioned in the
special Act, merely because the
been repealed in express terms (a).

The Metropolitan

&

Police

latter

Courts

had not

Act,

1839

which provided that

penalties under existing and future Acts, which
should be adjudged by police magistrates, should
be paid to the receiver of the police district, and
(2

3 Vict.

c.

71),

s.

the subsequent Act, 17

47,

&

18 Vict.

c.

38 (against

gaming houses), which enacted that the penalties

which it inflicted should be recoverable before two
justices (or before a police

magistrate, since he

has the same jurisdiction as two justices), and

should be paid to the overseers of the poor of
the parish in which the offence was committed,

were construed so as to be consistent with each

by limiting the application of the penalties

under the later Act, to cases where they were imposed by justices, and applying them in conformity
other,

(a) Great Central

See also Parry

v.

Oas

Go. v. Glarhe (1862), 32 L. J. 0. P. 41.

Croydon Gas

Digitized

Co.,

15 C. B. N. S. 568.

by Microsoft

328
with,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
the earlier statute, where they were adjudged

by a police magistrate

When

(a).

a general Act

is

incorporated

into

would
prevail over any of the former with which they
were inconsistent (b). It may be added also, that
when an Act on one subject, such as highways,
incorporates some of the provisions comprised in
another relating to a different subject, such as
provisions of the

special one, the

poor rates,

it

latter

does not thereby incorporate the

modifications of those provisions which are sub-

made in the latter Act (c).

been said to be a rule that one private
Act of Parliament cannot repeal another except
by express enactment (d) but necessary imphcation must, no doubt, be considered as involved
sequently
It has

expression

in this
(a)

Wray

v. Ellis,

if

(e),

the

intention

28 L. J. M. 0. 45.

M. G.
which Wray

In B.

153.

[1895] 2 Q. B. 61, in

v. Ellis is

was held

it

the

See also Beeeiver of

Police District v. Bell, 41 L. J.

distinguished,

of

v. Titterton,

doubted and

in cases of prosecutions instituted

by

a local authority fines must be paid to the officer of such

authority.

L. E. 7 Gh. 475, L. E. 6 H. L. 367.

(6)

A.-G

V.

a.E. By.

(c)

Bird

V.

Adcock, 47 L. J.

decision

it

(d)

(e)

Per Turner
732.

M.

As a

G. 123.

result of this

seems doubtful whether highway rates are apportion-

able between outgoing

& G.

Co.,

See

and incoming tenants.

L.J., BirJeenJiead

Bodes

v.

Laird, 4

De

G. M.

ex. gr. Phipson v. Harvett, sup. p. 293.

Comp. Lord Mansfield's dictum in B.

553, sup. p. 237.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Abbot, 2

Doug.

IMPLIED REPEAL

^PENAL

Legislature be so manifested.

If

329

ACTS.

the later of the

two Acts be inconsistent with the continued existence of the earlier one, the earlier must inevitably
be abrogated (a).

SECTION

IV.

IMPLIED EEPEAL

IN

PENAL ACTS.

The question whether a new Act impliedly

repeals

an old one (see sup.

recently arisen in

anew with

p.

284

et

seq.)

construing Acts which

existing

ojffences

without

has
deal

expressly

referring to the past legislation respecting them.

The problem

often arises whether the

manner

in

which the matter is dealt with in the later Act

shows that the Legislature intended merely to
make an amendment or addition to the existing
law, or to treat the whole subject de novo, and
so to

make a

tabula rasa of the pre-existing law.

Of course, where the objects of the two Acts are

not identical, each of them being restricted to

own

its

no conflict takes place. Thus, an

Act which empowered justices to commit for a
month an apprentice guilty of any misconduct in
his service, was not repealed by a later one which
object,

compel an apprentice who

absented himself to make compensation for his
absence, and to commit him, in default, for three

empowered them

(a)
V.

See

ex. gr.

Daw

to

v.

Metrop. Board, sup.

B., 1 App, Gas. 513,

Digitized

by Microsoft

p.

293.

See Green

330

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

months

The

(a).

object of the first

Act was to

punish the apprentice, while that of the other

was to compensate the master. It may be re-

marked that by virtue

and

Workmen

of justices is

of

s.

12 of the Employers

Act, 1875, the

now

summary jurisdiction

confined to those apprentices

upon whose binding a premium not exceeding 25

has been paid.
It would >seem that an Act which (without
altering the nature of the offence, as by making
it felony instead of misdemeanour) imposes a new
kind of punishment, or provides a

new course

of

procedure for that which was already an offence,

at least, at

common

law,

is

usually regarded as

cumulative, and as not superseding the pre-exist-

& 10 WUl. III.

blasphemy with
personal incapacities and imprisonment, an offender
might also be indicted for the common law
For instance, though 9

ing law.
c.

35

offence

(b),

(c).

visits

the offence of

The repealed 2 W.

&

M., Sess.

2, o. 8,

which prohibited keeping swine in houses in London

on pain of the forfeiture of the swine so kept, did
not abolish the liability to fine and imprisonment
on indictment at common law for the nuisance {d).
(a)
inf. p.

Gray

v.

Gookson (1812), 16 East, 13.

(6)

PartiaUy repealed by 53 Geo. III.

(c)

B.

V. Garlile, 3

B. & Aid. 161.

c.

v.

Toule,

B.

V.

Wigg, 2 Salk. 460.

Digitized

160.

See also Steele

(1872), L. E. 7 G. P. 261, at p. 268.

(d)

Comp. B.

334.

by Microsoft

v.

Brannan

EEPEALPENAL

IMPLIED
So, 3

&

&

4 W.

M.

c.

11,

s.

331

ACTS.

10, in

imposing a

penalty of 5, recoverable summarily, on parish

oflScers

who

refused to receive a pauper removed

to their parish

by an order

of justices,

was held

to

leave those officers stiU liable to indictment for

common law offence of disobeying the order,

which the justices had authority to make under
13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. In such cases, it is
presumed that the Legislature knew that the
offence was punishable by indictment, and that, as
the

it

did not in express terms abolish the

law proceeding,

it

common

intended that the two remedies

At all events, the change

made by the new law was not of a character to
justify the conclusion that there was any intention to abrogate the old
and in most of the
should co-exist

(a).

examples

cited, the

tention to

presumption against an in-

oust the jurisdiction of the Superior

Courts would strengthen

politan Police Act,

it.

Where

the Metro-

1839, by one section

(s.

57)

empowered a magistrate to impose a penalty of

not more than 405. for an offence, and by another
section (s. 77) empowered him if the penalty was
not paid to commit the offender to prison for a
month, and a later statute (Metropolitan Police
Act, 1864) repealed the former section, and substituted for it one empowering the magistrate to
(a)

B.

V.

BoUnson

(1759), 2 Burr. 800, per

p. 803.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Lord Mansfield,

at

332

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

impose the same penalty or to commit to prison

for not more than three days, it was held that this
did not impliedly repeal the latter section, but it

was competent for the magistrate to sentence an

offender to pay a penalty of 40s., and in default of
payment to be imprisoned for a month (a).
Under s. 33, Interpretation Act, 1889 (b), where
an offence is punishable under more than one Act,
or under an Act and at common law, the offender,
unless the contrary intention appears, may be
punished under either, but shall not be punished
twice for the same offence.

Where

a statute alters the quality and incidents

an offence, as by making that which was a

felony merely a misdemeanour, it would be conof

strued as impliedly repealing the old law.

Thus,

which imposed a pecuniary

penalty merely, on persons who hunted or killed
deer with their faces blackened, was held to have
repealed so much of the Black Act (9 Geo. I. c. 22),
16 Geo. III.

made

as

&

(a)

to

words "

c.

30

(c),

that offence capital

3 Vict.

c.

47,

and 27 & 28 Vict. c. 55, s. 1 (repealed

by S. L. E., 1893) B. v. EopUns, 62

lieu thereof "

M.

0. 57.

(5)

52

& 53

(c)

Eepealed by 7 & 8 Geo. IV.

L. J.

{d)

Lee

V.

B.

(d).

Vict. c. 63.

V. Davis, 1

Leach, 271.

c.

27,

See per Lord Bsher M.E.,

Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 348

(repealed by 7

& 8 Geo. IV.

Digitized

c.

27,

s. 1.

and see 9 Geo.

s. 1).

by Microsoft

I.

c. ,22

IMPLIED REPEAL

PENAL

333

ACTS.

where the punishment or penalty

Again,

is

altered in degree but not in kind, the later provision

would be considered

earlier

one

(a).

as

Thus, 5 Geo.

superseding the

I. c.

27

(&),

which

imposed a" fine of 56IOO and three months' imprisonment for a first offence, and fine at discretion
and twelve months' imprisonment for the second,
was held to be impliedly repealed by 23 Geo. II.
c. 13 (c), which increased the punishment for the
first offence to a fine of J6500 and twelve months'
imprisonment, and for the second to ^1,000 and
two years' imprisonment (d). So, it was held in

America that a statute which punished the rescue

or harbour of a fugitive slave by a penalty of 500
dollars, recoverable by the owner for his own
benefit, and reserved all rights of action for
damages, was repealed by a later enactment which
imposed for the same offences a penalty of 1,000
dollars on conviction, and gave the party aggrieved
1,000 dollars by way of damages recoverable by
action

(e).

Indeed,
(a)

236,

has been laid down generally, that

See per Lord Abinger, Henderson

and A.-G.

Bobinson

M.

it

v.

G. 125.

v.

Lochwood, 9

v.

(6)

Eepealed 5 Geo. IV.

Eepealed
B.

(e)

Norris v. Crocker, 13

V. Gator,

Gole v. Coulton, 29 L. J.

c.

97.

i Burr. 2026.

Digitized

Pay, 58 L. J. M. 0. 39.

S. L. R., 1867.

(c)

(d)

M. & W.
and 2)er Martin B.,

Sherborne, 2

M. & W. 391

Emerson, 4 H. & C. 355

Comp. Sims

v.

if

Howard, 429.

by Microsoft

334

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

a later statute again describes an offence created

by a former one, and

to

it,

affixes a different

varying the procedure

an appeal where

giving, for instance,

there was

directing something

more

punishment

no appeal

before,

or something' different,

something more comprehensive

the earlier statute

imphedly repealed by it (a). The 6 G-eo, III.

c. 25, which made an artificer or workman who
absented himself from his employment, in breach
of his contract, liable to three months' imprisonment, was held to be impliedly repealed by
is

4 Geo. IV. c. 34 (repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86,

s.
17), which punished not only that offence,
but also that of not entering on the service,
in writing to serve,
after having contracted
with three months' imprisonment, plus a proportional abatement of wages for the time of
such imprisonment or in lieu thereof, with total
or partial loss of his wages and discharge from
;

service (b).
So s. 11, 64 G-eo. III. c. 169, which
imposed a penalty of JEIO, leviable, not by distress
but by imprisonment, in default of immediate
payment, on any person throwing baUast or

rubbish out of a vessel into a harbouj: or river so

as to tend to the obstruction of the navigation,

Per

Michell v. Brown, 28 L. J. M. 0. 53; per

Be Baker, 2 H. & N. 219 per Martin B., Toule
Mappin, 30 L. J. M. 0. 237.
Youle v. Mappin, 30 L. J. M. 0.
(b) B. V. Youle, 6 H. & N. 753

(a)

Bramwell
V.

Cur.,

B.,

234.

Comp. Owens

v. Jones,

Digitized

sup. p. 308.

by Microsoft

IMPLIED REPEAL

PENAL

335

ACTS.

and gave an appeal, was held to repeal by implication the earlier Act, 19 Geo. II. o. 22, which had
imposed, without appeal, a penalty of not less than
50s. and not more than 5 for the same offence,
leviable by distress or imprisonment, in default of
distress.
The preamble of the later Act, indeed,
recited that it was expedient to " extend " the provisions of the earlier one, and though its implied
repeal seems to have been thought at variance with
such an intention, it may be questioned whether its
provisions were not "extended " by what was, in
effect, their re-enactment with an increased penalty
and a summary method of its recovery (a). Where
a local Act imposed on " all persons " engaged in
making gas, who suffered impure matter to flow

any stream, a penalty of ^200, recoverable

by a common informer by action, and a further
penalty of 20 for every day the nuisance was
into

continued, payable to the informer or to the party

injured as the justices thought

fit

and the Gas-

works Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15),

afterwards imposed the same penalty on the
" undertakers " of gasworks authorised by special
Act,

recoverable by the party injured

it

was

held that the earlier Act was repealed as regarded

such undertakers

Matthew

(6)

Parry

So,

an Act which imposed

Brown, 28 L. J. M. 0. 53, and see Fortescue

(a) Michell v.
St.

(6).

Vestry, [1891] 2 Q. B., at p. 178.

v.

Croydon Gas

Digitized

Co.,

15 0. B. N. S. 568.

by Microsoft

v.

336

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

a penalty of not less than 405. or more than

any owner or occupier who did not

immediately remove certain projections from
his house upon notice to do so, was held to
be impliedly repealed by a later Act which imposed

5 upon

exceeding ^5 (without

a penalty not

specifying

any minimum), and a further penalty of 40^. a

day for a continuance of the offence, upon any
owner or occupier who did not after fourteen days'
notice remove such projection (a).
It has been observed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, that in the interpretation of
laws for the collection of revenue,the provisions of

and numerous in
order to guard against frauds, it would be a strong
proposition to assert that the main provisions of
any such law were repealed, merely because in
subsequent laws other powers were given, and
other modes of proceeding were provided, to
ascertain whether any frauds had been attempted.
The more natural inference is that such new laws

which

are often very complicated

are auxiliary to the old

But
(a)

little

(b).

weight can attach to the argument,

57 Geo. III.

c.

xxix.

s.

72, 18

& 19

Viet.

s.

119

Fortescue v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Green, [1891] 2 Q. B.

170

Summers
see

Keep

Wyatt
(6)

V.

v.

120,

Holborn Board of Works, [1893] 1 Q. B. 612.

v. St.

Mary's, Nemngton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 524,

Gems, [1893] 2 Q. B. 225.

Per

o.

Gur., U. S. v. Wood, 16 Peters, 342.

Digitized

by Microsoft

But

and comp.

IMPLIED REPEAL

that because an offence

PENAL

falls

337

ACTS.

within two distinct

enactments in their ordinary meaning, a secondary

construction

is

to be sought in order to exclude

from one of the two. Thus, an enactment

which prohibited under a penalty any person
concerned in the administration of the poor laws
from supplying goods ordered for the relief of

it

any pauper, was not construed as excluding a

poor law guardian, merely because another provision expressly

much

higher

made such

officers

penalty for supplying

liable

to

the parish

workhouse with goods (a).

Where one section
of an American Act enacted that no ship from a
foreign port should unload any of its cargo but
in open day, on pain of forfeiture of both goods
and ship and another prohibited the unloading
of any ship bound for the United States, before
;

she arrived at the proper place of discharge of

her cargo, on pain of forfeiture of the unladen

was held that a foreign ship bound

for New York, and unloading a part of her cargo
at night at an intermediate harbour in the United

goods;

it

States,

did not escape

from falling within the

former section, merely because

the latter.

It

within

it fell also

was observed that there was no

principle of law or interpretation to authorise a

Court to withdraw a case from the express prohibitions of one clause,

(a) Davies v. Harvey,

on the ground that the

43 L. J. M. 0. 121,

inf. p.

455.

22

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

338

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

ofience

was

punished by a different penalty

Neither could be held nugatory (a).

also

in another.

However, where a repealed statute by one section

empowered justices to order the abatement of a
nuisance,

punishing disobedience of their order

with a fine of 10*. a day, and by another section

empowered them to prohibit the recurrence of the
nuisance under a penalty of 20s. a day,

it

was held

where orders had been made at different

times TUider both sections, and two informations
were laid for a breach of both by a fresh act of
the same nuisance, that there could be only one
in a case

conviction

The general

(b).

principle being that a

person cannot be convicted twice on the same

facts.

(a)

The Industry, 1 Gallison, 114.

(6)

18 & 19 Vict.

M.

C. 73.

As to

38 & 39 Vict.

c.

c.

121

Edlestone v. Barnes (1875), 45 L. J.

existing law, see for

55

for

England (except London)

London 54 & 55

Digitized

Vict. c. 76.

by Microsoft

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I,

IS

VIII.

PEESUMPTION AGAINST INTENDING WHAT

INCONVENIENT OH UNEEASONABLE.

In determining either the general object of the

Legislature, or the

meaning

any particular passage,

of its language in

obvious that the

is

it

intention which appears to be most in accord

with

convenience,

reason,

justice,

and

legal

principles, should, in all cases of doubtful signi-

presumed to be the true one (a). An

argument drawn from an inconvenience, it has
been said, is forcible in law (h) and no less, but
rather more, force is due to any drawn from an
absurdity or injustice. But a Court of Law has
ficance, be

nothing to do with the

reasonableness of

may

reasonableness or un-

statutory provision, except

what the
The treaty between
Legislature has said (c).
Louis XII. and the Pope, which gave the King
so far as it

help

it

in interpreting

the right of appointing to "

by the death
(a)

80 L.

of

all

bishoprics vacated

bishops in France," was

The above passage cited by counsel, Gory

J.

v.

France (1911),

K. B. 346.

(b)

Oo.

(c)

Per Lord Halsbury,

Litfc.

97a.'
CooJee v. Vogeler, [1901] A. 0.

Digitized

by Microsoft

for

107

INTERPEETATIOX OF STATUXES.

340

giving

instance, properly constraed, not as

the

right

of

him

appointing to a foreign bishopric

incumbent happened to die in

France, but, more consistently with good sense
and convenience, as authorising him to fill the
bishoprics of his own kingdom, when their holders

whenever

its

whether at home or abroad (a). A statute

which gives an appeal to any person thinking
himself aggrieved by any order, conviction, judgment, or determination of a justice, does not apply
If
to a prosecutor complaining of an acquittal.
to
liable
be
it did, the person acquitted would
died,

be twice vexed for the same cause.

Besides, the

prosecutor could not legitimately be considered

as aggrieved

Where

(6).

a magistrate's decision, "

there

is

an appeal from

when the sum adjudged

on conviction shall exceed two pounds,"

the question whether the penalty only, or the
penalty plus the costs were intended, would be
decided on similar general considerations of convenience and reason. It would be thought more
likely that the Legislature intended to give an
to be paid

(a) Puff. L.
(6)

48 Vict.

c.

under the

43,

b. 5, c. 12, s. 8.

71 L.

Mayor

dec.

s.

4)

Summary

42 & 43 Vict.

857

N.

5 & 6 Will. IV.

J.

c.

e.

50,

B.

s.

v.

105

(s.

London

105 partly repealed by 47 &

Jus.,

25 Q. B. D. 357.

Jurisdiction Acts (20

& 21

49), see Stokes v. Mitcheson,

K. B. 677

J. P. 134,

by Microsoft

But
and

[1902] 1 K. B.

and see Bochdale Building

Bochdale (1886), 51

Digitized

Vict. c. 43,

Society v.

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

appeal only

when

341

the offence was of some gravity,

and not merely where the costs (which would

vary according to the distances to be travelled by
the parties and their witnesses, the number of
the latter, and similar accidental circumstances)

happened to swell the amount above the fixed

limit

(a).

An Act

regulating local rates, which gave an

appeal against any rate to the Quarter Sessions,

and provided, for enforcing its payment, that two

justices might issue a distress warrant against the
goods of the defaulter, if he did not, on being
summoned, "prove to them that he was not chargeable with, or liable to pay such rate," would not
be construed as authorising the justices to enter
upon any inquiry into the validity of the rate,
if

it

the

was valid on its face; though, literally,

defaulter would unquestionably prove his

non-liability,

if

he

proved

its

If

invalidity.

which was left to the

Quarter Sessions, was also open to the justices
required to enforce the rate, they might decide
against the validity of the rate after it had been
question

validity,

of

Sessions

adjudged yalid by the Quarter

(a)

B.

V.

WarwieksMre (1856), 25 L.
Novis (1905), 74 L. J. K. B. 633.

B.

V.

M.
But

J.

C. 119.

see

s.

And

see

{b)

49, 42

& 43

Vict. c. 49.
(&)

Birmingham

B. & B. 84

B.

v.

v.

Shaw, 18 L.

Kingston, 27 L,

Digitized

J.
J.

M. 0. 89 Williams, Be, 2
M. 0. 199 B. v. Bradshaw,

by Microsoft

342

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

which could not readily be supposed to

have been intended. It would be otherwise,
indeed, if the rate bore invalidity on its face,
conflict

by not showing that

it

was made in accordance

with the statutory authority given for the purpose

for

they could not be required to enforce

what did not profess to be a valid demand made

by competent authority (a).

A
to

constable, authorised

enter

licensed

by statute

at all times

premises for the purpose of

preventing or detecting violations of the licensing

cannot demand admission unless he has

laws,

some reasonable ground

of the

law

for suspecting a

breach

(b).

An

Act which empowered magistrates to make

an order that any dog found to be dangerous
should " be kept

under

proper

control or

de-

stroyed," might, on this principle, be construed

29 L.

J.

May,
L.
1.

M.

0. 176

161; B.

Id.

v.

B.

M.

Higginson, 31 L. J.

v.

Linford, 7 E.'& B. 950;

C.

B.

189

Exp.

v. Finnis,

28

M. C. 201. See Walce v. Sheffield (1880), 53 L. J. M. C.

The remedy open to a person who deems himself aggrieved

J.

by the decision
Act, 1875,
V. Sinnett,

of a local authority

out in

s.

and see

Bristol Corp.

[1918] 1 Oh. 62, C. A.

Co.,

Be, 25 L. J.

M.

0. 49.

See B.

v.

Cowp. 30

37 & 38 Vict.

(h)

under the Public Health

268 of the Act

Eastern Counties By.

(a)

Crohe, 1

1910

is set

Duncan

v.

c.

49,

s.

16, repealed

by

s.

Bowding, [1897] 1 Q. B. 575

J. P. 182.

Digitized

by Microsoft

81, Licensing Act,

;

B.

v.

Dobbins, 48

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

343

giviDg the magistrate the option of making

as

an absolute order for the destruction of a

dangerous dog; not as requiring that his order
should be in the alternative terms of the Act,
which would place the option in the hands of
the owner of the dog; for this would be

and convenient

less ef&oacious

The 24
it

&

25 Vict.

o.

much

(a).

98, which, after

making

felony to engrave without authority plates of

bank-notes purporting to be notes of the

England or

Bank

of

any other company,

declared in another section that the enactment
should not apply to Scotland, except where it
was expressly so provided, was held to apply to
the engraving of the notes of a Scotch bank the
rational object and meaning of the excluding
of Ireland, or of

provision being, not that forgeries against Scotch

committed in England with

impunity, but that, when committed in Scotland,
they should not faU within the Act (&).
Where an Act, after transferring all duties of
paving and lighting from existing Commissioners
to a Board of Works, provided that all contracts

banks

might

be

Marsh (1874), 43 L. J. M. 0. 143. As to the

word " dangerous " in relation to a dog, see the

(a) Pickering v.

meaning

Dogs
(6)

of the

Act, 1906.

B.

V.

Brackenridge, 37 L. J.

Be, L. E. 6 Oh. 406, and

1913 (3 & 4 Geo. V.

c.

27,

M.

0. 86.

Comp. OLogUen,

see as to existing law, Forgery Act,

s. 9).

Digitized

by Microsoft

344

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.

with the former should remain vaKd, that no

action

upon them against the

Commissioners

under such
contracts should be paid out of rates to be made
by the new Board it was held, on the ground
should ahate, and that

liabilities

all

of its being the

more convenient cpurse, than ah

action on a contract made with the Commissioners

might be brought against the Board (a). 20 & 21
Vict. c. 43, and 42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 33, which

aggrieved by

authorise a party

decision

justices to apply within three days for a case,

direct that " at the time of the application,"

before the case

is

of

and
and

delivered to him, he shall enter

into recognisances to prosecute the appeal, was, as

regards

the

statute,

earlier

complied with

if

into within the three days,

of the application

now extended

held

substantially

the recognisances were entered

(6).

though not at the time

The time

for application is

to seven days under rule 18,

Jurisdiction Eules, 1886.

It has

Summary

been repeatedly

held that when an Act gives an appeal to the

" next " sessions, it means not necessarily the

next which takes place in order of time, or an

adjournment of it (c), but the next to which
it

is

practicable with fair diligence to carry the

(a) Sinnott v. Whitechapel (1858),

(6)

Chapman

practice, see
(c)

B.

B.

27 L.

J. 0.

Bolinson (1858), 28 L. J.

v.

v. Kettle,

V. Sussex,

[1905] 1 K. B. 212.

4 E. R. 390.

Digitized

by Microsoft

P. 177.

M.

C. 30.

As

to

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

appeal

345

It is obvious that a stricter construc-

(a).

tion would often have the effect of taking

away

the appeal which the Legislature intended to give.

When

an Act gave any person aggrieved

by an
order of justices, four months " for making his
complaint to the Quarter Sessions," it was construed to mean, not that the complaint must be
(6)

heard within that time, but that the appellant

should have that time for notifying his intention

might sometimes be
limited to a few weeks, or, if no sessions were
held within the four months, he would be deprived
to

appeal

otherwise he

of his appeal altogether

(c).

The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (repealed

by Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906), provides
that proceedings for the recovery of compensation

under the Act shall not be maintainable unless

notice of the accident has been given as soon as
practicable, and unless " the claim for compensation with respect to such accident has been

As

(a)

to

what

is

" next

Surrey JJ. (1880), 50 L. J.

M.

see B. v.

practicable " sessions,

C. 10.

See also B.

made

Middlesex

v.

JJ. (1888), 32 Sol. J. 221.

Graves'

(6)

23 L.

J. C.

Case,

P. 5

E. 4 Q. B. 715

Boyee

Exp. Learoyd, 13 Ch. D. 321

2 Ch. D. 229, 797

L.

Verdin

v.

v.

Eiggins,

Exp. Thoday,

Wray, 2 Q. B. D. 608.
;

Be

J.

M.

BocJifort V. Aiherley, 1 Ex. D. 511

Shaftoe's Charity, 3

Comp.

App.

Cas. 872.
(c)

6 M.

B.

&

V.

Essex (1864), 34 L.

S. 279.

See also

inf. p.

Digitized

0. 41

360.

by Microsoft

B.

v.

Middlesex,

346

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

occurrence of the

within six months from the

The House

of
"
Lords has held "the claim for compensation to

causing

'accident

mean

a notice

the

An

claim for compensation sent

of

and not the

to the employer,

ceedings

injury."

initiation of pro-

(a).

Act which authorised the Quarter Sessions

to give a successful appellant against a conviction,

appealed

the party

against

costs

and

against,

directed that the notice of appeal should be served

on the convicting justice, was construed as not

making the latter a party to the appeal for it was
to be presumed that the Legislature did not intend
so great an anomaly as rendering a judicial officer
liable to costs for an act done bond fide in the
;

discharge of his judicial functions

spondent, in such a case,

The

{b).

re-

the prosecutor before

is

though this construction involves

the hardship of making him liable to the costs of
the magistrate

(a)

60 & 61

Powell

V.

Vict.

Main

c.

37,

not be in writing {Lowe

Gomp. Bugles

need
905).

Perry
(6)

216

v.

v.

2 (1)

6 Bdw. VII.

sum {Thompson

v. Clements, [1901]

49

c.

v.

J.

58,

J.

V.

B.

V.

K. B. 651

Goold, 79 L. J. K. B.

W.

E. 669.

3 Q. B. D. 607

B.

v.

1 Q. B. 616.

Digitized

notice of accident is not a claim,

& Ad. 654; B. v. Smith, 29 L.

Purdey (1864), 34 L. J. M. C. 4. See B.

B. D. 569

2 (!)

K. B. 539), nor

Eants, 1 B.

B.

s.

the claim need

Myers (1906), 75 L.

But apparently a mere

laugh, 2 Q.

[1900] A. C. 366

Coed Talon Co. (1910), 78 L.

claim a specific

it

s.

Colliery Co.,

by Microsoft

London

J.

M.

v.

Brad-

0.

Jus., [1895]

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

347

a proceeding of which he has had no notice, or

perhaps even knowledge.

The statute which enacts that " a soHcitor may

make an agreement in writing with his client
respecting the amount and manner of his remuneration," was held to require impliedly that
the agreement should be signed by the client

as

would be possible for a soHcitor to

place a document signed by himself only, and
containing terms favourable to him, before his
client, and then contend that the latter was bound
otherwise

to

it

it (a).

Where one Act

authorised

recovery of

the

certain claims before justices of the peace, pro-

ceedings before

whom

are limited to six

months,

and another Act authorised their recovery, when

not exceeding ^20, in the County Courts, where
the term of limitation was six years,
that suits for

hmited to

six

them

in the latter

was held
Courts were
it

months, to avoid imputing to the

Legislature the anomalous intention of allowing

six years for the recovery of small

giving only six months for large ones

(a)

Lewis, Be, 1 Q. B. D. 724

J.

Similarly,

(b).

but this case and the above-

stated reason therefor, were subject to

Thompson, Be, 63 L.

sums, while

Q. B. 189, 190.

adverse criticism in
See, however,

Bahe

v.

French (1905), 76 L. J. Ch. 605.

(6)
s.

& 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 39, repealed and

38 & 39 Viet, c 55 24 & 25 Vict. c. 61,

11

196,

Digitized

by Microsoft

re-enacted by
s.

24, repealed

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

348

on the ground (among others) that

would be

it

presume that the Legislature

intended to impose a more severe penalty on

unreasonable

to

wilfully gathered

who without malice

a person

uncultivated

mushrooms than on one who unlaw-

and maliciously destroyed cultivated roots

or plants used for food, it was held that in view
of s. 24, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, which imposed a
penalty of one month's imprisonment or a fine

fully

of 1 for the latter offence, whilst

same Act, made

it

s.

52 of the

an offence punishable with two

5 to " wilfully
or maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil
to or upon any real or personal property whatsoever for which no punishment is hereinbefore

months' imprisonment or a

fine of

provided," could not be regarded as applying to a

case such as the former

who damaged

But

(a).

a milk carrier

his master's milk, not to injure his

master but in order to make a profit for himself,

was held to be
latter section

(b).

and 're-enacted by
County Courts

of

s.

is

guilty of

Upon
261, 38

1 Ex. D. 514

794

M.

71 L.

C. 238,

J.

& 39
s.

Vict.

c.

55.

The

if

an act

jurisdiction

to claims not exceeding 100.

81.

Tottenham Board

v. Bowell,

Blackhurn {Mayor of) v. Sanderson, [1902] 1 K. B.

K. B. 590.

and note

J. P. 193, C.

the ground that

now extended

See County Courts Act, 1888,

an offence under the

See also Nicholson

v. Ellis,

28 L.

A.

{a)

Gardner

(b)

Boper

v.

Manshridge (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217.

V. Knott,

J.

especially Bolton Corp. v. Scott (1913), 77

[1898] 1 Q. B. 868

Digitized

by Microsoft

67 L.

J.

Q. B. 574.

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

349

be done wilfully or wantonly

it raises a presumpdone maliciously (a)

The Bankruptcy Acts (b) which vested the future
as well as the present property of the bankrupt
in the assignee or trustee, imported the necessary

tion

it is

exception,

to

save

him from

starving,

of

the

remuneration which the bankrupt might earn by

and the damages

his labour after his bankruptcy,

which he might recover for any personal injury (c)

and while establishing the right of the trustee to
future property as between himself and the bank-

did not affect the

rupt,

of the latter as

right

between himself and his debtor, unless the trustee

interfered, to sue for a debt which accrued due
after the vesting of the property in the trustee

and the provision contained in the Acts that the

bankrupt should not have power to recover such
debts,

was

similarly limited

in

effect {d).

And

generally property earned by the personal exertions

and

skill

of

the bankrupt do not pass to his

Welch (1875), 40

(a)

B.

(6)

The Bankruptcy

V.

Act,

J.

P. 183.

1914

(4

& 5 Geo.

V.), practically

repeals all earlier statutes.

(c)

Beckham

v.

Be

Drake, 2 H. L. Gas. 579;

Wilson (1878), 8

Gh. D. 364.
(d) Herbert v. Sayer, 13 L. J. Q. B.

22 L. J. Ex. 13
Cohen

V. Mitchell,

Q. B. 393

Jameson

v.

But

25 Q. B. D. 262.

and see 4 & 5 Geo. V.

Digitized

209

Jackson

v.

Burnham,

Brick Go. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 208

c.

59,

see
s.

by Microsoft

Be

38.

Clark, [1894] 2

350

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

trustee

But

(a).

immune

be

in order that such

moneys should

there must be an element of periodi-

city in the earnings

The Act which imposes

(6).

a penalty on the piracy of a dramatic work, or

" any part thereo'f," would not be broken unless a

material and substantial part was pirated.

It is

not to be supposed that the Legislature intended

what was of no

to punish the misappropriation of

value

(c).

construction which facilitated the evasion of

a statute would, on similar grounds of

venience, be avoided.

incon-

Thus, an Act which

for-

any gaming "in his

house or premises," was construed as extending

bade an innkeeper to

suffer

gaming by himself and his personal friends

in his private rooms in the licensed premises for
a construction which limited the prohibition to
the guests in the public rooms would have opened
the door to collusion and evasion (d), but apparently
to

(a) Shoolbred v. Boberts (1899),

68 L.

J.

Q. B. 998.

App. Gas. 483

(6) Id. (1899), 2 Q. B., at p. 563.

(c)

Chatterton v. Cave, 2 C. P. D. 42

V. Nicholas,

PlancM
273

V.

L. E. 5 Ch. 251

Bradbury

Braham, 44 E. E. 642

Walter

v. Steinhopff,

61 L.

J.

v. Rotten,

D'Almaine
Ch. 521.

v.

Pihe

L. E. 8 Ex. 1

Boosey, 41 E. E.

For an exhaustive

on the Copyright Act, 1911, see Clerk and Lindsell

disquisition

on Torts, Chap. XXI.

(d)

Patten

v.

BJiymer (1860), 29 L.

J.

M.

0.

189

Haigh, 5 C. P. D. 50; see also per Brett L.J., Bes

Union, 8 Q. B. D. 79.

v.

Corbet v.

West Haiu

Comp. Briydenv. Heighes, 1 Q. B. D. 330;

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

351

upon horse races does not come within the

meaning of the word " gaming " (a).

betting

And

constraotion

yet,

(see sup. p. 206

evasion

facilitating

even to the extent of defrauding the revenue, may be justified and required
et seq.),

by considerations of convenience, as in the case

of Stamp Acts where the question- whether a
document, produced on the hearing of a trial, is
sufficiently stamped, depends
solely on what
appears on the face of the document, to the exclu;

sion of
trary

extrinsic evidence to prove the con-

all

for to

admit evidence to invalidate

it,

would

lead to the intolerable inconvenience of holding a

collateral inquiry, to the interruption of the trial

of the cause in

which the paper was tendered (6).

Acts which impose a pecuniary penalty have

sometimes given rise to a question, when there

were two or more ofienders, whether one joint or
several separate penalties were intended and this,
;

where the Act has left it open to doubt, has been

said to depend on whether the offence was in its
Tassell v. Ovenden, 2 Id. 383
V.

Dames, 1

Id.

(a)

Keep

(6)

Whistler

Gallagher

Lester v. Torrens, Id. 403

v.

Bosley

Budd, [1898] 1 Q. B. 114.

Stevens (1909), 73 J. P. 112.

v.

v.

Forster (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. 161

Austin v.

Bunyard (1865), 34 L. J. Q. B. 217 Gatty v. Fry, 2 Ex. D. 265

(approved in Boyal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2
;

Q. B. 715).

Gomp. Clarke

Digitized

v.

Boche, 47

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B. 147.

52

INTERPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

When

nature joint or several.

the offence

is

one

in which every participator is justly punishable in

proportion to the part which he took in it, the in-

ference would obviously be that a separate penalty

on each was intended. In the offence of assaulting and resisting a custom-house officer, one may
resist, another molest, a third run away with
the goods;
offence,

own

all

are distinct acts, each a separate

and each offender would be

separate offence (a)

liable for his

nor does the omission to

prosecute one of the parties exonerate the others.

So, under tbe partially repealed Toleration
(1

W. & M.

c.

18,

which enacts that

confirmed by 10 Anne,

if

c.

Act
2),

any person or persons malici-

ously disturb a congregation, such *' person or

persons " shall, on conviction of " the said offence,"

be liable to a penalty of ^20;

it

was held that

every person engaged in such a disturbance would

be liable to a separate penalty

(6).

two men were convicted of an assault

and sentenced to pay one penalty, under 9 Geo. IV.
c. 31 (c), the conviction was quashed
because a
penalty ought to have been imposed on each
So, where

offender severally, the offence being in its nature

(a)

B.

V.

Per Lord Mansfield, B.

v. Glark,

2 Cowp. 610, and see

LiUlecMld (1871), 40 L. J. M. C. 137.

(6)

B.

(c)

Eepealed by 24 & 25 Vict.

V.

Huhe, 2 E. E. 669.

existing law,

24 & 25 Vict.

Digitized

c.

c.

95,

100.

by Microsoft

s.

and see as to

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

And under

several ().

s.

353

1 & 2 Will. IV.

" any person " shall

30,

which enacts that if

trespass in the daytime on land in search of game,
"such person " shall be liable to a penalty of 2,

c.

32,

every offender

But

it

is liable

to a separate penalty

(b).

has been said that where the offence

in its nature single,

and

is

punished by a pecuniary

penalty, not one penalty can be imposed on

the offenders jointly

is

upon the ground that

be the offence, and not the offender, that

all

if it

visited

is

with punishment by the statute, only one penalty

is

incurred, however large

persons

who

incurred

it.

may be

the number of

Thus, under a statute

any unqualified
" person or persons " kept or used hounds for
destroying game, " the person or persons " so
offending should forfeit 5, it was held that to
keep or use a greyhound for such a purpose was

of

Anne (c), which enacted that

if

punishable by one penalty only, whether the dog

was kept or used by one or by several persons.

Only one dog was kept, it was said, and only one
penalty, falling on all the offenders jointly, was
The decision has been perhaps
imposable (d).
(a)
(6)

Morgan

Mayhem

422

v.

Brown

v.

Wardley, 14 0. B. N. S. 550

(1836), 42 E. E.

5 L.

J.

Pratt

M.
v.

0. 77.

Martin,

(1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 711.
(c)

12 Anne

{d)

Eardymann

10 Mod. 26

14

c.

B.

repealed by S. L. E., 1867.

v. Whitalcer,

v.

2 East, 573 n.

B.

v.

Bleasdale, 4 T. E. 809.

23

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Mathews,

354

INTEBPEETATION OP STATUTES.

on the ground that the Act, in

speaking of " persons " in the plural, and providing
that for such "offence," in the singular, they

better defended

and not 5 "each," one joint

In an
offence and penalty were contemplated (a).

should pay 5,

old case cited in support of this construction,

it

was held that the statute 1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 12,

which prohibited the impounding of a distress in
a wrong place, " upon pain every person offending
should

the party grieved for every such

forfeit to

offence " a

hundred shillings and treble damages,

gave only one penalty against three persons (b).

But although

this decision is said to

have been

based on the ground that the offence was one only

and

joint, the penalty

was recoverable only by the

party grieved, and was consequently to be regarded

as a

compensation to him, not as a punishment on

the offenders

Viewed

(c).

in this light,

it is

that only one penalty could be recovered

clear

for the

was the same, whether it was done by one

by several persons; and it could hardly have
been intended that the pecuniary compensation
injury
or

Per Alderson

(a)
rule

against

Merryweather
(6)

B.

v.

v.

Dean, 12 M. &

between

W.

joint

42.

As

to the

tort-feasors,

see

Nixon (1799), 8 T. E. 186.

Partridge v. Naylor, Oro. Bliz. 480, cited in B. v. Clark

(1777), 2
(c)

B.,

contribution

See

Cowp. 610

discussion on

Gorres

B.

v.

King, 1 Salk. 182.

ex. gr. Stevens v. Jeacoche,

v. Scott

this

case in which

17 L.
it

J.

was

(1874); 43 L. J. Ex. 92.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Q. B. 163.

For a

distinguished,

see

CONVENIBNOB AND REASONABLENESS INTENDED.

355

wrong should vary in amount with the

number of persons concerned in doing it.
In referring to oases of this kind, Lord Mansfield
observed that if partridges were netted by night,
two or three or more men might draw the net, but

for

still it

constituted but one offence

and that

killing

was but one offence, whether one killed it

or twenty, and that it could not be killed more
than once (a). But however pertinent such considerations might be in measuring the damage
done to the owner of the game, they seem less
a hare

applicable to the question of punishing, on public

grounds, a

breach

of

the law.

The question

whether the offence was joint or several evidently

arose, not from the nature of the offence, but from
the nature of the penalty. If the penalty had
been corporal instead of pecuniary, the distinction
between joint and several offences could hardly
for it would have been found
have occurred
difficult to apply the rule of one joint penalty to
;

two offenders sentenced to five weeks' imprisonment or twenty-five lashes. It would seem that
the question whether the penalty is to be understood as separate or joint, where the Act is not
explicit, would be better governed by the consideration whether the penalty was intended as
compensation for a private wrong, or as a punishment for an offence against public justice,
(a) JB. V. Clarke, sup. p. 354.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEBPKBTATION OF STATUTES.

35^

add that all such considerations are immaterial where the language of
Thus, where it was
the Act is not open to douht.
It is hardly necessary to

enacted that " every person "

who

assisted

in

unshipping or conceahng prohibited goods should

forfeit treble their

value or 100, at the election

was held that

every person concerned in the offence was liable
of the

Commissioners of Customs,

to a separate penalty (a)

the offence

was

it

although undoubtedly

as joint in its nature as in the

case of the wrongful removal of the distress

SECTION

II.

(b).

PEESUMPTION AGAINST INTENDING

INJUSTICE OR ABSUEDITY.

sense of the possible injustice of an interpre-

tation ought not to induce judges to do violence

to well-settled rules of construction, but

may

it

properly lead to the selection of one rather than

the other of two reasonable interpretations

Whenever

(c).

the language of the Legislature admits

two constructions, and if construed in one way

would lead to obvious injustice, the Courts act
upon the view that such a result could not have
been intended, unless the intention had been
of

(a) 3

B.

V.

& 4

Will. IV.

Dean, 12 M. &

W.

c.

53 (repealed 8 & 9 Vict.

84,

s.

2)

Naylor, sup. p. 354.

(6)

Partridge

(c)

Per Lord Herschell

v.

c.

39.

L.C.,

Arrow Shipping Go.

Commissioners, [1894] A. 0. 516.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Tyne

AND ABSURDITY AVOIDED.

INJUSTICE

manifested in express words (a).

by-law authorised the Poulters'
" all " poulters in

round,"

who

company,

London

357

Thus, where a

Company

to fine

or " within seven miles

refused to he admitted into their

no poulter
could legally belong to the company who was not
also a freeman of the City, the by-law was to be
construed as limited to those poulters who were
also freemen
to avoid the injustice of punishing
men for refusing to enter into a company to which
it

was held

that,

inasmuch

as

they could not legally belong

(b).

So, in ss. 112

and 198, Bankrupt Law Consolidations Act, 1849,

which protected a bankrupt from arrest by his
" creditors" (c), this word was contrued as limited
to those creditors who had debts provable under
the bankruptcy, for it would have been obviously
Per Lord Campbell, B. v. Sheen (1859), Bell, C. C. 97, and
B. V. Land Tax Com., 2 E. & B. 716 per Keating J., Boon v.
Howard, L. E. 9 C. P. 308 per Brett L.J., B. v. Moneh, 2
(a)

Q. B. D. 555

Smith

Blackburn, Bothes

v.

v.

per Lord Gaims, Hill

845

G. W. B. Co., 3 App. Gas. 165 ;.per Lord

Kirkcaldy Commissioners, 7 App. Gas. 702

v.

East

&

9 App. Gas. 456 ; Bailton

West India Bock

v.

Co.,

53 L.

J.

Wood, 15 App. Gas. 363

Gh.

per

Brett M.E., Plumstead Board of Works v. Spackman, 13 Q. B. D.

878

per Lord Esher M.E., Dunn, Exp., 23 Q. B. D. 461.

(6) Poulters'' Co. v. Phillips (1840),

Saddlers' Co., 32 L. J. Q. B. 337.

Gh. D., per Brett L.J., at

(c)

As

6 Bing. N. G. 314

See also

Corbett,

jB. v.

Exp., 14

p. 129.

to present law relating to control over persons

property of an insolvent debtor, see

ss.

1914.

Digitized

and

22-23, Bankruptcy Act,

by Microsoft

358

INTERPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

unjust and was therefore presumably not intended,

that his certificate should protect a bankrupt not

who had,

only against those creditors

or

might

have proved under the bankruptcy, but also against

creditors

The

whose claims were not barred by

provision in

s.

2,

50

&

51 Vict.

c.

it (a).

66, that

the Court of Bankruptcy should refuse a bankrupt

his discharge " ia all cases " where the debtor had

committed an offence under the Debtors Act,

1869, was held to apply only to cases connected
with or arising out of the bankruptcy and not to
a misdemeanour committed subsequently to the
adjudication, the language used being so wide
that if it received its full grammatical meaning

enormous that the

Legislature could not have intended mere general
words to lead to such a result {b). The Public
Authorities Protection Act, 1893, which provides
that a judgment for a successful defendant in an

it

would produce

action against a

injustice so

public

authority " shall carry

and client,"
does not take away the discretionary power vested

costs to be taxed as

(a)

Grace

v. Bishop,

1 C. P. 204

L. E. 3 Ex.
(6)

5,

between

25 L.

J.

solicitor

Ex. 58

Phillips v. Poland, L. E.

Poland, Be, L. E. 1 Ch. 356

Williams v. Bose,

per Bramwell B.

BrocMbanh, Be

(1889), 23 Q. B.

D. 461

(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 589; affirmed 59 L. J. Q.

B. 331.

present law relating to discharge of bankrupt, see

ruptcy Act, 1914.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Jones, In re

s.

26,

As

to

Bank-

INJUSTICE AND ABSURDITY AVOIDED.

359

in a judge to deprive the successful defendant of his

(a).

The enactment which protected magis-

trates in

India from actions for any wrong or

costs

injury done by

them

was held

office,

when acting

in the exercise of the judicial

exempt them from

to

liability

only

bond fide in cases in which, by mistake,

they acted without jurisdiction

{b).

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, which enacted

that if, " in any case of collision," it was proved
that any of the regulations for preventing collisions
had been infringed, the ship which infringed them
should be deemed in fault, unless the circumstances
justified it, was held to apply only to cases where
the infringement could have contributed to the
collision,

done so

but not where

(c)

just as an

penalty for

it

could not possibly have

Act

which imposed a

{d)

piloting a ship

down

Thames

the

without license, was evidently limited to piloting

(a)

56 & 57

2 Q. B. 616.

Smith

V.

(c)

v. Halket,

36 & 37 Vict.

L. E. 4 A.

{d)
c.

Bostocic v.

Baimey

U.

B. C, [1900]

between

District Council, [1902] 1

parties, see

Ch. 197

71

c.

70; repealed by 5 & 6 Geo. V.

c,

61;

3 Moo. P. C. 28.
c.

85,

s.

17, repealed

by

s.

419

The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18

Shipping Act, 1894.

.455 n.

8.

21 Geo. in.

Calder

61

to allocation of costs

NortMeach Rural

L. J. Ch.
(6)

Vicfc. c.

As

& E. 417

(4),
;

Merchant

The Magnet,

The Fanny Carvill (1875), 13 App. Gas.

approved in The BuTce of Buccleuch, [1891] A. 0. 310.

57 & 58 Vict.
II. c. 20 ; repealed S. L. R, 1867

5 Geo.

clxxxvii. is the present

Thames Conservancy

Digitized

by Microsoft

Act.

360

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

on a voyage, and would not apply to a person in

charge of a ship when merely warping from one
wharf to another to unload the cargo (a).
An
imperative requirement that Assessment Sessions
should be held so that

all

appeals should be deter-

mined before a certain date would not operate so

unjustly as to deprive a person of the right of

appeal where, through press of business at the

sessions, his appeal could not be

date

of 25

Sec. 106

(b).

&

heard before that

20 Vict.

c.

102

(c),

which provided that no writ or process should issue

for anything done under it but after a month's
notice, would not apply to summary relief by
injunction; for if it did, the wrong might be irremediable, which could not be intended {d). Besides, the object of the provision was only to give
the defendant time to make amends before he was
Nor would a similar enactment that
sued (e).
" no action " should be brought in which a certain
body of shipowners would be liable for any damage
to any ship, without a month's notice, apply to
proceedings in rem in the Admiralty Division, for
(a)

B.

(6)

32 & 33 Vict.

V.

Lamhe, 5 T. E. 76.
c.

67

B.

v.

London

Jus.

and L.

C.

C, [1893]

2 Q. B. 476.
(c)

Eepealed by 56 & 57

Vict.

c.

61

(d)

A.-G. V. Hachney Board (1875), L. E. 20 Eq. 626.

(e)

Flower

v.

Low

Leyton, 5 Ch. D. 347.

Mayor of Margate, 11 Q. B. D. 299

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Foat

v.

INJUSTICE

AND ABSUKDITY AVOIDED.

361

such a notice were necessary the proceedings

might be futile, as the ship might sail away before
the expiration of the month and avoid seizure (a).
Sec. 5, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92 {b), which requires
"every person" who impounds an animal, or
causes it to be impounded or confined, to supply it
with food, would not apply to the keeper of the
pound (c).

if

The enactment in the Licensing Act, 1872, that

" every person found drunk on licensed premises "
should be liable to a penalty, though literally wide
enough to include the publican who had got drunk
anywhere and was found in that condition in his

bed after the house was closed, would be construed,

according to the manifest object of the Act, as
confined to persons found on the premises while

using

as a house for public resort (d).

it

which enacts that a person who has

been convicted by justices of an assault, and has
suffered the punishment awarded for it, shall be
statute

(a) 6

& 7

Will. IV. ch.

c.

(local

and

personal),

s.

The

Longford, 14 P. D. 34.
(6)

Eepealed and re-enacted by 1 & 2 Geo. V.

(c)

Dargan

{d)

35 & 36 Vict.

see

s.

75

Davies, 46 L. J.
c.

94,

s.

12

Bhymer, sup.

52 L.

See Warden
p. 350.
J.

v. Tye,

Digitized

B.

v.

27,

s. 7.

repealed Licensing Act, 1910

;

B.

2 C. P. D. 74.

For other

Q. B. 104

c.

C. 122.

Lester v. Torrens, 2 Q. B. D. 403

2 Q. B. 33.

Baylis,

v.

M.

v. Petty,

[1897]

Comp. Patten

v.

illustrations, see AncketiU v.

Kent

Jus.,

by Microsoft

24 Q. B. D. 181.

362

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

released from

other proceedings " for the

all

cause," would not be construed as

same
exempting him

from prosecution for manslaughter,

assaulted afterwards died from the

if

the party

effects of

the

such a construction would defeat the

ends of justice (a). An Act (b) which imposed a
assault

penalty on any sheriff or

bailiff

who

carried

person arrested for debt to prison for twenty-four

hours, though

the

for the act of

might render the former

it

liable

latter, his servant, as well as for

own, would not be construed to admit of his

being sued, after the penalty had been recovered
from the bailiff; for this would be to give the
his

same act, after

he had been compensated by the first and would,
indeed, make the bailiff hable to pay twice, as he
would be bound by the usual bond to indemnify
plaintiff a

second penalty

for the

the sheriff (c).

The same argument

where the consetwo interpretations

applies

quence of adopting one

of

would be to lead to an absurdity.

(a)

M.

B.
J.

V.

C. 56

(6)

c.

3 (now

J.

per Hawkins

M.

J.,

C. 84.

B.

v.

See Beed

v. Nutt,

Miles (1890), 59 L. J.

see also Masper v. Brown, 45 L. J. C. P. 203.

32 Geo.

51 Vict.
(c)

Morris (1867), 36 L.

Q. B. 311

s.

Newspaper Libel and Eegistration

repealed) of the

59 L.

Thus

II. c. 28,

55.

See

ss.

s. 1,

Peshall v. Layton,

General Omnibus

Co.,

repealed and re-enacted by 50

&

14 and 39.
2 T. E. 712.

See Wright

2 Q. B. D. 271.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

London

INJUSTICE

AND ABSURDITY AVOIDED.

363

Act, 1881, which enacted that no Criminal Prose-

cution

should

paper for

commenced

be

without the

libel

fiat of

Criminal Information

for to

a news-

the Director

was held not

of Public Prosecutions,

against

to apply to

hold otherwise

would lead to the absurd and scandalous result

that that oflQcer, who was to act under the
superintendence of the Attorney-General, might
not only overrule the

Bench

but also the Queen's

Division, in the exercise of their power

to give leave to

provision
that

latter,

of

Public

The

(a).

Health

Act, 1875,
"
authority
supply water

54,

s.

such information

file

where a local

within their district, they shall have certain

powers as to carrying mains within and without
that district,

is

not to be construed in

its literal

sense so as to involve the absurdity of requiring

that the authority must have begun actually to

supply some water before

it

can take advantage

of the powers conferred, but is to be understood

as conferring those powers

upon the

local authority

as soon as it undertakes to supply water

provisions of the Act

(a)

44 & 45 Vict.

c.

(h).

by

s.

4 of the

Sharman
(6)

v.

Law

Similarly, a sewer

60; see 51 & 52 Vict.

Tales V. B., 14 Q. B. D. 648

and as

Libel

of

under the

c.

made

64, ss.

2-4;

to the protection afforded

(Amendment)

Act, 1888,

see

Merritt (1916), 32 T. L. E. 360.

38 & 39 Vict.

c.

55

Jones

v.

Conway Water Supply, [1893]

2 Ch. 603.

Digitized

by Microsoft

364

INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

by a landowner

for the sole purpose of draining

houses erected by him on his

reason of

"made

its

own

land, is not

by

enhancing the value of the houses

for his

own

profit," within

the meaning

13, Public Health Act, 1875,

and be under the control of
the local authority. It would be absurd to suppose that it was intended that the operation of
s. 13, the whole object of which is to vest sewers

of the exception in

s.

so as not to vest in

in the local authority, should be thus practically

reduced to a nullity

A repealed Act

(5

(a).

&

6 Vict.

c.

39,

s.

6) (b)

which

protected a fraudulent agent from conviction,

if

he "disclosed" his offence on oath, in any examination in bankruptcy, was held not to include
a confession made there after commitment by a
magistrate, and which

was

substance only a

in

repetition of the facts proved before the latter

on the ground that it would have been absurd

and mischievous to enable a man to provide an
indemnity for himself, by simply making a statevaei^t of facts already known and provable aliunde,
(a)

38 & 39 Vict.

2 Q. B. 135

c.

55

Hallas Land

Urban Council (1898), 67 L.

Comp. Minehead Local Bd.

(6)

v.

Co., [1893]

Vowles v. Calmer (1895), 64 L. J. Ch. 414

dale V. Sunhury &C.

SyTces v.

Ferrand

v.

iMttrell,

J.

Croys-

Ch. 585.

[1894] 2 Oh. 178;

Sowerby U. D. C, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584.

For existing law, see 52 & 53

Vict. c.

Act, 1889).

Digitized

by Microsoft

45 (The Factors

INJUSTICE

AND ABSURDITY AVOIDED.

365

and not in any way advancing either civil or

criminal justice by the alleged " disclosure " (a).
Although there is no positive rule of law against
a retrospective rate (6), enactments which authorise
the imposition of rates and similar burdens on the
inhabitants of a locality have been repeatedly held
not to authorise, without express words, a retrospective charge; on the ground of the injustice

on one set of persons a burden which

ought to have been borne by another at a former
period (c). And where the Act (d) makes the occupier rateable at what a tenant from year to year
would give for it, it would be understood, where
the property was subject by law to restrictions
of throwing

28 L.

(a) B. V. Sheen,

against

See Harrison

(6)

Bead, 18 L.

J.

M.

M.

J.

See Lewes

five.

v.

C. 91

v. Stickney (1847),

0. 164

Jones

so held by nine judges

Barnett, 6 Ch. D. 252.

v.

2 H. L. Gas. 108

Johnson, 21 L. J.

M.

B.

v.

C. 102

B. V. Maidenhead, 9 Q. B. D. 494 Gaistor v. N. Eelsey, 59 L. J. M. C.

;

Easton

102;

T. L. E. 649

562, C. A.

327

at p.

10

B.

B.

v. Leigh,

but see B.

v.

Valley Drainage

V.

Q. B. 604
V.

{d)

Com. (1892), 8

Bural Council (1898), 67 L.

Q. B.

J.

All Saints, Wigan (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B.,

affirmed (1876), 1 App. Gas. 611.

32 L.
;

Newtonv. Young, 1 B. & P. N. E.

Maulden, 32 E. E. 344

Waddington

Stretfield,

B.

Co. v.

Tawny's Case, 2 Salk. 531

(c)

187

Nar

8r

B.

v.
J.

V.

B.

M.

G. 236

& B.

Bursley, 5 A.

v.

London Union, 28 L.

J.

M.

Bradford Union

C. 113

v. Wilts,

All Saints, Wigan, 1 App. Gas. 611.

B.

v.

L. E. 3

See also

Leigh B. B. C, [1898] 1 Q. B. 836.

Eepealed and re-enacted by 38 & 39

Sched. v., Pt. III.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Vict. c. 55,

s.

343,

366

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

which prevented the occupier from obtaining the

full value, that
the hypothetical tenant was

them

similarly subject to

An Act

{a).

which prohibits the negligent use of

furnaces in such a manner as not to

consume smoke " as far as possible,"

make them
means only

smoke can be consumed consistently

with the due carrying on of the business for which
the furnace is used, and not as far as it is
physically possible to consume it, without regard
to the detriment which the business carried on
would suffer; the Act not having expressed any
so far as the

intention to interfere with

it (b).

Where

a sewer

in a street (not being a highway repairable by the

inhabitants at large)

has become vested in an

urban authority under s. 13, PubHo Health Act,

1876, the powers of the authority under s. 150
of that Act, where such street is not sewered to
their

satisfaction,

to

require

the frontagers

to

can be exercised by the authority once

only, and must be exercised within a reasonable
time after the sewer has become vested in them,
sewer

it,

being said that any other construction would

make the Act unjust and unreasonable (c). The

it

(a)

Worcester v. Broitwich (1876), 2 Ex. D. 49.

(6)

Cooper v. Woolley'{lQ&l), L. E. 2 Ex. 88.

(c)

38 & 39 Vict.

20 Q. B. D. 63
62 L.

J.

c.

55

Ferrand

Bonella

v.

Hallas

v.

Twickenham Loc. Bd. (1887),

Land and Building

But a

local authority

Digitized

by Microsoft

Q. B. 479.

under

s.

Co. (1893),

105 of the

AND ABSURDITY AVOIDED.

INJUSTICE

Carriers
0.

68),

for

Act, 1830 (11

which exempts

&

Geo. IV.

carriers

367

WiU. IV.

from responsibiKty

the loss of certain articles worth more than

10, unless their nature and value are declared,

also

the Act shall not affect any-

enacts that

special contract of carriage,

and

this proviso

was

construed, not literally as making the Act in-

whenever

applicable

any special

was

contract

made, but only as not affecting any special contract inconsistent with the exemption provided by
the Act (a). The ordinary stipulation in a bill
of lading, excepting liability for breakage, leakage

and damage, would be similarly limited in construction, as not extending to any such injury
caused by the shipowner or his servants
Metropolis

Management

& 19

Act, 1855 (18

recover the cost of paving a

new

street

v.

Fulham

Giles,

Camberwell

what

constitutes a

v.

Vestry, [1900]

new

street, see

74 L. T. 425, and see also

120), can

became a new

2 Q. B. 188.

Hunt (1887), 56 L.

c.

from the frontagers, in

spite of the lapse of time since the road

Simmonds

Vict.

So

(6).

M.

J.

street;

See also

St.

C. 65, but as to

Whitev. Fulham Fesiry (1896),

Wandsworth

v.

Golds (1910), 80

L. J. K. B. 126.
(a)

Baxendale

v. G.

As

E. By. Co. (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 244.

to the nature of evidence required by a carrier to bring him

within the protection of the Act, see L.

Ashton, [1919]

W.

" special contract,"

623.

For a

N. 234

Daey

disquisition

v.

and see as

L.

&

on the

&

N. W. By.

N. W. By.

Co.,

by Microsoft

P.

and

[1919] 1 K. B.

liability of carriers

Act, see Chitty on Contracts, Chap. XV., s. 2.

Czech
(b) Phillips V. Clarh, 26 L. J. C. P. 168

Digitized

v. J.

to " insurance "

v.

under

this

Gen. Steam

INTEKPKETATION OF STATUTES.

368

lading of goods from Malaga

to Liverpool authorising the ship to call at " any

the clause in a

bill of

port or ports, in any rotation, in the Mediterranean,

Levant, Black Sea, or Adriatic

or on the coasts

of Africa, Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain,

and Ireland,
stantially

for

any purpose," would be limited

geographical order which were sub-

to ports in

on the course of the voyage

(a).

mind that the injustice and

which
the
Legislature
hardship
is presumed not
to intend is not merely such as may occur in
individual and exceptional cases only. Laws are
made ad ea quse frequentius accidunt (6)
and
It is to be borne in

individual hardship not unfrequently results from

The argument

enactments of general advantage.

of hardship has been said to be always a dangerous

one to listen to
law

{d)

Nav.

Co.,

India

It is apt to introduce bad

(c).
and has occasionally led to the erroneous

L. E. 3 C. P. 14

Lindley LJ., Chartered

jper

Netherlands Steam Nav. Co., 52 L.

v.

J.

Bank

Q. B. 230.

of

See

also The Pearlmoor, [1904] P. 286.

Glynn

(a)

Granada
" in

y. Margetson,

[1893] 62 L. J. Q. B. 466; White

S.S. Co. .(1896), 13 T. L. E.

any order "

(b)

Dig.

Per

(d)

Brand

1. 9.

Cur.,

Comm.

Akhar

v.

words

v. Anglo

Gas. 219.

v. Butt,

.T.

8 E.

& B.

754.

B., Winterhottom v. Wright, 10

Hammersmith B.

Graham, 33 L.

to the use of

3-10.

Munro

Per Eolfe
v.

As

in bill of lading, see Hadji Ali

Arabian Persian S.S. Co. (1906), 11

(c)

1.

Co.,

Q. B. 71.

Digitized

M. & W. 116
Adams v.

L. E. 2 Q. B. 241

by Microsoft

369

AGAINST IMPAIKING OBLIGATIONS.

interpretation of statutes

Court ought not

(a).

to be influenced or governed

hardship

by any notions

of

They must look hardships in the

down the rules of law (c)

(6).

face rather than break

and

if,

in all cases of ordinary occurrence, the

law, in its natural construction,

is

not inconsistent,

or unreasonable, or unjust, that construction

to be departed

with

from merely because

hardship

case

or injustice

it

may

some

in

is

not

operate

particular

(d).

SECTION UI.

CONSTEUCTION

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLI-

GATIONS, OR PERMITTING ADVANTAGE FROM ONE's

OWN WRONG.

On

'

the general principle of avoiding injustice,

and absurdity, any construction would, if possible,

be rejected (unless the policy and object of the Act
Gomp.

(a)

V. Mill,
V.

20 L.

ex. gr.,
J. C. P.

Perry

16

Nash, 9 E. E. 478, with B.

Be

471, with B,

1 Q. B. 919, and Welch

Phillips (1866),

35 L.

J.

M.

C,

v.

Smethurst, 4

M. & W. 63

Perkins, 24 Q. B. D. 618.

Per Lord Eldon, Berkeley Peerage, 4 Gamp. 419, and in

per Jessel M.E., Ford v. Kettle,

Jesson V. Wright, 2 Bligh, 65

9 Q. B. D. 139, and Kirk

See Co.

(d)

21 L.

v.

Per Lord Abinger, Bhodes

per Lord Esher M.E.,

(c)

v. Shiles,

See Be Palmer's Trade Mark (1882), 21 Oh. D. 47.

217.
(b)

M. & W.

Skinner, 2

v.

and B.

J.

Litt. 97b,

Todd, 21 Ch. D. 484.

v.

152b

Ex. 192, and Williams

Blackburn, Toung

v.

per Parke B., Miller

v. Boherts, 7

v.

Ex. 628

Salomons,

per Lord

Leamington (Mayor), 8 App. Gas. 527, and

per Lindley L.J., S.C, 51 L,

J.

Q. B. 297.

24

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

370

INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

which enabled a person to defeat or

impair the obligation of his contract by his own
"a
act, or otherwise to profit by his own wrong
man may not take advantage of his own wrong
required

it)

he may not plead, in his own

Thus,
created necessity " (a).
authorised justices

to

interest,

a self-

Act

which

an
an

discharge

apprentice

under certain circumstances, from his indenture,

" on the master's appearance " before them, would
justify a discharge in his wilful

Act,

it

The

absence.

was observed, must have a reasonable con-

struction, so as not to permit the master to take

hard that,

own

would be very
supposing the master was profligate

advantage of his

obstinacy.

It

and ran away, the apprentice should never be discharged (6). For similar reasons, an Act (30 & 31
Vict. c. 84) which authorised a justice to summon
a parent " to appear with his child " before him,

breach of the Vaccination Act of 1867, and

for

"upon

his appearance," to order the vaccination

he should find that it had not

already undergone that operation, was held to
authorise such an order without the appearance of
the child, when the parent refused to produce it.
of the child,

if

making the production

literal construction,
(a)

Per Fletcher Moulton

L.J.,

Kish

v. Taylor,

80 L.

J.

of

K. B.

607.
(6) Ditton's Case,

44.

Comp. B.

V.

2 Salk. 490.

Bucks, and B.

Digitized

See Gordon v. G. W. B., 8 Q. B. D.

v. Staffordshire,

by Microsoft

sup. p. 15.

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS.

371

the child a condition precedent to the making of

the order, would have involved the supposition
that the Legislature had intended to allow the

parent to defeat

object

by disobeying the sum-

had ordered {a). So, a parent who

child to the Board School without also

mons which
sent his

its

it

sending the school fees did not " cause the child to
attend the school " within the meaning of the Ele-

mentary Education Act, 1870, s. 74 (J). A trustee

in bankruptcy who has received a sum, would be
liable to arrest under the provision of the Debtors
Act, 1869, which makes a trustee liable to imprisonment

an order to pay a sum

for disobeying

"in his possession or his control," though in fact

he had spent it all (c). The provision of the Eeal
Property Limitation Act, 1874, that no action
Button

(o)

V.

AtUm

(1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 373

of Ginque Ports, 17 Q. B. D. 191.

[1892] A. C. 326.

B.

v. Justices

Gomp. Barnardo

For exemption from penalties

v.

parents' conscientious belief, see Vaccination Act, 1907 (7

VII.

c.

(6)

31,

33

tion of
cases,
(c)

Edw.

1 (1)).

s.

& 34

Q. B. D. 578

Ford,

in case of

Vict. c. 75

London School Board

v.

see also Id. v. Wood, 15 Q. B. D. 415.

payment under the Act

by 39 & 40

Vict. c. 79,

32 & 33 Vict.

L. E. 6 Gh. 152.

c.

62,

s.

s.

See Lewes

Debtors Act, 1878, by

s. 1,

of

1870

is

avoided, in certain

10.
;

v.

Middleton

v. Chichester (1871),

Bamett, 6 Ch. D. 252.

The

gives a Court or Judge discretion to

grant or refuse a writ of attachment under

Act.

Digitized

Wright, 12

The obliga-

by Microsoft

s.

4 of the earlier

372

INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.

should be brought to recover certain sums of

money but within 12 years next after " a present

same "

right to receive the

shall

have accrued

some person capable of giving a discharge for

must be taken in its ordinary sense, and is not

to
it,

to be interpreted as referring to " a present right

which may be contingent

on the doing of some act by the person entitled
to receive the sum, and may be delayed by him
to sue for the same,"

accordingly

(a).

Although 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 1 (b), enacted that

bills and notes, founded on the consideration of

money
void,

lost at play,

and of none

should be " utterly frustrate,

effect, to all intents

and purpose,"

operation was confined to preventing the drawer

its

any person claiming under him (c)) from recovering from the loser but it left the instrument
unaffected in the hands of an innocent indorsee
for value suing the drawer (d).
The statute was
construed as if the words were voidable against
(or

certain persons only, but were valid as regards

() 37

105.
p.

225

& 38 Vict. c. 57, s. 8 Hornsey Loc. Bd. v. Monarch

BUg. Socy. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 1 59 L. J. Q. B.
;

Investment

See for discussion on this case Oweuj In

;

63 L.

[1894] 3 Ch.,

Ch. 749.

J.

(&)

Amended by

(c)

Bowyer

(d)

Edwards

v.

re,

&6

Will. IV.

c.

41, ss. 1

Bampton, 2 Stra. 1155.

v.

Dick, 23 E. E. 255.

Digitized

by Microsoft

and

3.

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS.

others,

and

this

still

373

represents the law in the case

of a bond, fide holder without notice

So, where an Act

{b)

(a).

provided that

if

the pur-

chaser at an auction refused to pay the auction

when

was made a condition of sale, his

bidding should be " null and void to all intents
and purposes," it was held that the object of the
enactment was completely attained by making the
duty,

this

bidding void only at the option of the

seller

thus

avoiding the injustice and impolicy of enabling

man

from the obligation of his contract by his own wrongful act, which a literal
construction would have involved (c).
A special Act(d) provided that a company
should not issue any share, that no share should
vest, until one-fifth of its amount was paid up, and
a

to escape

that the shareholder

Per Cur., Hay

(a)

v.

who had not

paid up one-fifth

Ayling (1851), 20 L.

J.

Q. B. 171,

(6)

See also Woolfv. Hamilton, [1898] 2 Q. B. 337, 0. A.

17 Geo. III. c. 50, s. 8 (repealed 33 & 34 Vict. c. 9).

(c)

Malim

p. 174.

v.

stipulation in

Freeman (1838), 7 L. J. 0, P. 212. So, the usual

a lease that if any covenant is broken by the

lessee, the lease shall

be void,

the option of the lessor.

The

is

construed as voidable only at

literal

construction would enable

a lessee to get rid of an onerous lease by wilfully breaking a

covenant in

Bob

v.

it.

Gomj^. Richard v.

Bancks, 4 B. & Aid. 401

Graham, 79 L.

Bede

per Lord Cairns, Magdalen Hospital

v.

v.

Knotts, 4

(d) Incorporating certain sections of the

Act, 1845.

Digitized

J.

Oh. 378

Farr, 18 E. E. 329

by Microsoft

and

App. Gas. 332.

Companies Clauses

374

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

should have no right of property in the shares

allotted to him, or capacity to transfer

considered as limited in

application to the

its

To construe

protection of the public.

them, was
as apply-

it

ing also to the benefit of the shareholder, would

have been to absolve him from

liability to

pay up

he had paid the requisite proportion

him to profit by his
own default a consequence too unjust ajid unreasonable to have been intended (a).
On similar grounds, probably, enactments which
calls until

or, in

other words, to enable

;

avoid or abridge the effect of conveyances, con-

and instruments, have generally received

a construction more compatible with the obvious
object and policy of the Legislature than with the
natural meaning of the language. Thus, the Act
of Will. III., which declares void all conveyances
tracts,

of property, " in order to multiply voices," does

not apply where the vendor

is

not privy to the

and even where there is privity

valid and effectual as between the parties to

illegal object (b),

it

is

it

to pass the interest

(c).

(a) East GloncestersMre By. Co. v. Bartholomew, L.

McBwen
655.
V.

E. 3 Ex. 15

West London Wharves &c. Co. (1871), L. E. 6 Ch.

v.

Comjp.,

however, B.

v. Staffordshire,

8 E. E. 668

Mcllraith

Dublin &c. By. Co. (1871), L. E. 7 Oh., at p. 139, and Exp.

Parbury, 30 L.
(6)

& 8

C. P. 129

J.

Ch. 513.

Will. III.

Hoyland

v.

c.

25,

s.

Marshall

Bremner, 15 L.

(c) Phillpotts V, Phillpotts

Digitized

v.

Bowen, 14 L.

J. C. P. 133, sup. 165.

(1850), 20 L. J. 0. P. 11.

by Microsoft

J.

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS.

.

Though

13 Bliz.

and of none
purposes,"

made "utterly void

10,

o.

constructions and

effect, to all intents,

all

leases

by

375

ecclesiastical persons

bodies, other than for 21

and

years or three lives,

the prohibited leases have always been held valid

as against the lessor,

when

a corporation sole, and

even when a corporation aggre*gate with a head,

during the life of its head (a)
probably on the
;

principle of a personal estoppel

by reason of a

personal interest in the head of the corporation

(6).

Where, however, there is no head, the Act necessarily receives its primary and natural meaning;
and the lease is void ab initio (c) upon the ground
;

that

if it

did not

make

the lease altogether bad,

would be altogether good

(d)

it

which would be con-

trary to every possible construction of the Act.

An Act which

required

that indentures

for

binding parish apprentices should be for the term

of seven years at least, declaring that otherwise

they should be " void to all intents and purposes,

and not available in any court or place for any
purpose whatever,"

Was

nevertheless,

held,

to

Bishop of Salisbwry's Case, 10 Eep. 60b, Co. Litt. 45a;

Lincoln College Gase, 3 Eep. 60a ; Bae. Ab. Leases (H). See also
(a)

Boberts

v.

Davey, 38 E. E. 348

v. B.,

3 App. Cas.

v. Knotts,

4 App. Gas.,

Davenport

115.
(b)

Per Lord CaimS, Magdalen Hasp.

at p. 333.
(c) Id.

(d)

324,

Per CressweU

J.,

Toung

Digitized

v. Billiter,

25 L.

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B. 178.

376

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

make an indenture

for a shorter

term only void-

able at the option of the master or apprentice

or at

all

under

it

events to leave

it

sufficed to gain a

Though the Infants

contracts for the

so far valid that service

poor law settlement

(a).

makes aU

Eelief Act, 1874,

supply to an infant of goods

which are not necessaries absolutely void, the

infant cannot recover the money he has paid for
them if he has used or consumed them (6).
3 Hen. VII. c. 4 (c), which declared that gifts
of goods and chattels in trust for the donor and
in fraud of his creditors should be " void and
of none effect," was early held to be so only as
to those who were prejudiced by the gift, but
not as between the parties (d). And 13 Eliz. c. 5,
would not include a bond fide conveyance for
valuable consideration, though made with intent
to defeat an execution creditor (e).
Even as
regards the persons prejudiced, the transaction
(a)

B.

5 Eliz.

V. St.

c.

i (repealed |by 38

Nicholas, 2 Stra. 1066, Ca.

Coohson, 16 Bast, 13

B.

v. St.

Turqumd, L, E. 2 H. L. 325
(6)

37 & 38 Vict.

(c)

Eepealed as to E. by

c. 62, s.

& 39

Vict. c. 86,

Temp. Hardw. 323

Gregory, 2 A.

& B. 107

s.

17)

Gray

v.

Oahes

v.

Burgess's Case, 15 Oh. D. 507.

1 ; Talentini v. Ganali, 24 Q. B. D. 166.

S. L. E., 1863, as to Ir., S.

L. (1)

E.,1872.
(d) Bidler v. Ptmter, Oro. Eliz.

Q. B. 166.
(e)

Wood

See Phillpotts
V. Dixie,

291; Bessey

v. PMllpotts,

68 E. E. 590; Barvill

Ex. 355.

Digitized

v.

Windham, 6

sup. p. 165.

by Microsoft

v.

Terry,

30 L. J.

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS.

377

not void ipso factOy but only voidable at their

option (a). In the repealed s. 47 of the Bank-

is

ruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted that voluntary

settlements made by a person who became bankrupt within two years after should be void as
against the trustee in bankruptcy, " void " has

been held to mean " voidable," so that the title

of a purchaser from the donee for valuable consideration in good faith before avoidance, could
not afterwards be

defeated by

the

trustee

(6).

Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849 (c), which enacted that a judge's
order to enter up judgment, made against a trader
with his consent, should be " null and void to
all intents and purposes whatever," if not filed
Sec. 137 of the repealed

by the Act, was construed as making

the judgment void only as against his assignees,
as required

but not as against himself.

A literal

construction

would have enabled the trader to treat his creditor

out execution on the judgment to which
he had consented, as a trespasser {d). So noncomphance with the requirement of s. 27, Debtors

who took

(a)

Note the cases

Tming

in

v. Billiter,

6 B. & B,

8 H. L.

1,

Gas. 682.
(6)

46 & 47 Vict.

e.

52

and Kenderdine, Be, 66 L.

Brail, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381

J.

Oh. 408.

As

Carter,

to existing law with

regard to fraudulent settlements, see Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

(c)

(d)

s.

As to existing Bankruptcy Law, see 4 & 5 Geo. V. c.

Bryan v. Child, 82 E. E. 710; Green v. Gray, 1 Dowl.

Digitized

by Microsoft

27.

59.

350.

378

Act,

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
1869, that

judge's order for

made by consent

judgment

of the defendant in a personal

action shall be filed in the manner prescribed

within 21 days after the making thereof, " other-

and any judgment signed or

entered up thereon, and any execution issued
or taken out on such judgment shall be void,"
only renders such an order and judgment void
as against the creditors of such defendant, and
not as against himself (a). On the same ground,
a section of an Act (b) which declared a warrant of
attorney under certain circumstances "void to all
intents and purposes," was held to mean only that
it was void against the assignees in bankruptcy of
the person who had given it although in another
section the warrant was declared to be " void
wise

the

order

against the assignees "

if

not

The

filed.

difference

two sections was considered

by the majority of the Court as insufficient to
establish any substantial difference of intention,
when the consequence would be to enable a person
in the language of the

own

to defeat his

act

(c).

Though the Sunday Observance Act,

(a)

32 & 33 Vict.

Orawshaw
(6)
c.

66.
(c)

v.

c.

62

Gowan

18 Q. B. D. 201

Harrison, [1894] 1 Q. B. 79.

3 Geo. rV.

c.

39,

s. 4.

Eepealed 32 & 33 Vict.

Morris

v. Wright,

1677, has

v.

10 B. & C. 500.

Cognovit actionem ext. 6

c.

62,

Mellin (1827), 6 B.

&

s.

&

7 Vict,

28.

G. 446

Bennett

v.

Daniel,

Bryan (1827), 6 B. & 0. 651.

See Bavis

v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

AGAINST IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS.

379

the effect of avoiding contracts

made on Sunday

by and with tradesmen and

other

of

classes

persons, in the course of their ordinary calHng,

the

invalidity affects

when

only those persons who,

knew their calling

them in ignorance of

contracting with them,

but those

who

dealt with

would be entitled to sue on the contract (a).

In all these cases the intention of the Legislature was considered as completely carried out by

it

the restricted scope given to its enactments. But

where, having regard to the general policy of the

Act as well as to the language and the structure

of the sentence, it would not have that effect, the
words abridging or avoiding the effect of instruments, contracts, and deahngs would receive their
primary and natural meaning. Thus, in the Bills

Act of 1854, assignments not registered

were nuU and void in the fuU and natural sense of
and in the later Act of 1882, the
the words (6)
provision of s. 9, which avoids a bill of sale
of Sale

unless

made

in accordance with the form in the

schedule, has been held to avoid

it

in

toto,

and not

merely as regards the personal chattels comprised

in

it

so that a covenant contained in

payment by the grantee

(a)

Bhxsome

v. Williams,

of

the

27 E. E. 337.

it

for the

principal

and

See also Drury

v.

Befontaine, 1 Taunt. 131.

(6)

See

ex. gr.,

Richards

v.

James, 36 L.

Exp. Blaiberg, 52 L. J. Oh. 461.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

Q. B. 116.

Comp.

380

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

was said to be rendered

inoperative (a).
So, in the case cited on an earlier
page, where an Act recited the mischiefs occasioned
by binding parish apprentices without the sanction
of justices, and enacted that no indenture of such
interest thereby secured

apprenticeships should be valid unless approved

by two justices, under their hands and seals it

was held that an indenture, approved under hand
but not under seal, was absolutely void (b). The
same effect was given (in an action by the trustees
against their lessee for rent which had been made
payable to them) to a local Act which provided
;

that every lease of turnpike tolls should

make the

rent payable to the treasurer, in default of which

it

should be " null and void "

It

(c).

may, probably, be said that where a statute

not only declares a contract void, but imposes a

penalty for making

it, it is

not voidable merely

(d).

(a) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 43

Lames v. Bees, 55 L. J. Q. B. 363.
But see Heseltine v. Simmons (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 5, in which
it was held that where a bill is avoided under s. 8 for an untrue
;

statement as to consideration

covenant to repay under

(1914), 59 S. J. 75

58 L.
(6)

J.

B.

it

s. 9.

does not necessarily avoid the

See also Brandon Hill

[1915] 1 K. B. 250;

Bward, In

v.

Lane

re (1916),

K. B. 393.
V.

Stohe Bamerel, sup. p. 10.

See also B.

v. Bawbergli,

2 B. & 0. 222.
(c)

3 Geo. rV.

Hodson
(d)

c.

V. Sharpe,

Gye

126

Pearse

v. Morrice,

10 E. E. 324.

v. Felton,

4 Taunt. 876.

Digitized

by Microsoft

2 A.

& E. 84.

Gomp.

BETROSPBCTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS.

381

The penalty makes it illegal (a). In general, however, it would seem that where the enactment has
relation only to the benefit of particular persons,

the word *' void " would be understood as " voidable " only, at the election of the persons for

whose protection the enactment was made, and

who
that

are capable of protecting themselves

when

it

but

relates to persons not capable of pro-

tecting themselves, or

when

it

has some object of

public policy in view which requires the strict

construction, the
force and effect

SECTION

IV.

word receives

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION.
2.

is

giving

statutes

(a)

full

1.

AS RE-

AS REGARDS PROCEDURE.

the presumption that the Legislature does

not intend what

tion

natural

(b).

GARDS VESTED RIGHTS.

Upon

its

certain

(c).

But

Nova

unjust rests the leaning against

a

retrospective

constitutio futuris

this distinction

opera-

formam imponere

must now be understood

to apply

only to cases where the statute enacts that an agreement or

deed made in violation of

its

provisions shall be wholly void.

Per Gibbs O.J., Doe v. Pitchers (1815), 6 Taunt. 359, p. 369.

See also
(6) See per Bayley J., B. v. Mipswell, 8 B. & C. 471.
Betham v. Gregg, 38 E. E. 449, and Storie v. Winchester, 19
L. J. C. P. 217. See further Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and
" Void," and see also Money Lenders Act, 1911,
tit.
and cases thereon, " Ohitty on Contracts," Chap. XXII,, s. 1.

Supp.,

(c)

2 Inst. 292.

Digitizpd

by Microsoft

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.

382
debet,

non

are construed as opera-

They

prseteritis.

ting only in cases or on facts which

come

into

existence after the statutes were passed (a) unless

a retrospective effect be clearly intended. It is a

fundamental rule of English law that no statute

shall be construed so as to have a retrospective
operation, unless such a construction appears very

by necesand the same

clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises

saiy and distinct implication

(6)

rule involves another and subordinate rule to the

not to be construed so as
to have a greater retrospective operation than its
language renders necessary (c). Even in construeffect that a statute is

ing a section which

spective, the

applicable

to a certain extent retro-

is

maxim ought

whenever the

mind

to be borne in

line is

as

reached at which

the words of the section cease to be plain

{d).

For
to be observed that the retrospective
effect of a statute may be partial in its operation.
it is

(a)

Per Erie

C.J.,

Midland By. Co.

v.

Pye, 10 C. B. N. S.

per Cookburn O.J., B. v. Ipsmch, 2 Q. B. D. 269 ; per

Pollock C.B., Toung v. Hughes, 4 H. & N. 76 ; Vansittart v.

191

Taylor, 4 E.

& B. 910

Tomg

v.

Adams, [1898] A. 0. 469.

This statement of the fundamental rule was cited and

approved by Kennedy L.J., West v. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 15.
See further, Smith v. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297.
(S)

(c)

Per Lindley

L.J.,

Lauri

(d)

Per Bowen

L.J.,

Beid

Main

V. Starle,

v.

Benad, [1892] 3 Ch. 421.

v. Beid, 31 Ch. D. 409.

15 A. C. 388

Beynolds

v.

[1896] A. C. 240.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

A.-G. Nova Scotia,

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS.

383

Thus it has been said that s. 35, Divided Parishes

and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, which contains a code of transmitted status in relation to

poor-law settlement,
retrospective for

to be considered as fully

is

made

ment

so

the Act

of

except

purposes,

all

regards adjudications

before the

only as

commence-

that for the purpose of

determining the settlement of children born after

1876,

it

may

be that their father's settlement

is

governed by the section, even though his settlement, for the purposes of his own removal, is not
affected

by

it (a).

where the enactment would pre-

It is chiefly

judicially

affect

vested rights,

or

the

legality

of past transactions, or impair contracts, that the

Every statute, it has

which takes away or impairs vested

rule in question prevails.

been

said,

rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a

new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches

a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past,

must be presumed, out

of respect to the Legislature

(b),

to be intended
(c).

ThuSj

JBerwic^,

[1892] 1

not to have a retrospective operation

(a)

39 & 40 Vict.

Q. B. 731

and see

c.

61,

s.

35; Bath

v.

also Paddington Union v. Westminster Union,

[1915] 2 K. B. 644.
(6)

Per Chancellor Kent, Dash

v.

Van Kleeh, 7 Johnson,

602, etc.
(c)

Per Story

J.,

Socy. for Projpag. of Gospel v.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Wheeler, 2

384

intbrpkbtAtion of statutes.

the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no

action should be brought to charge any person on

any agreement made in consideration of marriage,

unless the agreement were in writing, was held
not to apply to an agreement which had been made

The Charitable
Act was passed (a).
Uses Act, 1735 (6), in the same way, was held not
to apply to a devise made before it was enacted (c).
And the Apportionment Act, 1870, which enacts
before the

that after the passing of the Act, rents are to

be considered as accruing from day to day, like

and to be apportionable in respect of

time accordingly, would seem not to apply to a
Will made before the Act, though the testator
interest,

came into operation (d). The testator

was presumed to have in view the state of the
died after

it

See also per Chase O.J., Colder v. Bull, 3 Dallas,

by WiUes J., Phillips v. Eyre, L. E. 6 Q. b! 1, where
the distinction between retrospective and ex post facto legislation is indicated.
See further, per Lopes L.J., Be Pulborough
School Board Election, [1894] 1 Q. B. 737.

Gallison, 139.

390, cited

(a)

Gilmore

v. Shuter,

3 Swanst. 664.

2 Lev. 227, 2 Mod. 310

See also Doe

v.

Page, 13 L.

J.

Ash

v.

Q. B. 153

Abdy,

Doe

Bold, 11 Q. B. 127.

V.

(6)

9 Geo. II.

c.

36 (repealed save part of

Vict. c. 42,

s.

13).

A.-G.

V.

Lloyd, 3 Atk. 551

(c)

Ashburnham

s.

5 by 51 & 52

v.

Bradshaw, 2

Atk. 36.
(d)

Jones v. Ogle, L. E. 8 Ch. 192, but see Capson v. Capson

(1874), 43 L, J. Ch. 677

29

Brownrigg

v.

Pihe (1882), 51 L.

Constable v. Constable (1879), 48 L. J. Ch. 621.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

P.

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS.

385

law when he made his Will (a).

The contrary
presumption that the testator who left his Will
unaltered after the Act was passed, intended that
it should operate on the Will (6), would imply
that he

knew

that the law had been changed.

was held that 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, which

made all wagers void, and enacted that no action
So,

it

should be brought or maintained for a wager,

applied only to wagers

passed

(c)

the

Gaming

made

after the

Act was

Act, 1892, which prevents

a betting agent from recovering from his employer

sums paid

was held not

for bets,

to prevent

such

recovery where the sums had been paid before the

passing of the, Act (d); and the Kidnapping Act
of 1872,

which made

unlawful for a vessel to

it

carry native labourers of the Pacific Islands with-

out a license, did not apply to a voyage begun

before the Act was passed

(e).

Where one

of the

had been committed

after the passing of the Act which created the
offence, but before the Act came into operation,
ingredients of an

offence

Be March, 27 Ch. D. 166 but see Be

297 and Be Llanover, [1903] 2 Ch. 330.

(a)

Ch.

(b)
(c)

West

Bridger, [1894] 1

Per Jessel M.E., Haduck v. Pedley (1874), 19 Eq. 271.

Moon V. Burden, 2 Ex. 22, on which see per Buckley L.J.,
V.

Owynne,

inf. p.

393

Pettamberdass

v.

Thackoorseydass, 7

See White, Exp., 33 L. J. Bank. 22.

Moo. P. C. 239.
(d) 55 & 56 Vict.

c.

35 & 36 Vict.

c.

19

(e)

Knight

Burns

v. Lee,
v.

[1893] 1 Q. B. 41.

Nmell

(1880), 49 L. J. Q. B.

468.
i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

25

386

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

the fact that the other ingredients were committed

subsequently did not

the Act

The

(a).

made void

make the

offence one within

Bills of Sale Act, 1882,

bills of sale

which

not registered within seven

days of their execution, was held not to apply to

instruments executed before the Act came into
operation.
Compliance, it is evident, would have
been impossible where the deed had been executed

more than seven days before the Act passed (5).

The 20 Vict. c. 19, which declared that extraparochial places should, for poor-law and other
purposes, be deemed parishes, was held not retrospective, so as to confer the status of irremovability

on a pauper who had resided in such a place for

the Act

five years before

The enactments
Trade Marks Acts,
afi'ect

ment

(c).

of the Patents, Designs,

1883, have been held not to

any patent granted before the commenceAct (d) and it has been decided that

of the

the repealed International Copyright Act,

(a)

B.

53

& 54 Vict.

V. Griffiths,

e.

71,

s.

26 (repealed by 4

As

[1891] 2 Q. B. 145.

Bankruptcy Act, 1914, see Part VII.

{h)

Hkhson

(c)

B.

V.

v.

1886,

& 5 Geo. V. c.

to offences

59)

under the

of the Act.

Darlow, 23 Ch. D. 690.

St. Sepulchre,

28 L.

Ipswich Union, 2 Q. B. D. 269

99

and

Barton Begis

v. Liverpool,

J.

M.

C. 187

Sunderland

v.

3 Q. B. D. 295

See also B.

v.

Sussex, 8 Q. B. D.

Gardner

v.

Lucas,

3 App. Cas. 582.

(d)

46 & 47 Vict.

See also 7

c.

Bdw. VII.

57

Brandon,

Be

(1884), 9 App. Cas. 589.

c. 29.

Digitized

by Microsoft

BETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS. ,387

was not to be construed so as to revive or re-create,

a right which had expired before it was passed, or
take away from the public the right which they had
under

acquired

previous

The

legislation (a).

Married Women's Property Act, 1882, did not

entitle a plaintiff, who was suing a married woman
upon a promissory note made by her before the
passing of the Act, to have judgment against her

in such terms as to be available against separate

property to which she became entitled after the

date of the note

Nor

(6).

did

it

operate upon

property falling into the possession of a married

woman

Act

after the passing of the

had acquired a
separate estate

title before, so as to

Even

(c).

to

which she

make

it

her

a statute which confers

a benefit, such as abolishing a tax, would not be

construed retrospectively, to relieve the persons

burden before it was

abolished.
An Act passed in August, providing
that on all goods captured from the enemy, and
made prize of war, a deduction of one-third of
the

already subject to

(a)

402.

49 & 50 Vict.

c.

right is set out,

s.

s. 6 ; Lauri v. Benad, [1892] 3 Ch.

"
as to " existing " and " substituted

33,

The present law

24,

and Sched.

I.

of the Copyright Act,

1911.
(h)

45 & 46 Vict.

Q. B. D. 234.
c.

63,

Act.
(c)

s.

4,

See

Bdd

c.

which see as
inf. p.

V.

75,

s.

1 (4); Tumhull v. Forman, 15

This sub-section

is

to cases of

repealed by 56

402.

Beid (1886), 31 "Ch. D. 402.

Digitized

& 57

Vict.

mere procedure under the

by Microsoft

388

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

the ordinary duties should be made, was held not

where the prize with her cargo, though

condemned in September, had been brought into
port on June, when certain duties accrued due (a).
to apply

The repealed Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act,

1849, which made a deed of arrangement (b) " now
or hereafter "

entered into by a trader with six-

sevenths pf his creditors binding on the non-executing creditors, at the expiration of three months
after they " should have had" notice, was held to

apply only to deeds executed after the passing of

To apply such an enactment to past

transactions, even though the property had been
completely distributed among the creditors who
the Act

(c).

had signed, would have been so unjust, that it was

expedient to seek any means of getting rid of the
apparent effect of the word "now," which was
accordingly understood as restricted to arrange-

ments not completed but yet binding in equity

at the time when the Act was passed.
So, a
non-trader was held not liable to adjudication as
(a) Prince v. U. S.,
(6)

(4

As

2 Gallison, 204.

& 5 Geo. V.

c.

47)

12 & 13 Vict.

Ill; Marsh
5

H.

c.

106

v. Higgins,

Waugh,

19 L.

L. Gas. 481; Noble

J. 0.

Arrangement Act, 1914

K. B. 382.
;

v.

v.

J. C.

Middleton, 22 L. J. Ex.

P. 297; Larpent

See also Beed

P. 131.

Digitized

v.

Bibby,

Gadban, 5 H. L. Gas. 504;

Phoenix Bessemer Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 11.

32 L.

of

as to the general principles of -which,

.see Wilson, In re, [1916] 1

(c)

Deeds

to existing law, see

by Microsoft

v.

Be

Wiggins,

RETROSPECTIVii; OPERATION AS

REGARDS RIGHTS.

389

a bankrupt in respect of a debt contracted before

the enactment, which

made non-traders
The provisions of

first

to the bankruptcy laws (a).

and

liable
ss.

32

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which are still in

force, and which provide that " where a debtor
is adjudged bankrupt" he shall be subject
to
34,

certain disqualifications, were held to

who were made bankrupt

those persons only

the passing of the Act

Sec.

1,

&

disqualify
after

(&).

6 Will.

IV.

83

c.

which

(c),

empowered a patentee, with the leave

of

the

Attorney-G-eneral, to enrol a disclaimer of any part

and declared that such disclaimer should be deemed and taken to be part of
his patent and specification, was construed by the
Court of Exchequer as enacting that the disclaimer
should be so taken "from thenceforth"; the
of his invention (d),

deemed

interpolation being

justifiable to avoid the

apparent injustice of giving a retrospective effect

to the disclaimer,

by

relation

(a)
(b)

Williams

46

& 47

v.

Harding, L. E. 1 H. L.

Vict.

[1894] 1 Q. B. 725
(c)

and making a man a trespasser

this construction was rejected

But

(e).

o.
;

52

9.

Pulborough School Board Election, Be,

Thompson, In re (1919), 88 L.

For existing law, see 7 Bdw. VII.

c.

J.

K. B. 646.

29 (The Patents and

Designs Act, 1907).

{d)

For meaning

of

word "disclaimer," see Owen's

Patent,

In re (1898), 79 L. T. 458.
(e)

Perry

v. Skinner,

6 L.

J.

Ex. 124; and per Oresswell

Stocker v. Warner, 1 G. B. 167.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.,

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

390

Common

by the

on the ground that the

enactment really worked no injustice in operating
retrospectively

Pleas,

{a).

Sec. 1, Mercantile

(repealed by

s.

Law Amendment

60, Sale of

provided that no

jfi.

Act, 1856

Goods Act, 1893), which

fa. should prejudice the title to

goods of a bond fide purchaser for value, before

actual seizure under the writ, was held not to
apply where the writ had been delivered to the

As the execuhad the goods already bound by the

Act was passed.

sheriff before the

tion creditor

delivery of the writ, the statute,

if

retrospective,

would have divested him of a right which he had

acquired (&); and for the like reasons, s. 146 of
the (repealed) Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted
that " the sheriff shall not under a writ of elegit
deliver the goods of a debtor, nor shall a writ of
elegit extend to goods," was held not to apply to a
case where the writ had been issued, and the
sheriff had taken possession before the Act came
into operation, although the issue and seizure were
after the passing of the Act, and the delivery after
it

came

into operation

(a)

B.

(6)

Williams

(c)

46 & 47 Vict.

V. Mill,

Q. B. 165.

20 L.

J. C. P. 16.

28 L.

J.

52,

146; Hougl

v. Smith,

As

c.

(c).

s.

Ex. 286.
v.

Windus, 53 L. J.

to duties of sheriff in regard to goods taken in

execution under existing law, see Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

See also Graig

&

Sons,

In

re,

Digitized

[1916] 2 K, B. 497.

by Microsoft

s.

41.

EETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS EBGAEDS EIGHTS.

Sec. 14, Mercantile

Law Amendment

which provides that a debtor

391

Act, 1856,

shall not lose the

by his coor part payment of

benefit of certain Statutes of Limitation

debtor's

payment

of interest,

the principal, was held not to effect the efficacy of

such a payment made before the Act was passed

(a).

the

different

creditor

decision

would have deprived

of a right of action against one of his

The

debtors.

provision in

ture Act, 1875,

whose assets are

10 of the Judica-

s.

that in winding up companies

insufficient, the

bankruptcy rules

to the rights of creditors and other matters

as

was held not to reach back to a

company already in liquidation when the Act was
apply,

shall

passed

(b).

And

generally, " no rule of construction is

firmly established than this

operation

is

more

that a retrospective

not to be given to a statute so as to

impair an existing right or obligation, otherwise

than as regards matter of procedure, unless that

effect

cannot be avoided without doing violence to

the language of the enactment.

ment

is

If the

expressed in language which

capable of either interpretation,

it

is

enactfairly

ought to be

construed as prospective only "(c).

(a) Jackson v. Woolley,

&

(6)

Be

(c)

AtUumney, In

Suche

27 L. J. Q. B. 448.

Co. (1875), 1 Oh.

re,

D. 48.

[1898] 2 Q. B.

"Wright

552.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J., at

pp. 651,

392

INTERPKKTATION OF STATUTES.

Nor

a statute retrospective, in the sense

is

under consideration, because a part of the requisites

for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to
passing

its

(a).

Law Amendment

Sec. 5, Mercantile

which

entitles a surety

the debt of his

to an assignment of the securities for

principal,
it

who pays

Act, 1856,

held by the creditor, would apply to the case

of a surety

who had entered

before the Act, but

came

had paid

into operation

(6).

into the suretyship

off

the debt after

it

Sec. 2, Infants' Belief

Act, 1874, which enacts that no action shall be

brought on a

ratification,

made during

made

after majority, of^

was held to apply

to ratifications of contracts made before the Act
was passed (c). The Court of Chancery, which
acquired jurisdiction, under the repealed s. 4
a contract

of 22

&

23 Vict.

c.

35

infancy,

(d), to relieve

in respect of

the forfeiture of a lease in consequence of a breach

of a

covenant to insure, exercised this

new juris-

where the breach occurred after, but the

lease had been made before the Act was passed (e).
diction

(a)

Per Lord Denman, B.

Mary, Whitechapel, 12 Q. B.
See B. v. Portaea, 7 Q. B. D.

v. St.

127

B.

384

Exp. Dawson, L. E. 19 Eq. 433.

V. Christchurch, Id.

149.

(h)

Be Wolfv.

(c)

Kibble, Exp. (1875), 44 L. J.. Bank. 68.

{d)

Ee-enacted by

Lindsell, 37 L. J.

s.

14,

Ch. 293.

Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45

Vict. c. 41).
(e)

Page

v.

Bennett (1855), 29 L.

Digitized

.J.

Ch. 398.

by Microsoft

RETBOSPEOTIVK OPEKA.TION AS RBGAEDS BIGHTS.

And

393

the provision of the Conveyancing Act of

1881, which relieved tenants against forfeiture for

breach of covenant, was held to apply to a case

where judgment had been already given before the
Act was passed, and the landlord might have obtained possession, but for a stay of proceedings to
give the tenant time to appeal

Law

veyancing and

Con-

s. 3,

of Property Act, 1892, applies

whether executed before or

to "all leases,"

commencement

the

So,

(a).

of

Act

the

and,

after

in

the

absence

of

engrafts,

upon every covenant against assignment

express

provision

"to

the

contrary,

or underletting without consent, a proviso

no

or

fine,

sum

of

money

in the nature of a fine,

shall be payable in respect of

s,

that

such consent

(b).

So,

Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act,

8,

1907 (7 Edw. VII. c. CLXXI.), is retrospective in

removing from the Board the duty of providing,

down, and maintaining the water com-

laying

munication pipe and imposing that duty on the

owner or occupier of the premises supplied with
water (c).
So,

s.

of the

Women's Property

Married

(Scotland) Act, 1881, applies to marriages entered

(a)

44 & 45 Vict.

(&)

West

(c)

Batt

V.
V.

c.

41,

sAi

Qmlter v. Mapleson, 9 Q. B. D. 672.

Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 1 80 L. J. Ch. 578.

Metropolitan Water Board, [1911] 2 K. B. 965
;

Mist V. Metropolitan

Water

Board

(1915),

2041.

Digitized

by Microsoft

84 L.

J.

K. B.

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES

394

Act

into before the passing of that

those contracted subsequently

In general, when the law

action,

the

rights

is

according to the law as

it

{a).

altered pending an

parties

the

of

as well as to

existed

decided

are

when the

action

was begun, unless the new statute shows a clear

Thus,

intention to vary such rights.

&

the Medical Act, 21

22 Vict.

c. 90,

32 of

s,

which, as

amended by subsequent statutes, enacts that no

of January,

1859,
"
unless
recover any charge for medical treatment

person

shall,

aftet

the

1st

shall prove at the trial" that he was on the

Medical Eegister, was held not to apply to an

he

action for medical services, begun before that date,

but tried after

it

An

(ft).

administration bond

given to the Ordinary not being assignable until

the 21

&

22 Vict.

95,

c.

an action begun by the

assignee before that Act was passed, was held not

maintainable after

it

came

into operation

(c).

If a statute is in its nature a declaratory Act,

it must not be construed so as
away previous rights is not applicable.

the argument that

to take

Thus, a statute passed in 1889 declaring that the

provisions of a statute of 1881, with regard to the
(o)

Paterson v. Poe (1883), '8 App. Cas. 678.

(6)

Thistleton v. Frewer, 31 L. J.

royd, 31 L. J. Q. B. 4.

Ex. 230

Comp. Leman

Q. B. 22.
(c)

Toung

v.

Hughes, 4 H.

Digitized

& N.

Wright

v. Houseley,

76.

by Microsoft

v.

Green-

44 L.

J.

EBTROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS.

395

imposition of stamp duties upon personal property

passing under "voluntary settlements," should be

construed as

marriage settlements were included,

if

though until then they had not been regarded

as

voluntary settlements, resulted in a decision that

the provisions of the later Act were retrospective,

and that the construction provided by

it

must be

applied to the description of the property sought

to be taxed,
to the

and

this although the property passed

and proceedings to recover

beneficiaries,

the duty were taken, before the second Act came

into force (a).
It

is

hardly necessary to add, that whenever

Act should have

a retrospective operation, it must unquestionably
be so construed (b), even though the consequences
may appear unjust and hard(c). Thus, an Act
the intention

(33

&

is

34 Vict.

c.

clear that the

29,

s.

14) {d)

which enacted that

every person "convicted of felony" should for

ever be disqualified from selling spirits by

and that

any such person should take

44 & 45 Vict.

(a)
V.

if

c. 12, s. 38,

52 & 53 Vict.

Theobald (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 557; Scott

gentatives,

[1896]

24 Eettie 462.

c. 7, s.

out, or
11; A.-G.

v. Craig's

But see Toung

retail,

v.

Bepre-

Adams

(1898), 67 L. J. P. C. 75.
(&)
(c)

See

ex. gr.

See ex.

gr.

WUUains and Stepney, Be, [1^91] 2 Q. B. 257.

Stead

v. Carey,

14 L. J. C. P. 177

Bell v.

Bilton, 4 Bing. 615.

(d)

Repealed by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.

Sched.

7,

and re-enacted by

Digitized

s.

35 of same Act.

by Microsoft

c. 24, s.

112,

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

396

have taken out, a license for that purpose,

man who

should be void, was held to include a

had been convicted of felony

obtained a license

after

it

and had

before,

Act was passed.

the

"
Although the expression " convicted of felony
might have been limited to persons who should

be

thereafter

convicted,

as

yet,

the object of

the Act was to protect the public from having

men

bad character, the

language was construed in the sense which best
advanced the remedy and suppressed the mischief
though giving, perhaps, a retrospective operation
beerhouses kept by

to the enactment

(Married
{inter

alia)

husband

The Summary

(a).

Women)

of

Jurisdiction

Act, 1895, s. 4, which enacts

" any married woman whose

that

have

been guilty of persistent

by such cruelty have caused
her to leave and Hve separately and apart from
him, may apply to any Court of summary jurisdiction for an order under the Act," is retrospective in its operation, and applies to acts of
cruelty committed before the Act came into
shall

cruelty to her, and

(a) Hitchcock v.

195, diss.

Lush

Way, 45 E. E. 653 B.
;

J.,

v. Tine,

L. E. 10 Q. B.

considered in JJe Pulborough School Board,

[1894] 1 Q. B. 725

Chappell

v.

Purday, 13 L.

J.

Ex.

7.

bare verdict of guilty without penalty constitutes a conviction,

B.

V.

of

pardon in removing the

Blaby, [1894] 2 Q. B. 170; 63 L. J.

[1898] 24

M.

C. 133.

disqualification, see

B. D. 561.

Digitized

by Microsoft

As to the effect

Hay v. Tower Jus.,

EETKOSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS

operation

(a).

After the passing of the Statute of

Amendment

Frauds

397

Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV.

c. 14),

which enacted that in actions grounded upon

simple contracts, no verbal promise should be
" deemed sufficient evidence " of a new contract
to bar the Statute of Limitation, it was held that
such a promise given before the Act, and which
was then sufficient to bar the statute, could not
be received in evidence in an action begun before,
but not tried

till

after the passing of the

Act

(b).

This decision has been supported on the ground

time for deciding what

that the

when the

or is not

is

and that
when the Act told the judge what was and was
not then to be evidence, he was bound to decide
in obedience to it(c). But some stress is also to
evidence,

is

trial

takes place

be laid on the circumstance that the Act did not

come

months

into operation until eight

after its

seemed
to show that the hardship in question had been
in the contemplation of the Legislature, and had
been thus provided for (d). So, an Act which was
passing

(a)

for the concession of this interval

58 & 59 Vict.

c.

39

Lane

v.

Lane, [1896] P. 133

65

L. J. P. 63.
(h)

Hilliard v. Lenard,

Moo. & M. 297

Towler

v.

Ohatterton,

31 E. E. 411.
(c)

Per CresBwell

J.,

Marsh, v. Eiggins, 9 C. B. 551.

eomjp. sup. p. 394.

(d)

Per Park

J.,

6 Bing. 264.

Digitized

by Microsoft

But

398

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

passed in August, but was not to come into operation

October, making non-traders

till

who

bankruptcy, applied to a person

to

liable

contracted a

debt and committed an act of bankruptcy between

was considered that no injustice

was done, since the Act had told him what would
those dates.

It

be the consequence of contracting the debt, before

he contracted

it (a).

On

held that

11, 11

&

s.

was
which
43(5),

this ground, also,

12 Vict.

o.

it

summary proceedings
months from the time when

limits the time for taking

before justices to six

the matter complained of arose, was held fatal to

proceedings begun after the passing of the Act in

had arisen more than

six months before it was passed (c)
though the
interval between the passing of the Act and its
coming into operation was only six weeks. If the
Act had come into immediate operation, it was
observed, the hardship would have been so great,
that the inference might have been against an
respect of a matter which

intention to give

(a)

it

a retrospective operation

BasUeigh, Exp. (1875), 2 Oh. D. 9

Comp. Williams

v.

45 L.

J.

but

Bk. 29, C. A.

Harding, (1866), L. E. 1 H. L. 9

35 L. J.

Bk. 25.
(6)

103,
(c)

Explained as to proceedings by Auditors, 12

&

13 Vict.

c.

s. 9.

B.

V.

Leeds By.

another point in B.

v.

Co.,

21 L. J.

M.

Edwards, 53 L.

Bovill C.J., Ings v. London

& S.

Digitized

W. By.

J.

0. 193 (overruled

M.

Co.,

by Microsoft

C. 149).

on

See per

L. E. 4 C. P. 19.

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS RIGHTS.

the provision suspending

its operation, for

399

how-

ever short a time, was to be taken as an intimation

that the Legislature had provided

as the period

it

within which proceedings respecting antecedent

matters might be taken

In the

same way

Amendment

Act, 1856

{a).

10,

s.

(6),

Law

Mercantile

which enacted that no

person should be entitled to commence an action

after

the time limited, by reason of his being

abroad or in prison, was held to apply to causes

which had accrued before the Act was

But some weight was due to the circumpassed.
stance that another section of the same Act kept
of action

alive in express terms

a cause of action already

accrued, and thus afforded the inference that no

such intention had been entertained, as none was

expressed, as regards cases under

s.

10

(c).

In both of the above cases, however, the conthough fatal to the enforcement of a
vested right, by shortening the time for enforcing
and
it, did not in terms take away any such right
in both it seems to fall within the general principle
that the presumption against a retrospective construction has no application to enactments which
affect only the procedure and practice of the
struction,

(a)

Per Lord Campbell, B.

(b)

19 & 20 Vict.

(c)

Cornill V.

c.

v.

Leeds By.

Co.,

18 Q. B. 346.

97.

Hudson (1857), 27 L.

J. Q. B.

ham (1869), 39 L. J. Ch. 170.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Pardo

v.

Bing-

400

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

even where the alteration which the

statute makes has been disadvantageous to one of
Courts

(a),

Although to make a law for punishing

when it was done, was not
punishable, is contrary to sound principle a law
which merely alters the procedure may, with perfect
the parties.

that which, at the time

propriety, be

made

applicable to past as well as

and no secondary meaning

is to be sought for an enactment of such a kind.
No person has a vested right in any course of
future transactions

procedure

(c).

He has

or defence in the

by
an Act

(b)

only the right of prosecution

manner prescribed

being,

or for the Court in

if

of Parliament alters that

for the

which he sues

mode

cedure, he has no other right than to

according to the altered

mode

(d).

time
;

and

of pro-

proceed

The remedy

does not alter the contract or the tort;

it

takes

away no vested right, for the defaulter can have

no vested right in a state of the law which left the
injured party without, or with only a defective,

remedy.
or

If the time for pleading

new powers

(a)

Wright

of

were shortened,

amending were given,

it

would

Hale (1860), 30 L.

(6)

J. Ex. 40; The Tdun,

[1899]
Theobald (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 557, at p. 560.
Maeaulay's Hist. Eng., vol. iii. p. 715, and vol. v.
p. 43.

(c)

Per Mellish

P. 236; A.-G.

See

ex. gr.

(d)

v.

v.

L.J., Costa Mica v. Erlanger, 3 Ch. D.

The Dumfries and other cases, sup. pp. 277 279.

See judgments of Wilde B., Wright

69.

v. Hale, 30 L. J. Ex. 43,

Lord Wensleydale, A.-G. v. Sillem, 10 H. L. Gas. 704,'
and per James L.J., Warner v. Murdoch, 4 Ch. D. 752.

and

of

Digitized

by Microsoft

KETROSPBOTIVE OPERATION AS BEGAEDS PEOCEDUEE. 401

not be open to the parties to gainsay such a change

the only right thus interfered with being that of
delaying or defeating justice

a right

little

worthy

of respect (a).

The general

principle, indeed,

seems to be that

alterations in the procedure are always retrospective, unless there

Where,

be some good reason against

it (b).

for instance, the defendant pleaded to

an

action for a small sum, that the jurisdiction of the

Court had been taken away by a Court of Bequests

Act, and that Act was repealed after the plea but
before the trial ; it was held that the plaintiff was

judgment (c). When the Legislature

gave a new remedy by the Admiralty Acts of 1840
and 1861 (d), for enforcing rights in the Admiralty,
those Acts were held to extend to rights which
had accrued before the new remedy had been
entitled to

provided

(e).

So, the provision of the repealed

Law
(a)

Van

(c)

See

Warne

(d) 3

&4

c.

v.

65,

s.

Dash

v.

6 L. J. Ex. 192.
6,

and 24 & 25

Vict. c. 10, ss. 6, 35.

(e) The Alexander Larsen (1841), 1 Rob.

Ironsides,

4 Cowen, 392.
Lucas, 3 App. Cas.

Draper, L. E. 3 Q. B. 160.

v.

v. Beresford,

Vict.

Common

v. Tibbetts,

See per Lord Blackburn, Gardner

and Kimbray

128,

22 L. J. Q. B. 142

The People

s.

(/), that the plaintiff

ex. gr. Cornish v. Hocking,

Kleeh, 7 Johns. 503

(&)

603,

Procedure Act, 1852

W.

See The

288.

31 L. J. P. M. & A. 129.

(/) 15 & 16 Vict.

0.

76

(s.

128

is

repealed by 46

& 47

0, 49, s. 3).

26

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Vict.

402

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

might issue execution within six years from the

recovery of a judgment, without revival of the
judgment, was held to apply to a judgment which
had been recovered more than a year and a day
before the Act was passed, and which therefore
have

could not

put in force under

been

previous state of the law without revival

the power given to

a married

Married Women's Property Act,

the

and

woman by

the

(a)

1882, of suing

if she were a feme sole, was held

her to so sue in respect of torts or

in all respects as
to enable

breaches of contract committed before the passing

the Act

of
(6

&

7 Vict.

taxable, for

Sec.

(5).

37,

Act,

Solicitors

1843

c. 73) (c), which made solicitors* bills

work done, out of Court, and which

from the passing of the Act,

no solicitor should bring an action for costs until
a month after he had delivered his bill, was held
also provided that,

to apply to costs incurred before the passing of

the Act

On
(a)
(6)

(d).

this principle, it

Boodle

v.

Lowe

V.

&

s.

81, 3

v.

Winslow, 13

Bavis, 22 L. J. Ex. 69.

45 & 46 Vict.

Q. B. D. 784.

was held that

c.

75,

s.

1 (2)

See also Weldon

Fox, 15 Q. B. D. 667.

v.

Weldon

Be

Bathe, 14 Q. B. D. 339

Comp.

Lumley,

Be, [1894]

3 Ch. 135.
(c)

(d)

Last proviso of
Binns

Q. B. 847

v.

s.

37

is

repealed by 38 & 39 Vict.

Hey, 13 L. J. Q. B. 28

Scadding

v. Eyles, Id.

Digitized

858.

by Microsoft

Broois

c.

79,

s. 2.

v. BocJeett,

KETROSPECTIVE OP^KATION AS REGAEDS PKOOEDUKE. 403

Will. IV.

42

0.

(a),

which provides that in actions

brought by executors, the plaintiff shall be liable

was applicable

an action begun before

(b); and though Little(c), and afterwards Parke B. (d), disapproved

for costs,

the Act
dale J.

to

came into operation

of the decision,

it

appears to have been generally

concurred in by the Courts

Law

Common

So, the

(e).

&

Procedure Act of 1860 (23

24 Vict.

c.

126,

which deprives a plaintiff, in an action for

a wrong, of costs, if he recovers by verdict less

s.

34) (/),

than 5, unless the judge certifies in his favour,

was held to apply to actions begun before the Act

had come into operation, but tried after (^); and

a similar effect was given to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142,
as regards giving security for costs in the County
Courts (h). The provision which extended the
time for making decrees nisi absolute from three
repealed by 42

(a) Sec. 31,

47 Vict.
(6)

C.

c.

49,

s.

Freeman

& M. 405

v.

& 43 Vict.

59, coupled with

c.

46 &

4 (with saving for local or personal actions).

Moyes, 1 A.

Grant

v.

& B. 338

Kewp,

Id.

636

Pickup

Exp. Dawson, L. E.

v.

Wharton, 2

19 Bq. 433.

& B.

341.

(c)

1 A.

(d)

In Pinhom

v. Sonster,

8 Ex. 138.

(e) Per ChanneU B., WrigU v. Hale, 30 L.

Wood V.-C, Be Lord, 1 K. & J. 90.
(/) Eepealed by 30 & 31 Vict., Sched. (C),

(g)
(7i)

Wright

v.

Kimbray

J.

Ex. 43

pqr

Hale (1860), 30 L.J. Ex. 40.

v. Draper (1868), L. K. 3 Q. B. 160; 37 L.

Q. B. 80.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J,

404

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

to six months, applied to suits pending

Act came into operation

when

the

(a).

But a new procedure would be presumably

inapplicable, where its application would prejudice
or would inrights established under the old (6)
;

For

volve a breach of faith between the. parties.

this reason, those provisions of the repealed

s.

32,

which
Common Law Procedure
permitted error to be brought on a judgment upon
a special case, and gave an appeal upon a point
reserved at the trial, were held not to apply where
the special case was agreed to, and the point was
reserved, before the Act came into operation (d)
Where a special demurrer stood for argument
1854

Act,

before the passing of the first

(c),

Common Law

Pro-

was held that the judgment was not

to be affected by that Act, which abolished special
demurrers, but must be governed by the earlier
law (e).
The judgment was, in strictness, due
before the Act, and the delay of the Court ought
cedure Act,

not to affect

it

it.

In considering
o whether a statute was intended
Watlon

(a)

v. Wattaii,

35 L.

J. P.

& M.

95.

(6)

Phoenix Bessemer Co., Exp., 45 L. J. Ch. 11.

(c)

Eepealed by 46 & 47 Vict.

(d)

Hughes

4 B.

& B.

(e)

19 L.

c.

49,

s. 3.

Lumley, 24 L. J. Q. B. 29

Vansittart v. Taylor,

910.

Pinhorn
.1.

v.

M.

v. Sonster,

C. 20

21 L.

Hobson

v.

Digitized

J.

Ex. 336. See also B.

Neale, 22 L. J. Ex. 175.

by Microsoft

v.

Growan,

BBTEOSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS PROCEDURE. 405

to be retrospective in its operation, reference has

been made to prescribed forms appended to

made under the statute, and to the fact that
being headed "the

day of

rules
their

189

,"

indicated that they were not intended to apply to

a period before 1890

(a)

53 & 64 Vict.

Geo. V.

c.

47,

(a).

o. 71, s.

and replaced by

25; section repealed by 4 & 5

s.

13 of that Act

[1893] 2 Q. B. 369.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Norman, Be,

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

IX.

THE LANGUAGE TO MEET

^MODIFICATION OP

THE INTENTION.

Where

the language of a statute, in

its

ordinary

meaning and grammatical construction, leads

to

a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose

of the enactment,

or to

some inconvenience or

absurdity hardship or injustice, presumably not in-

tended, a construction
modifies the

meaning

may be

put upon

it which
and even the
This may be done

of the words,

structure of the sentence

(a).

by departing from the rules of grammar by giving

an unusual meaning to particular words by altering their collocation by rejecting them altogether
or by interpolating other words under the in;

fluence,

no doubt, of an

irresistible conviction, that

the Legislature could not possibly have intended

(a)

M. & W. 398,
7 Ex. 475 per Lord Denman, Juhh v.

See per Alderson B., A.-G.

and Miller

v.

Hull Dock

Co.,

16 Q. B. 503

Salomons,

9 Q. B. 443
;

v.

Lockwood, 9

per Lord Campbell, Wigton

per Parke B., Beche

v. Smith,

v. Snaith,

M. & W.

195,

M. & W. 99, and Hollingworth v. Palmer,

18 L. J. Ex. 409, 414 per James L.J., Bashleigh, Exp., 2 Oh. D.
13 Grot, de B. & P. b. 2, c. 16, s. 12 (4). See also per counsel,
Wright

v.

Williams, 1

Cory

V.

France (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 346.

Digitized

by Microsoft

MODIFICATION OP THE LANGUAGE,

what

407

and that the modifications thus made are mere corrections of careless
language, and really give the true meaning. Where
the main object and intention of a statute are
clear, it miist not be reduced to a nullity by the
its

words

signify,

draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law,

except in a case of necessity, or the absolute intractabihty of the language used

grammar

common

The

(a).

rules of

yield readily in such cases to those of

sense.

In a case already mentioned where a Colonial

ordinance, passed to give

effect

to

the

treaty

between this country and China, authorised the

extradition to the Chinese Government of any of
its subjects charged with having committed " any
crime or offence against the laws of China," the

Privy Council construed these words as limited to

those crimes and offences which are punishable by
the laws of

all civilised

nations

and

as not includ-

ing acts which, though against the laws of China,

would be innocent in Europe (6). As the literal

meaning of the words was wide enough to include

political offences against the law of a foreign State,
an English Court might feel bound to think it
impossible that they could have been used in that
sense. But it might be doubted whether the other
(o)

69

Salmon v. Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Gas. 627 55 L. J. P. 0.

v. Bose, [1897] 1 Ir. E. 9, at pp. 39-42.
;

and see Bose

(6)

A.-0.

V.

Ewok-a-Sing, sup. p. 45.

Digitized

by Microsoft

408

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

party to the treaty understood our stipulation in

the same narrow sense

not understand

selves

all

punish,

to

Where

(a).

indeed, whether

it

did

as including, above all others,

it

those crimes which

desirous

or,

Governments are most

those against them-

viz.,

the clearly expressed intention

any subject
of the Queen resident in the colony the power of
disposing by Will according to English law of
property both real and personal,' which otherwise
would devolve according to the law of the colony,
and where a section of the ordinance was operative
of a Colonial ordinance

was

to give to

for that purpose, except that it

the provision "as

concluded with

such subject resided in Eng-

if

land," the effect of which would be to leave both

the

lex situs

and the

lex domicilii in operation,

reducing the section to a nulUty,

it

thus

was held that

the concluding words ought not to be so construed

as to destroy all that

had gone

before,

and there-

fore should be treated as immaterial, the

powers

conferred not being affected by the question of

residence in England

(&).

When

it

was

that the Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jac.

was necessary to construe,

that purpose, the expression "beyond the

applied to India
for

(o)
c. 8,

settled

I. c. 16),

(c), it

The same wide expressions are used

m the 37 & 38 Vict. c. 38.

in the 34

and

Buncombe (1886), 11 App. Gas. 627.

(6)

Salmon

(c)

East India Co.

v.

v.

Paul, 7 Moo. P. 0. 85.

Digitized

by Microsoft

& 35

Vict.

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

seas," as

same

meaning out

of the territories

409
(a).

The

statute, which, after limiting the time for

suing, gave a further period to persons

abroad
"after they returned," was construed as giving
that extended time to the executor of a person

who never
provision of

returned, but died abroad

s. 5,

(6).

In the

Arbitration Act, 1889, that where

a submission provides that the reference shall be

and aU parties do not concur

in the appointment of an arbitrator, any party may

to a single arbitrator,

serve the other parties with a written notice to

" appoint " an arbitrator, " appoint " must be read
as " concur in appointing," as

it

could not be sup-

posed that the intention was that the party who

would not concur in an appointment should have
the appointment in his own hands (c).
An Act which made it penal " to be in possession
of game after the last day " allowed for shooting,
would, if construed literally, include cases where
the possession had begun before the last day, and
and to avoid this injustice, it
therefore lawfully
was construed as applying only where the possession
;

did not begin until after the close of the season

that

is,

the words "to begin" were interpolated

(a) Buckmciboye v. Lulloobhoy, 8

(6)

Tomisend

v.

Beacon, 18 L.

J.

Mod. P.

0.

Ex. 298.

4.

See also Forbes

v.

Smith, 24 L. J. Ex. 299.

(c)

52 & 53 Vict.

c.

49

Eyre and Leicester

1 Q. B. 136, inf. p. 428.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Corp., Be, [1892]

410

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

"to be in possession " (a). Under the

Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, which prohibibed
before

the use of an underground bakehouse unless it

was " so used at the commencement of the Act,"

was held that an old-established bakehouse

which was vacant at the commencement of the
Act, but whose owner was seeking a tenant, was
within the exemption (b).
When one section
it

enacted that

if

the plaintiff recovered a

sum " not

he should have no costs, and

another, that if he recovered " less than " 5,
and the judge certified, he should have his costs

exceeding"

the

,5

meaning

literal

of the last clause leaving

inoperative where the

5,

was

it

sum recovered was

it

exactly

held, to avoid imputing so incongruous

and improbable an intention to the Legislature,

that the words "less than," should be read as

equivalent to "not exceeding," the general principle

being that " Acts of Parliament should be construed

with a candid mind and with an intention to understand them

(a) 2

" (c).

Geo. III.

c.

Sec. 32, 7 Geo. IV.

19, 39

England by 1 & 2

as to

Geo. III.

Will. IV.

c.

c.

34

32,

s.

c.

57

{d),

both Acts repealed

Simpson

v. Untoin,

37 E. E. 359.

58 & 59 Vict.

(6)
s.

101

(1),

c.

37,

s.

27

(3),

repealed and replaced by

Factory and Workshop Act, 1901

WilUns, [1898] 1 Q. B. 640.

(c)

Garby

(d)

Eepealed

v.

Harris (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 160.

S.

L. E., 1873.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Schwerzerhof

v.

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

411

which invalidated voluntary conveyances made by

insolvents " within three months before the com-

mencement

of the imprisonment," which, literally,

would exclude the time of imprisonment, was construed as if the words had been " within a period
commencing three months before the imprisonment." The literal construction, in leaving uninvalidated voluntary conveyances

made

after the

imprisonment had begun/would have led to an

incongruity which the Legislature could not be
supposed to have intended (a). Sec. 65, County
Courts Act, 1888, which provides that, where the
claim in an action of contract does not exceed

Judge of the High Court may order the

action to be tried in any County Court " in which

^100,. a

the action might have been commenced," was construed with the addition of the words " if it had been

County Court action," as otherwise the enactmentwould have been insensible and inoperative (&).
The Bankruptcy Act, 1869, providing that all
the property acquired by the bankrupt " during
a

the continuance " of the bankruptcy should be

(a)

Becke

(6)

51 & 52 Vict.

v. Smith,
c.

6 L. J. Ex. 54.
43

Curtis v. Stovin,

also Burhill v. Thomas, [1892] 1 Q. B. 312.

Edw. Vn.

c.

42, the jurisdiction of a

to claims not exceeding 100.

for the purpose of bringing

By

County Court

s.

is

by Microsoft

actions.

3 of 3

extended

Demands may not be

two or more

County Court Act, 1888.

Digitized

See

22 Q. B. D. 513.

divided

See

s.

81,

412

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

among

divisible

his creditors,

and providing

also

that he might obtain his discharge not only at the

but during the continuance of his bank-

close,

ruptcy

was held that the earlier passage

must be read in substance as meaning that the
future property which was to be divisible, was that
(a),

it

acquired either

during the continuance of the

bankruptcy or the
rupt

earlier discharge of the

bank-

This construction was deemed necessary

(b).

to avoid leaving the bankrupt incapable of acquir-

ing property after he had given up everything to

his creditors, simply because the property

had not

been realised, and consequently the bankruptcy

not closed (c).
It is obvious that the provisions in

numerous

which limit the time and regulate the

procedure for legal proceedings for compensation
for acts done in the execution of his office by a
statutes

other person, or "under" or "by

virtue," or " in pursuance " of his authority, do

justice

not

or

mean what

the words, in their plain and

unequivocal sense, convey

(a)

As

to

what

will disentitle

a.

since an act done in

bankrupt to discharge, see

Smith, In re (1919), L. J. K. B. 113.

(6)

See as to

(c)

32

& 33

this point, Hill v. Settle, [1917] 1

Viet. c. 71, ss.

15 and 48 repealed.

provisions in existing Act, see ss. 26

Ebbs

V.

As

to similar

and 38, Bankruptcy Act, 1914;

Boulnois (1875), L. E. 10 Oh. 479

School V. Sewell (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 820.

Digitized

Oh. 319, C. A.

by Microsoft

and see Cholmeley

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

413

accordance with law

is not actionable, and thereno special statutory protection (a). Such

provisions are obviously intended to protect, under
certain circumstances, acts which are not legal or
justifiable (b)
and the meaning given to them by

fore needs

a great

number

of decisions seems, in the result,

to be that they give protection in all cases where

the defendant did, or neglected

plained

(c),

what

under colour of the statute

of,

com-

is

(d)

that

being within the general purview of it, and

with the honest intention of acting as it authorised,

is,

though he might be ignorant

(a)
Cf.
c.

Per

Our.,

The PabUo

61),

Hughes

v.

(1846), 15 L. J. Ex. 233.

Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (56

where the words

commenced

BucUand

of the existence of

are, "

Where

against any person for

& 57

Vict,

any action ... is

any act done in pur.

suance or execution, or intended execution,

any Act

of

of

Parliament, or of any public duty or authority."

(6)

See

Warne

ex. gr.

(1887), 19 Q. B. D.,
(c)

Wilson

V.

v.

Varley, 6 T. E. 443

Bsher M.E.,

Lea

v.

Facey

at p. 354.

Halifax (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 114

Newton

v.

Mis,

24 L. J. Q. B. 337.
(d)

Thus the Public Authorities Protection

been held to extend

its

Act, 1893, has

protection to municipal bodies in the

execution of duties in connection with commercial enterprises

undertaken under statutory authority ; The Tdun, [1899] P. 236

Parker v. London C. C, [1904] 2 K. B. 501. But see Lyles v.
Southend-on-Sea, 74 L. J. K. B. 484

per Buckley

Telephone Go. v. Kingston-upon-Hull, 89 L. T. 291

V.

Fulham

(1904), 73 L. J. Oh. 777

Myers

tion (1915), L. J. K. B. 306.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

J.,

National

Sharpington

Bradford Corpora-

414

INTBRPEETATION OP STATUTES.

the Act

and actually, whether reasonably or not,

believing in the existence of such facts or state
of things as would, if really existing, have justified
;

his conduct (a).

Thus,

arrest of a person

who

an Act authorised the

if

entered the dwelling-house

of another at night with intent to

&

(24

25 Vict.

96,

c.

51),

s.

commit a felony

an arrest made in the

honest and not unreasonable, but mistaken, belief

that the person arrested had entered with that

Apparently, howwould be protected.

ever, there would be no protection if the arrest
were made under a misconception, not of the facts,
but of the law as, for instance, if the person making
the arrest beheved that the prisoner had only
intent,

(a) See,

T. E. 653

20 L.

among many

other authorities, Greenway v. Hurd, 4

Boherts v. Orchard, 33 L. J. Ex. 65

J. G. P.

151

L. J. Q. B. 133

Garpue
Tarrant

v.
v.

Hermann

v. Seneschal,

L. E. 2 0. P. 461
V.

Leete

v.

King, L. E. 6 C. P. 474

Midland By.

v.

v.

389.

Kine

Booth

32 L. J. C. P. 43

Denny

v.

v.

v. Gapel,

Judge, L. E. 6 Q. B. 724

Mason v.
M. C. 141

Thwaites, 46 L. J.
;

68 L.

J. Q. B.

In the following cases the Act has been held inapplicable

Bradford Corp., (1915) 84 L.

Corp., 81 L. J.

V.

Burling

Chamberlain

Gierke v. St. Helen's Corp., 85 L. J. K. B. 17, C. A.

J. P.

Downing

Hart, L. E. 3 C. P. 322

Selmes

v. Olive,

v. Evershed, 16 L. J. Q. B.

Pancras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693

St.

Brighton Ry. Co., 13

Withington Loc. Bd., 11 Q. B. D. 788

Aird, 51 L. J. Q. B. 244

Cree

&

Baker, 23 L. J. C. P. 21

V. Barley, 27 L. J. Ex. 258

271

London

257

K. B. 41

A.-G.

v.

Hart

J.
v.

K. B. 306

Fry

Myers

v.

Cheltenham

Marylehone Borough Council, 76

Lewes Corp. (1911), 81 L.

Hertford Union, 111 L. T. 716.

Digitized

v.

by Microsoft

J.

Gh. 40

li.

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

415

attempted to enter ; a different offence, for which

the enactment in question does not authorise

where the law justified an immediate

apprehension, an arrest was made which was not
immediate (a). As a general proposition, however,

arrest

or

if,

unreasonableness of belief

immaterial,

is

if

the

be honest; though it is an important

element in determining the question of honesty (b).

belief

&

which
enacted by s. 7 (d) that no witness before an
election inquiry should be excused from answerrepealed Act (26

27 Vict.

c.

29)

(c),

ing seH-criminating questions relating to corrupt

practices at the election under inquiry, and entitled

him, when he answered every question relating to

those matters, to a certificate of indemnity declaring that he had

answered

all

such criminating

questions, was held to apply only where the witness

answered " truly in the opinion of the com-

was not to be supposed that

any answer, however false or contemptuous, was

missioners "

for it

equally intended

(e).

It is

observable that this

interpolation was made in the Act, notwithstanding

that it repealed an earlier enactment which had
(a) Griffith v. Taylor (1876), 2

2 L.

J.

C P. D. 194

Morgan v. Palmer,

(O: S.) K. B. 145.

Molyneux, 3 Q. B. D. 237.

(6)

See Clark

(c)

Eepealed by Corrupt and

v.

Illegal Practioes

Prevention

Act, 1883.
{d)

See

(e)

E.

s.

V.

59 of 46 & 47 Vict.

c.

51.

Hvlme, L. E. 6 Q. B. 377

Digitized

B.

by Microsoft

v.

Boll, 7

Q B. D.

575.

416

INTEEPKBXATION OF STATUTES.

protected the witness only

"

when he made " true

discovery.

Merchant
Shipping Act, 1854, which enacted that no license
granted by the Trinity House to pilots " shall conof the long since repealed

Sec. 374,

tinue in force beyond the 31st of January," after

but that " the same

its date,

may

be renewed on

such 31st of January in every year, or any subsequent day," was construed as meaning, not that
the renewed licenses must be issued on or after
that day, but that they should take effect from the
31st of January.

This departure from the

strict

was justified by the great inconvenience

letter

which would have resulted from a rigid adherence

to it, since it would have left the whole district
for a certain period, probably days, possibly weeks,

without qualified pilots

(a).

In s. 7, Kailway and Canal Trafl&c Act, 1854,

which enacts that railway and canal companies
shall be liable for the loss or any injury done to
" any horses, cattle, or other animals "

(which

would include a dog) intrusted to them for carriage, with the proviso that no greater damage

s.

(o)

The Beta, 3 Moo. P. 0. N. S. 23.

599

(4) of

certificate

."

now

provided by

the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that "

.

its

As

and mates, sea

pilotage

more than the period

but may be renewed from year

shall not be in force for

one year from

year.

It is

date,

of

to

to the grant of pilotage certificates to masters

s.

23, Pilotage Act,

Digitized

1913 (2 & 3 Geo. V.

by Microsoft

c.

31).

MODIFICATION OP THE LANGUAGE.

417

should be recovered for the loss of, or injury

done to, " any of such animals " beyond the sums

specifying

sums
neat cattle, sheep and pigs, but making
no mention of dogs the proviso was read, in order
thereinafter

mentioned

certain

for horses,

to reconcile

it

with the enacting part, as dealing

only with " any of the following of such animals " (a).
"Where a railway company was made liable to make

good the deficiency in the parochial rates arising

from their having taken rateable property, " until
its works were completed and liable to assessment," the House of Lords held that the intention
was that the liability should cease as regards
any one parish, as soon as that portion of the
line which ran through it was completed
in
other words, that the Act was to be read as fixing
.the liability when "its works in the parish were
completed " (6).
A case in the Queen's Bench may be cited as
furnishing a remarkable example of judicial modification for the purpose of supplying an apparent
case of omission, and avoiding an injustice and
absurdity, such as the Legislature was presumed
;

(a) Harrison v.

London and Brighton By.

Co.,

29 L.

J.

Q. B.

209 reversed on another point (1862), 31 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; B. v.

See another instance of interStrachan, L. E. 7 Q. B. 463.
;

polation in Perry v. Skinner, sup. p. 389.

(6)

East London By. Co.

v.

Whitechureh (1874), 43 L. J.

159, sup. p. 32.

27

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

C.

418

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Under 1 & 2

not to have intended.

Vict.

o.

110

(a),

an insolvent prisoner for debt might be discharged

from imprisonment, either upon his own petition,

upon the

or

10

&

of

petition

11 Vict.

c.

102

{b),

any of his

in abolishing the circuits

of the Insolvent Commissioners,

their jurisdiction to the

creditors.

and transferring

County Courts, provided

that "if an insolvent petitions,"

the Insolvent

Court should refer his petition to the Court of the

district where he was imprisoned ; but it omitted
all

where the petitioner was a

The Court, however, considered that an

mention

creditor.

of cases

intention to include the latter suflBciently appeared.

meaning would
have involved the unjust result that, though a
vesting order might be made, and the debtor be
deprived of his property, he would remain imprisoned.
The words " if an insolvent petitions "
were accordingly understood to have merely put
that case as an example of the more general
intention, viz., " if a petition be presented."
For
the purposes of the Legislature, it was immaterial
whether the petition was the insolvent's or the

To

confine the section to its literal

creditor's

(c).

Again, notwithstanding the general rule that

full effect

must be given

(a) Sec. 36.

(c)

27 L.

to every word, yet if

no

(6) Sec. 10.

Bowling (1857), 8 B. & B. 605, npm. Greenwood,

B.

V.

J.

Q. B. 28.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Exj).,

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

419

meaning can be given to a word or phrase,

or if it would defeat the real object of the enactment, it may, or rather it should, be eliminated (a).
The words of a statute must be construed so as
to give a sensible meaning to them if possible.
sensible

They ought to be construed ut res magis valeat

quam pereat (b).
The Carriers Act, 1830 (1 Will. IV. c. 68), which
enacts that a carrier shall not be responsible for

the loss of certain articles delivered for carriage,

unless the sender declares their value and nature,
at the time of delivery, " at the office " of the
carrier,

was held

to protect the carrier,

where the

parcel had been delivered to his servant elsewhere

and no declaration had been

made either there or elsewhere the fair meaning
of the statute, and the paramount object of the

thajj at the office,

Legislature being that the carrier should in every

case be apprised of the nature and value of the
article entrusted to

him, wh-ether

at the office or elsewhere

(a)

Brett

Per Lord Abinger, Lyde

J.,

it

was delivered

(c).

v.

Barnard, 1 M. &

W.

115

per

Stone v. Yeovil, 1 0. P. D. 701, though in that case

the elimination was not necessary, 2 C. P. D. 99, and where

Plant

no power to

is

unnecessary there

is

V. Potts,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 256,

and Hurcwm

elimination

delete.

See also

v. Eilleary,

[1894]

1 Q. B. 579, C. A.
(6)

Per Bowen

L.J., Curtis v. Stovin,

22 Q. B. D. 513

The Duke of Buccleuch, 15 P. D.

per Lindley
(c) Baxendale v. Eart (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 123.
L.J.,

Digitized

by Microsoft

86.

and

420

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

An Act

&

(25

26 Vict.

114) which authorised

c.

constables to search any person

whom

they sus-

pected of coming from any land in unlawful pursuit

game, and, if any game was found upon him, to

detain and summon him, was held to authorise
of

a constable to

summon

a footway, with a

gun

man whom he saw on

in his hand, picking

up a

thrown from an adjoining enclosure, just

but whom he did not
search.
There was nothing in the general object

rabbit

after the report of a gun,

Act to lead to the supposition that " the

enormous absurdity " of requiring an actual bodily
search under such circumstances was intended
and such a departure from the language of the
Act was therefore considered as really meeting the
of the

The Extradition Act, 1870,

(a).
which authorises the "apprehension" of a person
on warrant, includes the detention of one already
in custody, though arrested without a warrant (b).
So, the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, s. 2, which empowered
true intention

justices to suspend, in case of sickness, the order

of removal of any pauper

before

(a)

them

Hall

V.

" brought

purpose of being removed,"

for the

Knox

who should be

(1863), 33 L. J.

M.

C. 1

Lloyd

v. Lloyd,

14

Q. B. D. 725, -which discusses Clarhe v. Crowder, L. E. 4 C. P.

638,

and Turner v. Morgan, L. E. 10 C. P. 587, where the

was construed strictly. See also sup. p. 381. Comp.

statute

Vinter v. Mvnd, 10 Q. B. D. 63.

(b)

33 & 34 Vict.

c.

52,

s.

Digitized

8; B.

v. Weil,

by Microsoft

53 L. J. M. C. 74.

"OR" AND "AND."

421

was construed as authorising such suspension without the actual bringing up of the pauper before
the justices as the literal construction would have
defeated the humane object of the enactment (a).
And to prevent the enormous injustice which
would result from a literal interpretation of the
enactment that the Court of Bankruptcy should
refuse a bankrupt his discharge in all cases where
the debtor had committed an offence " under the
Debtors Act, 1869," it was held that the words
;

" connected with or arising out of the bankruptcy "

must be added
This

to qualify the general words

with amplifications,

interpretation,

corporated in

s.

26

(2),

is

(b).

in-

second paragraph, of the

Bankruptcy Act, 1914.

To

carry out the intention of the Legislature,

occasionally found necessary to read the

conjunctions " or " and " and " one for the other.

it

is

The 43

Eliz.

c.

which speaks
the maintenance

for instance,

(c),

of

of
property to be employed for
" sick and maimed soldiers," referred to soldiers
who were either the one " or " the other, and not

only to those
(a)

B.

V.

who were both (d).

Everdon, 9 Bast, 101.

Sec. 2 is repealed in part

S. L. R., 1871.
(6)

50 & 51

(c)

Eepealed by

(d)

Vict.

c.

66,

s.

S. L. E.,

Be

Brockelbank, sup. p. 358.

1863.

Duke, Charit. Uses, 127.

Digitized

by Microsoft

by

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

422

The

1 Jac. I.

o.

15

(a),

whioli

made

it

an act

of

bankruptcy for a trader to leave his dwelling-house

" to the intent, or, whereby his creditors might be
defeated or delayed,"

if

construed

literally,

would

have exposed to bankruptcy every trader who left

his home even for an hour, if a creditor called during
This absurd consehis absence for payment.
quence was avoided, and the real intention of the
Legislature beyond reasonable doubt effected, by
reading " or " as " and " so that an absence from
;

home was an

act of bankruptcy only

when coupled

with the design of delayingor defeating creditors

The converse change was made

(b).

in a Turnpike Act

on every carriage drawn by

on every horse, laden or not
laden, but not drawing and provided that not more
than one toll should be demanded for repassing on
the same day " with the same horses and carriages."

which imposed one

toll

four horses, and another

;

It

was held that the

real intention of the Legislature

required that this " and " should be read as " or,"

and that a carriage repassing with different horses

was not Hable to a second toll. The toll was imposed
on the carriage and it was immaterial whether
it was drawn by the same or different horses (c).
;

In the provision of the Metropolis Management

(a)

Repealed 6 Geo. IV.

(b)

Fowler

v.

c.

16,

s. 1.

Padget (1798), 7 T. E. 509

4 E. E. 511.

See

also B. V. Mortlalce, 6 East, 397.

(c)

Waterhouse

v.

Keen (1825), 40 E. E. 858, wrongly reported

n the marginal note in 4 B. & C. 200.

Digitized

by Microsoft

"OK" AND "AND."

Amendment

423

Act, 1862, that no road shall be formed

as a street for carriage traffic unless widened to

40 feet, or unless such street shall be open at

both ends, the word " or " was read "nor," for the
manifest intention was not that one of the two, but
that both conditions should be complied with

that

is, that the street should not only be 40 feet wide,

but also be open at both ends {a).
This substitution of conjunctions, however, has

been sometimes made without sufficient reason

and it has been doubted whether some of the cases
of turning " or " into " and," and vice versd, have

not gone to the extreme limit of interpretation

(&).

may be questioned, for instance, whether the

judges who " were at the making " of the statute
It

2 Hen. V.
action

which required that jurors to try an

the debt " or " damages amounted to

c. 3,

when

forty marks, should have land worth forty shillings,

it "by equity," and
"
or " into " and " (c).
converting the disjunctive

were justified in construing

(a)

25 & 26 Vict.

Sched.,

c.

102,

London Building

s.

98

section repealed

Act, 1894.

s.

215, 4th

Metrop. Board v. Steed,

; Dau} v. London G.
C, 59 L. J. M. 0. 112.
For existing provisions as to roads, see ss. 11 & 12 London
Building Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii.).
(6) Per Lord Halsbury L.O., Mersey Docks v. Henderson, 13

8 Q. B. D. 445

App. Gas. 603.

For a

full collection of

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and Supp.

AND Vice Veesa.

(c)

Co. Litt. 272a.

Digitized

the cases hereon, see

tit..

by Microsoft

Ok read

as And,

424

INTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

The Court

of Queen's Bench,

on one occasion (now

overruled) held that the power given to justices by

the

Highway Act, 1835

& 6 Will. IV. c. 50 (a)),

(6

to

when it appeared
" nearer or more commodious to the public," was
order the diversion of a highway,
limited to cases where

the

new road was both

nearer and more commodious

(6)

but the same

Court more recently held that the power was

when the new road was either the one

exercisable

or the other

(c).

Statutes which authorise persons to do acts for

the benefit of others,

or, as it is

sometimes

said, for

the public good or the advancement of justice, have

when

often given rise to controversy

conferring the

authority in terms simply enabling and not mandaIn enacting that they " may," or " shall, if

tory.

they think fit," or, " shall have power," or that

" it shall be lawful " for them to do such acts, a
statute appears to use the language of

mission

but

it

mere per-

has been so often decided as to

have become an axiom that in such

cases,

such

(a) Sees. 85, 91.

(6) JR. V.
(c)

B.

SMles (1841), 1 Q. B. 919.

V. PTiillips

(1866), 35 L. J.

32 L. J. M. C. 204.

326

Oldfield v.

notice "

Berhy

of

JJ.,

M.

See Harrington

Bodd, Id. 144.

As

to

C. 217
v.

WrigU

what

by Microsoft

Frant
J.

Ex.

constitutes " a good

intention to apply for justices order,

[1917] 2 K. B. 802.

Digitized

v.

Bamaay, 22 L.

see B. v.

"MAY" AND

may have

expressions

pulsory force

(a),

425

"MUST."

to say

the least

and so would seem

com-

to be modified

by judicial exposition. On the other hand, in some

cases, the authorised person is invested -with a discretion,

and then those expressions seem divested

of that compulsory force, and, probably, that

primd facie meaning.

In an early case, where

is

the

was contended that

it

13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12, s. 18 (6), in enacting that

the churchwardens and overseers " shall have
power and authority " to make a rate to reimburse
parish constables certain expenses, left

with them to make

it

it

optional

or not, the Court held that

it

was obligatory on them

make

to

it,

whenever

disbursements had been made and not been paid.

" May be done," it was observed, is always understood, in such cases of public or private right, as
" must be done " (c). So, where a statute directed

that churchwardens should deliver their accounts

to justices, and enacted that the latter " shall and

they are hereby authorised and empowered,

if

they

examine the accounts, and

it was held that the
justices could not decline to enter upon the
shall so think fit," to

disallow unfounded charges,

s.

(a)

Per

(6)

Eepealed by 35 & 36

Cur.,

JB. v.

Tithe Commrs.,

80 E. E. 271.

Vict. c. 92,

s.

13,

and replaced by

4 of that Act.
(c)

B.

V.

Barlow (1693), Garth. 293

Digitized

B.

by Microsoft

v.

Derby, Skin. 370.

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

426

examination

or be at liberty to allow charges

(a),

Again the Weights

sanctioned by law (6).
and Measures Act, 1889, which provides that an
not

inspector "

may

take in respect of the verification

and stamping of weights, measures, and weighing

instruments the fees specified," is obligatory and
imposes on the inspector a duty to take the fees
in
0.

cases

all

Though

(c).

42, enacts that justices "

s.

9,

may

11

&

" issue a

12 Vict.

summons

them, only, " if they

shall think fit," it was held that they were not at
liberty to refuse it on any extraneous considera-

on an information

tions,

laid before

such as that the prosecution was inexpedient,

the law would operate unjustly in the

or that

particular case (d).

charter which granted to

"power and

the -steward and suitors of a manor

authority " to hold a Court to hear civil suits,

was held to make

(a) JJ. V.

it

obligatory to hold

Cambridge, 8 Dowl. 89

Oxford (Bp.), 4 Q. B. D., at

B.

&

when

per Bramwell L.J., B.

p. 545.

Gomp. B.

v.

v.

Norfolk, i

Ad. 238.

(6)

Barton

(c)

52 & 53 Vict.

v. Piggott,
c.

44 L.
21,

s.

4 Edw. VII.

Act.

B.

V. Boherts, [1901], 2

B.

V.

c.

Adamson

28,

J.

M.

13.

G. 5.

Section repealed by Sched.

and re-enacted cum var by

II. of

{d)

it

s.

9 of that

K. B. 177.

(1875), 1 Q. B. D. 201

B.

v.

Fawcett, 11

Cox C. C. 305 JExp. Lewis, 21 Q. B. D. 191 JJ. v. Byrde, 60

L. J. M. 0. 17 and see B. v. Mead (1916), 80 J. P. 332.
A very
;

instructive case on this point.

Digitized

by Microsoft

"MAY" AND "MUST."

necessary
Vict.

Again,

(a).

427

Tithe Act, .1842 (5

s. 7,

&

64), which enacts that if any agreement

for the commutation of tithes made before the Act,
which was not of legal validity, should appear to
c.

the Tithe Commissioners to give a fair equivalent

for the tithe, they " shall be empowered " to confirm

or, if unfair, to

it,

confirm

it

nevertheless,

and

award such a rent-charge as would make it a

proper equivalent, and to extinguish the tithe ; it
was considered that the Commissioners were bound
to

make any such agreement between the parties

the basis of their own settlement, and were not
to

at liberty to

throw

out the general

extinction

it

wholly aside in carrying

the Act,

policy of

tithe

viz.,

(6).

So, in BackweU's Case,

Lord Keeper North

held,

and of the same opinion were all the judges, that

the statute which enacted that the Chancellor
" should have full power " to issue a commission
of bankruptcy against a bankrupt trader, on the
petition

his

(a)

B.

V.

imperatively

creditors,

issue; declaring that

its

Id.

of

"may"

Havering-atte-Bower, 5 B.

692 n., both better reported

in 2

required

was in

& Aid. 691

D. &E. 176

B.

n.,

effect

v. Hastings,

and

D. & E.

148.
(6)

B.

V.

Tithe Commrs., 14 Q. B. 474.

Oxford {Bp.) (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214

And

49 L.

see Julius v.

J. Q.

B. 577

note especially dicta Cairns L.C., at p. 224, and Penzance Ld.,

p. 229, inf. pp. 432, 433.

Digitized

by Microsoft

428

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

" must "

Under

(a).

&

13, 13

s.

14 Vict.

c.

61(6),

which enacted that the Superior Court

"may"

give the plaintiff the costs of his action,

he lived

if

more than 20 miles from the defendant, it was

held that the Court was bound to give them in
every case in which the plaintiff and defendant
dwelt more than that distance apart (c). Under
the provision of

s.

Arbitration Act, 1889, that

5,

where a submission provides that the reference

shall be to a single arbitrator, and all parties do
not concur in appointing an arbitrator, any party

may

serve the other parties with a written notice

the appointment is not made in

seven clear days the Court " may," on the appli-

to appoint,

and

if

cation of the party

an

arbitrator, it

who gave the

notice, appoint

obligatory on the

is

Court to

make an appointment if applied to (d). An Act

which made it "lawful" for a Court to stay
proceedings in actions against companies under
liquidation until proof of the plaintiff's debt
(a)

13 EUz.

(6)

Eepealed by 51 & 52 Vict.

(c)

McDougall

c.

1 Jac,

c.

15

BackwelVs Case, 1

c.

43;

s.

Vem.

152.

188.

Paterson (1851), 21 L. J. C. P. 27

v.

(e)

ace.

Crake

v.

Powell, 21 L. J. Q. B. 183, overruling Jones v. Harrison

20 L.

J.

Ex. 166.

(d)

52 & 53 Vict.

c.

49,

s.

Eyre and Leicester Corp., Be,

[1892] 1 Q. B. 136.
(e)

11 & 12 Vict.

c.

(1849), 13 Q. B. 664.

45,

s.

73,

now

repealed.

Marson

V.

Lmid

For similar provisions in Companies (Con-

solidation) Act, 1908, see

s.

Digitized

140.

by Microsoft

"IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

429

and a bankruptcy rule which provided that where

the Court has given no directions as to the disallowance of the costs of improper or unnecessary
proceedings, the taxing-master " may " look into
the question,

were held equally imperative

So, the provision of

s.

56, Corrupt

and

(a).

Illegal

Practices Prevention Act, 1883, that certain juris-

by the Act " may " be exercised

by one of the judges for the time being on the rota
diction conferred

for the trial of election petitions, is to

equivalent to

as

" must,"

be read

and the jurisdiction

cannot be exercised by any other judge (b). An

Act which empowered a vestry to make a paving
rate, and provided that when it appeared to the
vestry that the rate was not incurred for the equal
benefit of the whole parish, it " might " exempt
the party not benefited, was held to impose a
duty and not merely to confer a power on the
vestry, to apportion the burden

arose

when the

case

(c).

On
" it

the other hand, where it was enacted that

should be lawful " for the Superior Courts to

issue commissions to

examine witnesses abroad,

it

(a) Baines v. Wormaley (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 844.

46 & 47 Vict. c. 51 Shaw v. BecMtt, [1893] 1 Q. B. 779.

For
V. London Bock Co. (1858), 27 L. J. M. 0. 177.
an
was
which
anomalous
one,
case,
see
this
on
comments
(h)
(c)

B.
V.

V.

Howell

G. W.

Bij. (1858),

Furness By.

Co.,

28 L.

J.

M.

C. 59.

11 Q. B. D. 496.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Bormont

430

INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES.

was held that the Court was not bound to issue

such a commission simply on proof that the persons whose evidence was required were abroad, but
that it was in the discretion of the Court to determine upon the special circumstances of each case,
whether it was advisable in the interests of justice
to issue it or not {a).
So, under a statute which
enacted that where a county bridge is narrow,
" it shall and may be lawful " for the Quarter
Sessions to order it to be widened, it was held
(having regard to the nature of the Court entrusted
with the power, and to the subject matter which
might involve other considerations besides the
width of the bridge, such as the cost of the proposed work and

disproportion to any

its possible

public benefit likely to be derived from

it)

that

was discretionary to make the order or not (6).

But " may," where used in s. 9 of 38 & 39 Vict. c.

it

86, is imperative

part of the

Again, the enactment that

(c).

if

consideration for an annuity

were
returned, or paid in goods, or retained on any
(a)

1 Will. rV.

L. J. Q. B.

Lawson
case

v.

Vacuum Brake
J.

M,

C. 52.

(c)

B.

V.

Coeh

Castelli

Co. (1884),

Groom

(1852), 21

25 Ch. D. 673;

27 Ch. D. 137.

Allcaick

v.

v.

Walker,

v.

(1888), 21

This latter

Q. B. D. 1;

Q. B. 489.

43 Geo. III.

L. J.

s.

See Armour

explained in

affirmed 57 L.
(6)

22,

c.

308.

c.

Mitchell,

59,

s.

Livesey,

Ee Newport Bridge
Exp. (1913), 77

L. J. K. B. 153.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.

(1859), 29

P. 148

82

"IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

pretence, "

it

431

should be lawful" for the Court to

cancel the annuity deed,

if it should appear that

" any such practices," had been used the Court
considered that this last expression limited the
;

enactment to cases where any of the forbidden

acts had been done malo animo, and held that it
was in their discretion to set the deed aside or
not

(a).

The Church Discipline Act, 1840, which

enacts that in every case of a clergyman charged

with an ecclesiastical offence, or concerning

whom

a scandal may. exist of having committed such an

offence, "it shall be lawful " for the bishop,

application of any person complaining of

on the
it,

or if

he thinks fit, on his own motion, to appoint a

commission to examine witnesses, to ascertain if
there be sufficient prima facie ground for instituting

was held

further proceedings,

to leave

it

discre-

tionary with the bishop to appoint a commission on

Having regard to
of the law and the character
it was considered that it was

receiving such a complaint.

the pre-existing state

of the bishop's office,

duty,

his

before

issuing

commission,

the

to

determine on the expediency of instituting the

prosecution, taking into his consideration the
nature, credibility, or importance of the charge,

and the
(a)

53 Geo. HI.

Barler
1 B.

status, solvency,

&

v.

o.

141,

s.

and religious character of

repealed by 17

Gamson (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 281

C. 61.

Digitized

by Microsoft

& 18

Vict.

c.

90

Girdlestone v. Allan,

432

INTEBPRKTATION OF STATUTES.

the complainant, as well as the general interests of

the Church

(a).

much

This subject underwent

discussion in B.

Oxford (Bp.), and elicited various views. The

Queen's Bench held that it was imperative to
V.

issue

the commission

where a

complaint had

been made of an ecclesiastical offence

(b),

but the

Court of Appeal reversed this decision (c), and this

reversal was upheld on appeal to the House of
Lords,

who were

practically

unanimous in

their

view.

According to Lord Cairns, such words as " it

shall be lawful " are always simply permissive (d)
or enabling.
They confer a power, and do not, of

But

themselves, do more.

there

may

be some-

thing in the nature of the thing empowered to be

done, something in the object for which

it is

to be

done, something in the conditions under which

is

it

to be done, something in the title of the persons

whose benefit the power is to be exercised,

which may couple the power with a duty, and
make it the duty of the person in whom the power
for

(o)
c.

& 4

Vict. c. 86, practically repealed

32 (Clergy Discipline Act, 1892)

525

B.

v.

Julius v. Oxford [Bp.), 5 App. Gas. 214

{Bp.), [1891] A. C.
(b)

B.

(c)

4 Q. B. D.,

(d) S.

V.

666; B.

p> 525.

Gas., p. 222.

Digitized

Alloroft v.

v. Chichester (Bp.),

Oxford (Bp.), 4 Q. B. D. 245.

C, 5 App.

by 55 & 56

Vict,

Oxford (Bp.), 4 Q. B. D.

by Microsoft

2 E.

London

& E.

209.

"IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

433

reposed to exercise it when called upon to do

so it lies on those who contend that an obliga-

is

tion exists to exercise the power, to

show in the

circumstances of the case something which, according to the above principles, created that obligation
and the cases decide only that where a power is
deposited with a public officer for the purpose of
being used for the benefit of persons who are
specifically pointed out,

a definition

and with regard to

whom

supplied by the Legislature of the

is

conditions upon which they are entitled to call for

its exercise,

that power ought to be exercised, and

Lord
(a).
Penzance said that the words " it shall be lawful
are distinctly words of permission only, and the

the Court will require it to be exercised

true question
different,

is,

not whether, they

mean something

but whether, having regard to

circumstances

to

person

the

enabled,

all

the

to

the

general object of the statute, and to the persons

whose benefit the power may have been intended to be conferred they do or do not create
a duty in the person on whom it is conferred to
It is not enough that the thing
exercise it.
to
be done should be for the public
empowered

for

make

benefit in order to

that power on

all

it

imperative to exercise

occasions falling

within the

It may be assumed that all powers

statute.
conferred by statute on individuals in general
(a)

5 App. Gas., p. 225.

28

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

434

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Public Acts are for the public benefit, or they

would not have been conferred. He could find

no specific authority for the proposition that in
a certain class of statutes such words as "it shall
be lawful " import primd facie, not permission but
obligation.
The effect of the cases in which the
exercise of the power conferred was held to be
obligatory was that, though the statutes concerned
had in terms only conferred a power, the circumstances were such as to create a duty, to show
that the exercise of any discretion by the person
empowered could not have been intended (a).
Lord Selborne's view was that words such as "it
shall be lawful
are not ambiguous and susceptible
either of a discretionary or an obKgatory sense,
but their meaning is the same, whether there is or
is not a duty or obligation to use the power which
they confer. They are potential, and never (in
themselves) significant of any obligation.
The
question whether a judge or public officer, to
whom a power is given by such words, is bound to
''

upon any particular occasion, or in any

particular manner, must be solved aliunde, and in
use

it

general

the

it is

to be solved from the context, from

particular

provisions,

or

from the general

scope and objects, of the enactment conferring

the power

(6).

Lord Blackburn's opinion was that

(a)

5 App. Gas., p. 228.

(b)

Id., p.

Digitized

235.

by Microsoft

"MAY" AND "SHALL."

435

the enabling words gave a power which prima facie

might be exercised or not
but if the object for
;

which the power

is

conferred

is for

the purpose of

enforcing a right, whether public or private, there

may

be a duty cast upon the donee of the power

to exercise it for the benefit of those

that right,
there

when

who have
Where

required on their behalf.

such a duty, it is not inaccurate to say

that the words conferring the power are equivalent
to saying that the donee must exercise it (a). But
is

he could not agree with the view that whenever

the statute is for the public good, and of general
interest and concern, powers conferred by enabling
words are primci facie to be considered powers
which must be exercised (6).

More recently the Court

ing the provision of

s.

of Appeal, in consider-

126

Bankruptcy Act,

(4),

1883 (repealed and replaced with certain alterations

by s. 130, Bankruptcy Act, 1914), that any Court
in which proceedings have been

commenced

for

the administration of a deceased debtor's estate

" may," on the appHcation of any creditor, and

on proof that the estate is insolvent, transfer the

administration to the Court exercising jurisdiction
in bankruptcy, decided that there was not enough
in the statute to show that the power conferred must
(a)

L. J.
(6)

5 App. Cas., p. 241, and

KB.

see B.

y.

153, at p. 157.

5 App. Cas.,

p. 245.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Mitchell (1913), 82

436

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

be exercised whenever the estate

is

shown

to be

and it was consequently a discretionary

power which the Court might refuse to use.
Following the decision of the House of Lords in
the preceding case it was said that from the

insolvent,

"
nature of the English language the word " may
can never mean " must," that it is only potential,

and when it is employed there is another question

to be decided, viz., whether there is anything that
makes it the duty of the person on whom the power
is

If not, the

conferred to exercise that power.

But when the power

exercise is discretionary.

whom

coupled with a duty of the person to

given to exercise
Accordingly,

it,

then

when

it is

imperative

statute

is

it is

(a).

that a

enacts

may"

be present at the
polling place, ot that a clergyman accused of an
ecclesiastical offence "may" attend the proceed-

candidate at an election "

ings of the commission appointed to inquire into

the accusation, or that a company

struct a railway

(6),

"may"

or that a plaintiff "

may

con" sue

in one action for injury done to his wife as well

(a)

46 & 47 Vict.

c.

52

Baker, Be, 44 Oh. D. 262

berg Co., Be, [1892] 1 Ch. 583

and see B.

Johannia-

v. Mitchell (1913),

82 L. J. K. B. 153.
(b)

V.

G.

York

&

W. By.

Co., [1894]

N. Midland By.
Co., Id.

263

2 Q. B. 694.

Go. v. JR.,

22 L.

Barlaston Loc. Bd.

See also

NicMl

Q. B. 283.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Q. B. 225

J.
v.

L.

B.

& N. W. By.

v. Allen,

31 L. J.

"MAY" AND "SHALL,"

437

as

himself (a), cases in which the donee of the

power has only his own interests or convenience

word "may" is plainly permissive

only, and a mere privilege or license is conferred
which he may exercise or not at pleasure. But
an enactment that churchwardens " may " make a
to consult, the

rate for the reimbursement of constables, or the

Chancellor "

may "

issue a commission in a case of

bankruptcy, or one conferring power on the Courts

to direct that a person entitled to costs should
is no mere permission to do such
with a corresponding liberty to abstain from
doing them. A duty is at the same time cast

recover them,
acts,

upon the persons empowered. For these are cases

where a power is deposited with public ofl&cers,
for the

purpose of being used for the benefit of

persons having rights in the matter.

So,

when-

ever a statute confers an authority to do a judicial

act in a certain case,

it is

imperative on those so

authorised to exercise the authority

arises,

and

when the

its exercise is duly applied for

party interested and having a right to

case

by a

make the

and the exercise depends, not on the

discretion of the Courts or judges, but upon proof
of the particular case out of which the power
If a statute empowered justices to
arises (6).
application

(a)

BroManh

v.

(6)

McDougal

v. Paterson,

Whitehaven By.

Co.,

31 L. J. Ex. 349.

11 C. B. 755.

BlinUorn, Be, [1903] 2 K. B. 300, where

Digitized

it

by Microsoft

See also Burton

was held that

s.

&

32,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

438

adjudicate in certain cases, that

certain penalty on persons

whom

guilty of a certain offence,

it is

to impose a

is,

they should find

incontestable that

they would have no option to decline jurisdiction

because the statute used only the word "may"
instead of " shall "
There would be here such a
right in the public as to make it the duty of
the justices to exercise the power.

Whether the

language was facultative only or mandatory, it

would be equally obligatory on them to hear and
determine the complaint, to decide, one

way

or

the other, whether the accused was guilty, and to

impose the penalty

The Supreme
it down
empowered to do for

he was

if

(a).

Court of the United States similarly laid

that what public officers are

a third person, the law requires shall be

done

whenever the public interest of individual rights

1843

Solicitors Act,
solicitor

" shall

(6

& 7

73),

which enacts that a

" struck off

the rolls for certain

Vict.

and may be

c.

offences, does not give the Court a discretion to impose any less

punishment.

(As to re-instatement, see 62 Vict.

In

c. 4, s. 1).

some cases, this rule seems to have been overlooked, and the
word "may" construed as simply permissive. See ex. gr.
B. V. Eye, 4 B. & Aid. 271 Jones v. Harrison, 20 L, J. Ex.
;

166

Bell

33 L.

J.

V.

M.

however, B.

C. 193

(a)
;

Be Beamoir

v. Norfolk,

129, followed

244

Grane, L. E. 8 Q. B. 481

and

v.

4 B. & Ad. 238

V.

JR.

v.

&

South

Weald,

0. 266.

See,

Kelly, Be, 64 L. J. Q.

B.

qualified in Newson, Be, 53 Sol. J. 342.

Per Lord Blackburn, Julius

B.

Welch, 7 B.

Cumberland, 4 A.

Digitized

& E.

v.

Oxford (Bp.), 5 App. Gas.

695,

by Microsoft

"IF THEY SHALL THINK FIT."

call for the exercise of
is

the power

439

since the latter

given not for their benefit, but for

his,

and

is

placed with the depositary to meet the demands

of right and prevent the failure of justice.

In

all

such cases, the Court observed, the intent of the

Legislature, which

is

the

test,

is,

not to grant

a mere discretion, but to impose a positive and

absolute duty

Nor

(a).

made

the power

is

less imperative in

any

such cases by express references to the discretion

The duty

of the authorised person.

summons (6),

of issuing a

or of examining the churchwarden's

was as obligatory under the statute

which empowered the justices to issue it or to
examine them, " if they should so think fit," as
it would have been if this expression had been
omitted. Where the judgment creditor of a company "might" have execution against any indiaccounts

(c),

due
diligence to obtain satisfaction of his debt from
the company, it was held by the Common Pleas

vidual shareholder of

(a) Supervisors v. U. S.,

tion Act, 1889 (52

if

it,

he

4 Wallace, 446.

& 53 Vict. c.

63),

after

failed

See

s.

which provides

32, Interpreta-

that, in future,

power or imposes a duty, the power may

duty
shall be performed from time to time
be exercised, and the
as the occasion requires, and by the holder for the time being of

when an Act

confers a

the office on which the power

(b)

B.

V.

Adamson, sup.

is

conferred or the duty imposed.

p. 426.

See also B.

54 J. P. 471.
(c)

B.

V.

Cambridge, sup. p. 426.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Evans (1890),

440

IlfTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

that there was no discretion to withhold

this

remedy from him in any case in which the Court

was satisfied that the specific facts indicated by
the statute existed viz., that the debt was unpaid, that due endeavours had been made, and

had

put in force the execution against

the company (a), and, it may be added, that the
failed, to

had done nothing

creditor

him

to disentitle

execution against the shareholder (6)

to

although

the statute not only directed that the leave of the

Court was to be asked for the execution, but provided that it "should be lawful" for the Court
to grant or refuse the application for it, and " to

make such

order as

familiar instance

might see

it

may

fit."

be found in the case of a

distress warrant to enforce a poor rate.

known

Another

It is well

that in every case where certain specific

facts are proved, viz., that a rate, valid

on

its face,

was made by a competent authority, that the rated

land is in the district and in the occupation of the
defaulter, and that the latter has been summoned
and has not paid, the justices have no option to
(a)
c.

V.

69)

& 8 Vict.

c.

110 (repealed for existing law, see 8 Edw. VII.

Morisse

v.

Boyal British Bank, 26 L.

London

Shrimpton

8 &

&

v.

County

Insur.

Sidmouth &c. By.

9 Vict. 0. 16

Co.,

Co.,

26 L.

J.

J. C. P.

Ex.

Co. (1871),

Hill

Comp,

Bude

6 L. E. C. P. 576, at

p. 581.

Uxbridge By. Co., L. E. 1 C. P. 596.

Digitized

L. E. 3 C. P. 80, decided on

discussed, without approval, in Lee v.

and Torrington Jumtion By.

{b) Scott V.

62

89.

by Microsoft

"IF THEY SHALL THINK FIT."

441

refuse the warrant, though the statute says only

that they " may " issue it " if they think fit " (a).

In

such cases they must exercise the power

they must " think fit " to do so whenever the
all

occasion for

it

has arisen.

In America, where

it

was enacted that city councils " might, if deemed

advisable " (b), or even " might, if they believed
that the public good and the best interests of

the city required

it

"

(c),

levy a special tax to be

expended in the liquidation of

their debts, the

Supreme Court issued a mandamus to levy the

tax where it was proved that a debt existed,
and that there were no other means in possession or prospect for their payment; holding
that the discretion of the town councils was
limited by their duty, and could not, consistently
with the rules of law(d), "be resolved in the
negative."
It is important here to notice the distinction

between a discretion to exercise a power, and a

discretion to determine only whether the occasion
This is illustrated by the confor it has arisen.
struction of the enactment that justices may, if
(a)

M.

B.

V. Finnis,

C. 101.

28 L. J. M. C. 201

See also B.

v.

B.

v. Boteler,

Cambridge, and B. v. Adarmon, sup.

p. 426.
(b)

S 4 Wallace, 446.
Amy, 5 Wallace, 705.

Supervisorg v. U.

(c)

Galena

(d)

Adverting to B.

v.

v.

Barlow, sup. p. 425.

Digitized

33 L. J.

by Microsoft

442

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

they think

fit,

summons upon an informa-

issue a

Here the power

tion laid before them.

may

discretionary, that they

summons according

grant or refuse the

as they judge, in -the honest

exercise of their discretion (a), that a

credible case

is

so far

is

shown

for it

but

imperative, in the sense that

its

primd

facie

exercise

they are

is

bound

to form an opinion,

and

if

such a case

it is

not competent to them

is

shown,

their opinion is that

on extraneous grounds,
such as that the prosecution is unadvisable (6).
to refuse to exercise in

An

arbitrary or capricious exercise of a discretion

would be no exercise at all (c).

Again, as regards
the power to order the examination of witnesses
abroad (d), the power was discretionary, not because
the language was merely enabling, but because
the Legislature did not intend that the power
should be exercised where injustice would result

and the decision of the Court that no such consequence was likely to ensue was a fact essential
to

make the

exercise of the

power a duty.

So, in

the Bishop of Oxford's Case, though the power was

widely discretionary as regards the question

whether the occasion

(a)

See sup. pp. 232-234.

V. Adamson, and B.

(6)

B.

(c)

Per Lopes

L.J.,

B.

per Lord Bsher M.E., B.

v.

for its exercise

v. Fawcett,

sup. p. 426.

London (Bp.), 24 Q. B. D. 243

v. St.

Pancras, 24 Q. B. D. 375.

(d) Castelli v. Groom, sup. p. 430.

Digitized

arose, the

by Microsoft

and

OMISSIONS

MAY BE

443

SUPPLIED.

Bishop could not have declined to hear the complaint (a)

nor,

his

if

own

judicial discretion, un-

influenced by considerations foreign to his duty,

had decided that the occasion

for it

had

arisen,

could he, consistently with the intention of the

have

Legislature,

mission

An

refused

the

issue

to

com-

(b).

omission which

context

the

shows with

been unintended
may be supplied, at least in enactments which
are construed beneficially, as distinguished from

reasonable

certainty to have

Thus,

strictly.

Act, 1833 (3
that

if

&

when

s.

33, Fines

4 Will. IV.

c.

and Eecoveries

74), in

providing

the protector of a settlement should be

a lunatic, or (2) convicted of felony, or (3) an

infant, the Court of Chancery should be the
(1)

protector in lieu of the lunatic or the infant,

omitted the case of the convict of felony, it was

held by Lord Lyndhurst that the omission might
be supplied, in order to give effect to the manifest
intention.

Without

of felony, in the

(a)

L.J.,
(b)

first

the mention of the case

part of the sentence, was

Per Lord Blackburn, 5 App. Oas. 241. See also per Lindley
B. V. London (Bp.), 24 Q. B. D. 240.
See the concluding remarks of Lord Justice Bram well's

judgment
j^ote

"

it,

in 4 Q. B.

D. 555.

For the cases on, " It shall be

Must," " Shall," " Shall and

titles in

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,

Digitized

Lawful,"

Lawfully May,"
and Supp.

by Microsoft

" May,'"

see those

444

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

and it necessarily implied the missing

words (a). Although no original limit of time is
specially mentioned in the Public Health Act,
1875, within which an umpire must make his
award, yet inasmuch as there is an express provision that the time for making an award by an
insensible,

umpire under the Act shall not in any case be

extended beyond two months from the reference
to him,

provision which implies the existence

of an original limit,

it

has been held that by

analogy to the original limit fixed in the case

of arbitrators, an original limit of 21 days from
the date of the reference to

him must be

to have been fixed in his case also

inferred

So,

(b).

where

a statute enacted that suits " against" an association should be brought in the district

was

where

it

making any provision for

but an earlier Act
had in a similar clause provided for suits both by
and against; the Supreme Court of the United
States held that the omission was accidental, and
established, without

suits " by " the association

(a)

Be

See also in Deeds, Dent

Wainewright, 1 Phil. 258.

Clayton, 33 L, J. Ch, 603

and

Wilson

v.

Wilson, 5

in Wills, Greenwood v. Greenwood, 5 Ch.

v.

H. L. Cas. 40

D. 954

Be Bedfem,

6 Ch. D. 133.
(6)

38 & 39 Vict.

c.

55,

s.

Waterworks, 41 Ch. D. 52.

Act

for the

(9)

As

for the time prescribed

appointment of an

Corp., [1915] 2

Teadm

180

by the

arbitrator, see Stoher v. Morpeth

K. B. 511.

Digitized

Loc. Bd.w. Yeadon

by Microsoft

OMISSIONS

MAY BE

might be;^supplied (a).

Amendment

445

SUPPLIED.

Sec. 6, Statute of Frauds

Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV.

c.

14), furnishes

another example of clerical neglect which was

treated in the same

spirit.
It enacts that no
action shall he brought in respect of a representation made by one person concerning the conduct
or credit of another, to the intent that the latter

"may obtain credit, goods, or money upon,"

unless the representation was in writing.
text

The

Lord Abinger, while

deeming any conjectural transposition of the
words inadmissible, held that the word "upon"
must be rejected as nonsensical but Baron Parke
is

clearly imperfect.

considered that the Court was at liberty either,

by transposition, to read the passage " may obtain

goods or money on credit," or to interpolate after

"upon" the words "such representations " (6).

By s. 58, London Building Act, 1894, a wall built
as, or

becoming, a party wall in any part, " shall

be deemed
length as

is

a party wall for such part of its

so used " ; that means (though not so

expressed) height as well as length, so that only

*

(a)

Kennedy

v.

Gibson, 8 Wallace, 498.

Lablaehe, 3 G. P. D. 197.

This latter case, since the passing of

Women's Property

the Married

Comp. Hancocks v.

Act, 1882, is

no longer good

law.
(6)

Lyde

Alkali Co.

v.
v.

Barnard, 1 M.

& W.

101^ 115.

See also United

Simpson, per Lord Coleridge O.J., [1894] 2 Q. B.

121.

Digitized

by Microsoft

446

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

much

SO

much

of the height as well as only so

which had been used as a

to be deemed a party wall within the

of the length of wall

party wall
section

The

is

(a).

reference in

s.

Intestates' Estates Act,

6,

1890, to the " testamentary " expenses of an intestate,

being obviously a

slip in drafting,

has been read

as referring to the expenses of obtaining letters of

administration and of administration generally

(6).

In statutes governed by the principle of strict construction,

such emendations have been refused

Clerical errors

may

be read as amended;

where, for instance, an Act refers

as

to another by

and mistakes the latter (d).

It has been asserted that no modification of the
language of a statute is ever allowable in construction except to avoid an absurdity which appears to
title

be

and

(c).

so,

date,

not to the mind of the expositor merely, but

to that of the Legislature

the form of a repugnancy

(a)

London

Dairy

dec.

that

is,

when

it

takes

In this case, the

(e).

Co. v. Morley

Lanceley (1911), 80

L. J. K. B. 908.
(6)

53 & 54 Vict.j3. 29,

s.

Twigg's Estate, Be, [1892] 1 Oh.

579.
(c)

See Underhill

v.

Longridge,

29

L. J.

M.

0.

65,

inf.

482.

p.

(d)

M,

0.
(e)

2 Inst. 290

104

Anon., Skinn. 110

Boothroyd, Be, 15 L. J.

Per Willes

J.,

Motteram

in Bell Cose v. Hakes, 15

v.

M.

B.

v. Wilcoeh,

14 L.

J,

C. 57,

E. C. B. Co., 7 0. B. N. S. 58

App. Gas. 542, Lord Field, accepting

Digitized

by Microsoft

EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.

447

Legislature shows in one passage that

mean what
modification

did not

it

words signify in another

its

and a

therefore called for, and sanctioned

is

beforehand, as

it

But the

were, by the author.

authorities do not appear to support this restricted

They would seem

view.

the judicial interpreter

rather to establish that

may

deal with careless and

inaccurate words and phrases in the same spirit as

a critic deals with an obscure or corrupt text,

when
the

on solid grounds

satisfied,

context

from

(a),

the

or history of the enactment, or from

inconvenience,

injustice,

the consequences to which

or

would

it

absurdity

of

lead, that the

language thus treated does not really express the

intention,

and that his amendment probably

does.

EQUITABLE CONSTEUCTION.

SECTION U.

The practice of modifying the language, and

controlling the operation of enactments, however,

was formerly carried to

greater lengths.

still

It

used to be laid down that a remedial statute

should receive an equitable construction
cases out of its letter should,
Willes

365

Boon
(a)

J.'s dictum,

adds " absurdity "

if

so that

within the general

Abel v. Lee, L. E. 6 C. P.

Chriatopherson v. Lotinga, 15 C. B. N. S. 809

per Brett

J.,

V. Howard, L. E. 9 C. P. 305.

Comp.

Green

v.

Wood, sup.

p.

35,

pp. 29-31.

Digitized

by Microsoft

and

cases

cited

448

INTEKPRBTATION OP STATUTES.

object or mischief of the Act, be brought within

The extremely
it provided {a).
wide construction given to the expression " charit-

the remedy which

able " use or trust in the

43

Eliz. c. 4(6), is a re-

markable example of this construction ; the Court

Chancery including in that phrase a number

which undoubtedly no one outside the
Court of Chancery would have supposed to be
comprehended within it (c).

of

of subjects

It is to be observed, indeed, that the expression

" equitable " is often used in the older authorities

Lord Mansfield said that

equity was synonymous with the intention of the
Legislature (d)
and in this sense an equitable
construction is free from objection.
Thus the
" equitable " construction, which included uses
within the Statute De Donis, though that enactment spoke only of " lands and tenements," and
may have originally contemplated only common
law estates (e), and which applied 2 Hen. V.
in

diverse

senses.

(stat.

(a)

2)

(1414) (/) (requiring that a juror should

Co. Litt. 24b

Bac. Ab. Statute

(I.)

Com. Dig.

Parlia-

ment, B. 13.
(b)
(c)

Bepealed by 51 & 52 Vict. c. 42, s. 13, which see.

Per Lotd Halsbmy L.C., Income Tax Commrs. v. Pemsel,

[1891] A. 0. 542.

See Foveaiix, Be, [1895] 2 Ch. 501.

Williams, 1

(d)

B.

(e)

Corbet's Case, 1

V.

W.

Bl. 93.

Eep. 88.

(/) Eepealed as to England by S. L.

Digitized

by Microsoft

1863.

EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.

449

have " lands " worth 40 shilUngs), to the cestui que

use, and not to the feoffee, when the legal estate
was in the latter (a), would seem to fall within the

now

recognised ordinary rules of

The 4 Edw.

construction.

which gave executors an

wrong done to
their testator, was said to have given them also
an action on the case, by "the equity" of the
statute (b) but the decision was strictly on the
letter of the Act.
It turned on the construction
of the word " trespass," which was held to mean
a wrong done generally, and of "trespassers,"
which was held to mean wrongdoers (c). The
III. c. 7,

action against trespassers for a

decision that the Statute of Gloucester,

c.

5 (which

gives the action of waste against lessees for

life,

or "for years," to recover the wasted place and

treble damages), reached

one year

for

and even

"by equity"
for

half

a tenant

a year,

was

(a) Co. Litt. 272b.

1 Leon. 193

(6) Russell V. Prat,

Mutland

v.

Rutland, Cro.

Bliz., 377.

Per Lord EUenborough, Wilson v. Enubley, 7 East, 133.

was held to extend to all torts except those relating to the
testator's freehold, or where the injury was of a purely personal
nature.
See Williams v. Gary, 4 Mod. 403 12 Mod. 71 Berwick
Bradshaw v. Lane. & York By.
V. Andrews, 2 Lord Eaym. 971
(c)

It

L. E. 10 0. P. 189

Co.,

599.
40,

Leggott v. Gt. Northern By. Co., 1 Q. B. D.

See also per Bramwell L. J., Twycross

and Pulling

v. Gt.

v. Grant,

4 C. P. D.

Eastern By. Go. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 110, at

p. 112.

29

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

450

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

apparently of a similar character

is said

that

it is

(a).

when

So,

it

on "the equity," or "equitable

construction " of the statute 2

empowers a landlord to

W. & M.

sell for

c.

5 (which

the best price the

goods which he has distrained for arrears of rent,

if

the tenant does not replevy in five days), that

an action

against the landlord

lies

impounding but before

days

who

sells after

the expiration of

five

and expenses
(6),
within that time (c), or for less than the best
price (d), it has been held, however, trover wUl not
lie.
No more apparently being meant than that a
cause of action was given by implication (e) against
a landlord who thus abused the power of sale
thereby conferred on him.
or after a tender of the rent

way, summed up the view

he held by saying that " within the Equity means
the same thing as
within the mischief of a
Byles

J., in his terse

'

'

'

'

statute "(/).

But the expression has been more generally

used

&

(o)

Co. Litt. 53a

(6)

Wallace

Aid. 208
(c)

In the construction of old

other senses.

in.

v.

2 Inst. 302.

King, 1 H. Bl. 13.

Earper

v. Taswell,

6 0.

See also Pitt

& P.

Johnson v. Upham, 28 L. J. Q. B. 252.

Burr. 785

B.

v.

v.

Shew, 4 B.

166.

See B.

v. Cox,

Toimger, 5 T. E. 449.

(d)

Com. Dig.

(e)

See Chap. XII, Sec.

Distress (D.), 8

(/) Shuttleworth

v.

Farwell on Powers,

II.

Le Fleming, 19

Digitized

G. B.

by Microsoft

N.

S. 703.

c. 17.

EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.
statutes, it has

general

451

been understood as extending to

the application of an enactment

cases

which, UteraUy, was limited to a special case.

Thus, the Statute of Westminster 1 (3 Edw. I.

which enacted that a vessel should not be

adjudged a wreck, if a man, a dog, or a cat escaped
from it, was regarded as exempting a vessel from
0. 4),

such adjudication, by an equitable construction,

if any other animal escaped, those named being
put only for example (a). The 46th chapter of the

same

which directed the judges of the

King's Bench to hear their causes in due order,
was extended, on the same principle, to the judges
of the other Courts (6)
and the Statute of Westminster 2, c. 31, which gave the bill of exceptions
statute,

to the ruling of the judges of the

was

similarly held

Common

applicable, not

Pleas,

only to the

other judges of the Superior Courts, but to those

County Courts, the Hundred, and the Courts

Baron ; their judges being still more likely to err (c).
The 5 Hen. IV. c. 10, which forbade justices of
the peace to commit to any other than the common
jail, was held to be equally imperative on aU other
judicial functionaries (d). The Statute of 1 Eich. II.
c. 12, which forbade the Warden of the Fleet to
of the

(a)

2 Inst. 167

5 Bep. 107.

(6) 2 Inst. 256.

Strother
(c) 2 Inst. 426
;

{d)

v. Hutchinson,

4 Bing. N. 0. 83.

2 Inst. 43.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

452

judgment debts to go at
they had satisfied their debts, was held

suffer his prisoners for

large, until

The Statute

to include all jailers (a).

(6

Edw.

I.),

0.

of Gloucester

speaking of London, was

11, in

considered as intending to include

all cities

and

boroughs equally ; the capital having been named

alone for excellency

The

(6).

statute, or writ

De

which directs the

judges not to interfere with the Bishop of Norwich
or his clergy in spiritual suits, was construed as
protecting aU other prelates and ecclesiastics,
the Bishop of Norwich being put but for an
Circumspecte Agatis (13

Ed.

I.),

example (c).
This kind of construction, which would not be
tolerated now {d), was said to have been given
to ancient statutes in consequence of the conciseness with which they were drawn (c) though the
;

specific expressions used can hardly be considered

more concise than the more abstract terms for

which they were, possibly, substituted. It has
been explained, also, on the ground that language
was used with no great precision in early times
and that Acts were framed in harmony with the
(a) Piatt V.
(b)

Lock, Plowd. 35.

2 Inst. 322.

(c) Id.

487.

(d)

Per Pollock G.B., Miller

(e)

2 Inst. 401

V. Burnell,

v. Salomons,

10 Eep. 30b

6 Bing. N. G. 561.

Digitized

21 L. J. Ex. 197.

per Lord Brougham, Gwynne

by Microsoft

EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.
lax

method

prevalent

453

contemporaneously

of interpretation

been accounted for by

the fact that in those times the dividing line
It has also

(a).

between the

and judicial functions was

feebly drawn, and the importance of the separation
legislative

The ancient practice

drawn by the judges from
the Commons and the answers of

imperfectly understood

(6).

of having the statutes

the petitions of

the King

(c)

may

also account for the latitude of

their interpretation.

The judges would be disposed

to construe the language with freedom, knowing,

like

Chief Justice

Hengham and Lord Nottingham,

what they meant when framing them (d).

But an equitable construction has been applied
also to more modern statutes, and in a sense
departing still more widely from the language.
Thus, although

s.

3,

21 Jac.

c.

16,

enacted tbat

certain actions should be brought within six years

after the cause of action accrued, "

and not

after,"

was nevertheless held, notwithstanding these

negative terms, that where an action was brought
within six years, but abated by the death of either
party, a reasonable time that is, a year, comit

puted, not from the death, but from the grant of

V.

(a)

Per Lord EUenborough, Wilson

(6)

Sedg. Infcerp. Stat. 311.

v.

Knubley, 7 East, 134.

See per Lord Selborne, Bradlaugh

Clarke, 8 App. Gas. 368.

(c)

Co. Litt. 272a; sup. p. 78.

(d)

Sup.

p. 49.

Digitized

by Microsoft

454

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

administration

was to be allowed, by an equitable

construction of the statute, beyond the period

given, to bring a fresh action by or against the
personal representatives of the deceased

The

(a).

provision of the Statute of Frauds,

which

prohibits the enforcement of agreements for the

purchase of lands, unless they be in writing, was

held not to prevent the Court of Chancery from
decreeing the specific performance of such agree-

ments, though not in writing, where they had been

by the party seeking to enforce

the contract. On all questions on that statute, it
was said, the end and purport for which it was
partly performed

made

namely, to

prevent frauds and perjuries

and any agreement in which

there was no danger of either, was considered as
out of the statute (b). The statute was not made
and as it
to protect or be the means of fraud (c)

was

to be considered

(o)

Hodsden

v.

Wms.

Harridge, 2

Mornington, 26 L. J. Q. B. 181

Q. B. 613.

See also Piggott

v.

Saund.

64;a

Gmiewis

v.

Swindell v. Bulkeley, 56 L. J.

Bush, 4 A.

Bradford Bldg. Sac, 25 Q. B. D. 377

& E. 912

Atkinson

v.

Tidd, Be, [1893] 3 Ch.

154.
(6)
(c)

Per Lord Hardwicke, A.-O. v. Day, 1 Ves. senr. 221.

Per Lord Mansfield, Carter v. Boehiff,, 3 Burr. 1918

Turner, L.J., Lincoln

L. E. 7 Ch. 469

v.

Wright, 4

Williams

v.

De

G.

&

J.

Evans, L. E. 19 Eq. 547

Be Buhe of Marlborough,

V. Ungley,

5 Ch. D. 887

133.

per Lord Selbome L.C, Maddison

Sv.,

16; Haigh

Gas. 474

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

v.
;

per

Kaye,
Ungley

[1894] 2 Ch.

Alderson, 8

App

EQUITABLE OONSTRTJCTION.

455

would be a fraud on one of the parties if a partlyperformed contract were not completely performed,
the Court of Chancery compelled

its

performance

in contradiction to the positive enactment of the

statute (a).
And upon this principle an attorney's
undertaking to pay his client's debt and costs has
been enforced on motion of the Court of which he

was an attorney, although void by the

The general

statute

(b).

doctrine cited above, however, was

Eyre C.B., to raise the very mischief which

the statute intended to prevent (c), and would
said by

probably have found no more favour at a later

period in Equity

Common Law

(d),

where

than
it

it

did in the Courts of

was never recognised

(e).

Per Lord Eedesdale, Bond v. Hopkins, 1 Sch. & Lef. 433.

v. Bay, 1 Ves. senr. 221; Lester v. Foxcroft,
and
1 White & Tudor's Eq. Ca. 881, where the
Oolles, 108,
(a)

See also A.-G.

later authorities are collected

Webster

v. Webster,

2 Story Eq. Jur.

27 L. J. Ch. 115

Wilson

v.

s.

752

et seq.

West Hartlepool

See per
Co., 34 L. J. Oh. 241 ; Nwnn v. Fabian, L. E. 1 Ch. 35.
Grant M.E., Frame v. Dawson, 14 Ves. 387, applied in Dickinson
V. Barrau), 73 L. J. Ch. 701, and in which latter case Gaton v.
Gaton, 35 L. J. Ch. 292, and McManus v. Gooke, 56 L. J. Ch. 662,

were commented on
Humphreys

(&)

Evans

Maddison

McManus

v.

Duncan

8 App. Cas. 467

v. Alderson,

Green, 10 Q. B. D. 148

v.

Q. B. D. 123

Britain v. Bossiter, 11

v. Gooke, sup.

(1831), 1

Tyrw. 283.

(c)

O'Beilly v.

Thompson, 2 Cox Eq. Ca. 273.

(d)

See ex.

Hughes

(e)

15 L.

gr.

v. Morris,

21 L. J. Ch. 761.

Boydell v. Drummond, 11 East, 142, 159

J. C. P. 245.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Gocking\v.

Ward,

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

456

Similar considerations affected the construction

which was put upon the Middlesex Registry Act,

1708 (7 Anne, c. 20) {a), which, after reciting that
frauds were committed by means of secret conveyances, enacted that deeds and wills affecting
lands, either at law or in equity, should be adjudged

fraudulent and void against subsequent purchasers,

unless a memorial of

them were

registered.

It was

nevertheless held that such instruments, though

unregistered, were valid against subsequent purchasers who had notice of them (b). It has been
doubted whether the efficacy of the Act was not
materially impaired by such a departure from its
letter

On

(c).

would seem, although

the various Acts of Parliament which created
stocks since the beginning of the reign of George I.
provided that no method of assigning or transferring the stock, except that provided by the Act,
should be valid or available in law, and directed
that 'the owner of stock might devise it by wiU,
attested by two witnesses, it was established by
similar grounds,

it

WUls Act, 1837)

notwithstanding
that,
such express terms, stock
repeated decisions (before the

(a) Sec. 18.

(fe)

Le Neve

v.

Le Neve, Amb. 436 Davis

;

16 Ves. 419; Willis

(c)

also

Per Sir

Boe

v.

W.

v.

v.

Strathmore (1809),

Broim, 10 Sim. 127.

Grant, Wyatt

v.

Barwell, 19 Ves. 439.

Alhop, 5 B. & Aid. 142.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See

457

EQUITABLE CONSTEUOTION.

might be disposed
being held that,

of

by an unattested Will

it

not valid as a devise, the Will

if

nevertheless bound the executor as a direction for

the disposition of the stock (a).

This principle of Equitable Construction has,

however, fallen into discredit, though sometimes
sought to be revived under the new name of

by Construction (&).
It was condemned, indeed, by Lord Bacon, who delared

Legislation

that non
literd (c)

est interpretatio,
;

sed divinatio, quae reeedit a

Lord Tenderden lamented

pronounced

dangerous

it

(e)

and

it

and

it {d),

may now

be

considered as altogether discarded as regards the

construction of most modern statutes ( / ). Statutes
are now to be considered as framed with a view
to equitable as well as legal doctrines

For
had

(g).

instance, the fact that an execution creditor

when

notice,

(a) Bipley v.

debt was contracted, that his

his

Waterworth, 7 Ves. 440;

Franklin

v.

Bank of

England, 32 E. E. 611.
(6)

Per Williams

Be

J.,

English, Scottish

&

Australian Bank,

62 L. J. Ch. 828.
(c)

Adv. of Learning.

\d)

B.

(e)

Brandling

V. Turvey,

2 B.

&

Aid. 520.

v. Barrington,

6 B. & C. 475.

(/) See per Jessel M.E., Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 750.
See also Hill y. West India Bock Co. (1884), 9 A. C, Cairns Ld.,
at p. 456

and

Irish

Land Commission

v.

Brown, [1904] 2

Ir.

200, at p. 211.
{g)

Per James L.J. and Hellish

Digitized

L.J., 2

by Microsoft

Ch. D. 296, 297.

E.

458

INTBRPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

debtor had given a

bill of sale

to another person

wbich was not registered, was held not to prevent

the execution creditor from availing himself of the
non-registration

(a).

Where, indeed, a modern statute is strictly (b)

in pari materid with one which has already received
an equitable

construction,

construction

that

is

extended to it on the general principle that they

form together one body of law, and are to be construed together (c). Thus, s. 3, 3 & 4 WiU. IV.
c. 42, which limits the time for bringing actions
on bonds and other specialties to 20 years (now 12
years) {d), in language identical with that used in
s.

3,

21 Jac.

simple contract

16, respecting

c.

same equitable construction as

had been given to the last-named Act and the
administrator of the obligor of a bond which had
debts, received the

which year the action

abated by the death of the obligor, was held to be
liable to be sued in 1858, within a year from the
been put in

suit in 1831, in

grant of letters of administration

It

(e).

may not

be out of place to mention here that

Edwards, 2 Gh. D. 291.

(a)

Edwards

(6)

Gomp.

(c)

Sup.

v.

Adam

p.

54

v. Inhalitants

of Bristol, 2 A.

& E.

389.

et seq.

(d)

37 & 38 Vict.

(e)

Sturgis v. Darell, 29 L. J. Ex.

c.

57,

s. 1.

572

and see as

time, under the statute, begins to run, Wakefield ^c.

Tates,

[1916] 1 Oh. 452.

Digitized

by Microsoft

when
Bank v.

to

STATUTES CONTRARY TO EQUITY OR REASON.

459

the expression " the Equity of a Statute " is sometimes used as meaning the principle or ground

from analogy to a statute. For

instance, 6 Bich. 11. (a), which provided that a writ
should abate, if the declaration showed that the
contract sued upon was made in a different county
from that mentioned in the writ, is said to have
of a rule adopted

led (by the equity of that statute, or the analogy

which

furnished)

it

to the introduction

judges, in the reign of James

I.,

by the

of the practice of

changing the venue on motion, where there was

no variance between the writ and declaration as
to the place where the cause of action arose

(6).

was formerly asserted that a statute contrary

to natural equity or reason (such as one which
It

made a man a judge in his own case), or contrary

to Magna Charta, was void for, it was said, jura
;

naturse sunt immutabilia

they are

leges

legum

and

an Act of Parliament can do no wrong (c). But

such dicta cannot be supported. They stand as a
(a)

Eepealed 42 & 43 Vict.

(6)

Knight

v.

247; Tidd. Pr.

(c)

Famdby, 2
c.

c.

69.

Salk.

670

Day

Graft

v. Boite,

1 Saund.

24.

BanTiam's Case, 8 Eep. 118a

Mod. 687

v. Sa/vadge,

Hob. 87

City of
;

London

v.

Wood, 12

Mercer's Go. v. Bowker, 1

So enacted as to Magna Charta by 42

Edw. III. c. 1, Co. Litt. 81a. As to taking away the Eoyal power,
see per Pinch C.J., B. v. Hampden (Ship Money), 3 State Trials
Stra.

639

3 Inst. 111.

1235.

Digitized

by Microsoft

460

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

beacon to be avoided, rather than as an authority

to be followed (a).

The law on this subject cannot be better laid

down than in the following words of a great
" It is a principle in the
American authority
English law that an Act of Parliament, delivered
in clear and intelligible terms, cannot be questioned, or its authority controlled, in any court of
:

justice.

'

It

says

is,'

Sir

W.

Blackstone,

When

it is

the

kingdom

exercise of the highest authority that the

acknowledges upon earth.'

'

said in the

books that a statute contrary to natural equity

and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed,

is

void, the cases are understood to

mean

that the Courts are to give the statute a reasonable construction.

They

will not readily

presume,

out of respect and duty to the lawgiver, that any

very unjust or absurd consequence was within the

contemplation of the law.

But if

it

should happen

to be too palpable in its direction to admit of but

one construction, there

is

no doubt, in the English

law, as to the binding efficacy of the statute.

The

supreme law of the

and demands perfect obedience.
" But while we admit this conclusion of the
English law, we cannot but admire the intrepidity
and powerful sense of justice which led Lord Coke,
will of the Legislature is the

land,

(a)

See :per Willes,

J.,

Lee

v.

Bude B.

Go. (1871), L.

582.

Digitized

by Microsoft

E. 6 C. P.

STATUTES OONTRAEY TO EQUITY OB REASON.

when CMef Justice

of the King's

Bench, to declare,

as he did in Doctor Bonham's Case, that the

mon Law

461

Com-

doth control Acts of Parliament, and

adjudges them void

when

against

common

right

and reason.
The same sense of justice and
freedom of opinion led Lord Chief Justice Hobart,
in Day v. Savadge, to insist that an Act of Parlia-

ment made

man judge

against natural equity, as to

in his

own

case,

was void

make

and induced

Lord Chief Justice Holt to say in the case of the

City of London v. Wood, that the observation of
Lord Coke was not extravagant, but was a very
reasonable and true saying. Perhaps what Lord
Coke said in his reports on this point may have
been one of the many things that King James
alluded to,

when he

there were

many dangerous

said that in Coke's reports

conceits of his

own

uttered for law, to the prejudice of the Crown,

Parliament, and subjects " (a).
{a)

1 Kent,

Digitized

Oomm.

447.

by Microsoft

CHAPTEE
SECTION

I.

CONSTEUCTION

X.
OF PENAL LAWS.

which requires that penal and some

other statutes shall be construed strictly was more

The

rule

rigorously applied

number

of

when
down

was

for a

it

capital

in

former

offences

times,

when the

was very large

stiU punishable with

(a)

death to out

a cherry-tree in an orchard, or to be seen

month

in the

soldier or sailor

company

of gipsies

(b),

or for a

to beg and wander without a

pass.

Invoked in the majority of cases in favorem vitae,

it has lost much of its force and importance in
recent times, and it is now recognised that the

paramount duty

Previous to the Eevolution, the number on the Statute

(a) "

Book

is

George

of the judicial interpreter is to

said not to have exceeded 50.

During the reign of

63 new ones were added.

In 1770 the number

11.,

was estimated in Parliament at 154 (Cavendish Debates ii. 12),

but by Blackstone (Oomm. iv. 18) at 160; and Eomilly, in
a pamphlet which he wrote in 1786 (Observations on a late
pubUoation entitled 'Thoughts on Executive Government,'
London), observed that in the sixteen years since the appearance of Blackstone's Commentaries it had considerably inLecky, History of England, vi. 246.
creased."
(6)

4 Bl.

Comm.

4.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION OP PENAL LAWS.

463

put upon the language of the Legislature, honestly

and

and rational meaning, and

faithfully, its plain

"I cannot concur

to promote its object.

contention

that

adulteration)

because

impose

Acts

these

in the

(against

therefore

penalties,

construction should, necessarily, be

their

I think

strict.

that neither greater nor less strictness should be

applied to those than to other statutes " (a).

was founded, however, on the tenderness of

the law for the rights of individuals, and on the
sound principle that it is for the Legislature,
not the Court, to define a crime and ordain its
punishment {b). It is unquestionably a reasonable
It

expectation that,
infliction

of

when

suffering,

the former intends the

or

an encroachment on

natural liberty or rights, or the grant of exceptional exemptions, powers,

not leave

its

and

privileges, it will

intention to be gathered, by mere

doubtful inference, or convey

it

in " cloudy

dark words" only(c), but will manifest

reasonable clearness.

The

it

and
with

rule of strict construc-

tion does not, indeed, require or sanction that

suspicious scrutiny of the wordg, or those hostile

conclusions from their ambiguity or from what

left

is

unexpressed, which characterise the judicial

interpretation of affidavits in support of ex parte

(a)
(6)
{c)

Per Day

J.,

Newhf

v.

U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5

Sims (1894)i 63 L. J. M. 0. 229.

Wheat.

95.

4 Inst. 332.

Digitized

by Microsoft

464

INTEBPRBTATION OP STATUTES.

applications

or

(a),

magistrates'

of

convictions,

where the ambiguity goes to the jurisdiction

(6).

Nor does it allow the imposition of a restricted

meaning on the words, wherever any doubt can
be suggested, for the purpose of withdrawing from
the operation of the statute a case which

both within

scope and the fair sense of

its

would be

This

language.

promote, the

object

to

defeat,

the Legislature

of

misread the statute and misunderstand

pose

(d).

tions

falls

Court

its

not

to

(c)

to

its

pur-

not at liberty to put limita-

is

on general words which are not called

for

by the sense, or the objects, or the mischiefs of

the enactment (e) and no construction is admissible which would sanction a fraudulent evasion
But the rule of strict construction
of an Act (/ ).
;

(a)

See ex

gr.

Peris

v. Severn, 7 Basfc,

194

Fricke v. Poole, 9

B. & C. 543.
(6)

See B.

v. Davis,

per Coleridge
V. Leigh,

J.,

B.

39 E. R. 563

v. Tolee,

17 L. J. M. C. 50

8 A.

B.

B.

v. Jones,

& E. 227

v. Stainforth,

Fletcher v. Calthrop (1845), 14 L. J.

M.

per Cur., Lindsay

17 L. J. M. C. 25

C. 49.

Western (1868), J. P. 390, as to extent of power of

in cases

where the variance

(c)

Bac.

(d)

Per Martin

Bramwell
(e)

Al). Stat. (I.)

is

& B. 684

12 A.

Note B.

v.

amendment

not material.

B.v. Modnett, 1 1. E. 101.

B., Nicholson v. Fields, 31 L. J. Ex. 236,

B., Foleif v. Fletcher, 3

H. & N.

and

781.

U. S. V. Goomhs, 12 Peters, 80.

(/) Com. Dig. Pari. (E.) 28 Bac. Ab. Stat. (I.) 9 Britton v.
Ward, 2 Eol. 127. Per Cur., U. S. v. Wiltherger, 5 Wheat. 95
;

U. S. V. Gooding, 12

Wheat. 460

Digitized

Americcm Fur Co.

by Microsoft

v. U.

S 2

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

465

requires that the language shall be so construed

that no cases shall be held to

which
both within the reasonable meaning of
its terms and within the spirit and scope of the
enactment (a). Where an enactment may entail
penal consequences, no violence must be done to
do not

its

within

fall

it

fall

language in order to bring people within

rather care must be taken that no one

within

it

who

is

To determine

not within

that a case

it

is

principle that a case

of a statute

express language

within the intention of

which

is

its

within the mischief

provisions, so

to punish a crime not specified in the

because

far

as

statute,

atrocity or of a kindred

of equal

is

it

(6).

not admissible to carry the

within

is

but

must authorise the Court

a statute, its language

to say so; but

is

its

it,

brought

is

character with those which are enumerated

(c).

If the Legislature has not used words sufficiently

comprehensive to include within

its

Peters, 367

U. S. v. Hartwell,

U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Peters,

WaUace, 395.

O.J., Fletcher v. Sondes, 3 Bing.

348

B,. v.

Freem. K. B. 175

Harvey, 1 Wils. 164

Scott v. Pacquet,

M'Gormich, L. E. 4 Q. B. 271

per James L.J.

See sup. Chap. IV.

Per Best

(a)

Case, 1 Salk.

80

prohibition

36 L.

580

Dawes

J. P. C.

Braey's

v. Painter,

65

Ellis v.

The Gauntlet, L. E. 4 P. C. 191,

per Lord Alverstone

C.J.,

B.

v.

South Shields

Licensing Justices (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 810.

(6)

Per Wright

J.,

London

C. G.

v.

Aylesbury Co., [1898] 1

Q. B. 106.
(c)

U. S. V. Wiltberger,

5 Wheat. 96.

30

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

466

the cases which

all

within the mischief in-

fall

tended to be prevented,
a Court to extend them

it

not competent to

is

It is immaterial, for

{a).

purpose, whether the proceeding prescribed

this

for the

enforcement of the penal law be criminal

or civil

(b).

The degree
struction

of

the con-

strictness applied to

of a penal statute

depended in great

measure on the severity of the statute. When it

merely imposed a pecuniary penalty, it was construed less strictly than where the rule was
invoked in favor em vitce. Formerly, an indictment
person at a

for the capital felony of assaulting a

certain time and place, and feloniously cutting or

feloniously robbing him,
it

was

fatally bad,

because

did not allege that the cutting or the robbing

was done " then and there

"

while a

similar

omission in an indictment for the misdemeanour

of a

common

assault

was considered immaterial

Lord Hale mentions that a

(a)

Per Lord Tenterden, Proctor

Aid. 145

and see Bohinson

v.

Edward

statute of
v.

(c).

VI.,

Manwaring (1819), 3 B. &

Emerson (1866), 4 H. & 0. 352, at

p. 356.
(6)

Henderson

fields, 31 L. J.

v. Sherborne,

Ex. 236

M. & W. 236

Nicholson v.

D. 611
The Bolina, 1 Gallison, 83, per Story J.
(c) 2 Hale, 178
B. v. Baude, Ore. Jac. 41 B. v. Francis, 2
Stra. 1015.
See B. v. Thomas (1878), 44 L. J. M. 0. 42, which
shows that save by express statutory provision an indictment
;

Fletcher v. Hudson, 7 Q. B.

for felony will not support a conviction for misdemeanoiu:.

Digitized

by Microsoft

OONSTKUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

467

which made the stealing of horses, in the plural,,

a capital offence, gave rise to a doubt, which it
was thought necessary to remove by enactment
in the following session of Parliament, whether
it

included the theft of one horse only

the doubt

resting on the slender foundation that an earlier

Act spoke of stealing " any horse," in the singular
(a).
Perhaps the same spirit may be
found in the more modern decisions, that a Court

number

was not bound to know that a colt was a horse,

in an Act against horse-stealing (6)
or that a
"
pig was a
hog " in an Act against hog-stealing (c)
and that an enactment which made it
a felony to " stab, cut, or wound," did not reach
;

the case of biting off a nose or a finger, because

the injury thus inflicted was not caused by an

instrument (d) ; nor that of breaking a collar-bone,

when

the skin was not also broken

A strict

(e).

construction requires, at least, that no

Bdw. VI. c. 12. Comp.

" creditors "
defrauding
B. V. Rowlands, 8 Q. B. D. 530, as to
(a)

2 Hale, 365,

when one only

(6)

B.

Euss. &

V.

is

defrauded.

B.

v. Stevens,

B.

V. Jeans,

& P. 504
;

(e)

Comp. B.

416.

v.

Wetland,

McLain, 2 Brev. 443 (Tennessee).

(d)

442

& Ey.

Ey. 494.

U. S. V.

pp. 570-571; 1

Beaney, Euss.

(c)

446

inf.

B.

V.

1 Moo. G. G. 409

1 C.

& K.

Elmsly, 2

B.

V. Owens, 1

R.

V.

539.

Lew. 126

B.

Comp. B.
;

B.

v.

Moo. G. G. 205.

Wood, 4 G. & P. 381.

Digitized

by Microsoft

7 G.

& P.

v. Shadbolt,

5 G.

v. Harris,

Waltham, 3 Gox G. 0.

468

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

case shall

fall

within a penal statute which does

elements which, whether

morally material or not, are in fact made to con-

not comprise
the

stitute

the

all

offence

as

by the

defined

Thus, the Coventry Act, 22

&

statute.

Car. II. (repealed

23

31), which made capital the inflicwith malice aforethought "and by lying in

9 Geo. IV.
tion,

c.

wait," of a variety of disfiguring or disabling bodily

was held not to include any such outrage,

however maHcious and deliberate, when not preceded by a lying-in-wait with the intent of committing it {a). And it was much doubted whether
a person who inflicted such injuries with intent to
murder, and not merely to maim and disfigure, fell
within the Act (b). If a pirate attacks a vessel,
injuries,

but, instead of taking her, extorts

a promise to pay a

sum

from her master

redemption, no

for her

piracy would be

taking

(c).

committed, for there was no

The Eiot Act, 1 Geo. I. Stat. 2,

c.
5, s. 1, which makes it felony for rioters to
remain assembled for more than an hour after

the proclamation set forth in the Act has been

(a)

1 East, P. C. 398

B.

v. Child,

&

4 C.

P. 442.

Comp. sup.

p. 364.
(6)

So

P. C. 400

heldjjej;

duhit.

Lord King and Yates

Willes J. and Eyre B.

J. in

B.

v.

Cohe,l East,

See also R.

v.

Williams,

Id. 424.
(c)

MoUoy,

64,

s.

A.-G. {Hong Kong)

v.

18.

For a

definition of this offence, see

Kwok-a-Sing, 42 L. J. P. C. 64.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION OP PENAL LAWS.

made,

made

469

failed of efieot if the proclamation

fully

and accurately

words, "

as

if,

for

was not

example, the

God

save the King," were omitted (a).

person cannot be convicted of perjury if the
oath was administered by one who had not legal

final

authority to administer

an
Admiralty sworn before a Master
in Chancery, though the Admiralty was in the
habit of admitting affidavits so sworn (b).
The
statute which imposes a penalty where sacks of
as in the case of

it,

affidavit in the

upon being weighed

coal

in weight of coal, and

shall be

found deficient

prescribes

that,

the

in

weighing, the sacks are to be weighed both with

and without the coals therein, is not complied

with by putting the full sacks successively into
one scale, and an empty sack with the weights

which the coal in each should weigh in the other,

and consequently the penalty has been held not
recoverable by the buyer in such a case (c) the
precise procedure indicated by the statute not
having been followed.
An enactment which made it a misdemeanour
on the part of a bankrupt to commit certain acts
within four months next before " the presentation
;

B.

(a)

C.

&

V.

Child (1830), 4 C.

&

P. 442.

See B.

v. Woolcock,

P. 516.

(6)

B.

(e)

16 L.

V. Stone,

&

J.

23 L.

2 Will. IV.

Ex. 126

c.

Smith

J.

M. C.

Ixxvi.
v.

Digitized

s.

14.

67

Wood

Meredith

v.

Holman (1847),

(1889), 59 L. J. Q. B.

by Microsoft

5.

INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.

470

of a bankruptcy petition against him," did not

have that effect where the petition was presented
by the bankrupt himself (a). An Act which made

penal to personate " any person

it

entitled to

vote "

would not be violated by personating a

dead voter (6). A penalty imposed on a man who
ran away, leaving his wife and children chargeable,

whereby they became chargeable, would not

be incurred by his simple desertion, without the
intent that his family should become chargeable
to the parish (c).
Nor was at one time a husband
or

liable to conviction for refusing to

when she

wife,

maintain his

refused to live with him, though

her refusal was owing to his ill-treatment

{d).

gamekeeper who kills wild rabbits in his master's

woods which it was his duty to protect, and takes
them away at once and sells them, is not guilty of
(a) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 11
Be Burden, 21 Q. B. D. 24.
But see now 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 154, which increases the
;

period to six months.

(6)

Whiteley v. GhappeU, 38 L. J.

Brown, 2 East, P. C. 1007.

Practices Act, 1883,

s.

3,

As

M.

C. 51.

See also B.

v.

to existing law, see Corrupt

and Ballot Act, 1872,

s.

24,

which

avoids this anomaly.

(c)

Beeve

v.

Teates (1862), 31 L. J.

Spooner (1863), 32 L. J.
L. J.
{d)

Pape

M.

M.

C. 82.

M.

C. 241

See also Heath

Sweeney v.

v.

Heape, 26

C. 49.

Flannigan

v.

Bishopwearmoutli, 27 L. J.

M.

C. 46.

See

But see Summary Jurisdiction

(Married Women) Act, 1895 (58 & 59 Vict. c. 39).
V.

Pape, 20 Q. B. D. 76.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

471

embezzling the rabbits, for he did not get posses" for or

them

on account of" his master (a).

statute which imposed a penalty on an un-

sion of

qualified person who, either in his own or another's

name, did any act appertaining to the office of
proctor for fee or reward, would not apply to mere
agents, or to acts which, though usually performed
by proctors, were not of strict right incident to
their office
such as preparing the documents
;

necessary for obtaining letters of administration,

where there was no contest

An Act which

(6).

punishes the obtaining, with intent to defraud, any

" chattel, money, or valuable security " by a false
pretence

is

not violated by obtaining " credit on

account," by a false pretence

(c)

nor by obtaining

a dog by a false pretence, for a dog

which

is

Bead

(1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131

a.

(6)

23 & 24 Vict.

V.

c.

127,

26

s.

(1)

not a chattel

common law (d).

the subject of larceny at

(a)

is

47 L.

J.

M.

0. 50.

Stephenson v. Higginaon

H. L. Cas. 638 Law Socy. v. Shaw (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 1.

B. v. Wavell, 1 Moo. C. C. 224.
(c) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 88
Probably, however, the offender would come within the misSee Beg. v. Jones (1897),
chief of s. 13 of 32 & 33 Vict. o. 62.
(1851), 3

67 L.

J.

Q. B. 41.

(d) B. V. Bohinaon, 28 L. J.

choses in
Bobinson

B.

V.

dog
"

M.

0. 58.

But

" chattels " includes

a joint-stock company,
and a dog may be " goods,"

action, such as shares in

v. Jenkins,

24 Q. B. D. 275

Slade, 21 Q. B. D. 433.

stealing is

made a

By

24 & 25

criminal offence.

Goods and Chattels,"

Vict.

c.

96,

s.

18,

See " Chattels," and

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and Supp.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

472

An

money to

agent entrusted with

invest on mort-

not liable to conviction for embezzling it,

The
as entrusted to him " for safe custody " (a).

gage

is

document in the
form of a bill of exchange, but having no drawer's
name thereon, would not be a forging of an
forging of an indorsement on a

indorsement on a

bill of

exchange

(6).

Obtaining from the correspondent of a banker a

sum

of

money on

a cheque drawn in favour of the

correspondent on the banker, on

falsely

whom

the drawer

pretended he had authority to draw, would

not be an attempt to obtain

banker by

money from

the,

If the correspondent

false pretences.

were to obtaiu the money from the banker, it

would not be obtained by the authority of the
drawer of the cheque; nor, presumably, by his
wish, for he would gain nothing by it(c).
It
might, however, constitute a misdemeanour within
the meaning of- 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 13 (1) (d).
See also Larceny Act, 1916. The provision of the
Sheriff's Act, 1887, which imposes a penalty on
any sheriff's officer who "takes or demands any
money or reward under any pretext whatever,"
other than the fees or sums allowed by that or any
(o)

24 & 25 Vict.

(5)

B.

V.

c.

96,

s.

76

B.

v.

Harper, 7 Q. B. D. 78.

Newman, 8 Q. B. D. 706.
Clomp. B. v. Bowerman,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 112.
(c)

(d)

B.

V. Garrett,

And

see

s.

23 L. J. M. C. 20.

32 of the Larceny Act, 1916.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTBUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

473

other Act, would not apply to a claim for charges

disallowed on taxation;

the claim must be

as

taken to have been a demand for such items of

the charges as should be allowed on taxation {a).
Moreover, the penalty is inflicted for the doing
of an act in the nature of a criminal offence, and
to

mens

an offence there

such

constitute

should be

and consequently, he is not liable to a

penalty for a mere mistake {b).
The Act which punishes the administration of a
noxious drug would not include a substance which
is

rea,

not in

itself

poisonous but noxious only

given in excess, as cantharides

(c).

which prohibits unloading coal across

does not apply to coke
It

when

provision
a footway

{d).

was held that the Act which imposes a penalty

for " baiting " -animals

did not apply to setting

dogs in pursuit of rabbits in a small enclosed

space of 3 or 4 acres, from which the rabbits
could not escape;

the word "baiting" being,

if

not etymologically at least popularly, confined to

(a)

50

& 51

[1892] 1 Q. B.
(6)

Lee

v.

Vict. c. 55,

s.

29

(2 h)

Woolfor^s Trustee

v.

Levy,'

7-72,

Aa

Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 337.

to mens rea, see

sup. p. 177 et seq.

(c)

B.

V.

Mennah

(1877), 13

Cox

0. 547.

Comp. B. v.

Wilson, inf. p. 490.

(d)

30 & 31 Vict.

c.

134,

9.

Fletcher v. Fields, [1891] 1

Q.B. 790.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

474

attacks on animals tied to a stake

however,

it

Probably,

(a).

might come within the mischief con-

templated by 1

&

2 Geo. V.

been held that a person

Again,

c. 27.

not guilty of

is

has

it

"fre-

quenting " a street with intent to

commit a felony,
evidence that he had been there

in the absence of

more than once (6).

Also

has been decided that

it

a person charged under 65 Geo. III.

194,

c.

20,

s.

with acting and practising as an apothecary is not

amenable to more than one penalty although it

was proved he had supplied medicine to several

persons on the same day (c). An article kept ready
for use in a back room or cellar is not " exposed
for sale" within

s.

Margarine Act, 1887

6,

As to "domestic

E. 9 Q. B. 380.

(a) Pitts V. Millar, L.

(cZ).

under the Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 and 1854 (12

& 13 Viet. c. 92 and 17 & 18 Viot. c. 60), see Tates v. Higgins,

animal

65 L.

"

J.

M.

G. 31,

Parsons, 32 L. J.

and cases therein

M.

0. 95

cited.

See further, Bridge

Allen v. Small, [1904] 2

Sanders, 50 L. J.

M.

G. 67

Filburn

1.

E. 705

but

See also Swan

see Johnstone v. Abercrombie, 30 Sc. L. E. 260.

v. People's

Palace

Go.,

v.

v.

59

L. J. Q. B. 471.

s.

(&)

5 Geo. IV.

15)

Olarh

83,

4 (amended by 34

& 35

but see Lang

Vict. c. 112,
v.

Walker, AQ

gather alms " within

(f)

s.

14 Q. B. D. 92

284 Bavis v. Jeans, 41 Sc. L. E. 426 ; and see Pointmi

12 Q. B. D. 306, as to " wandering abroad to beg and

Sc. L. E.
V. Sill,

c.

v. B.,

s.

3 of

same

Act.

Apothecaries Go. v. Janes, [1893] 1 Q. B. 89.

See also

Greig v. Bendeno, sup. p. 81.

{d)

50 & 51 Viet.

Schedule, and see 7

c.

29, modified

Edw. VII.

Digitized

c.

21

by 62 & 63
;

Grane

by Microsoft

v.

Vict.

s.

27,

and

Lawrence (1890),

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

475

person found on premises for an immoral purpose

involving no breach of the criminal law, does not

under the penalty imposed

fall

for

being found

on premises "for an unlawful purpose "(). Nor

would a man who obtained a license to retail
beer, by means of a certificate that he was "a
person of good character," be Kable to conviction
for using a certificate which he knew to be false,
merely because he cohabited with a woman without being married to her

(b).

The MetropoHs Management Amendment Act,

1862, in incorporating the powers for the " sup-

pression" of nuisances, conferred by an earher

local Act,

which contained, besides several pro-

visions for getting rid

of existing nuisances,

was held not

prohibition against keeping pigs,

to have comprised this last provision, as the effect

of

was, not to " suppress," but to prevent the

it

creation of nuisances

Where

(c).

a local Act, after

59 L. J. M. 0. 110. Gomp. Wheat v. Brown (1892), 61 L. J. M. C.

94.

See also Barlow

v. Terrett,

60 L. J. M. C. 104, followed in
See further, Hobhs

Firth V. McPhail, 74 L. J. K. B. 458.

Winchester, 79 L. J. K. B. 1123.

spread on bread in an eating house

is

"
not " exposing for sale

within the meaning of the Act, Moore

Booms
(a)

V.

M.

(1895), 65 L. J.

5 Geo. IV.

c.

83

C.

v.

Hayes

v. Stevenson,

33 L. J. M.

3 L. T. N. S. 296.

C. 231.

Leader

(c)

Chelsea Vestry v. King, 34 L. J.

M.

C.

9.

Bishop (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 550; 41 L.

Digitized

Pearce's Dining &c.

7.

(6)

v. Tell,

v.

Apparently selling margarine

by Microsoft

J.

See G. W. By. Co.

M.

C. 120.

INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

476

providing, by one section, that any structure, built

or rebuilt, except on the site of a former dwelling,

should not be

as a dwelling, unless there

"used"

feet in front of

was an open space of 20

it,

without

the previous consent of the local board, imposed,

by another, a penalty

"made

or suffered to continue" contrary to the

provisions

construe
offences

any building or work were

if

of

the

the

the former,

in

refused

including

as

section

latter

prohibited

the Court

Act;

to

the

though the

was to leave them without

specific provision for their punishment {a).
On the ground that an enactment giving a
power of committal for non-payment of a debt
is a highly penal one, it was held that s. 5 (2),
Debtors Act, 1869, which gives such a power in
the case of default made by any person in payment of any " debt due from him" in pursuance
effect of the decision

of a judgment, did not apply to the case of a

judgment debt with execution limited to the

separate property of a married woman, which
could not properly be described as a " debt due

from her," upon the

strict

such a section required

(6).

(a)

Pearson

v.

And

Eull (1865), 35 L.

Sea another example in Miott

v.

construction which

J.

M.

it

has been held

C. 36, diss. Martin B.

Majendie (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B.

429.
(6) 32

& 33

Vict.

c.

62; Scott

v.

Morley, 20 Q. B. D. 120.

See also Gardiner, Be, 20 Q. B. D. 249.

Digitized

But see as

by Microsoft

to

who

is

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

477

that a garnishee order absolute is not a " final

judgment " against the garnishee within s. 4 (1 g),

Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (repealed and re-enacted

by s. 1 {g), 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59) for the words
" final judgment " have a proper professional
meaning, and when found in a section of an Act
which is defining acts of bankruptcy should be
;

construed as strictly as

if

they occurred in a section

defining a misdemeanour, because the commission

of an act of bankruptcy entails disabilities on the

person

who commits

it (a).

Again, as illustrative of the rule of

has been said that while remedial

struction, it

laws

may

extend to new things not

time of making the statute

not.

strict con-

(6),

in esse at the

penal laws

may

c. 12 (repealed by 7 & 8
which took away the benefit

Thus, the 31 Eliz.

Geo. IV.

c.

27,

s.

1),

of clergy from accessories after, as well as before,

the fact was held not to

extend to accessories

made by subsequent enactment. The receiver,

therefore, of a stolen horse, who was made an
" a debtor "
s.

within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

1 (2) of that statute.

(a) Ghinery, Exp., 12 Q. B. D. 342.

12 Q. B. D. 511

Be, 57 L. J. Q. B. 258
(b) 2 Inst.

175.

35

See also Schmitz, Exp.,

Wkinney, Exp., 13 Q. B. D. 476

;

Lester, Exp.,

per Cur., Dawes

62 L.

by Microsoft

Henderson,

Q. B. 372.

v. Painter,

Sup. pp. 464, 465.

Digitized

J.

Ereeman K. B.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

478

accessory by a later statute, was held not ousted

(a).

Where one Act (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 91) (6),

made it felony to receive, with guilty knowledge,
a chattel, the stealing of which was felony either

common law

at

or under that

sequent one made a partner

Act

who

and a sub-

stole partnership

property liable to conviction for the stealing, as

was held
that to receive such stolen property was not an
offence under the earlier Act (c).
The Act to prevent Stock Jobbing, which, after
though he had not been a partner;

referring, in the preamble, to

it

the great incon-

veniences which had arisen, and daily arose, by

the wicked practice of stock jobbing

men from

diverting

their ordinary pursuits, ruining families,

discouraging industry, and injuring commerce

such contracts "in any public

or joint stock, or other public securities whatdeclared void

all

soever," was held, notwithstanding the mischief

in view, and the wide terms used, not to apply
to transactions in foreign funds (d) or in railway
(a) Post. Cr. L. 372.
(6) Sec.
(c)

91 repealed by 6 & 7 Geo. V.

31 & 32 Vict.

c.

116,

s.

6 & 7 Geo. V. 50, which see)

B.

V. Streeter, [1900]

(d) 7 Geo. II.

V. Bise,

c. 8,

v.

1 (repealed
;

B.

v.

50,

by

s.
s.

48 and Sched.
48 and Sched.,

Smith, 39 L. J.

M.

G. 112;

2 Q. B. 601.
repealed by 23

3 Stark. 158;

Comp. Smith,

c.

& 24

Vict. o.

28

Henderson

Wells v. Porter, 2 Bing. N.

Linda, 27 L. J. 0. P. 196, 335.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C.

722.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS.

shares

479

on the ground that the former were

not dealt in, and the latter were not known, in
England, when the Act was passed.
(a),

But

this degree of strictness

as extreme.

It

may

be regarded

could hardly be contended that

printing a treasonable pamphlet was not an offence

against the statute of Edw. III., because printing

was not invented

passed

a century after

until

it

was

would not be treason to shoot

or poison him with an
American drug (6). Sec. 2, 66 Geo. III. c. 58 (c),
which enacted that no brewer or dealer in beer
shall have, or put into beer, any liquor for darkening its colour, or use molasses or any preparation
in lieu of malt and hops, under a penalty of 200,
was held not to be confined to such dealers as
were known at the time when the Act was passed,
viz., licensed victuallers, licensed by a magistrate
under the Act of 5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 25 but to
include the retailer of beer furnished with an excise
license, who first came into legal existence under
the 1 WiU. IV. c. 64 (d).
So s. 18, Game Act,
;

or that

it

the King with a

pistol,

1831 (1

&

2 Will. IV.

32), authorising justices

c.

to license any householder to sell game,

(a) Hewitt v.

Bxp.,

inf. p.

Price, 11 L.

J.

C. P. 292.

494.

(6)

Hallam, Const. Hist.

(c)

Eepealed 48 & 49 Vict.

(d) A.-G. V. Lockwood, 9

Digitized

c.

15.
c.

51,

s.

M. & W.

10.

378.

by Microsoft

who

is

Comp. Gopeland,

480

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

not licensed to sell beer by retail, includes not

only householders licensed under 1 Will. IV. c. 64,
but also those who hold an " additional " license

under
33)

C.

Eevenue Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict.

The 8 Anne, c. 7, which enacted that

s.

1,

(a).

goods should be landed

without payment of duty, the offender should

any

if

sort of prohibited

was held to extend to gloves,

forfeit treble value,

which were not prohibited until the 6 G-eo. III. (6).

market Act which prohibited the sale of provisions in any part of the town but the marketplace, would extend to parts of the town built
after the Act was passed on what were then
fields (c), and this rule applies in cases where the
old market provides insufficient accommodation (d).
It was held that the repealed (e) Engraving
Copyright Act, 1734 (8 Geo. II. c. 13), which im-

posed a penalty for piratically engraving, etching,

(a) Shoolhred v. St. Pancras Jus. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 346

59 L.

J.

M.

C. 63.

With regard

to the disputed point as to

whether or not a person owning several shops and selling beer

in one

of

them could hold a

license to sell

game, see B.

v.

20 L.

J.

Bird and Others (1898), 42 Sol. J. 397.

1 Price, 182.

(6)

A.-G.

(c)

Collier v. Worth, 1

M.

0. 162,

{d)
(e)

and

V. Saggers,

and Milton

Gt. Eastern

v.

Ex. D. 464.

By. Co.

For existing law

See

Faversham, 10 B.
v.

-B. v. Cottle,

&

548

n.

Goldsmid (1884), 9 App. Gas. 927.

of Copyright, see 1

for a disquisition thereon, Clerk

& 2 Geo. V.

c.

46,

and Lindsell on Torts,

Chap. XXI.

Digitized

S.

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION OP PENAL LAWS,

481

" in any other manner," copy-

or otherwise, or

ing prints and engravings, applied to copying hy

photography, though that process was not in.

vented
passed

till

more than a century

after the

Bicycles were held to be

(a).

within the provision of the

**

Highway

Act was

carriages

"

Act, 1835,

though not so held for

taxing purposes (b), and tricyles propelled by
steam to be "locomotives" within the Locomotives Act, 1865, though not invented when
against furious driving,

those Acts were passed

imposed a penalty

(c).

Under an Act which

for selling bread otherwise

than

by weight, except bread " usually sold " under

the denomination of fancy bread, it was held
penal to sell bread which would have fallen
within the exception at the time when the Act
was passed, but which has since ceased to be
sold under the denomination of fancy bread
Gambart

(a)

v.

Ball,

0. B. N. S. 306, sup.

books or "literary works,"

(1898), 78 L. T. 613;

woolwork, Dicks
Exp.,

inf. p.

lists of

Gollis v. Cater

copy made by a pattern for

J.

Ch. 812.

Gomp. Beal,

491.

M.

0. 47.

M.

C.
v.

v.

Goodwin (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 228; 48 L.

Teignmouth, o.. Bridge Co. (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 204

V.

d.,

see an interesting disquisition on this case in Simpson

Taylor

(c)
;

Aliter a

Brooks, 49 L.

Williams v. Ellis (1880), 49 L. J.

(6)

104

v.

146

p.

Catalogues and

Graves v. Ashford, L. E. 2 C. P. 410.

articles for sale are

(d).

Preist (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 313

(d)

B.

V.

Wood, L. E.

50 L.

J.

Q. B. 559.

4.

Parkyns

Q. B. 648.

Comp. Aerated Bread

31

L8.

Digitized

J.

by Microsoft

482

INTBRPKETATION OF STATUTES.

The general
is

now under

principle

consideration

manner in

well exemplified by comparing the

which an omission which, it was inferable from

the text, was the result of accident, has been
generally dealt with in penal and in remedial Acts..
Thus, where the owner of mines was required,
under a penalty, in case (1) of loss of life in the
mine by accident, or (2) of personal injury arising
from explosion, to send notice of such accident
to an inspector within 24 hours "from the loss
of life" (omitting the

case of personal injury),

the Court refused to supply, in order to

make the

defendant Kable to a conviction, the obvious omission in the latter branch of the sentence,

that notice was not necessary

from explosion, short of

and held

when personal injury

loss of life,

had occurred

although the mention of such injury in the earlier

part of the sentence

was

idle

out such an interpolation

and insensible withSec.

{a).

28, 6

&

c. 63, which empowered inspectors to

"
examine weights, measures, and scales," in shops,
and if upon examination it appeared that " the

Will. IV.

said weights or measures " (omitting scales) were

Co. V.

Gregg (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 355, in which a conviction by

justices

was upheld, and

see also V. V.

Bread

Go. v. Stuhhs (1896),

74 L. T. 704.
(a)

Underhill v.

Williams

v.

Evans,

Longridge,
inf. p.

29

L.

J.

497.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

C.

65.

Comp.

CONSTEUCriON OF PENAL LAWS.

light or unjust, to seize them,

483

was held not to

authorise a seizure of scales (a) (but this decision

no longer good law (b)). The repealed Act of

William lY- relating to Municipal Corporations,

is

after

empowering the borough

justices to appoint

a clerk to the justices, provided that

be lawful to appoint to that

office

it

should not

any alderman or

and provided that the clerk should not

councillor,

prosecute any offender committed for trial, enacted

"
that any person " being an alderman or councillor

who

should act as clerk to the justices, or " shall

otherwise offend in the premises," should forfeit

100, recoverable by action. This clearly did not

who prosecuted offenders committed

reach a clerk

he were not an alderman or

councillor and yet the manifest intention seemed
to be that he should be subject to the penalty for

by the

justices, if
;

either or both offences, of acting

and

But

of prosecuting.

if

disqualified,

to effectuate this inten-

would have been necessary to interpolate

the words " any person who " before " shall otherand this the Court refused to do
wise offend "

tion, it

for the purpose of bringing a person within the

penal enactment

(c)

though

(a)

Thomas v. Stephenson, 22 L.

(b)

See 41 & 42 Vict.

(c)

Coev. Lawrance (1853), 22 L.

law, see 45

& 46

Vict.

c.

c.

49,

50,

Digitized

s.

s.

J,

also relieving

him

Q. B. 258.

48.
J.

Q. B. 140.

159.

by Microsoft

As

to existing

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

484

from indictment

(a).

So,

supply a casus omissus

the Court refused to

under

the

Vaccination

was an enactment creating an

If the statutes, in these cases, had
(&).
been remedial, the omission would probably have
Act, 1871, as

it

offence

been supplied (c).

The

rule of strict construction, however,

when-

ever invoked, comes attended with qualifications

and other rules no less important

and it is by
the light which each contributes that the meaning
must be determined {d). Among them is the rule
that that sense of the words is to be adopted
which best harmonises with the context, and
promotes in the fullest manner the policy and
object of the Legislature.
The paramount object,
;

in construing penal as well as other statutes,

is

to

and the rule of

strict construction is not violated by permitting
the words to have their full meaning, or the more
extensive of two meanings, when best effectuating
the intention (e).
They are, indeed, frequently
ascertain the legislative intent;

(a)

272.

Per Coleridge

J.

See also B.

See National Merc. Bank,

v.

Davis, L. E. 1 C. C. E.

(6)

15 Oh. D. 42, sup.

Broadhead v Holdsworth, 2 Ex. D. 321.

(c)

Be

(d)

Per

(e) Id.

Etcp.,

Wainewright, 1 Phil. 258, sup. p. 444.

Cur., U. S. v. Eartwell, 6 Wallace, 395.

396.

Digitized

by Microsoft

p. 31.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RULE.

485

taken in the widest sense, sometimes even in a

sense more wide than etymologically belongs or

is

popularly attached to them, in order to carry out

eflfeotually

the legislative intent,

or, to

use Lord

Coke's words, to suppress the mischief and advance

the remedy (a).

Thus, the Act which makes

damage a

to or

ship or vessel

it

(b)

felony to set

fire

has been construed

as including an open boat of 18 feet in length

Under the

(c).

a misdemeanour

which makes
knowingly to utter counterfeit coin is included a
genuine coin from which the milling has been filed
and replaced by another (d), but, on the other hand,
where there was no evidence of intention to utter
a counterfeit coin made up of two genuine coins
statute

it

and soldered together so as to constitute a

double headed piece, the statute was held inapplicable (e).
The possession of a die for making a
false stamp, known to be such by its possessor, is,
however innocent his intention, a possession
"without lawful excuse" within the Post Office
split

(a) Heydon's Case, sup. p. 123.

(6)

The term "vessel"

includes

any ship or

other description of vessel used in navigation

c.

boat, or

any

57 & 58 Vict.

742.

60,

s.

(c)

Semble per Patteson

J.,

B.

v.

Bowyer, 4 0.

Comp. Ferguson and Hutchinson, Exp., 40 L.

J. Q.

& P.

B. 105

559.
sup.

p. 131.

(d) B. V.
(e)

B.

V.

Hermann (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 284.

McWahon (1894), 15 N. S. W. (Law Reports), 131.

Digitized

by Microsoft

486

INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

(Protection)

Although the Act

running away from his

1884(a).

Act,

which punishes a man for

and " children," thereby leaving them charge-

wife

able to the parish, applies only to the desertion of

legitimate children, this rests, not on any indis-

depart from the strict and^ narrow

position to

meaning

of

the word, but on the ground that

the object of the Legislature was limited to the

enforcement of the man's legal obligation, which

did not extend to the support of his illegitimate

which made it a
criminal offence to take an unmarried girl from
the possession and against the will of her father
or mother, was held to apply to the case of a
natural daughter taken from her putative father (c)
children

(b).

But the

statute

wider construction obviously carried out

for the

more fully the aim and policy of the enactment.

The "taking from the possession " again, in the
(a) 47

& 48

Vict.

and re-enacted by
to

s.

c.

76,

65

(c),

repealed by 8

of that Act.

As

Edw. VII. c.

48,

to the law relating

the possession of certain specified forged dies and seals,

see 3
(h)

& 4 Geo. V. c. 27 Dickens

B. V. Maude (1842), 11 L.
:

Williams L.J,, Woolwich

Westminster

y.

whom

v.

v. Gill, [1896]

M.

J.

is illegitimate, is

C. 120,

2 Q. B. 310.

on which see per

Fulham, 75 L. J. K. B. 680, 681

Gerard, 2 Bulst. 346.

who runs away from

c.

s.

(c)

As to whether or not a man

and children, one or more of

not guilty of an offence under 5 Geo. IV.

his wife

see 20 J. P., p. 364.

83,

s. 3,

(c)

24 & 25 Vict.

See also B.

v.

c.

100,

s.

55

B.

v. Cornforth,

Eodnett, 1 T. E. 96.

Digitized

by Microsoft

2 Stra. 1162.

WIDE MEANING GIVEN TO WORDS.

487

same enactment,

is construed in the widest sense,

implying neither actual nor constructive force, and
extending to voluntary and temporary elopements

made with

the active concurrence of the ^rl

(a).

Lord Coke thought that burglary might be

committed in a church, because a church is the
mansion of God; but Lord Hale thought this
opinion only a quaint turn without any argument (b). It is now, however, provided by s. 27
of the Larceny Act, 1916 (6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 60),
that to break and enter a place of divine worship
a felony exactly analogous in character to the

is

breakiag and entering of a dwelling-house.

The

"breaking" required to constitute burglary includes acts which would not be so designed in
popular language; such as
cellar (c), or

lifting

the flap of a

puUing down the sash of a window (d),

(e), or even descending a chimney,

or raising a latch

much

for that is as

Lord Hale, who doubted whether the

permits (/ ).
(a)

B.

B.

115

(6)

E.

V.

Gox

377.
(d)
(e)

& K. 456 B.
;

0. 0. 279

B.

Timmins (1860), 30 L.

WrigM

v.

J.

B.

v. Ingle,

B.

V. Laterence,

V. Haines,
V. Jordan,

(/) 1 Hawk.

c.

Cox

0. 0. 167

ManUeloio, 22 L. J.

M.

16

Brown's Case, 2 Bast, P. C. 487

Gowp. B.

Kipps, 4

v.

M.

C.

C. 45.

See Folkestone Corp. v. Woodward (1872),

1 Hale, 556.

L. E. 15 Bq. 159
(c)

1 0.

V. Bobins,

V. Biswell,

closed as the nature of things

4 C.

&

B. D. 379.

R.

v. Bussell, 1

Moo. C. 0.

P. 231.

Euss. & Ey. 451.

7 C.

38,

s.

& P.

432.

4; B. v. Brice, Euss.

Digitized

by Microsoft

& Ey.

450.

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

488

was a breaking, was relieved from deciding

the point in the case before him, as it was elicited
that some bricks had been loosened in the thief's
latter act

descent, which sufficed to constitute a breaking (a).

Indeed, the burglar "breaks" into a house if he

gets admittance by inducing the inmate to open

the door by a trick, as by a pretence of business,
or

by raising an alarm

of fire (6).

"sent" when

it

is

whom

it

may pick it up (c) or

he may deliver it to B. (d)

is

threatening

letter

is

dropped in the way of the person for

destined, so that he

is

sent by A. that

or

some place where he would be likely

to see it (e)
or is placed on a public road near
his house, so that it may, however indirectly,
reach him, which it eventually does after passing
through several hands (/); or perhaps even if it
affixed in

is

does not reach the person addressed

in

none

of these cases

although
(g)
would the paper be popularly

have been " sent."

said to

person

who

writes

(a) 1 Hale, 552.

(b)

2 East, P. G. 485.

(c)

B.

1122

V. Jepson,

B.

and B.

V. Wagstaff,

B.

V.

B.

V. Williams,
V.

Lloyd (1767), 2 East, P. C. 1115,

Paddle (1822), E. & E. 484.

(d)
(e)

(/) B.

v.

Euss. & Ey. 398.

Cox

C. C. 16.

Grimwade, 1 Den. 30.

See also B.

C. C. 226.
{g)

B.

V.

Adams, 22 Q. B. D.

Digitized

66.

by Microsoft

v. Jones,

Cox

WIDE MEANING GIVEN TO WOBDS.

489

and publishes an article in a newspaper, intending

to encourage the murder of another person anywhere,

guilty

is

encouraging a person

of

murder, though the

To make

not addressed to

article is

any particular person

to

(a).

and thereby to bring

a train to a stand on a railway, was held to be
within the enactment which made it an offence
to " obstruct " a railway (6)
and an enactment
which makes it a misdemeanour to do anything
to obstruct an engine or carriage using a railway,
was held to include railways not yet open to
public traffic, and to apply though no engine
or carriage was obstructed (c).
The collection of alms on false and fraudulent
pretehces is an " immoral act " within the meaning
false signals,

of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892

habitual swearing and ribaldry

{d),

as is also

(e).

person "suffers" gaming to go on in his

house who purposely abstains from ascertaining,

{a)

244

(6)

Comp.

24 & 25 Vict.

50 L.
B.

V.

J.

M.

100,

c.

0. 113

B.

s.

v.

B.

v.

Most (1881), 7 Q. B. D.

Hadfield, L. E. 1 C. G. E. 253

Walker
J.

K. B. 77, with Betts

Gully

V.

Smith, 12 Q. B. D. 121.

(c)

B.

{d)

55 & 56

V.

A. G. 266.

Moore

v. Stevens,

Bradford, 29 L. J.
Vict.

c.

32,

s.

M.
;

B.

v.

Bastable v. Little,

79 L.

J.

K. B. 17.

See

G. 171.

v. Lee,

[1897] A. 0. 226.

Oxford (Bp.), [1904] A. C. 283.

Digitized

4.

Hardy, Id. 278.

Fitzmaurice v. Hesketh, [1904]

See also Beneficed aerk

v.

Q. B. D. 4

v. Horner, 1

76 L.

(e)

AntonelU (1906), 70 J. P.

by Microsoft

490

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

or

reach of seeing or
and he uses an instrument for the
goes

purposely

hearing

it (a)

out

of

game on

destruction of

Sunday, who sets a

snare on Saturday, and leaves

An Act which makes

it till

Monday

(6).

penal to " administer,"

it

"to cause to be taken," a noxious drug to

procure abortion, would be violated by one who
supplied such a drug to a woman, and explained
to her how it was to be taken, and she afterwards took it accordingly, in his absence (c).
or

And
to

man

supplies such a drug,

"knowing

be intended" to procure abortion,

if

it

he so

though the woman did not (d). To

supply beer at a public-house to a drunken man
would be to " sell " the liquor to him, although it
was ordered and paid for by a sober companion (e).
intended

(a)

it,

& 36

36

Vict. c. 94,

(Consolidation) Act, 1910

See Bond

v.

17, repealed

s.

Bedgate

Evans, 21 Q. B. D. 249

12 Q. B. D. 360, and Somerset

Massey
(6)

and comp. Somerset

v.

Hart,

See also Buther

Ex. D. 97.

V. Wilson,

26 L.

J.

M.

Camp. B.

V.

Henndh, sup.

B.

V.

Hillman, 33 L. J.

(d)

79, LicenBing

[1894] 2 Q. B. 412.

v. Morriss,

B.

s.

Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 574

Allen v. Thompson, L. E. 5 Q. B. 336.

V. Harris, 1
(c)

v.

by

Haynes, 1 Q. B. D. 89.

v.

M. C. 145.
35 & 36 Vict.

0. 18

B.

v.

Farrow, D. & B. 164.

p. 473.

M.

C. 60.

Gomp. B.

v. Fretwell,

31 L. J.
(e)

c.

94,

s.

13, repealed

s.

75, Licensing (Con-

solidation) Act, 1910; Scatchard v. Johnson, sup. p. 125.

Pletts V. Campbell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229,

and Badford

(1914), 78 J. P. 90.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

See

Williams

WIDE MEANING GIVEN TO WOKDS.

491

A repealed Act (a) which prohibited under a penalty

"the copying of a painting" without the owner's
leave was held to reach a photograph of an engraving which the proprietor of the painting had made
from it (6).

A
or

servant receives

on account

money " for

or in the

name

master" within the Act

embezzlement, who, having a cheque

against

of his

given to him in his

own name

for his master,

cashed by a person ignorant of the circumstances ; for though that person did not pay the

gets

it

money on account

of the master,

it

was enough

was received on his account (c). The Sale

of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, which makes it
penal to sell an adulterated article "to the
prejudice of the purchaser," would include a sale
to an officer who makes the purchase, not with
that

it

own money or for his own use, but with the

public money and for the purpose of analysis (d).
A man who fires from a highway at game, has
his

(a)

For existing law, see Copyright Act, 1911, and for a

and LindseU on Torts, Chap. XXI.

dis-

quisition thereon. Clerk

(6)

Beal, Exp., L. E. 3 Q.

387.

Comp. Oamhart

v.

Ball,

sup. p. 481.

Gale (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 141. Comp. B. v. Bead,

and see for definition of Larceny, 6 & 7 Geo. V.
sup. p. 471
(c)

B.

V.

c.

50.
(d)

cases

Eoyle

on

v.

Eitchman, 4 Q. B. D. 233.

this phrase,

sub

"

Prejudice

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and Supp.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See the numerous

of Pubchasee," in

INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

492

trespassed on the land of the owner of the soil

for the right of
on which the highway runs
way over the road is only an easement, and if
a man uses it for an unlawful purpose, he becomes
a trespasser (a). If he walks with a gun with
intent to kiU game, he "uses " the gun for that
purpose without firing, within the statute which
makes using a gun with that intent penal (b) and
;

the offence of " taking "

game

the

removed

snared,

is

(c).

game

is

complete when

though neither

killed

nor

"public place," too, has received

a very wide meaning in cases of nuisance

(d),

and

workhouse has been held to be a "pubUc

building" within the Factory and Workshop Act,
a

1891

(e).

who pays

person

goods by a cheque
on a bank where he has no assets is guilty of
" obtaining goods by false pretences
for in
"
for

(a)

inf.

Mayhew

& B. 860

4 B.

v.
;

Wardley, 14 0. B. N. S. 550; B. v. Pratt,

Harrison

Anne

(6) 6

and see

s.

(c)

(d)

c.

14,

s.

c.

B.

Will. IV.

c.

32,

s. 1,

v. King, 1 Sess. Ca. 88.

14 Peters, 464.

by 7 & 8 Geo. IV.

c.

27

B.

Euss. & Ey. 269.

See B.

& 2

repealed by 1

14, repealed

V.

Thallman, 33 L. J.

Stocking, L. E. 4 Q. B.
(e)

4,

v. Morris,

5 Geo. III.

V. Glover,

Butland (Duke), [1893] 1 Q. B. 142

23 of this latter Act

See also U. S.

20

v.

pp. 546, 647.

516

M.

C. 58.

Langrisli v. Archer,

See Golding

Bdw. VII. c. 22, s. 149 (1), Sched. VI., Part

End Guardians v. Hoare, [1903] 2 K. B. 483.

Mile

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

10 Q. B. D. 44.
1,

clause

WIDE MEANING GIVEN TO WORDS.

493

giving the cheque he impliedly represents that

he has authority from the bank to draw

that

it is

a good and valid order for

the amount

If,

(a).

it,

and

payment

of

however, a person at the time

he gives the cheque beKeves that it will be paid

on presentation he cannot be convicted of a false
pretence (&). But, on the other hand, if a person
promise to give (say) J6100 on the signature of a
note, there
viz.,

representation of an existing fact,

money was ready on

that the

the note

is a.

the delivery of

(c).

repealed Act (d) which imposed a penalty on

make a return of every

corn bought from them would be broken,

corn-dealers for omitting to

parcel of

though the unreturned

in writing as required

sales

were not evidenced

by the Statute of Frauds,

and therefore were not enforceable in a Court of

Justice

(e).

The enactment which punished with

transporta-

tion for Kfe every person, whether employed

by

the Postmaster-General, or by " any person under

him, or on behalf of the post-office," who stole

(a)

829.

e.

B.

V. Hazelton,

Oomp. B.

v.

B.

24 & 25 Vict.
s.

{d)

9 Geo. IV.
V.

v.

Parker, 7 G.

48 and Sched.

50,

B.

B.

&

P.

Walne (1879), 11 Gox 647, C. 0. E.

s. 90 repealed by 6 & 7 Geo. V.
c. 96, s. 90

(6)

(e)

Benson, 77 L. J. K. B. 644.

(c)

V.

44 L. J. M. C. 11

e.

B.

v. Gordon,

60, repealed

Townrow, 1 B.

& Ad.

Digitized

23 Q. B. D. 354.

by 5 & 6

Viet.

465.

by Microsoft

c.

14,

s. 1.

494

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

money

a letter with
a person
at

who

it,

was held

to include

gratuitously assisted a postmaster,

request, in

his

in

sorting the letters

The

(a).

which
disentitled a bankrupt to his certificate, if he had,
within a year of his bankruptcy, lost ^6200 by " any
contract " for the purchase or sale of Government

Bankrupt

Law

Consolidation Act,

1849,

was held to apply to one who

had lost that amount in the purchase of railway
" shares," and by several contracts (&).
The
employment of an English steam tug in towing a
or other " stock,"

prize to the captor's waters is a

breach of the

provision of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,

against " dispatching a ship to be employed in the
military or naval service of a foreign state " (c).

Where an Act

(7

&

8 Vict.

c.

15) {d) provided that

any accident occurred in a factory, causing an

if

injury to any person employed there, of such a

nature as to prevent his return to work at

on the next day,

a.m.

must, under a penalty, be

it

reported by the occupier of the factory to the

(a)

M.

B.

V.

C. 65.

Beason, 23 L. J.

Gomp. Martin

Edwards, 6th point, 7 B.

v.

&

M.

C. 11

B.

44 L.

v. Foulhes,

J.

Ford, 5 T. E. 101, and Bennett v.

C. 586.

Transportation

is

abolished,

see sup. p. 262.

(6)

Gopeland, Exp., 22 L. J. Bank. 17, sup. p. 479.

Hewitt

V. Price,

Comp.

sup. p. 479.

(c)

Dyhe

[d]

Eepealed 41 & 42 Vict.

v. Elliott (1872),

Digitized

L. E. 4 P. C. 184
c.

16,

s.

107.

by Microsoft

41 L.

J.

Adm. 65

WIDE MEANING GIVEN TO WORDS

was
accidents, whether

surgeon and the sab-inspeotor

district

held that the Act applied to

all

495
;

it

caused by the machinery of the factory or otherwise and that the sufferel' was prevented from
" returning to his work " next day, within the
;

meaning

although he did return for

of the Act,

that purpose, but was unable to work

(a).

Certain repealed sections of the Corrupt Practices

Prevention Act, 1854, which declared that whoever, " directly or indirectly,"

person to induce
"

makes a

gift to a

to " endeavour to procure

him

any person to Parliament shall be

deemed guilty of bribery, were held to extend to

the return
a gift

made

of

to induce its recipient to vote for the

giver at a preliminary test ballot, held for the

purpose of selecting one of three candidates to be
proposed when the election came. In voting for

the giver at the test ballot, the voter indirectly

" endeavoured to procure " his return at the
election

An

(6).

enactment which prohibited any

officer

con-

cerned in the administration of the poor laws

from " supplying for his own profit " any goods

"ordered" to be "given" in parochial relief to

any person, was held to reach a guardian whose
partner had, with knowledge of the facts, sold a
(a)

Lakeman

(6) Britt V.

v. Stephenson,

L. E. 3 Q. B. 192.

Bobinson (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 503. Certain sections

repealed by 46 & 47 Vict.

c.

Digitized

56

note

ss. 1,

by Microsoft

2 and 3 of this Act.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

496

bedstead to the relieving

delivery to

parish for

on behalf

officer

of the

although the

a pauper;

guardian was ignorant of the transaction, the bedstead had not been " ordered " by the guardians (a),

and

it

was only

relief (6).

An

lent,,

"given"

not

officer of a local

in parochial

board,

who was

shareholder in a company having a contract with

the board, was held to be " interested in a bargain
or contract " with the board, within the

and

of the Public Health Act, 1875,

penalty imposed by that statute

Sec. 78,
if

Highway Act,

any person

(1) riding

meaning

liable to the

(c).

1835, which enacted that

a horse, or (2) driving a

carriage, rode or drove furiously, "every person so

offending " should be liable on conviction before

" the driver " was not

"
the owner of the carriage, and 10 if " the driver
a magistrate to forfeit 5,

if

was the owner (not mentioning the rider), was

construed as making tjie rider, who was not the

owner of the horse,

(a)

25 L.
(6)

Greenhow
J.

v.

Parker, 31 L. J. Ex. 4.

(c)

Bavies

v.

Harvey, sup. p. 337

38 & 39 Vict.

739; Nutton

v.

L. J.

v.

Kay,

c.

Stanley v. Dodd, 1 D.

& E.

Manwaring, sup. p. 299.

v.

55,

s.

Wilson, 22

[1900] 1 Q. B. 279.

735

See Woolley

Ex. 351.

Gomp. Proctor

397.

as well as the driver, liable

193

Todd

v.

BoUnson, 14 Q. B. D.
Barnacle v. Clark,

Q. B. D. 744;

See further, Burgess

v. Glark,

Whiteley v. Barley, 57 L. J. Q. B. 643

M.

0. 164

Gox

V.

B.

14 Q. B. D.

v. Whiteley,

Ambrose, 60 L. J. Q. B. 114.

Morris, App., Howden, Eesp., [1897] 1 Q. B. 378.

Digitized

by Microsoft

58

Gomp.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL ACTS,

497

as providing, in other words, that while the

of a carriage

was

offender in all the other cases mentioned

to

owner

liable to a penalty of ^10, the

was

liable

(a).

An Act (6) which made

it

felony riotously to de-

molish, pull down, or destroy, or begin to demolish,

pull down, or destroy, a church or dwelling,

would
not reach a case where the demolition had not
gone beyond movable shutters not attached to
the freehold for whatever might have been the
intent of the rioters, this was not a beginning of
the demolition of the house to which the shutters
belonged (c) nor would a partial demolition of the
;

building be a " beginning to demolish " within the

Act,

if

not done with the intention of completing

But

it {d).

if

the structure were in

all

substantial

respects destroyed, the offence would be included in

the Act, although some portion,

as, for instance, a

chimney, had been suffered to remain uninjured

Nor would

(e).

be considered as beyond the operation

it

Evans (1876), 1 Ex. D. 277, ovemding B. v.

Bacon, 11 Oox 0. 0. 540 ; Chatterton v. Parker (1914), 78 J. P.
Williams

(a)

Comp. UnderMll

339.
(6)

v.

& 8 Geo. IV.

v.

c.

to existing law, see 24

B.

V.

L. J.

M.

C. 113

{d)

B.

5 C. &
(e)

& 25

Vict.

Howell (1839), 9 C.

(c)

V.

Longridge, sup. p. 482.

30 (repealed by 24 & 25 Yiot.

Edleston

v.

V.

P. 437

M.

As

Drahe

v. Footitt,

0. 73.
J.

B.

QO

"^^

I.S.

by Microsoft

v. Price,

7 Q. B. D. 201.

Langford, Car. & M. 602.

Digitized

95).

Pilcher v. Stafford, 33

Barnes, 45 L. J.

c.

97, s 11.

Thomas, 4 G. & P. 237, per Littledale

P. 510, per Tindal O.J.

B.

&

c.

498

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

of the Act,

if

fire;

for

the demolition had been effected by

although arson

by a

Some

different

is

a distinct felony provided

enactment

(a).

of the decisions relative to the theft of

seem to convey a fair impression of the

spirit in which criminal statutes have been construed.
As neither land nor mere rights were
capable of being stolen, it was early established
that title deeds relating to lands, and written contracts, which were mere rights or the evidences
writings

To
but when

of rights, were not the subjects of larceny.

worth a shilling was felony

^610,000 added to its value by what was
written on it, it was no offence at common law
steal a skin

it

had

away; and a person who broke into

a house at night with the intention of stealing a
mortgage deed would not have been guilty of
felony, for the theft was not a felony, but a misdemeanour only (6). Most of these anomalies have,
however, been removed by the Larceny Act, 1916.
But even before the passing of this Act a paper
Hke a pawnbroker's ticket, indicating not a mere
to take it

right of action, but a right to a specific personal

chattel of

which the holder of the

regarded as in possession
and B.

(for

& M.

B.

(6)

Arg. in B. v. Westheer, 2 Stra. 1133

& Ey. 12

Harris,

B.

v. Poioell,

v. Simpson,

21 L.

J.

M.

0.

C. 78.

0. 50, s. 7.

Digitized

may be

the possession of the

(a)

V.

ticket

by Microsoft

B.

661, 669.
v.

Pooley, Euss.

See 6 & 7 Geo. V.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL ACTS.

pawnor

499

his possession for the purpose of an

is

indictment), would be the subject of larceny

And

(a).

a like rule obtained in the case of a railway

ticket,

The

obtained by false pretences.

ticket

being evidence of a right to be carried on the

railway (b). But an Act which punished an agent

who, in violation of good

and contrary to

faith,

the purpose of his trust, sold, negotiated, trans-

any manner converted to

ferred, pledged, or in

his

own

"
use " any chattel or valuable security

with which he was entrusted, would not include a

policy of insurance entrusted to

him

for collection

for it is neither a chattel capable of sale or barter,

nor yet a valuable security,

for this implies that

money is payable irrespectively of any contingency

and

it is

not capable of being sold, negotiated,

transferred, or pledged

The tendency
whole,

to

is

of

narrow

between what

is

construction.

All

(a)

B.

L. J.

M.

(h)

B.

(c).

modern

V. Morrison,

decisions,

statutes

28 L.

the

difference

and a

beneficial

now

construed

materially

called a strict

M.

J.

upon the

are

See B.

0. 210.

v.

FitcMe, 26

C. 90.
V. Boulton,

19 L. J.

M.

0. 67

B.

v.

Beeeham, 5 Cox

See Marha v. Benjamin, 9 L. J. M. C. 20.

C. C. 181.
repealed by 1 Edw. VII.
(c) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 75,

which

is

now

Tatloch, 2 Q.

repealed by 6

B. D. 167

&

Geo. V.

c.

50,

which

see.

c.

10,

B.

v.

but in this case there was a remarkable

division of opinion of the judges.

Digitized

by Microsoft

500

INTEEPJBETATION OF STATUTES.

with a more attentive regard to the language, and

more

criminal statutes with a

rational regard to

the aim and intention of the Legislature, than

It is unquestionably right that the dis-

formerly.

tinction should not be altogether erased from the

mind

judicial

(a)

of

all

liberty

by the

for it is required

the

of our free institutions that

spirit

interpretation

statutes should be favourable to personal

(&)

and

tendency

this

is

still

evinced in a

certain reluctance to supply the defects of language,

or to eke out the

meaning

of an obscure passage

strained or doubtful inferences

(c).

The

by

effect of

the rule of strict construction might almost be

summed up
word

or

doubt of

in the remark, that where an equivocal

ambiguous sentence leaves a reasonable
its meaning which the canons of interpre-

tation fail to solve, the benefit of the doubt should

and against the Legis-

be given to the subject,

lature which has failed to explain itself {d).

it

yields to the
(a)
(6)
(c)

(d)

Per Pollock C.B., Nicholson

v. Fields,

Per Lord Abinger, Henderson

Per Story J., The Industry, 1
See Hull Dock Co.

v.

28 L.

J.

v.

31 L. J. Ex. 233.

Sherborne, 2

M. & W.

239.

Gall. 117.

Browne, 36 E. E. 459

C. B., Nicholson v. Fields, sup.

Fletcher,

But

paramount rule that every statute

per Pollock

and per Bramwell

B., Foley v.

Ex. 106; Puff L. N.

Barb,
Ex. D. 484; Secretary of State for India v.
Scohle, [1903] A. G. 299
East Indian By. Go. v. Secretary of
State for India, [1905] 2 K. B. 413, C. A.
Gomp. Ghadwick v.
b. 5, c. 12, s. 5,

n. 4; Leiois v. Carr, 1

Pearl Life Insurance

Co.,

[1905] 2 K. B. 507.

Digitized

by Microsoft

STATUTES ENCROACHING ON EIGHTS.

501

to be

expounded according to its expressed or

(a)
and that all oases within
the mischiefs aimed at are, if the language permits,
is

manifest intention

to be held to fall within its remedial influence

SECTION

II.

{h).

STATUTES ENCROACHING ON EIGHTS,

OE

IMPOSING BUEDENS.

Statutes which encroach on the rights of the

subject,

whether

as regards person or property, are

similarly subject to a strict construction in the

sense before explained.

It is a recognised

that they should be interpreted,

if

rule

possible, so as

to respect such rights

(c).
It is presumed, where
the objects of the Act do not obviously imply such

an intention, that the Legislature does not desire

to confiscate the property, or to encroach upon the
right of persons
and it is therefore expected
;

that

if

such be

intention,

its

it

will manifest

plainly, if not in express words, at least

implication, and beyond reasonable doubt

4 Inst. 330

(6)

Fennell v. Biddler, 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 207

sup. p. 500.

See

The Sussex' Peerage, 11

B.

ex. gr.

Middleton, 1 Wils. 126

Walton, 3 0. P. D. 109

(c)

Per Bowen

L.J.,

May

B.

v.

Hough

{d) Western Counties By. Co.

App.

Cas., at p.

188

01.

v.
v.

The Industry,

447

James, 2 B.

&

G. W. By.

Co.,

S.

61

Wynne

v.

Smith

v.

L. E. 7 Q. B.

Adams, 22 Q. B. D. 66.
v.
v.

Windus, 12 Q. B. D. 224.

Windsor and Annapolis By.

Commissioners of Public Works

Digitized

It

(d).

F. 143.

v. Charretie, 13 Q. B.

Archer

384, per Gockburn C.J.

&

(a)

it

by clear

by Microsoft

v.

Co.,

Logan,

502
is

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

a proper rule of construction not to construe an

Act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring

persons' rights, without compensation, unless one
is

obHged

local

so to construe it

(a).

Harbour Act, which imposed a penalty

who placed articles " on any

on " any person "

quay, wharf, or landing place, within 10 feet of

the quay head, or on any space of ground immediately

said haven,

adjoining the

within 10 feet

from high- water mark," so as to obstruct the free

passage over

it,

was held to apply only to ground

over which there was already a pubHo right of way,

but not to private property not subject to any such

and in the occupation of the person who

placed the obstruction on it (6). Notwithstanding
the comprehensive nature of the general terms
used, it was not to be inferred that the Legislature
contemplated such an interference with the rights

right,

See also jjer Bramwell L. J., Wells

[1903] A. C. 355.

Tilbury By. Co., 5 Oh. D. 130

L. E. 6 Gh. 467

App. Gas. 513

London
Co.,

&

Be,

v.

Milman, L. E. 4 C.,P. 113; Green

Sheil, Exp., 4

Gh. D. 789

per

Bowen

v. B.,

L.J.,

153 ; per Lord Esher M.E., Buhe of

O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D. 473, referring to the judgment

v. Blair, 45 Gh. D.

Devonshire v.
of

v.

per MeUish L.J., Lundy

per James L.J., Jones, Exp., L. E. 10 Ch. 663

per Cur., Bandolph

Bendall

Cockburn

G.J.,

Sowerhy

v.

(a)

Per Brett M.E., A.-G.

(6)

Harrod

v.

Smith, L. E. 9 0. P. 524.
v.

Horner, 14 Q. B. D. 257.

See also Wells v.

London

&

M.

G. 165, diss.

Wightman

J.

Tilbury By. Co., sup.

Yarmouth

v.

Worship, 30 L. J.

Simmons, 10 Gh. D. 518.

Digitized

by Microsoft

STATUTES IMPOSING BURDENS.

503

of property as would have resulted from construing

the words as creating a right of way.

The Partnerwhen

ship Act of 1865(a), which provided that

a loan to a trader bore interest varying with the

profits

of the

the trader

trade,

the leader should not,

if

became bankrupt,

"recover" until
the claims of the other creditors were satisfied,
did not deprive the creditor of any rights acquired

by mortgage. Though he could not recover, he

was entitled to retain (b).

On

this

Limitation

ground,
are

it

be

to

would seem. Statutes of

construed

The
demand is

strictly.

defence of lapse of time against a just

not to be extended to cases which are not clearly
within the enactment; while provisions which
give exceptions to the operation of such enact-

ments are to be construed hberally (c).

Statutes which impose pecuniary burdens, also,

are subject to the

same

rule of strict construction.

It is a well-settled rule of

law that

(a)

28 & 29

Viofc. c.

88, ss. 1, 5.

Ee-enaeted by

& 54 Vict. c.
Edw. VII. c. 24,

Partnership Act, 1890, 53

limited partnerships
(6) Slieil, Exp.,

by 7

46 L.

J.

Bank.

s. 3.

clear

ss.

and

(d), 3,

Applied to

s. 7.

62.

(c)

See the judgment of Lord Cranworth

De

G. &

J. 1.

Digitized

39,

charges

all

upon the subject must be imposed by

by Microsoft

in

Boddam

v.

Morley,

504

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

unambiguous language, because in some degree

they operate as penalties

subject

is

not

the language of the statute

to be taxed unless
clearly imposes the

obligation

(6).

construc-

example, which would have the effect of

tion, for

making

The

(a).

pay the same tax twice

in respect of the same subject matter would not
be adopted unless the words were very clear and
precise to that effect (c).
In a case of reasonable
doubt the construction most beneficial to the
a person liable to

Thus, in estimating
"
a bank manager's
total income from all sources,"

subject

is

to be adopted {d).

ascertaining whether he

the purpose of

for

entitled to partial

from income tax, the

Per Bayley J., Derm v. Diamond, 4 B. & C. 243 per Park

(a)

Doe

relief

V. Snaith,

is

J.,

8 Bing. 152; per Parke B., Harris v. Birch, 9

M. & W. 594 Sneezum v. Marshall, 7 M. & W. 419 per Meld J.,

B. V. Barclay, 8 Q. B. D. 306 Partington v. A.-G., L. E. 4 H. L.
;

100, applied
Bev.,

80 L.

240, C. A.

J.

by Hamilton

J. in

Northumberland (Duke')

K. B. 875, reversed on appeal (1911), 81 L.

Oriental

Bank

Angus, 23 Q. B. D. 579

Wright, 5 App. Cas. 842

v.
;

per Hamilton

v. Inl.

J.

Ird.

K. B.

Bev. v.

Lanston Monotype

J.,

Corp. V. Anderson, 80 L. J. K. B. 951.

(6)

Per Cur., Hull Dock

Pollock C.B., Nicholson

Gas

Co.,

(c)

11 G. B. N.

Carr

v.

S.

Co. v.

v. Fields,

579

Browne, sup. p. 500; per

sup. p. 500

Parry

v.

Croydon

15 Id. 568.

Fowle, [1893] 1 Q. B. 251.

Per Lord Lyndhurst, Stockton By. Co. v. Barrett, 11 01. &

P. 602 per Parke B., Micklethwait, Be, 11 Ex. 456 per Lindley
(d)

L.J., Thorley,

Canal

Co.,

Be, [1891] 2 Ch. 613; Pryce

4 App. Cas. 197.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Monmouthshire

STATUTES IMPOSING BURDENS.

505

yearly value of his free residence in the bank

premises, where he is bound to reside, is not to be
taken into account as " income " (a). The provision of

3.

32,

1881, that if

it

Customs and Inland Revenue Act,

shall be discovered that the personal

estate of a deceased person

was undervalued at the

time of probate, " the person acting in the administration of the estate shall deliver a farther

with an account duly stamped, with the

affidavit

amount

of excess duty

paid in the

first

which ought to have been

instance,"

does not apply to

who have completed the duties of administration (b).

Where land employed as the site of
persons

an almshouse was, on that account, declared by

two successive statutes to be exempt from land

had since been applied

to the same charitable purpose, and the original
land had been, by order of the Court of Chancery,
directed to be held by the trustees of the charity
tax, the fact that other land

to their

own use,

not render

from its charitable trusts, did

even in the hands of a tenant,

free

it liable,

to the taxation from

which

it

had been previously

(a) Tennant v. i^mith, [1892] A. 0. 150.

See also Secretary of

Slate for India v. Scohle, [1903] A. C. 299, on which see East

v. Secretary for India, 74 L. J. K. B. 779, and Ghadwich
Pearl Life Assurance, 74 L. J. K. B. 671 A.-O. of British

India By.
V.

Columbia
(fc)

v.

Ostrum, [1904] A. C. 144.

44 & 45 Vict.

L. J. Q. B. 288;

c.

Nmn's

12,

s.

32; A.-6.

Estate, In

Digitized

re,

v.

Smith (1892), 62

[1894] 1 Ir. E. 252,

by Microsoft

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

506

exempt (a). So, an Act which imposed a stamp

on every writing given on the payment of money,
"whereby any sum, debt, or demand" was "acknowledged to have been paid, settled, balanced,
or otherwise discharged " was held not to extend
to a receipt given on the occasion of a

deposited

(6).

sum being

If one instrument be incorporated,

words would not be

counted as part of the incorporating deed for the
purpose of stamp duty, under an Act imposing a

by

reference, in another, its

duty according to its length on the instrument,

" together with every schedule, receipt, or other

annexed
thereto " (c). Where an Act (c?) imposed a stamp
duty on newspapers, and defined a newspaper as
comprising " any paper containing public news, intelligence, or occurrences
to be dispersed and
made public," and also " any paper containing any
public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any
matter

put

or

endorsed

thereon,

(a) Cox V. Babbits, 3 App. Cas. 473

Hudgell (1900), 70 L. J. K. B. 115.
(6) Tomkins v.

Wroughton

v.

Aslby (1827), 6

Turtle,

13 L.

Hutchinson (1828), 7 B.
(c)

&

J.

or

St.

Thomas's Hospital

B. & C. 541.

Ex. 57

See

v.

also

Mullett v. Huchison or

C. 639.

Fishmongers^ Co. v. Dimsdale, 12 C. B. 557.

duty for length

(in addition to ad. vol. duty,

gressive duty ")

was imposed by 55 Geo.

The stamp
and called " pro-

III. c. 184,

and was

continued by the subsequent Stamp Acts until the Stamp Act,

1870.
(d)

&

7 Will. IV.

c.

76, repealed

Digitized

by 33 & 34 Vict, c 99.

by Microsoft

507

STATUTES IMPOSING BURDENS.

remarks or observations thereon

published

periodically or in parts or numbers, at intervals not

exceeding 26 days," and not exceeding a certain

was held that a publication, the main object

which was to give news, but was published at
intervals of more than 26 days, was not liable to
the stamp duty as a newspaper (a). An Act which
imposes a stamp duty on "every charter-party,
or memorandum, or other writing between the
captain or owner of a vessel and any other
person relating to the freight or conveyance of
goods on board," does not extend to a guarantee
for the due performance of a charter-party (b).
And yet, where an Act, (c) after imposing a stamp
size

it

of

on contracts, exempted those which were made

relative to the sale of goods, a guarantee for the

payment

on such a sale was held

the same words
included in the exemption (d)
being susceptible of meaning different things when
used to impose a tax, or to exonerate from it (e).
The Act, 6 cfe 7 Vict. c. 36 (/), which exempts from
of the

price

(a) A.-G. V.
(6)

&6

Bradbury (1851), 21 L,

Vict. c. 79,

s.

Ex. 12.

J.

2 and Sohed.

Bein

v.

Lane (1867),

L. E. 2 Q. B. 144.
(c)

23 Geo. III.

(d)

Warrington

(e)
SOT,

c.

v.

58,

s. 4,

repealed S. L. E., 1861.

Furhor (1807), 8 East, 242.

Per Blackburn

J.,

L. E. 2 Q. B. 147, citing Curry

3 T. E. 527, and Warrington v. Furhor, sup.

tage v. Wilkinson, 3

(/)

App. Gas. 355.

Amended by 59 & 60

Digitized

Vict. c. 25, ss. 2-4.

by Microsoft

v.

Eden-

See also Army-

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

508

rating the buildings of certain societies, provided

they are supported wholly or in part by " voluntary

contributions," applies only where the payments
are a gratuitous offering for the benefit of others,

and are not the price of an advantage purchased

by the contributor {a)
the payments must be
"a gift made from disinterested motives for the
benefit of others " (b).
Lord Ellenborough re;

marked that the cases to which a duty attached

ought to be fairly marked out, and that a liberal
construction ought to be given to words of exception
confining the operation of the duty
observed, however, that

all

(c).

It is to

be

exemptions from taxa-

burden on other members of the

community, and should therefore be deprecated (d).
At the same time, such Acts, Hke penal Acts,
are not to be so jconstrued as to furnish a chance
of escape and a means of evasion (e).
The Stamp
Act, 1870, which imposed (s. 3 and Schedule) an
ad valorem duty on Settlements by which " any
tion increase the

(o)

Per Lord Hersohell, Savoy

London, [1896] A. C. 296.

(Overseers) v. Art

See also A.-G.

Union of

v. Ellis (1895),

64

L. J. Q. B. 813.
(6)
St.

Per Lord Campbell

0. J., Bussell Institution v. St. Giles and

George, Bloomsbury, 23 L. J.

M.

(c)

Warrington

(d)

Per Lord Halsbury L.C.,

v. Furhor, sup. p.

C. 65.

507.

Inl.

Bev. v. Forrest, 15 App.

Gas. 334.
(e)

V.

U. S. V. Thirty-six Barrels of Wine, 7 Blatchf. 459.

Furness By. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 267.

Digitized

by Microsoft

A.-G.

STATUTES IMPOSING BURDENS.

and certain amount of stock

definite

obviously applied although

509
settled,"

is

the interests in the

stock were contingent and defeasible, where the

amount

was

and certain {a).

Indeed, as in criminal statutes, the widest meaning is given to the language when needful to
of the stock

eJBfectuate

definite

For

the intention of the Legislature.

instance, in one of the

Church Building Acts,

which enacted that the "repairs" of district
churches might be provided for by a rate on the
district, the word "repairs" was construed as
comprising not only reparation of the structure,
but

incidental matters necessary for the due

performance of service, such as lighting, cleaning,
stationery, and organist's salary (6).
In America,
all

revenue laws are not regarded as penal laws in

the sense that requires them to be construed with

They

strictness in favour of the defendant.

regarded rather in their remedial character

are

as in-

tended to prevent fraud, suppress public wrong, and

promote the public good

and are so construed as

to most effectually accomplish those objects

(a)

33 & 34 Viot.

Onslow

c.

V. Inl. Bev.,

97

repealed 54

& 55

[1891] 1 Q. B. 239

Vict.

c.

39,

(c).

s.

123

Bev. v. Oliver

Inl.

(1909), 78 L. J. P. 0. 146; Massereene (Viscount) v. Inl. Bev.,

[1900] 2
(6)

wick,

B.

Ir.

E. 138.

V. Consistory Court,

15 L.

J. Q.

31 L. J. Q. B. 106.

B. 306, sup.

p.

127

A.-G.

v.

6 Q. B. D. 216; Thorley, Be, [1891] 2 Ch. 613.

(c)

Cliquot's

Champagne, 3 Wallace, 145.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See B.

v.

War-

& N.

W.

By.,

L.

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

510

which inflict
costs are to be construed strictly, on the ground
There
that such costs are a kind of penalty (a).
been said that

It has

is

all

statutes

authority in support of the proposition.

the other hand, the power of ordering the

little

On

had been sometimes construed

on the principle of beneficial and liberal construction; as where, for instance, they have been
imposed on persons who were strangers to an
action of ejectment, but at whose instance it was

payment

of costs

brought or defended

(b).

Enactments, also, which impose forms and

solemnities on contracts on pain of invalidity,
are construed so as to be as little restrictive as
It

possible of the natural liberty of contracting.

(a)

Coney. Bowles, ISaik. 205.

BeeperMellov J., Cohb v. Mid-

L. E. 1 Q. B. 351.

There has been no strictness

Wales By.

Co.,

in the interpretation of

Act, 1893 (56

solicitor

and

& 57

s.

client, to

PubUc Authorities Protection

(6),

Vict. c. 61),

which gives

between

costs, as

a successful defendant in an action for an

act done in pursuance of a statutory or other public duty or

See Fielden

authority.

v. Morley,

Ossett, 67 L. J. Ch. 347

Metrop. Tramways Co.

Chamberlain

v.

v.

Toms

69 L.

Ch. 314

J.

London

67 L. J.

Co. Co.,

Bradford, 88 L. T. 518; Lyles

74 L. J. K. B. 484

Gilbert v. Gosport

Harrop

78 L. T. 712

v. Clacton,

North

Ch. 449;

v. Southend-on-Sea,

and Alverstohe U. D. C,

[1916] 2 Ch. 587.

(6)

Hutchinson v. Greenwood, 24 L. J. Q. B. 2

denhrande, 33 L. J. Q. B. 177.

N.

S.

391

Comp: Evans

Anstey v. Edwards, 16 C. B. 212

7 L. J. Ex. 256.

See also B.

Digitized

v.

Mohhs

v. Bees,

Van-

Hayioardv. Giffard,

Pemhridge, sup. p. 45.

by Microsoft

v.

9 C.

STATUTES REGULATING INSTRUMENTS.

511

was in allusion to the Statute of Frauds that Lord

Nottingham said that all Acts which restrain the

common

law, that

is,

unknown

restrictions

apparently, which impose

common

to the

law, ought

themselves to be restrained in exposition (a). The

Statute of Frauds, which enacts that no action

shaU be brought on contracts (s. 4), or that the

contracts shall not be good (s. 17) (6), unless
"the agreement or some note or memorandum
thereof shall be in writing and signed by the
party to be charged therewith, or some other
person thereunto by him lawfully authorised,"
has given rise to many decisions, apparently in
Thus, although

this spirit.

unquestionably

is

it

necessary that aU the essential elements of the

contract shall appear

matter

subject

the parties

s.

(a)

Ash

Now, the

the

and

{d),
it

is

not

Ahdy, 3 Swanst. 664.

V.

Sale of

where the words

4,

consideration

has been held that

it

(e),

(6)

the

(c),

such as

writing,

in

Goods

Act, 1893 (56

are, " shall

(c) SJiardlow V. CoUerell (1881),

Colliery v. Furness,

& 57

Vict.

c. 71),

not be enforceable by action."

20 Ch. D. 90; Vale of Neath

45 L. J. Oh. 276

Marshall

v.

Berridge, 19

Frost,

In re (1898),

Ch. D. 238.
{d)

Wain

V.

Warltera (1864), 7 R. E. 645

67 L. J. Ch. 691.
(e)

Williams v. Lake, 29 L. J. Q. B. 1

Moo. P. C. N.
V.

S.

154

Williams

London and Paris Hotel

s. 7,

30 Vict.

c.

Co.,

v.

Williams

L. E. 20 Eq. 412.

23 (repealed 54 & 55 Vict.

Digitized

Byrnes, 1

v.

Jordan, 6 Ch. D. 517

by Microsoft

c.

39,

and

Beer

See under
practically

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

512

necessary that they should be contained in any

formal document (a), A note or letter, by the

party to be charged, stating the material particulars, verbally accepted, sufl&ces

by a number of

is satisfied, also,

The

(&).

statute

letters or other

documents connected either physically, by being

fastened together (c), or by their own internal
evidence,

if all

the elements of the contract

may

be collected from the whole correspondence (c?).

envelope shown by evidence to have enclosed

An
a

to the

letter relating

re-enacted by

s.

10 Gh. 542.

Comp. Edwards

rSo) Gray

v.

93

of this Act)

Arthur Average Assoc, Be, L. E.

v.

Aberayron Socy., 1 Q. B. D. 563.

Smith, 43 Oh. D. 208; Barkworth v. Young, 26

on which see per Jessel M.E., Trowell

8 Oh. D. 324; Hoyle, Be, 62 L.J. Ch. 182; Jones

L. J. Oh. 153,

Dock

Beazely, 3 Atk. 503

V. Eastings,

Kenworthy

(c)

10 E. E. 450; Dolell

v. Powell,

Gommins

7 Ch. D. 60

way

V.

Ex. 81

v.

Bishton v.

Asprey, 13 Ch. D. 855;

26 E. E. 600.

40 E. E. 258

v. Hutchinson,

Ainsworih, 31 L. J. Ex. 448

Crane

v.

Welford

7 Q. B. D. 125.
v. Schofield,

(d) Shorfrede v. Cheek,

Shenton,

v. Victoria

17;

527, pi.

Bill v. Bament, 11 L. J.

Whatmore, 8 Ch. D. 467; Munday

70

v.

Co., inf. p. 515.

(6) Coleman v. TTpcot, 5 Vin. Ab.

Gave

supply

can

contract,

L. E. 4 0.

Morris

P 123

Boydell

v.

Drummond,

42 E. E. 408;

v. Wilson,

Bonnewell

v. Scott,

L. E. 20 Eq. 11

Beckwith

v. Talbot,

v. Jenkins,

Kronheim

Watts

v.

5 Jur. N. S. 168

5 Otto, 289 (U.

8 Ch. D.

v. Johnson,

S.).

See Bidg-

Wharton, 6 H. L. Cas. 238, cited in Jones v. Victoria Bock

Co., sup.;

Studds v. Watson, 28 Oh. D. 305; Hussey

Payne, 4 App. Cas. 311

Ch. D. 616

Bellamy

v.

Bristol Aerated

Bread

Debenham, 45 Ch. D. 481.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Home-

Co. v. Maggs, 44

STATUTES REGULATING INSTRUMENTS.

name

the

memorandum

party to the

of

A letter from

writing (a).

513
in

the purchaser addressed

to a third person, stating the terms of the contract

and
which

one from

(6),

seller,

the

setting

after

purchaser

forth

the

to

terms

its

re-

pudiated the contract, have been held sufficient

notes or
statute

memoranda

gone very
parties

of the bargain to satisfy the

has been said that the cases have

It

(c).

far in

together,

putting the correspondence of

a

constitute

to

memorandum

becomes
what the
was, in order to determine whether

to satisfy the statute

(c?).

Indeed, as

it

in such a case, to inquire

necessary,

contract really

the informal papers constitute a written note of

it,

it

may

be said that the very evil

against which

the statute

So although
to the

it

is

let in

is

(e).

necessary that the parties

contract should be sufficiently described

identification (/),

admit of their

to

aimed

is

it

not

(a) Pearce v. Gardner, [1897] 1 Q. B. 688.

(6)

Gibsm

14th ed.

v.

Hollmd, L. E. 1 C. P.

Sugd. V.

1.

See also Hoyle, Be, [1893] 1 Oh. 84

&

P. 139,

Hollmd, In

re

(1902), 71 L. J. Oh. 518.

(c)

Bailey

v. Sweeting,

35 L. J. C. P. 224
{d)
(e)

30 L. J. G. P. 150

Buxton

v.

Wilkinson v. Evans,

Bust, 41 L. J. Ex.

1,

173.

Per Pollock C.B., McLean v. Nicoll, 7 Jur. N. S. 999.

Per Channell B., Id. See ex. gr. BisUon v. Whatmore,

8 Oh. D. 467.
Champion v. Plimmer
(/) Gharlewood v. Bedford, 1 Atk. 497 ;
Joyner
Bros.
v.
(1900), 82 L. T. 768 ;
Jones
795
E.
;
(1805), 8 E.
Williams v. Lake, sup. p. 511.

33

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

514

INTEEPBETATION OP STATUTES.

necessary that they should be described by name.

It has been held, for instance, that a contract

by the auctioneer, as " the agent

of the proprietor," or of "the trustee for the

of sale signed

sale " of the property sold, sufficiently described

though a contract similarly " signed

by the agent of the vendor " has been held not to
the seller

(a)

suffice (6)

who

for a

mere assertion that the person

the seUer,

sells is

obviously not a description

is

of the seller, nor tends to his identification.

more recent decisions

somewhat open to question (c).

in view of

But

this proposition is

Again, as regards the signing or subscribing an

instrument as party or witness, the enactments

which require these formalities have been con-

The

strued with similar indulgence.

wrote his will with his

testator

who

own hand, and began by

was his will, setting forth his

name, was deemed to have thereby sufficiently
" signed " his WUl (d) and an attesting witness
who wrote his name on the Will, elsewhere than
declaring that

it

Lambert (1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 470 Catling v. King,

Bossiter v. Miller (1877), 3 App. Gas. 1124.
See

(a) Sale v.

5 Ch. D. 660
also

Hood

V.

Barrington, L. E. 6 Eq. 218.

Potter Y. Buffield, L. E. 18 Eq. 4

(b)

jper

Kay

J., Jarrett v.

Eunter, 56 L. J. Ch. 141.

Commins

(c)

v. Scott (1875;,

44 L. J. Oh. 563

Filby v. Homsell,

[1896], 2 Ch. 737.

{d)

26

29 Car.

Lemayne

II. c. 3, s. 5, repealed, 7
v.

Will IV. and 1 Vict.

Stanley, 3 Lev. 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

STATUTES REGULATING INSTRUMENTS.

end

at the

of

" subscribed"

letter,

was deemed

it,
it,

have

to

515

sufficiently

within the Statute of Frauds

beginning " Messrs. H.

&

(a).

Co., Gentle-

men," drawn up by their clerk by their authority,

and presented by him to B. for signature, has been
held to be sufficiently signed by a person authorised
by H. & Co., so as to entitle E., who had signed it,
to sue

them

for breach of the contract contained

in the letter

An

(6).

agreement, too, has been

held to be sufficiently signed by a corporate body,

within the meaning of the Statute

Frauds,

of

where a resolution ordering its engrossment and

execution was passed by the body and signed by
the chairman (c).
Acts which establish monopolies (d), or confer
exceptional exemptions and privileges, correlatively
trenching on general rights, are subject to the

same principle of strict construction (e). The Act

21 Edw. I., De Malefactoribus in Parcis (/), which
(a) Bdberts v. Phillips,

goods
(5)

of,

[1891] P. 172

Evans

v.

(d)

Bock

V.

Co.,

Streatley, in the

46 L. J. Q. B. 219; Daniels v.

[1914] 1 Oh. 788.

Per Lord Campbell, Beedv. Ingham,

Direct U. S. Cable Co. v.

(e)

24 L. J. Q. B. 171

60 L. J. P. 56.

Eoare, [1892] 1 Q. B. 593.

(c) Jones V. Victoria

Trefusis,

See

ex. gr.

E.

v.

Anglo-American

Hull Dock

Co., 3

Co.,

B. & G. 516

Watson, L. E. 3 Q. B. 418.

(/) Eepealed

& 8 Geo. IV.

Digitized

c.

27,

3 E.

s. 1.

by Microsoft

& B. 899;

2 App. Gas. 394.

;

Brunskill

516

INTBKPBETATION OP STATUTES.

authorised a parker to

kill

whom he

trespassers

found in his park, and who refused to yield to

him, was construed as strictly limited to a legal
park

(a)

^that is,

one established by prescription

Eoyal Charter, and not merely one by reputation (6).

The enactment (c) that shipowners
should not be liable for damage done by their ships
without their default, beyond "the value of the
ship " and its " freight," was held to include, in
this value, everything belonging to her owners that
was on board for the performance of her adventure,
or

employed in
the Greenland fishery
although they would not
have been covered by a policy on " the ship and
freight," and the phrase, " the value of the ship
and her appurtenances " had been used ten times
This decision rested
in other parts of the Act (d).
on the ground that the enactment abridged the
common law right of the injured person and that
the shipowner was not entitled to more than the
meaning of the words strictly imported (e). So,
the enactments ( /) which exonerate a shipowner
such as the fishing stores

of a vessel

(a) 1 Hale, 491

(b) Co. Litt.
(c)

3 Dyer, 326b

Com. Dig.

Pari. (E.) 20.

233a; 2 Blaekstone's Com. 38, 416.

53 Geo. III.

c.

159,

s.

1 (repealed 17

& 18 Viet. c. 120, s. 4).

and see Smith v.

(i) Gale V. Laurie (1826), 29 E. E. 199

Eirhy (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 131.

(e)

As

to existing limitations of liability, see ss. 502-505,

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

(/) For existing limitations

Digitized

of liability, see

by Microsoft

s.

633, Merchant

NEW
from

517

JDEISDICTIONS.

damage caused by his ship through

liability for

the default of a compulsorily employed

restricted to cases

where the

pilot

pilot, are

was the

sole

cause of the damage, without any default on the

part of the master or crew

The same

(a).

principle of construction is applied

to enactments

which create new

jurisdictions, or

delegate subordinate legislative or other powers

As the Government of India is precluded from

(b).

legis-

lating directly as to the sovereignty or dominion

Crown over any

of the

part of its territories in

enactment by the Indian Legislative

India, an

Council making a notification in the Gazette conevidence of a cession of territory, was

clusive

held inoperative to prevent a Court in India from

inquiring into the nature and lawfulness of the
cession

(c).

general Order

made by the judges

of the Court of Chancery, under Parliamentary

Shipping Act, 1894

Geo. V.

c.

and sea

also Pilotage Act, 1913 (2

& 3

31).

(a) The Protector, 1 Eob.

W. 45

The Diana, 4 Moo. P. C. 11

The lona, L. E. 1 P. C. 426, discussed by Lord Chelmsford in

Gomp.
v. Barclay (1877), 1 App. Cas. 790.

Clyde Navigation Go.

The Warhworth (1889), 9 P. D. 145, and see Canada Shipping Co. V. British Shipowners' Association (1889), 58 L. J.
Q. B. 462.
(6)

301

(c)

See
Biss

ex. gr.
v.

per James L.J., Flower

AUrich, 2 Q. B. D. 179.

Damodhar

v.

Beoram,

Digitized

App. Cas. 332.

by Microsoft

v.

Lloyd, 6 Ch. D.

518

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

procedure of that Court,

"
and wMcli directed how a defendant " in any suit
might be served with process abroad (a) was held
authority to regulate

tlie

by Lord Westbury(6) limited to those suits in

which service abroad had been provided for by law,
viz., suits relating to land and public stock by the
2 Wm. IV. 0. 33 (c) and 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 82 (c).
If the Order had been construed literally as applicable to

all suits, it

would, while professedly only

regulating the procedure, have, in effect, extended

an object foreign to
the Act which conferred the power of regulation.
This decision, indeed, was afterwards overruled
but it was on the ground that the jurisdiction of
the jurisdiction of the Court

the Court had always existed, though there was no

power of enforcing

it

and that the Order, there-

fore, did not extend the jurisdiction (d).

The power given

every case,

he

if

County Court judge "in

to a

shall think just, to order a

new

only where such reasons exist

would lead the Supreme Court to grant a new

trial," is exercisable

as

(a) See E. S.

C, Order

XI., for Eules as to service out of the

jurisdiction.

(6) Gookney v. Anderson, 1

Lanman

v.

De

G. J. & Sm. 365.

Audley, 6 L. J. Ex. 136

Martin, 5 Ch. D. 1
(c)

Eepealed

(d)

Drummond

v.

See also

Great Australian Co.

v.

Barstow, 20 Oh. D. 240.

L. E., 1890.

S.

23 L. J. Oh. 682.

Fowler

v.

Drummond, L. E. 2 Oh. 32

Mope

See also Be Busfield, 32 Oh. D. 123.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Hope,

STATUTES CONPBREING POWERS.

And under

trial (a).

a power

practice of their Courts,

519

to regulate the

more than doubtful

whether the County Court judges have authority
to make a rule empowering a judge to appoint a
deputy registrar,
sitting

of

if

it is

the registrar

the Court

22

(6).

&

absent at the

is

23 Vict.

c.

21,

which empowered the Barons of the

Exchequer to make rules as to the process, practice,
and pleading, of their Court in revenue cases, was

s.

26

(c),

held not to authorise them to make rules granting

an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and House
of Lords

(d).

different construction would, in

have given the Barons authority to confer

two Superior Courts, and to impose
on them the duty of hearing an appeal against its
decisions (e). A power given to the Court, subject

effect,

jurisdiction on

to the restrictions of the Act, to authorise the

grant of leases, followed by a proviso that any

person entitled to the possession of settled estates

(a) 51

632 How
;

& 52
V.

Vict. c. 43,

L.

&

s.

93

Murtagh

v.

Barry, 24 Q. B. D.

N. W. By. Go. (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 368, and

a like rule applies in case of refusal to order

Bright (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 139.

new

trial

Gomp. Johnson

Pole v.

v.

Johnson,

sup. p. 152.
(6) WetheriieU v. Nelson (1869), 38 L. J. 0. P. 220.

references to the official referee,

(c)

Eepealed 44 & 45

Vict.

c.

(d) A.-G. V. Sillem (1864), 10

Longmany.
59,

s. 3,

Bast, 3 0. P.

H. L. Gas. 704.

Per Lord Kingsdown, 10 H. L. Oas. 775.

Digitized

to

and Sched.

Be, 18 Q. B. D. 393.
(e)

As

D. 142.

by Microsoft

Gomp. Hann,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

520

might apply to the Court for the exercise of the

power, was held not exercisable except on the
When comapplication of such a person (a).
missioners were authorised, at the same time that
they awarded compensation, to apportion the payment among those benefited, an apportionment
made at a subsequent time was held invalid (&).
The Licensing Act, 1872, enacting that where
justices have ordered a distress in default of pay-

ment

of a penalty, they

may

order, in default of

payment, imprisonment for six months, was

held not to authorise imprisonment where (in con-

its

sequence of the defendant admitting his inability

pay the fine) no order of distress had been

made. It would, indeed, have been idle to issue
a distress; but the words were express and
positive (c).
So, where an Act gives an appeal
to

to the next Quarter Sessions, that Court cannot,

under a general power to regulate

(a)

Taylor v. Taylor, 1 Oh. D. 426

its

procedure,

3 Id. 145.

Mayor of Montreal v. Stevens, 3 App. Cas. 605.

(c) 35 & 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 51, repealed s. 99, Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910 Brown, Be, 3 Q. B. D. 545 per Cock(6)

burn

Mellor J.

dubit.

C.J.,

See

otber illustrations, in the

construction of the powers given to the railway commissioners,

G. W. By. Go. V. By. Gommrs., 50 L. J. Q. B. 483

London, Gh.

&

Warwick Ganal

550

West

S. E.

Ham

D. By.
Go. v.

By. Go.

v.

Go. (1877),

Toomer

v.

2 Ex. D. 450, discussed in

Birmingham Ganal

Go. (1879),

48 L. J. Ex.

By. Gommrs. (1881), 60 L. J. Q. B. 201

Gorp. v. G. E. By. Go. (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 340.

Digitized

by Microsoft

STATUTES CONPEEEING POWERS.

521

reject it

on the ground of non-compliance with

certain regulations not prescribed by the Act such
as failure to file appeal (a), failure to give notices

not required by the statute (6), or failure to lodge

the appeal a specified number of days before the
Sessions (c). It might perhaps, unless the statute
required that the appeal should be decided at the

same Sessions

lawfully postpone the hearing

of an appeal not complying with those conditions
(d),

within such time but to reject it altogether would

be to refuse the appellant the privilege given by
the Act, by imposing conditions which the Legis;

had not imposed. Where the judge of the

Court of Arches was required, under the Public
Worship Eegulation Act, 1874 (e), to hear a cause

lature

London or Westminster, it was held that he

had no power to hear it elsewhere in the province
of Canterbury, and that all his proceedings there
in

were void{/).
The power given by 43 Eliz, c. 2, to justices
to appoint "four, three, or two substantial householders," as parish overseers,
(a)

B.

V.

West Biding (1842), 2 Q. B. 705.

(6)

B.

V.

West Biding, 5 B. & Ad. 667

B.

V.

(c)

B.

713

A.

not well executed

is

& E.

Surrey, 6 D.

V.

&

L. 735

B.

B.

v. Norfolk,

v. Blues,

Pawlett, L. E. 8 Q. B. 491

B.

5 B.

B.

(e)

37 & 38 Vict.

V. Belton,

17 L. J. M. 0. 70.
c.

85,

amended 38 & 39

Viet.

(/) Hudson V. Tooth (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 46.

Digitized

by Microsoft

291.

v. Staffordshire,

842.

(d)

39 E. E.

& B.

c.

76.

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

522

by appointing more than four (a) or by appointing

a single one, even when he is the only householder
in the parish (&).
Sec. 355 of the repealed Mer;

chant Shipping Act, 1854

which empowered

(c),

the Board of Trade to give the master of a ship

a certificate to pilot " any ships belonging to
the same owner," was construed as requiring that

name

the

of the

owner should be mentioned in the

and a certificate representing another

person as the owner was held not granted in comcertificate

pliance with the statute

Where

trustees,

(d).

who were

authorised to borrow

^30,000 for building a chapel, and to levy the

amount, with interest, by a rate, borrowed J632,000,

and made a rate to pay the interest on the whole

of that sum, it was held, not only that they had
exceeded their power, but that the rate was bad
in toto, and a distress to recover it unwarranted (e).
See B.

(a) B. V. Loxdale, 1 Burr. 445.

v.

All Saints, Derby,

13 East, 143.
(6)

B.

V. Goueins,

Comp. Preece

33 L. J.

v. Pulley,

M.

0. 87

B.

v. Clifton,

2 East, 168.

49 L. J. C. P. 686, and comp. under

s.

32,

Trustee Act, 1850, Shipperdson's Trusts, 49 L. J. Oh. 619;

Stokes' Trusts, L.

135

(c)

E. 13 Eq. 333

Harford's Trusts, 13 Ch. D.

but see Golyer, Be, 50 L. J. Ch. 79.

See

s.

23 of PUotage Act, 1913 (2

of pilotage certificates to masters

&

3 Geo.

5), for

grant

and mates.

(d) The Earl of Auchland (1861), 30 L. J. P. M. & A. 121, 127.

See also The Bristol City (1901), 71 L. J. P. 5.
(e)

Bitcher v. Hughes (1824), 26 E. E. 424

Digitized

by Microsoft

2 L.

J.

K. B. 61.

STATUTES CONFEBRING POWERS.

corporate body,

523

constituted by statute for

certain purposes, is regarded as so entirely tbe

creature of the statute, that acts done by it

without the prescribed formalities, or for objects
foreign to those for which

it

was formed, would

be, in general, null

and void {a).

Rules and by-laws made under statutory powers
enforceable by penalties are constrfled like other
provisions encroaching on the ordinary rights
of persons.
They must, on pain of invaUdity, be
not unreasonable, nor in excess of the statutory

power authorising them, nor repugnant

statute or to the general principles of law

to that
(&).

municipal power of regulation or of making

by-laws for good government, without

Chambers

(a)

Payne
(6)

Manchester &e. By.

v.

33 L. J. Q. B. 268

Co.,

[1900] 1 Oh. 308

v. Corlc Co., Ltd.,

See HacUng

69 L. J. Gh.

29 L. J. Q. B. 204

v. Lee,

express

Davis, Exp., L. E.

Bentham v Hoyle, 3 Q. B. D. 289 Johnson v. Croydon,

16 Q. B. D. 708; Dick v. Badart, 10 Q.B. D. 387; Strickland v.
Hayes, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 Burnett v. Berry, [1896] 1 Q. B.
7 Ch. 526

641

Mantle

v.

Jordan, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248

leading case), [1898] 2 Q. B. 91

425; White

v. Morley, [1899]

1 K. B. 160

Stretton,

Gray

44

Thomas

W.

E. 525

gow, 68

Brovmscombe

L. J. P. C.

K. B. 340

Slowey

98
v.

v.

Erme

v.

Johnson (a

Ashe, [1899] 1 Q. B.

2 Q. B. 34; Gentely. Bapps, [1902]

[1900] 1 Ch. 10

Sutlers,

Walker

v.

Simmons v. Mailing, 66 L. J. Q. B. 585

61 J. P. 807

v. Sylvester,

Eep. 367

v.

Kitson

v.

Godwin

v.

Johnson, 78 L. T. 265

London

&

S.

W. By.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Scott v. Glas-

v. Eills,

Threshie, 38 Sc. L. E. 799

(1902) 85 L. T. 682.

Walker, 12 Times

Nash

75 L. J.
v.

Finlay

INTERPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

524

words
it

of prohibition, does not authorise

the making

unlawful to carry on a lawful trade in a lawful

Moreover a power to regulate and govern

seems to imply the continued existence of that
which is to be regulated and governed (a). But
there is a "well-recognised principle that where
there is a competent Authority to which an Act of
manner.

Parliament entrusts the power of making reguladecide what

and any regulations
which they may decide to make should be suptions,

it

is

for

that Authority to

regulations are necessary

ported, unless they are manifestly unreasonable or

unfair " (6).

A by-law can be divided, if on part being omitted,

the rest of the by-law reads grammatically, and

when

it

can thus be divided, one part

jected as bad,

whUe

the rest

may

may be

be held good

re-

(c).

In determining the validity of by-laws made

by pubKc representative bodies under statutory
powers, their consideration is approached from a
different

standpoint from by-laws of railway or

other Kke companies, which carry on business for

their

own

profit,

although incidentally for

advantage of the public.

(a)

Per Lord Davey, Toronto

Courts of justice are

v. Virgo,

[1896] A. 0. 88

mondsey Bioscope
(c)

A.-G.

Canada (1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 26.

Per Lord Alverstone C.J., London County Council v. Ber-

{Ontario) v. A.-G. Dominion of

(6)

the

Co.,

Per Lindley L.

80 L.
J.,

J.

K. B. 144.

Strickland v. Hayes, sup. p. 523.

Digitized

by Microsoft

STATUTES CONFERRING POWERS.

525

slow to condemn municipal by-laws as invalid,

on the supposed ground of unreasonableness,

and support them if possible by a "benevolent"
interpretation, and credit those who have to
administer

them with an

reasonable manner

intention to do so in a

But, on the other hand,

(a).

a by-law necessarily involves

if

unreasonable,

it is

to be invalid

it

local

pany

to

that which

is

the duty of the Court to declare

(b).

Act which authorised a navigation com-

make by-laws

for

the orderly using of

the navigation, and for the governing of the boat-

men

carrying merchandise on

it,

was held not to

authorise a by-law which closed the navigation

on Sundays, and prohibited the use

it,

except for going to church

of

any boat on

Where

(c).

a charter,

See also per Channell

(a) Kritse v. Johnson, sup. p. 523.

Salt V. Scott-Hall, [1903] 2 K. B. 245

72 L.

J.

K. B. 627,

points out that where proceedings are taken under the

mary

J.,

who

Sum-

Jurisdiction Acts, the justices can treat exceptional cases

under

s.

16 of the

Summary

repealed and replaced by

1907),

s.

Jurisdiction

(1),

Act, 1879

(now

Probation of Offenders Act,

by dismissing the information or imposing a nominal

penalty, notwithstanding that a breach of a by-law has in fact

been committed.

See further,

inf.

pp. 529, 530, and cases in

note to p. 530.
(&)

Per Lord Alverstone

C.J., Stiles v. GalinsM,

[1904] 1 K. B.

621.
(c)

Colder and Eelhle Nav. Go. v. Pilling (1845), 14 L. J. Ex.

223, distinguished in Thomas v. Sutlers (1900), 1 Oh. 10.

Digitized

by Microsoft

526

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

which founded a school, empowered the governors

to remove the master at their discretion, and also
authorised them to make by-laws it was held
;

that a by-law ordaining that the master should

not be removed unless suflScient cause was exagainst him,

hibited in writing

signed by the

them to be sufficient,
was void; for the power to make by-laws did
not authorise the making of one which restrained
governors, and declared by

and limited the powers originally given to the

governors by the founder. This was in effect to
alter the constitution of the school (a).

Where, however, the statute conferring the

power to make by-laws enacts that any such laws
consistent with the provisions of the statute, and
not repugnant to any other law in force, shall
have the force of law when confirmed by the
Executive, it is doubtful whether a Court would
not be precluded from questioning the reasonableness
B.

(a)

V.

such by-laws or whether they are

of

Darlington School, 14 L. J. Q. B. 67, questioned by

Lord Hatherley
B.

V. Cuthush,

Ex. 89

16 L.

J.

iJose,

24 L. J.

J.

Ch. 325

268

M.

Dean

v.

2204

Bennett, 40 L. J. Ch. 452.

Chilton v.

JSTorton v.

Shillito v.

&

London

See also

Croydon By.

Co.,

WUliams

v. G.

0. 130

Bostock v. Staffordshire By. Co., 25

Foster v. L. C.

L. J. Q. B. 65

586

in

Bizrr.

United

London

Land

W. By.

d D.

By.

K By.

Co.,

1.

Digitized

Co.,

B.

by Microsoft

v.

64

L. E. 10 Ch.

9 Ch. D. 623

Thompson, 1 Q. B. D. 12.

G. W. By., 24 Ch. D.

10 Ex. 16

By., [1895] 1 Q. B. 711

Co. v. G.

& N. W.

Co.,

13 Id.

Comp. Bonner

v.

PRIVATE ACTS GIVING POWERS OR PRIVILEGES.

ultra vires,

case

unless

it

527

be in some very extreme

(a).

As regards enactments of a local or personal

character, which confer any exceptional exemp-

common burden (h), or invest private

bodies, for their own benefit and profit,

tion from a

persons or

with privileges and powers interfering with the

^

property or rights of others, they are construed

against those

persons

more

or bodies

strictly,

perhaps, than any other kind of enactment.

person whose property

is

Any

interfered with has a

right to require that those

who

interfere shall

comply with the letter of the enactment so far

as it makes provision on his behalf (c).
The
Courts take notice that they are obtained on
the petitions framed by their promoters; and
in

construing them, regard them,

(a) Slattery

Patent Agents

v.

See

Naylor, 13 App. Cas, 446.

v.

Lochwood, [1894] A. C. 347

Institute

of

JDevonport Corp. v.

See also A.-G.

Tezor (1902), 71 L. J. Oh. 754.

they are

as

v.

Dorin (1912),

81 L. J. Ch. 225.
(6)

Ex.

gr.

Acts which exempt lands from "all taxes and

assessments whatsoever" are construed as applying only to

then existing taxes and assessments; Williams v.Pritchard (1790),

Term Eepts. 310; Perchard v. Eeywood (1800),

8 Term Eepts. 468 Sion College v. London {Mayor),
B. 369, distinguished in NetherK.B. 617; 70 L. J.

2 E. E. 4

53 E. E. 128
[1901]

lands Steamboat Co. v. London Corp. (1904), 68 J. P. 377, C. A.

(c)

Per Lord Macnaghten, Eerron

v.

Bathmines Improvement

Commssioners, [1892] A. C. 523.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES,

528
in

whom

or those

good

of the public

Their language

(b).

and the Legis-

they represent,

on behalf

lature

persons,

contracts (a) between those

effect,

and

for the public

as the language of their promoters,

them

the Legislature for

treated

therefore

is

who asked

and when doubt

arises

that language,

the

as to

the

maxim

(ordinarily inappKcable to the interpreta-

construction of

tion of statutes) that verba cartarum fortius acci-

piuntur contra proferentem, or that words are to be

understood most strongly against him

them,
is

is

who uses

The benefit of the doubt

those who might be prejudiced

justly applied.

to be given to

by the exercise of the powers which the enactment

grants, and against those who claim to exercise
them (c). Indeed, if words in a local or personal
(a)

See observationB of Lord Solbome, Milnes

Huddersfield, 11 App. Cas. 523.

On

Mayor of

v.

See, however, sup. p. 53.

ground a contract by such a body never to use

a power given by Parliament was held void Ayr Harbour v.
Oswald, 8 App. Cas. 623.
(h)

this

(c)

741; Blahemore
V.

By. Co.

448

authorities,

Gladstone, 11 East, 685

2 B. & Ad. 58

Webb

many

See among

Gildart v.

per Patteson
v.

Parker

11

Co.,

CI.

&

Co., 3

De

310

Morgan

Co.,

v.

& E.

36 E. E. 289;

Stockton

8f

Darlington

v.

Eversfield v.

v. S. Staffordshire

Wycombe, L. E. 2 Q. B.

Metropolitan By. Co., L. E. 4 C. P. 97

Digitized

Browne,

Scales v. Pickering, 4 Bing.

G. & J. 286; Simpson

Waterworks, 34 L. J. Ch. 380; B.

v.

Cumberworth, 4 A.

v.

48 E. E. 28
P. 590

Cowp. 26

v. Croie,l

Hull Bock Go.

G. W. By. Co., 13 L. J. 0. P. 105

v.

Mid-Sussex By.

B.

B.

Glamorganshire Canal

Manchester By.
V. Barrett,

J.,

by Microsoft

Fenwick

PRIVATE ACTS GIVING POWERS OR PRIVILEGES.

529

Act seemed to express an intention to enact

something unconnected with the purpose of the
promoters, and which the committee, if they had
done their duty, would not have allowed to be
introduced, almost any construction,

it has been
would seem justifiable to prevent them from
having that effect (a).

said,

Even

if

such statutes were not regarded in the

(b), they would seem to be subject

light of contracts

to strict construction on the same ground as grants

from the Crown, to which they are analogous, are

As the

latter are construed strictly

the grantee,

on the ground that preemoluments are conferred

subject to
against

it.

rogatives, rights, and

on the Crown for great purposes and for the

public use, and are therefore not to be understood as diminished by any grant beyond what
it takes away by necessary and unavoidable construction
V.

(c)

East London By.

so

the Legislature,

Co.,

L. E. 20 Eq. 544

Birminriham Gas

V.

By.

47 L. J. Ch. 776; Lamb

Co.,

Co.,

v.

granting

per Oockburn O.J.,

6 H. & N. 250

Miphins

in

v.

Furness

Co.,

L. E. 4

A.-O.

N. London By.

Gh. 522;

Clowes v. Staffordshire Potteries, L. E. 8 Gh. 125;

Altrinckam

v. Cheshire

Lines Committee (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 597

and see Dewsbwy Waterworks Board v. Penistone Union (1885),

16 Q. B. D. 585.
(a) Per Lord Blackburn, Biver Wear Commrs. v. Adamson, 2
App. Gas. 743.
York

N. Midland By.

(&)

See B.

(c)

Per Lord Stowell, The Beheckah,

V.

Jt

Co.,

22 L. J. Q. B. 41.

Bob. G. 230.

34

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

530

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

away, in

effect,

the ordinary rights of the sub-

should be understood as granting no more

than actually passes by necessary and unavoidable

ject,

construction.

The

principle

of

strict

construction

where the powers

applicable

are

is

conferred

less

on

public representative bodies for essentially public

purposes
(a)

(a).

Per Wood V.-C, N. London By.

(1859), Johns. 405.

Board (1888), 58 L.
9 C. B. 774

See Lewis

v.

Co. v. Metrop.

London (Mayor), L. E.

Quinton v. Bristol (Mayor), L. E. 17 Eq. 524

L. E. 6 H. L. 303

679

Lyon

Bichmond

v.

v. Fishmongers' Co.,

2 Oh. D. 522.

A.-G.

N. London By.

v. Gravesend,

H. L. 34

v.

Cambridge,

Co.,

L. E. 3 Ch.

1 App. Gas. 662 ; Venour's Case,

See pp. 523-526, sup.

Digitized

Bd. of Works

Weston-super-Mare Local

See also Pallister

J. Ch. 39.

Galloway

v.

by Microsoft

CHAPTEE
SECTION

XI.

SOME SUBORDINATE PRINCIPLES

I.

EFFECT

OP USAGE.

It

is

said that the best exposition of a statute or

any other document is that which it has received

from contemporary authority. Optima est legum
mterpres consuetudo (a).

Contemporanea expositio

optima

lege{b).

et

fortissima in

Where

this

has

been given by enactment or judicial decision,

of course to be accepted as conclusive

is

further, the

meaning

(c).

est

it

But,

publicly given by contem-

porary, or long professional, usage,

is

presumed to

be the true one, even when the language has

etymologicaUy or popularly a different meaning.

It is obvious that the language of a statute must
be understood in the sense in which it was understood when it was passed {d) and those who lived
;

or near the

at

time

when

it

was passed, may

reasonably be supposed to be better acquainted

(a)

Dig.

(6)

2 Inst. 11.

i.

3, 37.

v. Ibhotson, 1 Yo. & J.

Anderson,
England
v.
3 Bing. N. 0.
Bank
of
360 per Tindal C.J.,
666 per Parke B., Doe v. Owens, 10 M. & W. 521 Curlewis v.
(c)

See

ex. gr.

per Hullock B., Booth

Mornington, 26 L. J. Q. B. 181.
{d)

Sup. p. 108.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

532

than their descendants with the oiroumstanoes

to which it had relation, as well as with the sense
then attached to legislative expressions (a) moreover, the long acquiescence of the Legislature
;

upon

in the interpretation put

enactment by

its

notorious practice, may, perhaps, be regarded as

some sanction and approval

of it

It often

(b).

becomes, therefore, material to inquire what has

been done under an Act;

less cogency,

being of more or

this

according to circumstances, for deter-

mining the meaning given by contemporaneous

exposition
It
is

(c).

has been sometimes

usage

said, indeed, that

only the interpreter of an obscure law, but

cannot control the language of a plain one

that

(a) Co. Litt. 8b

c. 9, s.

2 Inst. 18, 282

E. 380

7 East, 53

per Best,

V.

Forster,

Smith

V.

604

A.-G.

J. 0. P.
v. Jones,

Exeter (Bp.), 31 L. J. G. P. 262

v.

Bartsch,

Lawton, 1 Bing. 377

JB. v.

374; Newcastle

per Buller J., B. v.

Parker, 3 Atk. 576

10 Ves. 338;
Id.

Undo, 27 L.

L. J. Q. B. 249

v.

(I.)

Gowp. 250

Varlo, 1

T. E. 364, Blankley v.

Kent, 3

v. Scoi, Id.

C.J., Stewart v.

Lord Hardwioke, A.-6.

153; iJ.v.DaOT'e,

JB. v.

per Lord EUenborough, Kitchen

Wallis, 5 T.
;

v.

and B.

Winstanley, Id. 286,

Bac. Ab. Stat.

per Lord Mansfield,

per Lord Kenyon, Leigh

A.-G.

and

has put a wrong meaning on unambiguous

if it

Hawk.

Mashiter, 6 A.

v. A.-G.,

196, 335

per

per Lord Bldon,

12

01.

B.

v.

33 L. J. Ex. 249

&

& E.

P. 402;

Herford, 29
;

Marshall

v.

Montrose Peerage, 1 Macq. H. L.

401.
(6)

Seeder James

(c)

B.

V.

L.J.,

The Anna (1876), 1 P. D. 253.

Canterbury (Archlp.), 11 Q. B. 581, per Goleridge J.

Digitized

by Microsoft

USAGE.

language,

533

rather an oppression of those concerned than an exposition of the Act, and must be

corrected

it is

It

(a).

Lord Eldon

as

may, indeed, well be the

laid it

down

rule,

in a case of a breach

of trust of charity property, that

if

the enjoyment

of property had been clearly a continued breach

even two centuries, of a trust created by a

deed or wiU, it would be just and right to dis-

for

turb

But

seems

where the
Legislature has stood by and sanctioned by its
non-interposition the construction put upon its own
language by long and notorious usage; and the
proposition above stated certainly falls short of
the full effect which has been often given to
usage. Authorities are not wanting to show that
where the usage has been of an authoritative and
pubKc character, its interpretation has materially
modified the meaning of apparently unequivocal
it (b).

it

different

language.

Thus, the statute 1 Westm.

c. 10, for

instance,

which enacts that coroners shall be chosen of the

most

and wise knights, has been understood

legal

to admit of the election of coroners

(a) Sheppard v. Oomold, Vaugh. 170; per

Dunbar

v.

Boxburghe, 3 01. & F. 354

1 E. E. 375
1

H. & N. 53

are not

Lord Brougham,

per Grose

per Pollock, C.B., Gwyn

;

who

J.,

B.

v.

Hardmcke
Urban
Council
and see Esher
v. Marks
v.

(1856),

(1902),

71 L. J. K. B. 309.
(6)

Per Lord Eldon, A.-6.

Digitized

v. Bristol, 2 Jac.

by Microsoft

& W.

Hogg,

321,

INTEEPEKTATION OF STATUTES.

534

they possessed land enough to qualify

them for knighthood (a) though in one case a
merchant appears to have been removed from a
coronership for that he was communis mercolor (6).
So, a power given by 6 Hen. VIII. c. 6, to the
knights,

if

judges of the Queen's Bench, to issue a writ of

Procedendo^ was held, from the course of practice,

by a single judge at chambers (c).

Although the 31 Bliz. c. 5 [d) which limited the
time for bringing actions on penal statutes to two
years, when the action was brought for the Queen,
to be exercisable

and

to one year,

Queen

when brought

as for the informer

was

brought for the informer alone

as well for the

silent as to actions

was held, partly

it

on the ground of long professional understanding,

that the last-mentioned actions were limited to
one year

(e).

Though 15

Eich.

II.

enacted that

the. Admiralty should have no jurisdiction over

made

contracts

in the bodies of counties, never-

seamen engaging in England have always

beeh admitted to sue for wages in that Court (/),
theless

(a)

E. N. B. 164.

(6)

2 Inst. 32.

(c)

B.

V. Scaife,

20 L. J. M. C. 229.

See Leigh

v.

Kent, 3

T. E. 862.
(d)

Eepealed in part by 11 & 12 Vict.

(e)

Dyer

v.

(/) Smith

c.

V. Tilly, 1

48,

s.

36.

Keb. 712.

As

to relief

and repatriation

seamen and seamen left abroad, see 6 Edw. VII.

Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.

of distressed
c.

43,

Best (1866), L. E. 1 Ex. 152.

Digitized

by Microsoft

USAGE.

where the remedy

Common Law
said

is

easier

Courts

535

and better than

on the ground,

that communis error facit jus

{a),

it

in the

has been

or rather,

was observed by Lord Kenyon(6), not comerror, but uniform and unbroken usage,

as

munis
facit

"

jus.

Were

the language obscure," said

in a celebrated case, " instead of

Lord Campbell
being clear,

we should not be

justified in differing

from the construction put upon

by oontemThere would

it

poraneous'and long-continued usage.

be no safety for property or liberty

if it

could be

successfully contended that all lawyers and states-

men have been

of an old

uniform

Act

mistaken as to the true meaning

of Parliament "

interpretation

affecting property

of

(c).

If

we

find a

statute materially

and perpetually recurring, and

which has been adhered to without interruption,

it would be impossible to introduce the precedent
of disregarding that interpretation

The

principle

of construction

(d).

would seem to

be applicable to an ecclesiastical case of much

The rubric of the first Prayer Book
celebrity.
of

Edward VI.

(1549)

(a)

Per Lord Holt, Olay

(6)

In B.

(c)

Gorham

Hebbert
{d)

v.

V. Essex,

v.

ordered that clergymen

Sudgrave, 1 Salk. 33.

4 T. E. 594.

v. JExeter (Bp.),

15 Q. B. 73.

See also per Cur.,

Pwrchas, L. E. 3 P. 0. 650.

Per Lord Westbury, Morgan

v.

Grawshay, L. E. 5 H. L.

304, 320.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

536

should wear albs and copes while administering

the Communion. The second Prayer Book, with
5

&

Edw. VI.

and substituted

c.

1,

prohibited those vestments

surplices.

These

last dresses

were

again ordered, by the conjoined effect of 1 Eliz.

and the Advertisements or Orders issued in

pursuance of it and the former soon disappeared,
the surplice becoming the sole officiating vestment
The rubric of the Prayer
until the Eestoration.
0. 2,

Book

of 1662, however, with 13

&

14 Car.

II. c.

confirmed 1 Eliz. c. 2), directed that the

(which

vestments used under the book of 1549 "should

be retained and be in use "

continued

alone

centuries.

When

to

be

(a)

but the surplice

worn

for

nearly

two

the right or duty of wearing

the old vestments was asserted, the Privy Council

held that the last rubric (which has the force of

a statute) did not repeal the Act and Advertise-

ments of Elizabeth, and must be read as if both

were inserted in it (6). This construction, which
was not reconcilable with the meaning of the
(a) Whether through disingenuousness or negligence ?
Per
Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions, p. 167. Semhle, it
was done advisedly for the attention of the bishops had been
;

called to the possibility of a return to vestments as the result

of the

wording; Eebhert

at p. 64:3
(6)

other

See sup.

Bidsdale

members

v.

v.

Purchas (1871), L. E. 3 P. C. 605,

p. 50.

Glifton,

2 P. D. 276

of the Council dissenting.

Kelly C.B. and two

See

letter to

Chancellor Cairns by Chief Baron Kelly, 1878, p. 14.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Lord

537

USAGE.

words of the rubric, nor, perhaps, in harmony

with the ordinary principles of interpretation, was,
however, the construction which had been put

upon

by long and general usage. Any other,

indeed, it was remarked, would have been
oppressive and unjust, by subjecting every clergyman who had failed to use the garments of the
first book, to heavy penalties {a).
The Court of Queen's Bench was influenced in
its construction of a statute of Anne (6) by the
fact that it was -that which had been generally
considered the true one for one hundred and sixty
years (c). Even a modern Act has received an
interpretation from authoritative usage which
could hardly have been otherwise given to it.
it

'

Act, 1834 (4 & 5

empowers
the judges of
which
36),
that 'Court, or any "two or more" of them, to
try all offences which might be tried under a
commission of Oyer and Terminer for London

The Central Criminal Court

Will IV.

c.

was construed

or Middlesex,

judge to try;

other

of

practice

to authorise a single
,

such having been the universal

courts

superior

criminal

of

judicature held under commissions of Oyer and

(a) Bidsdale v.

Clifton, 2 P.

D. 308, and Eehbert

v.

Purchas

(1871), L. E. 3 P. C. 605, at p. 647.

s.

(6)

8 Anne,

60,

and 3 & 4 Geo. V.

(c)

Cox

V.

c.

14,

s.

1, restricted
c. 37, s.

18

by 51 & 52

(2).

Leigh (1874), L. B. 9 Q. B. 333.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Viot.

c.

43,

538

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Terminer, as well as the established practice of

the Central Criminal Court for the thirty-six years
since the passing of the Act

When

the question

(a).

arose

whether a person

convicted at one time of several offences could

be considered, at the time of the adjudication,

as "in prison undergoing imprisonment," within
s.

25, 11

&

12 Vict.

43 (which authorises the

that case, to make the

c.

convicting justice, in

second offence

period of imprisonment for the

begin from the expiration of that of the

it

was decided in the

first),

affirmative, partly, indeed,

in conformity with the construction put

analogous enactment in 7

&

G-eo.

IV.

c.

on the
28, but

partly also in consequence of the practice of the

judges for forty years

(6).

In aU these cases, a contrary resolution would,

to use

the words of Parker C.J.

(c),

have 'been

an overturning of the justice of the nation for

years past. The understanding which is accepted
as authoritative on such questions, however, is
not that which has been speculative merely, or
(a) Leverson

Glow

V.

v.

4 Q. B. 394.

B., L. E.

Harper, 3 Ex. D. 198.

and Watson, Clyde Navigation

(6)

B.

(Duke)

V.

V.

v.

Laird, 8 App. Gas. 658.

Gutbush, L. E. 2 Q. B. 379.

See also Buccleuch

Metrop. Bd. of Works, L. E. 5 Ex. 251

distinguished in Becker v.

iV. British.

&

In B.

V.

Bewdley, 1 P.

Digitized

Wms.

considered and

Mercantile Insurance Go.

(1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1813.
(c)

Gomp., however,

See also per Lords Blackburn

223.

by Microsoft

USAGE.

539

minds of professional men it must

have been long acted on in general practice (a),
and publicly, A mere general practice, for instance,
which had grown up in a long series of years,
on the part of the officers of the Crown, of not
floating in the

using patented inventions without remuneration

to the patentee, under the impression that the

Crown was precluded from using them without

his license,

was held

ineffectual to control the true

construction or true state of the law

that the
It

is,

which was

Crown was not excluded from

their use

(b).

however, settled law that a petition of right

damages resulting from a breach

will lie for

contract by the

Crown

(c).

Some, however, of the cases cited

Leverson, sup. p.

538

of

may

R.

e.g.

v.

well be doubted, for

" Contemporanea Expositio has no application to

modern Act, and I adopt Lord Watson's statement in Clyde Navigation v. Laird {d), as the
a

Court of Appeal did in Goldsmiths Co.

What Lord Watson

(a)

396
per

was

said

this,

Per Lord Ellenborough, Isherwood

v.

v.
'

L.J.,

Ford and

Hill,

Be

When

Oldinow, 3

per Lord Oottenham, Waterford Peerage, 6

James

Wyatt

CI.

&

(e).

there

M. &

S.

F. 173

(1879), 10 Ch. D. 370

L. J. Ch. 327.
(6) Feather v. B., 35 L. J. Q. B. 200.
(c)

Windsor

& Annapolis

By.

v.

B. (1886), 11 A. C. 607, P. C.

55 L. J. P. 0.41.
(d) 8 App. Oas. 673.
(e)

76 L. J. K. B. 166.

Digitized

by Microsoft

48

540

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

ambiguous expressions in an Act passed one

are

may

or two centuries ago, it

to

be legitimate to refer

the construction put upon these expressions

throughout a long course of years by the unanimous

consent of aU parties interested, as evidencing

what must presumably have been the intention

But
of the Legislature at that remote period.
I feel bound to construe a recent statute according to

its

own

controversy,

which
taken

terms,

and

not

interested
'

"

when

these are brought into

according

parties

to

the

may have

views

hitherto

{a).

A universal law cannot receive different interpretowns (6). A mere local usage

tations in different

cannot be invoked to construe a general enactment, even for the locality (c). A fortiori is this
the case,

when the

local

custom

at variance with the object of the

is

manifestly

Act
as, for
custom for departing from the standard
of weights and measures, which the Legislature
plainly desires to make obligatory on aU and
everywhere {d).
;

instance, a

(a)

Per Farwell L.J., Sadler v. Whiteman (1910), 79 L. J. K. B.

See, however, per Lord Blackburn, Clyde NaviV. Laird, 8 App. Gas. 670.
Per Grose J., B. v. Hogg, 1 T. E. 728; approved in

786, at p. 800.
gation
(6)

Income Tax Commissioners

61 L.
(c)

J.

B.

v.

Pemsel, [1891] A. C. 531, at p. 548

Q. B. 265.
V. Saltren, Cald. 444.

(d) Noble V. Durell, 3 T. E. 271.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONSTRUCTION IMPOSED BY STATUTES.

541

Usage, ancient and modern, if certain, invariable,

and not unreasonable, has often been admitted to
throw light on the construction of old deeds,
charters,

SECTION

When

and other documents

II.

CONSTRUCTION

(a).

IMPOSED BY STATUTES.

the Legislature puts a construction on

an Act, a subsequent Cognate enactment in the

same terms would, prima facie, be understood in
the same sense.

Thus, as

which made void

s.

125, 6 Geo. IV.

securities given

to creditors, as a

c. 16,

by a bankrupt

consideration for signing the

bankrupt's certificate, was stated in the preamble

of 5

&

6 WiU. IV.

41, to have

c.

had the

effect

making such securities void even in the

hands of innocent holders for value, and was
by the latter Act modified so ;as to make them
it was considered,
when
valid in such hands
the Act of Geo. IV. was repealed, and its 126th
section was re-enacted in its original terms in
the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, that
the renewed enactment ought to receive the construction which the preamble of 5 & 6 WiU. IV.
of

(a) See ex. gr. Wiihnell v. Gartham, 6 T. E. 388 Doe v. Bies,

8 Bing. 181, per Tindal O.J. Wadley v. Bayliss, 15 E. E. 645
Becmfort v. Swansea, 3 Ex. 413 Bradley v. Newcastle, 23 L. J.
;

,Q. B. 35.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEBPEETATION OP STATDTES,

542

had put on the earlier one (a). The expres"

sion
taxed cart," in a local Act, was held to
41,

0.

mean
cart

a vehicle which had been defined as a taxed

by 43 Geo.

"Where

III. o.

(6).

gathered, from a later Act, that

is

it

161

the Legislature attached a particular meaning to

would
meaning

certain words in an earlier cognate one, this

be taken as a legislative declaration of

there

(c).

may

It

ture

its

be taken for granted that the Legisla-

acquainted with the actual state of the

is

Therefore,

law(rf).

when

the words

statute are either incorporated in, or

made

part

new

of,

of

an old

by reference

statute, this is understood

to be done with the object of adopting any legal

which has been put on them by

So, the same words appearing iu

interpretation

the Courts

(e).

Hampton

(a) Ooldsmid v.

(1858), 27 L. J. C. P. 286.

For

" iindue preference "

in

bankruptcy under existing law, see

4 & 5 Geo. V.

26

(3) ().

(h)

c.

59,

s.

Williams v. Lear, L. E. 7 Q. B. 285, overruling Purdy v.

M.

Smith, 28 L. J.

G. 150.

See also Ward v. Beck, 32 L.

J. G. P.

&

0. 454,

113.
(c)

B.

V.

Smith, 4 T. E. 419

Morris v. Mellin, 6 B.

sup. p. 378.
{d)

Per Lord Blackburn, Young

App. Gas. 526

(e)

Kent

Per James

Oreaves

v.

G.

Tofield,

14 Gh. D. 571

As

Leamington (Mayor"), 8

L.J., Dale's Case, 6 Q.

Wallond, 52 L. J Q. B. 322
189.

v.

C, Exp., [1891] 1 Q. B. 725.

Jay

per

B. D. 453, and in

Mathew

v. Johnstone,

to Consolidation Acts, see sup. p. 109.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.,

Clarh

v.

[1893] 1 Q. B. 25

CONSTRUCTION IMPOSED BY STATUTES.

543

a subsequent Act in pari materid, the presumption

used in the meaning which

arises that they are

had been

put on them

judicially

and unless

there be something to rebut that presumption, the

new

statute

was (a).
that

to be construed as the

is

One

reason,

instance,

for

old

one

holding

for

Merchant Shipping Act, 1864 (which

limited the liability of shipowners, and is replaced
by s. 503, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), did not
extend to foreign ships, was that the enactment
was taken from 63 Geo. III. c. 149, which had
504,

s,

received that construction judicially

grounds. Order
r.

11

(c),

XXXI.

On similar

(b).

of the Judicature Act, 1876,

received the same construction as had been

given to the earlier enactment from which

copied

And

it

by

603 to a private shipowner

s.

(a) Mansell y. B., 27 L. J.

Mersey Docks

Go.,

L. E. 5 Oh. 706

per Blackburn

Jones v.

v.

Bank

J., St.

v.

v.

Teal, 15

Wood, [1891] 3 Ch. 118;

Wkinney, 30 Ch. D. 285.

Losky

v. Green,

9 C. B. N. S.

ex. gr. Sturgis v. Barell, sup. p. 458.

(6)

Per Turner

(c)

Now

L.J., Cope v. Boherty, 27 L. J. Ch. 610.

E. S. C, Ord.

XXXI.

r.

14,

which

see.

(d) Bustros V. White (1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 642.

v.

J.,

Exp. Thorne, 3 Oh. D. 457

per James L.J., Exp. Gampbell,

Awry

L.J., Colonial

Comp. the remarks of Byles

See also

C. 4

per Lord Coleridge C.J., Barlow

Q. B. D. 405; per Fry L.J.,

and per Lindley

M.

11 H. L. Gas. 480

Attwater, Exp., 5 Ch. D. 27

Anderson

was

has also been held that the limitation of

liability afforded

370.

it

(d).

Bank

See also

of Columbia (1876), 2 Ch. D., pp. 654, 656.

Digitized

by Microsoft

544

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

does not extend to the Procurator-General who

under Prize Court Eules, 1914, is substituted for
the actual captor of a ship alleged to contain

contraband of war (a).

Even where the Acts

are not in pari materid, the

to expressions in the

meaning notoriously given

earlier,

may

be taken to be that in which they

Thus the Income Tax

are used in the later, Act.

Act, 1842, which exempts from charge property

applicable to " charitable purposes," was held to

use this expression in the wide sense of what

Charity within 43 Ehz.

But an Act

c.

(b).

of Parliament does not alter the

law by merely betraying an erroneous

of it(c).

is

For instance, 7 Jac.

I.

c.

12,

opinion

which

enacted that shop books should not be evidence

above a year before action, did not make them

evidence within the year ; though the enactment

was obviously passed under the impression, not

improbably confirmed by the practice of the
Courts in those days, that they were admissible
in evidence (d). So, an Act of Edw. VI., continuing
till the end of the then next session an Act of
(a)
(5)

The Oscar

II. (1919), P. 171.

5 & 6 Vict.

c.

35,

Pemsel, 61 L. J. Q. B. 265
(c)

See ex.

gr.

61

s.
;

Inl.

per Ashurst

Income Tax Commissioners

Bev.

J.,

v. Scott,

Bore

v.

v.

68 L. J. Q. B. 432.

Gray, 1 R. R. 494

Lloyd, Exp., 1 Sim. N. S. 248, per Shadwell V.-G.

(d)

Pitman

v.

Maddox, 2

Salk.

690.

Ghray, sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

Bore

v.

EBBOR OF PACT OR LAW

A STATUTE.

IN

545

Hen. VIII. (a), which was not limited in duration,

was considered to be idle in that respect, and
not to abrogate

it (6).

that no more than

for

M.

An Act which
in the

&

provided

should be paid

appraisement, in cases of distress for rent,

"whether by one broker or more," did not alter

the earlier law, which required that goods distrained for rent should be appraised by two
brokers

(c).

passage in an Act which showed that the

Legislature assumed that a certain kind of beer

might be lawfully sold without a license, could

not be treated as an enactment that such beer
might be so sold, when the law imposed a penalty
on every unlicensed person who sold any beer {d).
Sec. 27, 41 & 42 Vict. c. 77, which provided that
s. 149, Public Health Act, 1875, which vests the
" streets " of a town in its local authority, should
not be construed to pass minerals to the local

was considered not to afford the inference that the soil and freehold of the streets
authority,

vested in

all

other respects

(a)

28 Hen. VIII.

(b)

The Prices of Wine, Hob. 215.

(c)

o.

(e).

Earlier bankrupt

14, repealed S. L. R., 1863.

& B. 640.
Bead v. Storey, 30 L. J. M. C. 110. See 24 & 25
repealed 10 Edw. VII. c. 8, Sched. 6.
Allen V. Flicker, 10 A.

(<r)

s. 3,

(e)

Works

Coverdale v. Charlton, 4 Q. B. D. 116

V.

Wandsworth Bd. of

United Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904

George Southwarh, 14 Ch. D. 785;

Vict. c. 21,

Bolls v. St.

Tunbridge Wells v. Baird,

35

1.8.

Digitized

by Microsoft

546

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

Acts, in

privilege of

making traders having the

Parliament

liable

to

be

made bankrupts, had

expressly provided that they should be exempted

from arrest

but

enacted that

all

when

the Bankruptcy Act, 1861,

debtors should be liable to bank-

making any similar provision on

members of Parliament, it was
held that they were nevertheless protected by the

ruptcy, without

behalf of peers and

privilege (a).
It is now, however, provided by s. 128 of the
Bankruptcy Act, 1914, that "if a person having
privilege of Parliament commit an act of bankruptcy he may be dealt with under this Act in
like manner as if he had not such privilege."
Many enclosure Acts were passed under the once

prevalent opinion that the lord of a

manor had

a seignorial right of sporting over every part of

the manor

whereas he had only a right of sporting

over the waste, as incident to the ownership of the

land (6). When those Acts divested the freehold
out of him, and vested

whom

it

in the tenants,

among

they allotted

it, but reserved to the lord all

the rights of sporting which had been enjoyed by
himself and his predecessors, a conflict of opinion

[1896] A. C. 434
District Council,

Finclley Electric Light Go. v. Finchley Urban

[1903] 1 Oh. 437, C. A.

(a) Newcastle v. Morris.

L. E. 4 H. L. 661.

(6) Pickering v. Noyes (1826), 28 E. E. 430

(1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 290.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Sowerby

v.

^mitl

ERROR OP FACT OE LAW IN A STATUTE.

547

arose as to whether this reservation entitled the

lord to the right of shooting over the enclosures

The 7

&

8 Vict.

c.

29,

(a).

in reciting that the

c. 69, which punishes night poaching

on " land, whether open or enclosed," had been
evaded by the destruction of game, not on open
and enclosed lands as described in that Act, but
upon public roads and paths, and in making provision to meet the evasion, proceeded on an
erroneous view of the law; for public roads and
paths are "lands" within the meaning of the
and the person who kills game while
earlier Act
standing on them is a trespasser, not being there
in the exercise of the right of way which alone

9 G-eo. IV.

justified his presence, but for the purpose of un-

lawfully seeking

game (b).

Provisions sometimes found in statutes enacting

imperfectly or for particular cases only that which

was already and more widely the law, have occasionally furnished ground for the contention that

an intention to alter the general law was to be

inferred from the partial or limited enactment
(a)

See Greathead

Graham,, 7

v.

H. L. Cas. 331

Devonshire (Duke)

v.

(6)

V.

Sowerby

v.

S.

550; sup.

v.
;

Ecroyd

v.

Harrison

v.

Ch. 458.

J.

Pratt (1855), 24 L. J.

M.

Butland (Duke) (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 117

14 C. B. N.

Ewart

Smith, L. E. 9 G. P. 524

O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D. 468;

Cmlthard (1898), 67 L.
B.

Morley, 10 L. J. 0. P. 246

p. 492.

Digitized

by Microsoft

0.
;

113

Mayhem

v.

Wardley,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

548

resting on the

maxim,

expressio unius est exclusio

But that maxim is inapplicable in such

The only inference which a Court can

alterius.

cases.

draw from

such

provisions

superfluous

generally find a place in Acts to

(which

meet unfounded

objections and idle doubts), is that the Legislature

was

either ignorant or unmindful of the real state

of the law, or that

it

of excessive caution

acted under the influence

and

if

the law be different

from what the Legislature supposed

it

to be, the

implication arising from the statute,

it

has been

said,

ence

cannot operate as a negation of

{a)

and any

its

exist-

founded on such

legislation

making that law

which the Legislature erroneously assumed to be
Thus, when in contending that debts due by
so.
a mistake has not the effect of

corporate bodies were subject to foreign attach-

ment

in the Mayor's Court, the express statutory

exemptions of the East India Company and of

the Bank of England were cited as supplying
the inference that corporate bodies were deemed

by the Legislature to be subject to that process,

the judicial answer was that it was more reasonable to hold that the two great corporations prevailed on Parliament to prevent all questions as
to themselves by direct enactment, than to hold
that Parliament by such special enactment meant
(a)

Per

Cur., Mollwo v. Court of Wards, L. E. 4 P. C. 419, 437.

See also per Cockburn

C.J., Shrewsbury v. Scott, 6. C.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B. N. S.

1.

ERROB OF FACT OR LAW IN A STATUTE.

determine

to

the question

adversely to corporations

in

(a).

in imposing wharfage dues for

cases

other

all

549

Act which,
the maintenance of
expressly exempted
local

a harbour on certain articles,

the Crown from liability in respect of coals im-

ported for

and the
provisions in turnpike Acts (b), which exempted
from toll carriages and horses attending the Queen,
or going or returning from such attendance were
not suffered to affect the more extensive exemptions which the Crown enjoys by virtue of its
the use of

packets,

royal

prerogative

On

(c).

the other hand

has been laid down that

it

where a statute confers powers upon a company,

which the company as owner of property could
have exercised without statutory power, the powers
expressly given must be treated either as superfluous, or as purposely inserted in order to define,

that

is limit,

the right conferred, and as implying

more extensive
might
have
rights which the company
by virtue
of its ownership of property, and that it cannot
a prohibition of the exercise of the

(a) London Joint Stock

Bank

v.

London (Mayor), 1 0. P. D. 17

affirmed sub nom. London Corp. v. London Joint Stock

(1881), 60 L. J. Q. B. 594,
(6)

3 Geo. IV.

e.

(c)

Weymouth

v.

Hornsey Urban

126,

s.

H. L.
32, and 4 Geo. IV.

Nugent (1865), 34 L.

95,

M.

M.

0. 227

24.

See

K. B. 73

Smithett v. Blythe, 35

See p. 285 sup.

Digitized

s.

0. 81.

District Council v. Hennell, [1902] 2

Westover v. Perkins, 28 L. J.

E. E. 358.

J.

c.

Bank

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

550

be doubted that the

interpretation, is the

latter,

the restrictive

i.e.

mode

true

of

regarding

statutory powers conferred on bodies created for

pubKc purposes, and authorised to acquire land for

such purposes

(a).

an Act, whether of fact or of

law, is not conclusive, but Courts are at liberty
to consider the fact or the law to be different from

mere

recital in

the statement in the recital

unless, indeed,

it

be clear that the Legislature intended that the

law should be, or the fact should be regarded to

be

as

(b),

recited.

If,

for

instance, a road was

stated in an Act to be in a certain township,

town to be a corporate borough, the statement, though some evidence of the fact alleged,
would be open to contradiction (c). Sec. 3, 36 & 37
Vict. c. 60 (d), would hardly, by merely reciting
or a

that " an accessory after the fact "

is

(a) London Assoc, of Shipowners v. London

[1892] 2 Oh. 242

615

and see Barraclough

" by English

&

India Docks,

Brovm, [1897] A. 0.

v.

66 L. J. Q. B. 672.

The 34 Geo. III. c. 54 (repealed S. L. E., 1871), reciting

that a conspiracy had been formed for subverting the laws and
constitution, and for introducing the anarchy prevalent in
France this recital was relied on as proof of the conspiracy in
the treason trials of 1794, peJ^Eyre C.J. in addressing the Grand
(&)

Jury in Hardy's Case, 24 State

(c)

B.

V. EaugTiton,

Trials, 200.

22 L. J. M. C. 89

JR. v.

548.
{d)

Amended 58 & 59

Vict. c. 33.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Greene. 6 A.

& B.

EKROR OF FACT OR LAW IN A STATUTE.

law liable to be punished as

if

offender," be understood as

551

he were the principal

making

so important

a change of the law.

In

all

these cases, no inference necessarily arose

that the Legislature intended to alter the law,

and to make
effect,

it

as it

was alleged

to be.

A different

however, would be given to an Act which

showed, whether by recital or enactment, that

intended to effect a change. If the mistake

it

is

manifested in words competent to make the law

no principle which can' deny

them this effect (a). Such was the effect of
4 & 5 Vict. c. 48 (&), which enacted that municipal
in future, there

is

corporations should be rateable in respect of their

property, as though it were not corporate property ;

but that such property, when lying wholly within

a borough the poor of which were relieved by one
entire poor rate, should continue exempt from
rateability "as if the Act had not passed."

When

the Act was passed, the general opinion

was that such property was exempt; but later
decisions settled that it was not. It was held

that the above enactment exempted them, notwithstanding the final words, which were considered as not conveying a different intention
Cur., Postmaster-General v. Early, 12

(a)

Per

(b)

Eepealed 45 & 46 Vict.

(c)

B.

V.

Oldham

Corjj.,

c.

50,

s. 5.

L. E. 3 Q. B. 474.

Digitized

by Microsoft

(c).

Wheat. 148.

552

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

One ground on which the Exchequer Chamber

held that the attesting words, "on the true faith
of

Christian,"

the

of

essential parts of the oath,

abjuration

oath were

was that Parliament

had put that construction on them, when allowing

the Jews, a few years after enacting the oath,

when

to omit those words

to

them

ex

the oath was tendered

officio (a).

statute of the United States enacted that the

have concurrent jurisdiction with the state and circuit

district court should, in certain cases,

courts, as

if

(contrary to the fact) the

district

court had not already, and the circuit court had,

But though the language

jurisdiction.

plainly

indicated only the opinion that the jurisdiction

existed in the circuit court,

and not an intention

was nevertheless given to

the Act, to prevent its being inoperative, and to
carry out what was the obvious object of the
Act (h). The district court could not have had
to confer

it,

this effect

concurrent jurisdiction with the

circuit

unless the latter could take cognisance

same

court,

of the

suits.

(a) 1 Geo. I.

10 Geo.
Ex. 778

I. c.
;

St.

2, c.

4 (repealed,

13 (repealed by 34
S.

L. E., 1867)

Miller v. Salomons, sup. p. 20.

(6) Postmaster- General v. Early, sup. p. 551.

Digitized

& 35

Salomons

by Microsoft

Vict. c. 48),
v. Miller,

WORDS CONSTRUED

IN

SECTION

III.

CONSTRUCTION

PARTEM

BONAM PARTEM.

553

BONAM
EFFECT OF MULTIPLICITY OP WORDS
WORDS

OF

IN

OF VABL&.TION OF LANGUAGE.

and in a certain and limited sense

truly, that words must be taken in a lawful and
rightful sense (a). When an Act, for instance, gave
a certain eflBlcacy to a fine levied of land, it meant
It

said,

is

only a fine lawfully levied

The

(b).

provision that

a judgment in the Lord Mayor's Court,

when

removed to the Superior Court, shall have the

same effect as a judgment of the latter, would not
apply to a judgment which the inferior tribunal
had no jurisdiction to pronounce (c). The landlord's claim to recover arrears of rent out of

goods

seized in execution by the bailiff of a County Court,

under the County Courts Act, 1888, depends upon
whether the seizure was lawful. If the goods did
not belong to the debtor, and the seizure was

tjonsequently unlawful, the claim under the section

could not arise

(a) See,

e.g.

B.

(6) Co. Litt.

v.

381b

(d).

Hulme
;

rule of a building society

(1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 377.

2 Inst. 590.

(c) Bridge v. Branch, 1 C. P.

(d) 51
c.

34,

s.

& 52
18

(2),

Vict. c. 43,

s.

D. 633.

160 (amended by 3 & 4 Geo. V.

which, in case of bankruptcy, limits the right of

the landlord to six months' rent)

Q. B. D. 306.

Gomp. Beard

Sughes

v. Knight,

Foulgar v. Taylor, 29 L. J. Ex. 154.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

27 L.

Smallwood, 25
J.

Q. B. 359

554

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

authorising a director to reimburse himself for

any

executing the powers given

loss incurred in

him by the

does not apply to acts ultra

rules,

and beyond the powers the society could

confer (a).
So, an Act which requires the payvires

ment

of rates

a condition precedent to the

as

would not be construed

as excluding from it a person who refused to pay
a rate which was illegal, though so far valid that
it had not been quashed or appealed against (6),
and this requirement is now apparently entirely
exercise of the franchise

with

dispensed

Eepresentation

under
of

the

the

provisions

People

covenant by a tenant to pay

taxes

all

Act,

the

of

1918.

parliamentary

construed to include only such as he

is

may

lawfolly pay, but not the landlord's property

tax,

which

it

would be

engage

illegal for hinj to

A statutory authority to abate nuisances would not justify an order to abate one

to pay(c).

when

could not be obeyed without committing*

it

a trespass

{d).

(a) Cullerne v.
(6)

B.

Bruyeres

V.
v.

London Bldg. Socy. (1890), 59 L.

Windsor (Mayor), 13 L.

v.

J.

Q. B. 525.

Q. B. 337.

See also

Halcomh, 3 A. & B. 381.

(c) GasJcell v. King,

Board

J.

Harrmv Gas

11 Bast, 165.
Co.,

See Edgeware Highway

L. E. 10 Q. B. 92

& B. 28.
(d) PubHc Health

Owen

v.

Body,

5 A.

(Mayor)

v.

Act, 1875 (38 i- 39 Vict. c. 55) Scarborough

Rural Authority of Scarborough, 1 Ex. D. 344 but see
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

WOEDS CONSTRUED

BONAM PAETEM.

IN

555

highway surveyor, who is required by the

Highway Act, 1862, to "conform in all respects
to the

orders

his duties,"

the board in the execution of

>of

like the

is,

clergyman who had sworn

canonical obedience to his bishop

bound

(a),

to

obey only lawful orders, which his superior has

authority to give
for

his

so that he is personally liable

the board

act, if

h|,d

no

jurisdiction to

make the order under which he did it (b).

Companies Act, 1862

(repealed,

panies (Consolidation) Act,

ss.

Sec. 199,

267, 268,

1908),

Com-

providing for

the winding-up of companies of more than seven

members not

registered under the Act, applies

only to companies which

may

be lawfully formed

without registration, but not to those which are

prohibited

unless

registered

But

(c).

earned in an unlawful " vocation "

assessed to the income tax

money
properly

is

(d).

Where analogous words

are

each

used,

may

be presumed to be susceptible of a separate and

distinct meaning
for the Legislature is not
;

Parier

v. Inge,

17 Q. B. D. 584; and Broadbent

v. Sliepherd,

[1901] 2 K. B. 274.
(a) Long
(6) Mill

v.

Gray, 1 Moo. P. 0. N. S. 411.

V. HawJcer,

L.E. 10 Ex. 92;

comp. Beios v. Biley,

11 C. B. 434.
(c)

Padstow

dec.

Assoc, Be, 20 Ch. D. 137

Shaw

v.

Benson,

11 Q. B. D. 563.
(d) 5

&6

Vict.

0.

35, Sched.

Mallandaine {imO), 56 L.

per

Denman

J. Q. B. 251.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J.,

Partridge

v.

INTBEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

556

supposed to use words without a meaning (a). But

the use of tautologous expressions is not uncom-

mon

and there is no such presumption

against fulness, or even superfluity of expression, in
statutes, or other written instruments, as amounts
to a rule of interpretation, controlling what might
in statutes,

otherwise be their proper construction

It

has been justly remarked that,

no

required,

is

always to

call

safer rule

(b).

when

precision

can be followed than

the same thing by the same

name (c).

presume that the

same meaning is implied by the use of the same
expression in every part of an Act (d). Accordingly,
in ascertaining the meaning to be attached to a
particular word in a section of an Act, though the
It is, at all events, reasonable to

(a) See

ex.

gr.

the

distinction

between

" rights "

"interests " in the International Copyright Act,

Vict.

c.

33), s.

Act, 1911)

6 (repealed and replaced by Part

Moul

v. Groenings,

moneys paid " under" and

Taiham

v.

(6)

v.

gaming

between
contract,

L. J. Q. B. 30, approved in Saffery v.

Beeve, 62

Mayer, 70 L. J. K. B. 145.
Brighton Guardians

Copyright

II.,

[1891] 2 Q. B. 443

" in respect of " a

and

1886 (49 & 50

See also another example in

Strand Guardians, [1891] 2 Q. B. 156.

Per Lord Selbourne L.G., Hough

Windus, 12 Q. B. D.

v.

229.
(c)

Sir G. C. Lewis, Obs.

and Eeas. in

Polit., vol.

i.

p. 91.

(d) Gourtauld v. Legh, L. E. 4 Ex. 130, per Cleasby B.

Poor

Law

Gommrs., 6 A.

Brewery, 5 Ch. D. 535.

& B. 68,per Lord Denman

Be

B.

v.

Kirkstall

Camp, the judgments of Cockburn C.J.

in Smith v. Brown, L. E. 6 Q. B. 731,

and

of

The Franconia, 2 P. D. 174.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Baggallay L.J. in

TAUTOLOGOUS EXPRESSIONS.

557

proper course would seem to be to ascertain that

meaning

if

from a consideration of the

possible

section itself; yet,

if

the meaning cannot be so

ascertained, then, on the principle that, as a general

word is to be considered as used throughout

an Act in the same sense, other sections may be

rule, a

looked at to
there used

fix

the sense in which the word

is

(a).

But the presumption

is

not of

much

weight.

In 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96, for instance, which makes

any " person " in a British possession charged
with any crime at sea liable to be tried in the
colony, and provides that where the offence is
murder or manslaughter of any " person " who dies
in the colony of an injury feloniously inflicted at
sea, the offence shall be considered as having been
committed wholly at sea; the word "person"
would include any human being, when relating to
the sufferer, but would, as regards the offender,
include only those persons who, on general principles of law,

are subject to the jurisdiction of

our Legislature, and responsible for their acts

(b).

In the enactment which makes it felony for any

one, "being married," to "marry" again while
the former marriage is in force, the same word
(a)

Per Jessel M.E., Spencer

v.

Metrop. Bd. of Worhs, 22

Ch. D. 142.
(6)

See U.

S. v.

Palmer, 3 Wheat. 631

(1857), Dears & B. 182, and other cases

Digitized

See also B.

cited, sup. p.

by Microsoft

v.

262

Lewis
et seq.

INTEEPRBTATION OP STATUTES.

558

has obviously two different meanings, necessarily

implying the validity of the marriage in the one

and as necessarily excluding it in the other (a).

And though by s. 27 (2), Metropolitan Building
Act, 1855, separate sets of chambers in large buildings are to be deemed to be " separate buildings,"
case,

and to be separated by proper party- walls, etc.,

accordingly, yet it has been held that they are
not " separate buildings " within the meaning of
Schedule II. Part I. of the same Act, under which
the district surveyor

entitled to charge a fee

is

"every" new "building" surveyed

word "made" is used in
(6).
different senses in the London Government Act,

in respect of

by him
1899

So, the

(c).

The

case of Forth v.

Chapnan

{d)

furnishes a

24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 57; B. v. Allen (1872), 41

M. C, at p. 98. For another illustration, see Pharmcbceutical

(a)

L. J.

Socy. V. Piper, [1893], 1 Q. B.

686 (approved in PJiarmaceutical

Socy. V. Armson, [1894] 2 Q. B. 720),

is

have different meanings in different parts

said to

(31

& 32

where the word "

Vict. c.

So " otherwise"

121).

Women's Property

senses in the Married

is.

article

of

s.

"

17

used in

differing

1882

Tidswell,

Act,

Be, 56 L. J. Q. B. 548.
(6)
s.

18

215,

& 19

Vict.

and Sched. 4

c.
;

122 (repealed, 57 & 58 Vict.

note

s.

74 of this Act)

Moir

c.

cexiii.,

v. Williams,

[1892] 1 Q. B. 264.
(c)

Per Warrington

{d) 1 P.

Wms.

663

J.,
;

Parrish

v.

Groohe v.

Hackney

Be

Lord Eldon.

Digitized

Corp.,

55

S. J. 670-

Vandes, 9 Ves. 208, per

by Microsoft

VAEIATION OP INTBRPEETATION.

559

well-known instance of a single passage in a Will

receiving two different interpretations, according

which

to the nature of the property to

appHed

it

was

a devise of freehold and leasehold property

if he died " with-

to a person, with remainder over

out issue," being construed to mean, as regarded

the freehold, failure of issue at any future time,

but as regarded the leasehold, a failure of issue at

the death of the devisee. But this construction,

which Lord Kenyon (a) considered hardly

illustra-

tive of the saying that lex plus laudatiir quando

and which has since been partially

set aside by the Wills Act, 1837 (6), was attributable

ratione probatur,

to the different principles of interpretation adopted

Common Law

and Ecclesiastical Courts,

under whose cognisance Wills of the two kinds of
property respectively and exclusively fell (c).
So, it seems to have been once thought that
in s. 2, 9 Anne, c. 14 (d), which gave the loser at

by the

play a right to recover by action his losses' above

10,

when

informer the right to

value besides,

if

the loser did not take proceedings

(a) Porter v. Bradley, 1

(6)

Wm.

and gave an
recover them, and treble

lost at a single sitting,

E. E. 675.

IV. and 1 Vict.

c.

26,

s.

29

Bence, Be, [1891]

3 Oh. 242.

Feame, Oont. Eem. 476. Sep Wingfield

Oh. D. 658, and the oases there cited.
(d) Eepealed by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 15.
(c)

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Wingfield, 9

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

560

in time, the expression " a single sitting "

might

receive two different meanings, according as the

was the loser, or an informer: that is,

that a sitting suspended for dinner should be
held single and continuous when the loser sued,
but be broken into two sittings when the action
was brought by the informer on the ground that
plaintiff

Act was remedial, and there-

in the one case the

in the latter

was penal, and therefore was to

it

be construed strictly
interpreter

is

But unquestionably the

{a).

bound, in general, to disclaim the

meanings to the same

right to assign different

ground

words on the

of

intention of the Legislature

supposed

general

{h).

As the same expression

to

while

entitled to a beneficial construction,

fore

is

as

a general rule

be presumed to be used in the same sense

throughout an Act, or a series of cognate Acts,

a

change of language, probably, suggests

presumption of change of intention

(c)

the

and as

has been seen, the change of language in the

of

later

two statutes on the same subject has

often the effect of repealing the earlier provision

by implication

A.

{d).

Where
W.

{a)

Bones

(fe)

Per Lord Denman, B.

& B.
(c)

v. Booth,

Bl. 1226.
v.

Poor Law Gommrs. (1838), 6

v.

Great Bolton, 8 B.

56, at p. 68.

Per Lord Tenterden, B.

Bicket V. Met. By. Co., L. E. 2

[d)

a limited interpretation

H. L. 207.

See cases cited sup. pp. 285-295.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

C. 74

VARIA.TION OF INTERPRETATION.

561

has been placed upon prior Acts of Parliament,

and the words of an amending Act have been
enlarged, the inference

that the enlargement

is

must have been intentional on the part of the

Legislature (a).
So where by earlier enactments,
penalties on members of Parliament for sitting
and voting before being sworn were expressly
recoverable by common informers, and by a
repealing Act the penalties were made recoverable
by action, without saying by whom, it was held
that the

common

only the Crown

informer could not sue, but

And

(6).

it

has been held that

where section after section of an Act relating

to the winding up of companies is limited to
winding up by the Court, the absence of any
such limitation in another section which contains
provisions as to procedure " if the winding up of a

company is not concluded within a year after its

commencement," indicates an intention on the
part of the Legislature that the latter section shaU

up

(c).

c.

74

(cZ),

Clarke, 8

App.

also apply to cases of voluntary winding

Where one

section of 35

29 & 30 Vict.

36 Vict.

[1893] 1 Q. B. 77.

(a) Hurlhatt v. Barnett,

(h)

&

c.

19,

s.

c.

63,

s.

Bradlaugh,

v.

Gas. 354.
(c)

53

& 54

Vict.

15

repealed 8

Bdw. VII.

c.

59,

As to existing law relating to winding up

s. 286, Sched. 6, pt. I.
StocJc &
of Companies, see ss. 182 et seq., 8 Edw. VII. c. 59
;

Share Auction
(d)

&

BanJcing Co., Be, [1894] 1 Oh. 736.

Eepealed, 38 & 39 Vict.

c.

63,

s. 1,

which

see.

36

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

562

imposed a penalty for selling, as unadulterated,

articles of food which were adulterated ; and
another provided that the seller of an article of
food, who, knowing that it was mixed with a
foreign substance to increase its bulk or weight,

did not declare the admixture to the purchaser,

should be deemed to have sold an adulterated

article

the former section would reach a seller

who was

ignorant

of

adulteration;

the

since,

where knowledge was intended to be an element

in an offence under the Act, the Legislature had
conveyed its intention in express terms (a).
"Where an Act recited and repealed an earlier
one, which had authorised two justices, " whereof
one to be of the quorum," to remove any person
"likely to be" chargeable to the parish, and
enacted that no person should be removed until
" actually " chargeable, when " two justices "

mention of either being of the

quorum) might remove him it was held that this
qualification was not necessary under the later
Act {b).
A man who sends his servants or his dogs on
the land of another, would be, in law, as much
a trespasser as if he had entered on the land in
(omitting

all

(a) Fitzpatrich v. Kelly,

Pope

V.

43 L. J. M. 0. 135.
(b)

42 L.

Tearle (1874), 43 L. J.

J. M. C. 132, sup.
M. C 129 Boberts
;

p. 58.

See further, sup. p. 186.

B. V. Llangian, diss. Gockburu G.J., sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

p..

See

v. Egertvn,

287.

VAEIATION OF INTERPRETATION.

person
for

563

but an Act which imposed a penalty

committing a trespass " by entering or being "

upon

(a)

would be construed as

land,

limiting,

by

these superadded words, the trespass to a personal

entrance (b).
Sec. 59, 6 Geo. IV. c. 125, which exempted
from compulsory pilotage any ship whatever
which " is " within the limits of the port to which
she belongs, was construed as exempting from
compulsory pilotage a London vessel while within
the port of London, though on a voyage from
Bordeaux but she would not have been exempted
under s. 379, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854
(repealed, s. 625, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894),
which exempted ships "navigating" within the
limits of the port to which they belong (c).
In an
Act (59 Geo. III. c. 50) (d), which provided that
no person should acquire a settlement in a parish
by a 40 days' residence in a tenement rented
by him, unless, if a house, it was "held," and
;

land,

if

(a)

it

Baker

was "occupied" by him

v. Berkeley,

2 Marsh. 582.
(&)

see

B.

Bead

(c)

V.
v.

3 0.

Edwards, 84 L.

J. 0.

Co.,

38 L.

J.

Dimmock

M.

G. 113, sup. p. 547.

See also Hickman

Steam Nav.

Getil.

v. Allenby, cited

But

P. 31.

The Stettin, Br. & Lush. 199.

Steam Nav.

p. 492.

See further, sup.

Pratt (1855), 24 L. J.

[1900] 1 Q. B. 752, and

{d)

& P. 32

for a year,

v.

Maisey,

Co. v. Brit.

Colon.

Ex. 97.

Eepealed 6 Geo. IV.

e.

57)

s.

1,

which section

repealed by S. L. E., 1873.

Digitized

by Microsoft

is

itself

INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.

564

was given to the two different words as

expressing different ideas, by holding that a
effect

house need not be " occupied " for the purpose

though, it was
of acquiring a settlement (a)
;

observed, this was probably not really intended

by the Legislature

(b).

But just as the presumption that the same

meaning is intended for the same expression in
every part of an Act is, as we have seen, not of

much

weight, so the presumption of a change of

intention from a change of language (of no great

weight in the construction of any documents)

seems entitled to

less

weight in the construction of

any other case for the variation

is sometimes to be accounted for by a mere desire
to avoid the repeated use of the same words (c),
and often from the circumstance that the Act has
been compiled from different sources and further,
a statute than in

(a)

B.

B. & 0. 578; B.

v.

Great Bolton,

North Gollingham, sup.

See other

V. North, Gollingham, 1

8 B. & 0. 71.
(6)

Per Best

illustrations in

J.,

B.

v.

Lawrence

v.

34 L. J. Bank. 1;

Exp.,
Cornill

V.

King, 37 L. J.

Gale

v.

M;

0. 78

Gorely,

29 E. E. 199;

Laurie,

Hudson, 27 L. J. Q. B. 8; Wiley

v.

Crawford, 30

L.J. Q. B. 319.
(c)

Per Blackburn

Lord Abinger, B.
Brace

v.

v.

J.,

Hadley

Frost,

Ahercarn Colliery

v. Perks,

9 C.
Co.,

&

L. E. 1 Q. B. 444

P. 129

by Microsoft

per

per Lindley L.J.,

[1891] 2 Q. B. 705.

accidental omissions, see sup. pp. 443-445.

Digitized

As

to

565

VARIATION OF LANGUAGE.

from the alterations and additions from various

hands which Acts undergo in their progress
through Parliament. Though the statute is the
language of the three estates of the realm, it
seems legitimate, in construing it, to take into

may have been the promany minds and that this may better

consideration that

duction of

it

account for the variety of style and phraseology

which

is

found, than a desire to convey a different

Even where

intention.
different

dicative of a change
is

change

the

statutes,

the variation occurs in

of intention.

no difference

"river" in

ss.

often

is

between
27, 28, 24

&

not in-

Thus there

" stream "

and

25:,Vict. c. 109(a);

and " ordinary luggage " in an Act, and " personal

luggage " in a by-law made under it, have been
So,
construed as meaning the same thing (6).
there can be no material difference between
"suffering" and "knowingly suffering" persons
gamble in a public- house (c). To " turn cattle
loose" on a public thoroughfare, which is subject
to a penalty by s. 54, Metropolitan Police Act,
to

1839 (2

&

3 Vict.

47), is substantially identical

c.

(a) Bolle V. Whyte, 37 L. J. Q. B. 118.

(&)

Eudston

V.

Midland By.

discussed in Macrow
(c)

9 Geo. IV.

Licensing

c.

v.

61

Co. ClSeg), 38 L. J. Q. B.

213

G. W. By. (1871), 40 L. J. Q. B. 300.

;

35 & 36 Vict.

(Consolidation)

Act,

c.

1910;

Q. B. D. 84.

Digitized

by Microsoft

94, repealed

Bosley

v.

s.

Barnes,

79,

INTEEPEETA.TION OF STATUTES.

566

with "leaving cattle" there "without a keeper,"

and the
contrary to s. 74, Highway Act, 1835(a)
;

&

definition in 6

carriage,

7 Vict.

c.

86,

hackney

of a

2,

s.

"any

as a carriage plying for hire in

public place,"

is

&

earlier Act, 1

meaning with the

c. 22, which defined

identical in

2 Will. IV.

any "street or road "(6).

It may be questioned whether ^oo much importance has not sometimes been attached to a variaas plying for hire in

it

tion of language

(c).

enacted that "

An Act which

shall

it

and may

be lawful" for a justice to hear a certain class of

cases under 50, and that penalties above that
sum " shall " (d) be sued for in the Superior Courts,

was held equally imperative in both cases, even

though the effect was to oust the jurisdiction
Superior Courts in the former

of the

though one section

(a) 5

& 6

Will. IV.

c.

IV.

of 3 G-eo.
50

(s.

74 of which

enacted with variations by 27 & 28 Vict.

Sherhorn v. Wells, 32 L. J.
(6) Skinner v.

M.

c.

is

e.

(e).

So,

made

39,

repealed and re101,

s.

25).

See

C. 179.

Usher, L. E. 7 Q. B. 423.

See also Ourtis

v.

Emhery, L. E. 7 Ex. 369.

(c)

See ex.

gr.

B.

v.

South Weald, 33 L.J.

M. C. 192

Jarman,

Exp., 4 Ch. D. 835.

(<?)

25 Geo. III.

which Act

is

c.

51 (repealed 2 & 3 Will. IV.

repealed by S. L. E., 1874).

Beauclerk, 18 L. J. Ex. 227

73.
(e)

Montague

v.

See

120,

s. 1,

Haldane

v.

Smith, 21 L. J. Q. B.

See also sup. pp. 424-429.

Gates v. Knight, sup. pp. 238-240.

Digitized

c.

ex. gr.

by Microsoft

VARIATION OF LANGUAGE,

567

warrant of attorney to confess judgment, if not

filed within 21 days, " fraudulent and void against
the assignees" in bankruptcy of the debtor, and
another made it " void to all intents and purposes,"
the defeasance was not written on the same

if

paper as the warrant, it was held, notwithstanding

the dissimilarity of the language, that the latter
section was not

but

more extensive than the former,

made the warrant

of attorney void only as

against the assignees (a).

Sec. 137,

Bankrupt

Law

which made judges'

orders, given by consent by a "trader," null and
void to " all intents and purposes," unless filed,
was held to have no more extensive meaning than
the provision just cited of the 3 Geo. IV. c. 39, and
was therefore valid against a solvent trader. The
word "trader" which is used in the same and
Consolidation Act, 1849

(ft),

the preceding sections, was held to be confined to

traders

who

afterwards became bankrupt

though

the word "bankrupt" was used in

all

the other

sections relating to the

AU

of them,

subject.

however, were prefaced by the preamble that they

related to " transactions with the bankrupt " (c).
&

(a) Morris v. Mellin, 6 B.

B. &

C. 500, diss.

L.

M. & P.

B.

V. Tone, 1

437.

Parke

0. 446; Bennett v. Daniel, 10

and Eolfe

See also Myers

(b)

Eepealed 32 & 33

Bryan
v.

B.,

v. Veitch,

Bryan

v. Ghild,

L. E. 4 Q. B. 649

1
;

B. & Ad. 561.

(e)

Gowan

J.

v.

Vict. c. 83,

Child (1850), 1 L.

s.

20.

M. &

P. 429

Wright (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 131.

Digitized

by Microsoft

discussed in

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

568

Where under

bankruptcy statutes certain

voluntary settlements could be avoided by an order
for sale by a trustee in bankruptcy, and were thus
earlier

Bankruptcy
Act, 1883, that such settlements should be "void"
as against the trustee was construed as also merely
voidable only, the enactment in

rendering them voidable

s.

47,

the object of the Legis-

lature being conceived to be unchanged,

and the

purpose of the alteration to be merely convenience

in drafting (a).

change of language effected by the omission

in a later statute of words which occurred in an
earlier one would make no difference in the sense,
when the omitted words of the earlier enactment
Thus, where the first Act, after
enacting that in an " indictment " for murder the

were unnecessary.

manner

means

need not be stated,

"
superfluously provided that the term " indictment
or

of death

should include "inquisition" (which

termini,

without any such provision

it

(6)),

did ex vi

and a sub-

sequent consolidation Act repealed and re-enacted

the same enactment, omitting the
interpretation clause

it

unnecessary

was held that the word

(a) 46 & 47 Viet. c. 52 (repealed, 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 168,

and Sched. 6, which see); Be Brail, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381;
approved by Ct. of Ap., Be Carter and Kenderdine, 66 L. J. Ch.
408.
Aliter,
(&) 2 Hale, 155*; WitU^ole's Case, Cro. Car. 134.
" information," B. v. Slator, 8 Q. B. D. 267.
See also Tales v.

B., 14 Q. B. D. 648

A.-G.

Digitized

v.

Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667.

by Microsoft

VARIATION OF LANGUAGE.

569

" indictment " was to be read in its full and established meaning, and not in the restricted sense
in which the Legislature
in the

it

apparently understood

earlier statute (a).

So, the

Merchant

Shipping Act of 1854, which required (following

earlier Act) that the transfer of ships should be

an

registered, but omitted the proviso of the earlier,

which

declared

that

a transfer

not registered

should not be valid for any purpose whatever, was

construed as making such a transfer void, notwithstanding the omission of the proviso (b). The

&

9 Vict.

c.

106, which, after repealing a similar

enactment of the preceding session, made certain

leases void when not made by deed, was construed
as leaving the unsealed document valid as an
agreement
although the repealed Act had an
express provision to that effect, which the repealing one omitted (c).
Even where the omitted words were material
to the sense, but might be implied, the omission
would not, in itself, be considered material, if
;

leading to consequences not likely to be intended.

(a) B. V. Ingham, 33 L. J. Q. B. 183.

Borough Bank

(6) Liverpool

also Ballhyany v.

Merchant Shipping
(c)

Bond

V.

J. Q. B. 421,

and

Bosling (1860), 30 L. J. Q. B. 227

S. 298.

ss.

See

24-26,

Act, 1894.

Taswell, 27 L. J. Ch. 812

C.B.N.

30 L. J. Ch. 379.

v. Turner,

Bouch (1881), 50 L.

per Byles

J.,

Parher

v.

Tidey v. Mollett, 16

See, however, Walsh v. Lonsdale, 52 L. J. Ch. 2,

on which see Coataworth

v. Johnson,

Digitized

55 L.

J.

by Microsoft

Q. B. 220.

570

INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.

Bankruptcy Act, 1869, in

making an assignment by a debtor of all his
property an act of bankruptcy, omitted the words
Thus,

although

the

" with intent to defeat or delay his creditors "

which Jiad been in former Acts, it was held that

no alteration had been made in the law for those
words had been really superfluous and misleading (a). A statute which required witnesses before
an election commission to answer self- criminating
questions, and indemnified them against prosecu;

tion for the offences confessed,

certified that

if

the commissioners

they had answered the questions,

was held not to differ substantially from an earlier

one, which gave the indemnity only when it was
certified that the answers were true.
The Court
shrank from inferring, from the mere dissimilarity
of the terms of the two Acts, though the omitted
words were material, the improbable intention,

who had

in the later one, to protect a witness

answered, indeed, in point of fact, but had answered

falsely or

contemptuously

It has, indeed,

(ffl)

78.

Wood, Be, L. E. 7 Ch. 302.

See also

Cojpeland, Exp.,

similar omission in
(6)

B.

C. P. 137
V.

(b).

been said that, generally, statutes

V.
;

s.

1 of

See Earn

22 L.

J.

v. Ion,

Bank. 17

4 B.

& Ad.

and note a

Bankruptcy Act, 1914.

Eulme, sup. p. 416.

Hughes v. Morris, 2

Banhin, Id. 403; Kennedy

See Duncan

De
v.

22 L.

by Microsoft

J.

McCalmont

Gibson, 8 Wallace, 498.

sup. p. 445.

Digitized

v. Tindal,

Q. M. & G. 349

See

ASSOCIATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIND.

in pari inaterid

571

ought to receive a uniform con-

struction, notwithstanding

any shght variations of

phrase the ohject and intention being the same (a).
And it has been frequently laid down in America,
that the mere change of phraseology is not to be
deemed to alter the law (6). It would be difficult,
at the present time, to give countenance to the
doubt whether an Act which made it felony to
;

steal "horses," in the plural, applied to the steal-

ing of one horse, in consequence of an earlier Act

having made it felony to steal " any horse " in the
singular

The general language

(c).

of a statute

which repealed one of limited operation, and reenacted its provisions in an amended form, would
be construed as equally limited in operation, unless

an intention to extend

SECTION

IV.

it

ASSOCIATED

clearly appeared (d).

WOEDS UNDEESTOOD

IN

COMMON SENSE.

When

two words or expressions are coupled

together, one of which generally includes the
other, it is obvious that the more general term
is used in a meaning excluding the specific one.
(a) Per Cur., Murray v.

I. Go.,

24 E. E. 325, referring to

the Statutes of Limitation.

(6)

Sedg. Interp. Stat. 234, 428.

(c)

2 Hale, 365

(d)

Per Our., Brown

sup. p. 467.
v.

McLaeUan, L. E. 4 P.

Digitized

by Microsoft

C. 543.

572

INTEBPKETATTON OF STATUTES.

Though the words "cows," " sheep," and " horses,"

for example, standing alone, comprehend heifers,
lambs, and ponies respectively, they would be
understood as excluding them if the latter words
were coupled with them (a). The word " land,"
which in

ordinary legal acceptation includes

its

buildings standing

upon

it,

is

evidently used as

excluding them, when it is coupled with the word

" buildings " (b).
If after imposing a rate on
houses, buildings, works, tenements, and heredita-

ments, an Act exempted "land," this word would be

unburthened with houses, buildings, or works

which would otherwise have been
unnecessarily enumerated (c).
In 43 Eliz. c. 2,
s. 1, which imposed a poor rate on the occupiers
of " lands," houses, tithes, and ** coal-mines," the
same word was similarly limited in meaning as not
including mines other than coal-mines (c?). The
restricted to land
;

(a)

B.

V.

2 East, P. C. 616

Cook,

B.

v.

Loom, 1 Moo.

C. C. 160.
(6)

See

ex. gr.

Bewhurst

v. Feilden,

West Ham, 28 L. J. M. C. 240

Blackburn
(c)

B.

V.

J. in

B.

v.

66 E. E. 696

Peio

v.

discussed and questioned by

Midland By. (1875), 44 L. J. M. C. 137.

Co., 4 E. & B. 958
Crayford v. Butter,

Midland By.

[1897] 1 Q. B. 650.
(c^)

Lead Smelting

Sedgley, 2 B.
V.

Co. v. Bichardson (1762), 3 Burr.

& Ad. 65

B.

v.

Crawshay (1871), L. E. 5 H. L. 304

Thursby

[1894] 2 Q. B. 11, [1895] A. C. 32.

Water Co.

v.

Hampton Urban

Digitized

1341

Cunningham, 5 East, 478

Comj>.

B.

v.

Morgan

v. Briercliffe,

Smithwark dc.

Council (1898), 68 L. J. Q. B. 207.

by Microsoft

ASSOCIATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIND.

mention

of one kind of

lature understood the

573

mine shows that the Legisword " land," which in law

comprehends all mines, as not including any.

In the same way, although the word "

per-

son," in the abstract, includes artificial persons,

the Statute of Uses

which
enacts that when a
10),
" person " stands seised of tenements to the use
of another " person or body corporate," the latter
" person or body " shall be deemed to be seised of
them, is understood as using the word " person " in

that

is,

corporations

(27 Hen. VIII.

(a),

c.

the former part of the sentence as not including a

body corporate. Consequently, the statute does

not apply where the legal seisin is in a corporaThe same construction was given, for the
tion (b).
same reason, to the same word in the Charitable

Uses Act, 1735, 9 Geo.

II. c. 36(c).

It is in this sense that the

misapplied

argument

in

maxim, occasionally
expressio

(d),

unius

est

exclusio alterius, finds its true application.

See, however, Weavers Co. v. Forrest, 1 Stra.

(a) 2 Inst. 722.

1241

Harrisons Case, 1 Leach, 180

3 0. P. D. 377

St.

Leonards

PJiarmaceutical Society v. London

Supply Assoc, 49 L. J. Q. B. 736.

As

1 Q. B. D. 404

Boyal Mail Co.

v.

(6)

Bao. Beading Stat. Uses, 43, 57.

(c)

Eepealed except

s.

5 (in part) 51

Provincial

to foreign corporations,
Scott v. Boyal Wax
Braham, 2 App. Gas. 381.

Ingate v. Austrian Lloyd's, 27 L. J. 0. P. 323

Co.,

v. Franklin,

&

& 52

Vict. c. 42, s. 13

Walker v. Bichardson, 6 L. J. Ex. 229.

(d) Sup. p. 548.

See Feather

Digitized

v. B.,

6 B.

by Microsoft

&

S.

257

Eastern

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

574

When

two or more words, susceptible of analogous meaning, are coupled together, noscuntur a
they are understood to be used in their cognate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from
sociis

each other

that

is,

the more general

to a sense analogous

expression,

to the

instance,

for

restricted

is

The

less general.

" places of public

of

assumes a very different meaning when

coupled with " roads and streets," from that which

resort,"

would have

it

" houses "

27

c.

the accompanying expression was

In an enactment (s. 6, 23 & 24 Vict,

if

(a).

respecting houses " for public refresh-

(b))

ment, resort and entertainment," the last word was

understood, not as a theatrical or musical or other

something contribut-

similar performance, but as

ing to bodily, not mental, gratification

Archipelago Co. v.

Bank

Joint Stock
(as)

L. J.

See ex.

M.

Douglas, 28 L. J.

M.

117

Wilson

C. 158.

Be, 21 L. J.

M. 0. 116

M.

C. 193

B.

v.

Brown, 21
;

38 L. J. M. C. 113; Skinner

See also B.

v. Gharlesworth,

Halifax, 37 L. J. Ex.

v.

London

25 L. J. M. 0. 121 Davys v.
Sewell v. Tarjlor, 29 L. J. M. G.

Freestone, Exp.,

v. Storey,

L. J.

J.

v.

gr. Jones,

C. 113

50; Case

B.,1 E. & B. 310, per Cresswell

London {Mayor), 1 C. P. D. 117.

An

(c).

44

v. Usher,

41

M. &

P.

2 L.

Eippins, Exp., 66

L. J. Q. B. 95.
(&) Sec.

(c)

L. J.

15

6 amended 24 & 25 Vict.

Muir

M.

V.

91, ss. 8, 10.

G. 252

Howes

v. Ird. Bev.,

45 L. J.

M.

but with another context " entertainment "

another connotation, ex.

197

c.

Keay, 44 L. J. M. 0. 143. See Taylor

Terry

v.

gr.

See B.

v.

Oram, 31

C. 86

by Microsoft

46 Id.

may easily have

Tucker, 46 L. J.

Brighton Aquarium Co., 44 L. J.

Digitized

v.

M.

0. 173

M.
;

0.

Beid

ASSOCIATED WOBDS OF THE SAME KIND.

575

Act (a) which exempted "magnates and noblemen"

from tithes, was held, on this ground, not to extend
to an ecclesiastical magnate, such as a dean, but
to apply only to magnates of a " noble " kind

(6).

In the same way, s. 17, Statute of Frauds,

which required that contracts for the sale of
" goods, wares, and merchandise " for dElO or
upwards, should be in writing, and the Factors
Act, 5 & 6 Vict. c. 39 (c), which protected certain
dealings of agents entrusted with the documents
of title of " goods and merchandise," did not
extend to shares or stock in companies (d), or to
the certificates of them (e). In each of these
cases, the meaning of the more general word is in
64 L. J. M. 0. 60

V. Wilson,

Lee

v. Simpson,

16 L.

Baxter

J. G. P.

v.

105

M.

Langley, 38 L. J.
;

Lamb

v. Stott,

C.

36 So.

L. R. 913.

Hen. VIII. c. 12.

Warden v. Bean of St. Paul's

(a) 37
(6)
(c)
s.' 4,

0.

Now

(1817), 4 Price, 65.

the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, 56 & 57 Vict.

and the Factors

sup. p. 511,

Act, 1889, 52

& 53

c.

71,

Vict.

45.

(d) Tempest V. Kilner, 3 C..B. 249; owlby v. Bell, 16 L. J.

C. P. 18
Siggers,
(e)

Humble

v.-

Mitchell,

9 L. J. Q. B. 29

Heseltine v.

18 L. J. Ex. 166.

Freeman

v.

Appleyard, 32 L. J. Ex. 175

See, however,

Evans v. Bavies, [1893] 2 Ch. 216, where shares were held to be

within the words " goods, wares, or merchandise " of E. S. C,
1883, Ord. 50, r. 2. No reference appears, however, to have
been made to the principle under consideration, or to the
going authorities.

Digitized

by Microsoft

fore-

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

576

a measure derived from, or at least limited by,

the more specific one with which it is associated.

The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849(a),

which made a fraudulent "gift, delivery, or
bankruptcy (b)
included only such deliveries or transfers as were
of the nature of a gift; that is, such only as
alt'er the ownership of the property; but it did
of property

transfer "

'

not

include

custody

an act

delivery

of

to

bailee

for

safe

(c).

In the provision of the repealed Bankruptcy

Act, 1869, which authorised the Court to order
a bankrupt to set aside a sum out of his " salary
or income " towards payment of his debts, the

mean income

latter word

was held

of

such as periodical payments under a

salary,

to

of the nature

contract for a theatrical engagement

(d),

or the

earnings of a commercial traveller employed at

much

so

a year, terminable at a week's notice

but would not apply to wages {/)

(e)

or earnings of ^

& 33 Vict. c. 83, s. 20.

& 6 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 1 (&).

(a) Eepealed 32
(6) Gomp. 4
(c) Cotton V.
Isitt V.

James (1830), 35 R. E.

(d) 32

& 33

Vict. c. 71,

Bankruptcy Act, 1914,

253

244;;

s.

Re Graydon, [1896]

(e) Brindle, Exp.,

51

s.

90

(2))

(as

to

existing

Law, see
B.

Shine, Exp., 61 L. J. Q.

1 Q. B. 417.

56 L. T. 498.

(/) LUyd, Exp., [1891] 2 Q. B. 231.

inf. p.

8 L. J. K. B. 345

Beeston (1869), 38 L. J. Ex. 89.

See further, Be Jones

579.

Digitized

by Microsoft

ASSOCIATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIND.

577

man (a). These latter statements are,

much qualified by the decision of the

professional

however,

Court of Appeal in Roberts, In re (b).

The receipt of " parochial reUef or other alms,"

which

&

(5

disqualifies

Wm.

IV.

c.

for

76,

the
s,

municipal

9), is

franchise

confined to other

parochial alms, and does not include alms received

from a charitable institution (c). And it is now

provided by 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 64, s. 9 (1), that
" A person shall not be disqualified from being
registered or from voting as a parliamentary or

government elector by reason that he or

some person for whose maintenance he is responsible has received poor relief or other alms."
The
ordinary marine policy which ensures against
arrest of "kings, princes, and people," refers,
under the last word, not to any collection of
persons, but to the governing power of a country
not included in the other terms with which it is
local

associated

(d).

(a) Benwell, Exp., 54 L. J. Q. B. 59.

See Bogers, Be, [1894]

1 Q. B. 425.

In

(6) Boberts,

(1899), 69 L.
(c)

B.

re,

J. Q.

V. Lichfield,

C. P. D. 26,

and

and the cases

273,

[1900] 1 Q. B., Lindley M.E., at p. 129

B. 19.
2 Q. B. 693.

117

Garter, 2

v.

collected therein.

(d) Nesbitt v. Lushington,

10 Q. B. D. 432.

See Harrison

Cowen v. Kingston-upon-Eull, [1897] 1 Q. B.

Ashbury Carriage Co.

See Johnson

4 T. E. 783.

See also Davidson

v.

V.

Biche, L. E. 7

H. L. 673

Hogg,

Chartered

37

i.s.

Digitized

v.

Burnand, L. E. 4 C. P.

by Microsoft

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

578

In the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, which,

after empowering the conservators to license 'the
construction of jetties in the river, provided that

not take away any "right," claim,

privilege, franchise, or immunity to which the
occupiers of land on the banks were entitled, the

this should

word "right " was limited by the associated words

to vested rights of property, and did not include
the right of navigation which the occupiers enjoyed
In
not otherwise than the public generally (a).
"
any
the
expression
s. 1, Prescription Act, 1832,

common

"

is similarly restricted by the

"
or other profit or benefit to be
succeeding words,

right of

taken and enjoyed from or upon any land," so as

not to include rights in gross, but only those
usual rights of

common and

profit

d prendre which

some way appurtenant to the land, and

limited to the wants of a dominant tenement (6).
And in s. 2 of the same Act, relating to claims
are in

by custom, prescription or grant, " to any way

or other easement," the only easements included
are those analogous
rights of utility
Mere.

Bank

W.By.

v. Wilson, 3

Co., Id.

(a) 20

& 21

121

to a right of way, that

and

benefit,

Ex. D. 108

is,

and not merely of

Woodward

v.

London

&

N.

Williams v. Ellis, 5 Q. B. D. 175.

Viet. c. cxlvii.

(1859), 28 L. J. 0. P. 285

s.

53

Kearns

v.

discussed in Lyon

Gordwainers

v.

Co.,

Fishmongers Co.

(1876), 46 L. J. Ch. 68, at p. 75.

(6)

42)

&

3 Will. IV.

Shuttleworth v.

c.

71 (extended to Ireland, 21 & 22 Viet.

Le Fleming, 34 L.

Digitized

J. C. P. 309.

by Microsoft

c.

ASSOCIATED WOEDS OF THE SAME KIND.

579

and amusement (a). An Act (b) which

felony to break and enter into a " dwelling,

recreation,

made

it

shop, warehouse, or counting-house," would not

include a workshop, but only that kind of shop

which had some analogy with a warehouse

one for the sale of goods

is,

And

(c).

that

a statutory

prohibition for the conveyance of gunpowder into a

mine except in a " case or canister " would prevent

the use of a case, such as a linen bag, which

same

is

not

and substantial description as a

canister (d).
Debentures of a company are not
" stock or shares " within s. 14, Judgments Act (e),
1838 (/), and the wages of a collier are not within
the meaning of the words " salary or income " of
s. 53 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (^), as they are
of the

solid

not " income" ejusdem generis with " salary "

Moumey

(a)

v.

0. B. N. S. 268

which

v. Bird,

10

13 Id. 841.

V.

IV.

29 (repealed 24 & 25 Vict.

c.

Scmders (1839), 9 C.

{d) 35 & 36 Vict.

Slate Go., 56 L. J.

s.

See Webb

c.

95,

see).

B.

(e)

& 8 Geo.

(6)

Ismay, 34 L. J. Ex. 52.

(h).

& 2

(e)

5,

and

c.

M.

Vict. c.

77,

s.

&

23

P. 79.

(2)

Foster v. DipTiwys Casson

0. 21.

110 (as to

s.

14, see

57 & 58 Vict.

c. 16,

Sched.).

(/) Sellar v. Bright & Go. (1904), 73 L. J. K. B. 643.

Act, 1914, as to appropriation
[3) Eepealed by Bankruptcy
of portion of pay or salary to creditors under this latter Act,
see

s.

(A)

51

Be

(2).

Jones, [1891] 2 Q. B. 231.

See further, Bxp. Lloyd,

sup. p. 576,

Digitized

by Microsoft

580

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

The County Courts Act (see now s. 74, CountyCourts Act, 1888), in making a person subject
jurisdiction of the Court of the diswithin which he " dwells or carries on his

to the
trict

business," included under the latter expression

not only a personal carrying on of business, but

cases where

agent

it

Sec.

(a).

was carried on altogether by an

6, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, which

gave the Admiralty jurisdiction, when the ship-

owner

is

not domiciled in England, over any claim

owner of goods carried into any English

damage done to them by the negligence
or misconduct of, or for " any breach of duty or of
contract " by the shipowner, master, or crew,
seems confined to breaches of duty or contract
having some analogy to what is provided in the
earlier part of the section
and was therefore held
not to apply to the wrongful refusal of a master
of the

port, for

to take a cargo to a port abroad

On

(b).

the same principle, an Act which prohibits

the "taking or destroying" the

spawn

of fish

would not include a " taking " of spawn for the

purpose of removing it to another bed; for the
word " destroying," with which " taking " is
associated,
(a)

Minor

Shields v.

M. B. E.
(fc)

v.

indicates
London

&

that

the taking which

N. W. By.

Bait, 18 L. J. G. P. 120.

Go.,

26 L. J. G. P. 39

Oomp.

111.

The Dannehrog (1874), L. E. 4 A. & E. 386.

Digitized

by Microsoft

is

Be

Norris,

ASSOCIATED WOEDS OF THE SAME KIND.

prohibited

581

dishonest or mischievous {a).

made it penal to " take or

is

in an Act which

And
kill

"

without the leave of the owners of the fishery,

the same kind of " taking " was similarly held to
have been intended (6), An Act which prohibits
the " having or keeping " gunpowder, does not
apply to a person who "has" gunpowder for a

fish

merely temporary purpose, as a carrier, the kind of

" having " intended by the Act being explained by
the word " keeping " with which it is associated (c).
So, where an Act punishes the "having in his
possession or conveying "

anything suspected of

being stolen and not satisfactorily accounted for,

the former expression is limited by the latter, and
does not, therefore, apply to possession in a
house {d). An Act which made it felony to " cast
or destroy " a ship was held not to apply to

away

a case where a ship was run aground or stranded

upon a

3 Jao.

(o)

but was afterwards got

rock,
I.

12 (repealed

c.

& 25

off

Viet. e. 109,

in

39)

s.

Bridger v. Bichardson, 15 R. R. 355.

22 & 23 Car.

(6)

B.

V.
(c)

12 Geo. III.

Biggs

35 L.

v. Mitohell,

J.

M.

Q. B. D. 11
(d)

to 2

II. c.

25 (repealed 1 & 2 Will. IV.

c.

32,

s.

1)

MalUnson, 2 Burr. 679.

&

61 (repealed 23 & 24 Vict.

0. 78.

53 L.

2 & 3 Vict.
3 Vict.

c.

31 L. J. M. C. 163. See B.

c.

J.

But see
M. C. 16.

0.

71,

47,

3.

s.

24

66,

Shelley

is

Digitized

by Microsoft

1)

12

supplemental only

qualified thereby

Perks (1866), L. R. 1 Q. B. 444.

s.

v. Bethell (1883),

this section is

and

139,

c.

v. Strugnell (1865),

Hadley

v.

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

582

condition capable of being refitted

This rule

to the construction of the repealed

was applied
Act, 1 Vict.

(a).

c.

85,

which made

it

felony " to shoot,

term was held

to be restricted, by the verbs which preceded it,
and conseto injuries inflicted by an instrument
quently to bite off a finger or a nose, or to burn
cut, stab, or

wound "

for the latter

the face with vitriol, was not to

wound within the

meaning of the Act (6).

One phrase or clause,

same way, some-

in the

times materially limits the effect of another with

Thus, an Act
which it is similarly associated.
"
which disgavelled lands
to all intents and
purposes," and then went on to make them
" descendible as lands at common law," was held to
disgavel them only for the purposes of descent (c).
The section of 17 Geo. III. c. 26 {d), which excepted
from the general provisions of the enactment any
" voluntary annuity granted without regard

to

pecuniary consideration," was construed as using

the word " voluntary," not in its usual legal sense,
as without consideration, but as

consideration
(a)

without pecuniary

{e).

De Londo's Case

(1765), 2 East, P. C. 1098.

B. V. Harris, 7 C. & P. 446; B. v. Stevens, 1 Moo. C. G.

409 B. V. Murrovi, Id. 456 B. v. Jenning's Case, 2 Lewin C. C.
See B. v. Waudby (1895), 64 L. J. M. C. 251.
130.
(c) Wiseman v. Cotton, 1 Lev. 79.
(d) Eepealed by S. L. E., 1861.
(b)

(e) Grespigny v. Wittenoom,

2 B.

&

C. 875

4 T. E. 790. See Blake

Evatt v. Hunt, 22 L. J. Q. B. 348.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v. Attersoll,

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WORDS.

SECTION V.

GENERIC

583

WORDS FOLLOWING MORE

SPECIFIC.

It is, however, the use of a general word following (a) one or more less general terms ejusdem
generis,

which

affords the

most frequent

of the rule under consideration.

illustration

Generi per speciem

In the abstract, general words, like all

others, receive their full and natural meaning
though they should not be extended so as to
confine matters to which they are obviously not
germane. Thus, as an example of the above
general proposition, s. 3, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42,
which limits the time for suing " upon any bond or
other specialty," comprehends under the last expresderogatur.

sion every kind of specialty, including a statute

{b).

In such and cognate cases, the general principle

applies, that the terms are to receive their plain
and Courts are not at
and ordinary meaning
;

liberty to

impose on them limitations not called

by the sense, or the objects or mischief of the

enactment (c).
But the general word which follows particular
and specific words of the same nature as itself

for

Not preceding. See ex. gr. King v. Oeorge, 5 Oh. D. 627.

Goode, 22 L. J. C. P. 198;
(6) Gorh & Bandon By. Co. v.
Thomson
v. Glanmorris (Lord)
in
distinguished
and
discussed
(o)

(1900), 69 L. J. Oh. 337.

(c)

Per

Cur., U. S. v. Goombs, 12 Peters, 80.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

584

meaning from them, and is presumed to

be restricted to the same genus as those words (a)
or, in other words, as comprehending only things
of the same kind as those designated by them;
unless, of course, there be something to show that
takes

its

a wider sense was intended.

43 of the Customs Laws Consolidation

Act, 1876, which provides that "the importation
of arms, ammunition, gunpowder or any other
goods may be prohibited by proclamation in Order

Thus

s.

in Council," obviously relates only to goods of a

like character or description to those specifically

mentioned

and

not to other things of an entirely

different description.

The Sunday Observance Act, 1677

c. 7),

(29 Car. II.

"
which enacts that no tradesman, artificer,

workman,

labourer, or other

shaU

or

do

person whatsoever,

any labour, business,

exercise

or

work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's

Day," has been held not to iaclude a coach
proprietor (6), a farmer (c), a barber (d), and possibly
a solicitor (e) the word " person " being confined
;

to

followers

(a)
(6)

of callings

See per Willes

Sandiman

(c)

B.

V.

L. J.

M.

0. 79.

v.

J.,

Fenwich

Palmer

(e)

Peate

v.

v.

specified

by

Sehmah, L. E. 3 C. P. 313.

Breach, 31 E. E. 169.

Cleworth, 4 B.

(d)

those

like

&

S. 927,

nom. B.

Snow, [1900] 1 Q. B. 725.

v. Dickin,

4 L. J. Ex. 28.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Silvester,

33

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WOEDS.

585

the preceding words.

For a similar reason, the

20 G-eo. II. 0. 19 (a), which empowered justices to
determine differences between masters and " ser-

vants in husbandry,

handicraftsmen,"

artificers,

and persons in some other specific employments,

and " all other labourers," did not include a
domestic servant

(b),

man employed

or a

care of goods seized under a writ

in the

abstract they

may

(c)

to take

though

for

be " labourers " their

employments have no analogy with those specified.

It would include, however, a man who contracted
to work by the piece, not by the day, provided the
relation of master and servant existed (d).
The Metropolitan Building Act, 1855 (e), which
entitled a district surveyor " or other person," to

a month's notice of action for anything done under

the Act, was held, on this principle, not to give

that privilege to every person sued, but to give
(a) Eepealed, 38
{&)

Kitchen

v.

L. J. M. C. 138
V.

& 39

Vict. c. 86,

s.

17.

Shaw, 6 A. & B. 729.

;

Dmies

London Gen. Omnibus

v. Berwick,

Co.,

Comp. Exp. Hughes, 28

30 L.

J.

13 Q. B. D. 842.

M.

C. 84

concluding observations of Fry L.J. in Bound

[1892] 1 Q. B. 226.
Co.,

See also Gooh

v.

Morgan,

See, however, the

v.

Lawrence,

North Metrop. Tramways

18 Q. B. D. 683.

(c)

Branwell

v.

Pennech, 7 B.

(d) iow<Aerv.i?ador,

8, East,

&

C. 536.

113; comp. Lancaster

v. Greaves,

9 B. & 0. 628; Exp. Johnson, 7 Dowl. 702; B. v. Heywood,

1 M. & S. 624. See also Gordon v. Jennings, 9 Q. B. D. 45.
(e) Eepealed, 57 & 58 Vict. c. ccxiii., s. 215, Sched. 4.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

586
it

only to persons ejusdem generis with a district

surveyor

that

having an

is,

duty

official

An

{a).

Act which empowers Quarter Sessions to order

the treasurer of "the county, riding, division, or
place" to pay costs, only applies to a "place"
ejusdem generis with " county,
that

is

riding,

division,"

a place having a separate Court of Quarter

Larceny Act, 1861 (now

ss. 19-22, Larceny Act, 1916), which made it a
misdemeanour for any "hanker, merchant, broker,
Sessions

And

(i).

75,

s.

own
him for

attorney, or other agent " to convert to his

use any valuable security entrusted to

any special purpose, was held not under the words

" or other agent " to include any ordinary agent
who may from time to time be entrusted with
valuable securities, but only persons whose occupation

is

similar to those specifically

As

31 Oh. D. 638.

See contra Driffield Go.

to the existmg

57 & 58 Vict.

coxiii.

c.

and Sched. As

10,

Cases Act, 1908

B.

24 & 25 Vict.

(c)

and see

c.

10

517

B.
B.

V.

V.

216 of

to existing law, see

So much of
s. 9.
by 8 Edw. VII. c. 15,

83,

s. 3,

Costs in Criminal

v.

West Biding JJ., [1900] 1 Q. B. 291.

c.

96,

s.

75 of the Larceny Act, 1861,

repealed and re-enacted in an amplified form by 1

c.

s.

until specifically revoked.

this section as relates to costs is repealed

s.

Portugal, 16 Q. B. D. 487

Kane, 70 L.

J.

v.

Waterloo

as to continuance of provisions in

London Buildings Acts

Vagrancy Act, 1824, 5 Geo. IV.

(6)

v.

law relating " to notice,"

see Public Authorities Protection Actj 1893,

preceding

(c).

Comp. Newton

Williams v. Golding, L. E. 1 0. P. 69.

(a)

Mlis, 24 L. J. Q. B. 337.
Co.,

enumerated

B.

K. B. 143.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

is

Edw. VII.
Prince, 2 0. & P.

GENBKIO POLLOWma SPECIFIC WORDS.

In an Act imposing a penalty

persons navigating " any wherry,

587

on unqualified
lighter, or other

word would include only vessels

of the same kind as wherries and Ughters, not
steam tugs which carried neither passengers nor
goods (a). But the same word would be more
comprehensive if it had followed " boats and
vessels " (b).
A prohibition against deducting from
an artificer's wages any part of them " for frame
rent and standing, or other charges," would not

craft," the last

include,

under the

last

word, a fine incurred for

breach of agreement (c).

The Distress
19), which by

for

Eent Act, 1737 (11 Geo.

II.

s. 8 authorises the distress for rent

"
of
corn, grass, or other product " growing on the

0.

demised lands, includes only products similar to

grass and corn but not young trees, which, though
;

unquestionably products of the

land,

are of

from the products specified by

For the same reason, young
trees are not included in the Act which punishes
different character

the earher terms

(a)

L. J.

(d).

& 8 Geo. IV. o. Ixxv., s. 37 Seed v. Ingham (1854), 23

M. 0. 156. The words "any Cathedral, Collegiate,

Chapter, or other Schools " in the proviso at the end of

the Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, 16 &

17 Vict.

c.

s.

repealed by S. L. E., 1875), were similarly construed in

port Schools,

Be

(1898), 68 L. J. Ch. 41.

(6) Tisdell v. Gombe, 7 A.

& B.

788.

J. Q.

B. 137.

(c)

Willis V.

Thorp, 44 L.

(d)

Clark

Oaskarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431.

V.

Digitized

by Microsoft

62 of

137 (partly
StoeJe-

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

588

the stealing of " any plant, root,

vegetable

fruit, or

production growing in a garden, orchard, nurseryground, hothouse or conservatory "

An Act which

(a).

prohibited playing or betting in

the streets "at or with any table or instrument of

gaming," would not include, under the

last general

money (&).

words, half-pence used for tossing for

A by-law which imposed

a penalty for causing an

obstruction in the street in various specified ways,

all

of a temporary character, or otherwise causing

or committing " any other obstruction, nuisance,

or annoyance " in any of the streets, was held not

under the

to include,

latter words,

any obstruction

which was not of a temporary character

The enactment which prohibited the

(c).

establish-

ment, without license, of " the business of a blood

boiler,

bone boiler, feUmonger, slaughterer of cattle,

horses, or animals of

any description, soap

tallow melter, tripe

boiler, or other

offensive business,

or

trade,

boiler,

noxious or

manufacture," was

held not to include under the final general terms

any employments not connected, as aU the specified

(a)
V.

B.

V.

(6)

Watson

Vict. c. 38,

B.

&

Eodges, 1 Moo.

EvauB, 32 L. J.
v.

s.

V. O'Connor,

M.

C. 100

IM. 341.

Smith

Martin, 34 L. J.
;

M.

v.

Barnham, 1 Ex. D. 419.

0. 50, rectified by 36

Eirst v. Moleshury, L. E. 6 Q. B. 130.

15 Cox C. C.

3.

See further, Toilet

24 L. T. 608.
(c)

B.

V.

See BadmrsUre Bd.

Dickenson, 26 L. J.

Digitized

M.

0. 204.

by Microsoft

v.

& 37
Comp.

Thomas,

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPBOIPIO WOBDS.

trades were, with animal matter

589

and so did not

brick-making (a), nor a small-pox hospital

reacli

A fishing

net with an illegally small

mesh

(6).

not

is

an " instrument " within the Salmon Fishery Acts,

which prohibit the use of " any otter lath, or jack,
wire or snare, spear,

strokehall, snatch,

gaff,

or

other like instrument for the purpose of catching

salmon

"(c).

A bill of sale,
house, of

by the yearly tenant of a dwellingthe household goods, furniture, and

all

other household effects in and about the dwellinghouse, " and all other the personal estate whatsoever," of the assignor, was held not to pass his

term or interest in the house (d). So, a Will,

which, after enumerating in a bequest furniture,
plate, linen, china, and pictures, added " aU other
goods, chattels, and effects which shall be in the
house " at the time of the testator's death, did
not include a sum of money then in the house (e).
(a) 11
s.

& 12

Vict.

c.

63,

s.

343, Sched. V., pt. III.

L. J.
(h)

M.

District v. Eill,

71,

S.

Binger
(e)

50 L.

Jones v.

(d) Harrison
v.

s.

112

Vict. c. 55,

v. Hill (1863),

WitUngton L. Bd.

32

J. Q. B.

v.

c.

109,

353
s.

v.

Manchester

Gomp. Metropolitan Asylums

L. J. Ch. 393.

24 & 25 Vict.
18

by 38 & 39

C. 135.

38 & 39 Vict. e. 55,

Corp. (1893), 62

(c)

64, repealed

Wanstead Board

Passey

v.

Oxford, 43 J. P. 622.

amended by 36 & 37

Vict. c.

Barnes, 67 L. J. Q. B. 294.

Blackburn,

34

L. J.

C.

P.

109.

Camp.

Cann, 7 L. J. Ex. 108.

Gibbs v. Lawrence (1860), 30 L. J. Ch. 170.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Discussed in

590

And

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
the rules of an industrial society, established

to carry on the business of general dealers, farmers,

and manufacturers, which provided that the

profits

of the business should be applied either to increase

the capital, reserve fund, or business of the society,

" or to any lawful purpose," and that the remainder,

less

any grant that might be made

purposes, should be divided

for educational

among the members,

have been held not to authorise a subscription to

a strike fund, that not being a lawful purpose

^usdem generis with increasing the

fund, or business of the society

An Act (h) which

a

capital, reserve

(a).

gives a vote to the occupier of

"house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or

other building," includes,

the

in

term,

latter

only buildings which, Kke those specifically men-

some permanence and

tioned, are of

contribute

the beneficial

to

v. Phillips,

(a)

817.

Warhurton

As

Ir. E., at p.

159

Bridgeman

v.

v.

9.

Huddersfield Industrial Socy., [1892] 1 Q. B.

to obligatory Eules

Vict. c. 39,

c.

The words

(c).

See also Manton v. Tdbois, 54 L. J. Oh.

See, however, Anderson v. Anderson, 64 L. J. Q. B. 457.

Fitzgerald,

1008.

[1904] 1

50 L. J. Oh.

and

occupation of the

land, increasing thereby its value

MacPhail

utility,

10,

s.

(6)

&

64,

s.

47,

(c)

Powell

and Sched.

3 Will. rV.

c.

45,

and Amendments, see 56 & 57

II.
s.

27, repealed

and Sched. VIII., which Act

V.

Boraston (1864), 34 L. J. 0. P. 73.

Morish v. Harris, L. E. 1 C. P. 155.

2 Oh. D. 122

by 7 & 8 Geo. V.

see.

Chapman

v.

Digitized

Chapman, 4

See also

Gomp. Hodgson
Id. 800.

by Microsoft

v. Jex,

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WORDS.

591

"tenements and hereditaments," which, in their

technical sense, embrace not only every species of
right connected with land, such as rents, tithe,
rights of

common,

seignorial rights, but also offices,

have been confined to habitable structures, when

coupled with and following such words as " houses,
warehouses, and shops " (a). Where an Act (b)
authorised the poUce to enter any house or room
used for stage plays, and imposed a penalty for
keeping any house or other " tenement " as an
unlicensed theatre
it was held that the word
" tenement " was confined in meaning to something of the same character as " house " or
" room," and so did not include a portable booth,
consisting of two waggons joined together, and
used as a theatre by strolling players (c).
Sec. 33, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 90, which enacted
that the owners of " houses, buildings, and property
other than land," rateable to the poor, should be
rated at thrice the rate imposed on the owners of
land, was held confined to that kind of " property
;

other than land," which was ejusdem generis with

" houses and buildings," and that a railway, a
B. V. Manchester Waterworks Co., 1 B. & 0. 630 B. v.
Waterworks Co., 21 L. J. M. 0. 49. See also Chelsea
London
East
Waterworks v. Bowley, 20 L. J. Q. B. 520 Metrop. By. v. Fowler,
(o)

[1893] A. G. 416; B.

&

v. Neville,

15 L. J. M. G. 33.

46.

(6)

(c)

Fredericks v. Howie (1862), 31 L. J.

3 Vict.

c.

Simpson (1865), 34

47,

s.

L. J.

M.

Digitized

M.

G. 149, sup. p. 211.

by Microsoft

G. 249

Bay

v.

592

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

and a dry dock lined

with masonry, which were its accessories, were not
comprised in the expression, but were rateable as
land (a). On the same principle, s. 79, Companies
Act 1862 (repealed by s. 129, Companies (ConsoKdation) Act, 1908), which provides that a company
may be wound up by the Court of Chancery when
canal, with its towing-paths,

company passes a

the

resolution in favour of that

course, or does not begin business within a year,

members are reduced to less than seven,

when the Court thinks a windiag-up "just

or its
or

and equitable," empowers the Court by these

last general words to wind up only when it is
just and equitable on grounds analogous to those
preoedingly stated

(6).

Of course, the restricted meaning, which primarily

attaches to the general word in such circumstances,
is rejected when there are adequate grounds to
(a) B. V. Neath, (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 707
Co. (1875),

(1855), 4 E.

44 L.

&

J.

M.

C. 137.

Co.,

Be

McN. &

(1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 1

L. J. Ch. 345.

v.

G. 170

CMc Urn,

German Bate

Coffee

Be, 74 L. J. Ch. 597

V.

Mysore Beefs Mining Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 295

Crigglestone Co., Be,

Be, 43 Sc. L. E. 157.

&

34 Vict.

Co.,

Be, 46

c.

75 L.

J.

Co.,

Be

Be, 51

Melson, Be, 75

J.

33

Co.

Anglo-Oreeh

Langham Bink

L.

Ch. 509

Midland By.

Midland By.

See, however, inter alia, Suburban Hotel Co.,

(1867), 36 L. J. Ch. 710;

L. J. Ch. 564

B.
v.

B. 958.

(6) Spademan's Case (1849), 1

Steam

Gomp. B.

Ch. 662
;

Stephens

Symington,

See under the Apportionment Act, 1870,

35, Cox's Trusts, Be,

Digitized

47 L.

by Microsoft

J.

Ch. 735.

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WOEDS.

593

show that

it was not used in the limited order of

which its predecessors belong. . If it
can be seen from a wider inspection of the scope

ideas

to

of the legislation that the general words, notwith-

standing that they follow particular words, are

nevertheless

be

to

must be given

construed

generally,

effect

to the intention of the Legislature

as gathered from the larger survey.

Upon

this

principle it has been held that, having regard to

the object of

s.

32, Patents, Designs,

Marks Act, 1883

(repealed,

s.

and Trade

36, Patents and

29), as seen on a

Designs Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII. c.

consideration of the whole section, and the law
existing at the time of its enactment, in construing
the reference to threats of legal proceedings " by
circulars, advertisements, or otherwise,"

contains, the words

which

it

" or otherwise " are not to be

restricted to threats

by measures ejusdem

generis

with circulars or advertisements, but are to be

regarded as extending the previous words, so as
prohibit

absolutely to

any threats whatever of

by a patentee for the infringement of his patent, unless they are followed up
speedily by an action (a). And where an inspector

legal proceedings

(a) Skirmer

&

Go. v.

distinguished in Beven

Shew
v.

&

Go. (1892),

62 L.

J.

Ch. 196,

Welshach Incandescent Gas Light

Go.,

[1902] 20 E. P. C. 69, p. 73. As to what constitutes a threat of

Diamond Goal Gutter Go. v. Mining Appliances Go.,

proceedings, see
[1915]

W. N.

340.

38

LS.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

594

was authorised to inspect articles of

food jieposited in " any place " for sale, and a
penalty was imposed on persons who prevented
him from entering any " slaughter-house, shop,
building, market, or other place," where any
carcase was deposited for sale it was held that
the latter word was not confined to places ejusdem
The earlier
generis with those which preceded it.
passage, giving authority to enter " any place,"
obviously required that the same word should
receive an equally extensive meaning in the subof nuisances

Health Act,
a
penalty
which
imposed
for
making
1848(6),
any " sewer, drain, privy, 'cesspool, ashpit, buildsequent passage

Sec. 53, Public

{a).

ing, or other work, contrary to the provisions of

the Act," included, under the word " building,"

not only constructions of a character similar to

those previously mentioned, but also dwelling-

houses

And where

(c).

a special

Act passed

in

1767 authorised the owner of a bridge to take

a toll on " every coach, chariot, berlin, hearse,
chaise,

cabash,

chair,

carriage whatsoever," the

or other

car,

generis principle
(a) Young

'

was not

v. Orattridge,

Jenns, 30 L. J.

M.

Eepealed by 38

(c)

Pearson

Moriih

V.

applied, and,

L. E. 4 Q. B. 166.

cart,

ejusdem

on the ground
See also Harris

v.

C. 183.

(6)

v.

wagon, wain, dray,

&

39 Vict.

c.

55,

Kingston (1865), 35

s.

343, Sehed. V., pt.

L. J.

Harris, 35 L. J. 0. P. 101.

Digitized

by Microsoft

M.

0.

36.

3.

See

GBNERIO FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WORDS.

595

that the Legislature intended every vehicle passing

over the bridge to pay toll, a bicycle was held to

be a " carriage " within the Act

When justices, empowered to

(a).

prepare a standard

an equal county rate, were authorised for this

purpose to direct overseers, assessors of rates, and
other persons having the management of the rates
for

or valuations, to

make

returns of the annual value

and to require " the

of the property in the parish,

said overseers, assessors, collectors, and any other

persons whomsoever," to produce parochial and

other rates and valuations, " and other documents
context showed

in their custody or power," the

that the final generic expression was not confined

to

official,

but extended to private, persons

(b).

where an Act imposed a rate on a variety

of tenements and buildings which were enumerated, and on " other buildings and hereditaments,
meadow and pasture excepted," the exception
appended to the concluding general words showed
that the latter were used in their widest sense,
and were not limited in meaning by the particular
So,

terms which preceded them (c).

(a)

Carman

v.

Abingdon (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 517.

Plymouth Tramway Co.

see Simpson
V.

v.

v.

General Tolls

Teignmouth Bridge

Go.,

Go.,

72 L.

J.

K. B. 204

Kynnersley, 72 L. J. K. B. 357.
(&) B. V. Douhleday, 3 B.
(c)

B.

y.

Shrewsbury Gas

Digitized

&

B. 601.

Go., 1

L. J.

M.

by Microsoft

Gomp.

75 L. T. 467.

G. 18.

But
Smith

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

596

Further, the general principle in question applies

only where the specific words are all of the same
nature.

are of different genera, the

Where they

meaning of the general word remains unaffected

by its connection with them. Thus, where an
Act made it penal to convey to a prisoner, in
order to facilitate his escape, " any mask, dress, or
disguise, or any letter, or any other article or
thing," it was held that the last general terms
were to be understood in their primary and wide
meaning, and as including any
whatsoever which could in

article

any manner

or thing
facilitate

the escape of a prisoner, such as a crowbar

(a).

Here, the several particular words " disguise

and
and " letter," exhausted the whole genera
;

the

last general

words must be understood, there-

fore, as referring to

The general

other genera.

object of the Act, also, sometimes

requires that the final generic

restricted in

17 Geo. III.

meaning by
c.

56,

stolen materials

s.

its

word

shall not be

predecessors.

Thus,

10, which, after reciting that

used

in

certain

manufactures

were often concealed in the possession of persons

who had received them with guilty knowledge,
and that the discovery and conviction of the
offenders

was in consequence

difficult,

proceeded

to authorise justices to issue search warrants for

(a)

B.

V.

Payne, 35 L.

J.

M.

C. 170.

Thompson, 1 Q. B. D. 12.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also ShUlito

v.

GENERIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WOEDS.

597

purloined materials suspected to be concealed "in

any dweUing-house, outhouse, yard, garden, or

other place," was held to include, under the last

word, a warehouse which was a mile and a half
from the dwelling-house (a). Though such a

warehouse would probably not be usually considered as ejusdem generis with a " dwelling-house,"

coupled with

enumerated dependencies, it was

reasonable, having regard to the preamble and
its

the general object of the statute, to think that

the warehouse was within the contemplation of the

was a very likely place for the

concealment against which the enactment was
directed and a narrower construction would have
restricted the effect, instead of promoting the
object of the Act.
The requirement of s. 32,
Legislatm-e, as

it

&

Wm.

IV.

c.

76(&), that municipal voting

papers should be signed by the voter, and state

the name of the " street, lane, or place," in which

the property was situated in respect of which he

claimed to vote, was considered satisfied by a

statement of the parish where the property lay;

the object of the provision being, apparently, the
identification of the voter (c).
Several decisions on a recent enactment are
(a)
(6)
(c)

6 E.

Edmundson (1859), 28 L. J. M. 0. 213.

Eepealed by 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 5.
Per Lord Campbell and Grompton J., B.
B.

V.

& B.

363.

See Lowiher

Digitized

v.

v.

Spratley,

Beniinck, L. E. 19 Bq. 166.

by Microsoft

598

INTBRPRETATION OP STATUTES.

instructive examples of

above-mentioned

the application of

rules, as to

the

the effect of words of

analogous meaning on each other, and of specific

words on the more general one, which closes the

enumeration

of

them

as well as of their subordi-

nation to the more general principle of gathering

the intention from a review of the whole enact-

ment, and giving

paramount

effect to its

object.

&
c. 119, s. 6, after reciting that a
kind of gaming had lately sprung up, to the deThe 16

17 Vict.

moralisation of improvident persons, by opening

places called betting-houses or offices, enacts, for

the better suppression of them, that any person who,

being " the owner or occupier of any house, office,

room, or place," should " open, keep, or use," or

" knowingly permit " it to be used for the purposes
of betting, should be liable to a penalty of 50,
to an action for the recovery of

and
any deposit made

with him in respect of the bet.

The Exchequer

Chamber held that

man who

habitually resorted

Hyde Park, and

was not the "occupier" of the
place within the meaning of the Act, as that
expression derived a meaning from the one with
which it was coupled, which implied some legal
and exclusive title to the place (a). Again, where
to a certain spot under a tree in

there

made

bets,

the owners of a racecourse knowingly permitted the

(o) Doggett v. Catterns (1865),

34 L.

J. C. P. 159.

Thwaites v. Ooulthwaite (1896), 65 L. J. Oh. 238.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

GENEBIC FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WOBDS.

599

on the payment of an entrance fee, to enter

an uncovered enclosure adjacent to a racecourse

public,

"where race meetings

went

"wer.e

for the purpose of

held,

most of

whom

backing horses with book-

makers, who were admitted on the same terms as

the public, and had no special rights in the

House of Lords held that the

used was not " a place opened, kept

enclosure, the

enclosure so

or used for betting with persons resorting thereto

within

the

Act

(a).

But

"

temporary wooden

ground rented by
the person who used it for betting purposes, though
unroofed and not fixed to the soil, was held to
structure, erected on a piece of

be a " place " within the Act

and in another
case, a man who carried on the same business,
standing on a stool sheltered under a large um(b)

on which was printed an indication of the

business, was held to be the "occupier of a
place " within the Act as he had in fact appropriated it for his proceedings, though he paid
brella

no rent and had no greater right to stand on

the spot than any others of the public who were
In order that a case may come
admitted (c).
(a)

Powell V. Kempton Bacecourse Co. (1899), 68 L.

J.

Q. B.

392.
(6)
(c)

Shaw
Bows

V.

V.

in Powell v.

Morley, 37 L. J.

M.

C. 105.

Fenwick (1874), 43 L.

Kempton Bacecourse

J.

Go.,

M.
sup.

0. 107, approved
;

and applied

Thwaites v. Cmlthwaite (1896), 65 L. J. Oh. 238.

Digitized

by Microsoft

in

See similar

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES,

600

within

1 of this Act, it is not necessary that

s.

the receipt of the

the house, or

money should take

or even within the

oflSce,

place at

United

Kingdom (a).
above considered is
another, that when words descriptive of the rank
of persons or things are used in a descending order

Analogous

the

to

rules

according to rank, the general words superadded

them do not include (though standing alone

to

they would do so) persons or things of a higher

rank or importance than the highest named,

if

there be any lower species to which they can apply.

In such a case, the general word is taken not as

generic, but as including only what is lower in
the genus than the lowest specified.

Thus,

s.

3,

c. 10, which avoided

conveyances by
masters and fellows of colleges, deans and chapters

13 Eliz.

cases Galloway v. Maries, 51 L. J.

V.

Kempton Bacecourse

L. J.

M.

Co.,

72 L.

0. 53, criticised in Powell

;

Liddell v. Lofthouse, '65

G. 64; M'Inany v. Hildreth, 66 L. J. Q. B. 376

Humphreys, 67 L. J. Q. B. 534

892

M.

sup. p. 599

Brown

v.

Belton v. Bushy, 68 L. J. Q. B. 859

J.

K. B. 21

B.

Tromans

0. 47

(a)

Taylor v. Smetten, 52 L. J.

Lennox

v.

be noted that
repealed by

s.

See

v. Deaville, Id. 272.

nection with similar enactments, Langrish

M.

M.

v.

v.

the

Gaming

Act, 1892.

Stoddart.

Digitized

v.

Eodhinson,

Archer, 52 L. J.

C. 101.

5 of the Betting Act, 1853,

1 of

B.

also, in con-

Stoddart (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 747.

s.

Patch, [1899] 1 Q. B.

by Microsoft

is

It should

not impliedly

See Lennox

v.

WORDS OP RANK

IN DESCENDING ORDER.

of cathedrals, parsons, vicars,

any

spiritual

and " others having

or ecclesiastical living,"

include bishops

601

does not

{a).

Chap. 28, Statutes of Marlbridge, 52 Hen.

III.,

which gave a right of action in certain cases to

" abbots, priors, and other prelates of the Church,"
did not, according to Lord Coke, include bishops
;

because,

among

other reasons, the bishop

higher degree than an abbot

sumed
than

(b).

It

may

is

of a

be pre-

that there were prelates of a lower degree

abbots and priors, otherwise

the

generic

expression so construed would have been without

effect.

To avoid

this the rule in question

would

be rejected, and the general term would receive

meaning, and include the

higher denominations (c). Duties imposed, under
fuU and natural

its

head of " metals " upon " copper,

brass, pewter, and tin, and on all other metals not
enumerated," would not include the higher metals
of gold or silver, which are commonly known as

the general

precious metals

(d).

The 22 & 23
the lords

Car. II.
"
manors
of

25 (e), which empowered

and other royalties " to

c.

of Canterbury's Case, 2 Eep. 46b; Copland

Powell, 1 Bing. 373 ; Cope v. Barber, L. E. 7 0. P. 393.
(a) ArcKbp.

(b)

2 Inst. 151, 457, 478

(c)

2 Inst. 137.

{d) Casher v.
(e)

2 Eep. 46b.

Eolmes (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 692, per Parke

Eepealed by 1 & 2

Will. IV. c. 32,

Digitized

s. 1.

by Microsoft

J.

v.

INTBEPRBTATION OF 'STATUTES.

602

grant a deputation to a gamekeeper, was limited to

the lords of such royalties as are inferior to manors
for if a royalty of a higher nature

had been meant,

would have preceded the term "manor" (a).

2 Westm. c. 47, which prohibited salmon-fishing from Lady-day to St. Martin's, in "the waters
of the Humber, Owse, Trent, Done, Arre, Derewent, Wherfe, Nid, Yore, Swale, Tese, Tine,
Eden, and all other waters wherein salmons be
it

taken," was considered as including, in the final

general expression, only rivers inferior to those

enumerated, and therefore as not comprising nobile

illud fiiimen, the Thames {h).
It does not appear

whether the

rivers specified

of descending importance.

which punished

were named in order

An Act (since repealed)

cruelty to

any " horse, mare,

gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, sheep, or other

cattle,"

was held not

It was, indeed,

to include a bull

(c).

once thought that in 14 Geo.

II.

which made it a capital felony to steal

sheep or "other cattle," this last expression was
c.

"

6(c?),

much

too loose " to include any other cattle

than those already specified,

(a) Aileshury v. Pattison,

viz,,

Doug. 28.

sheep, but this

See also Evans

v.

Stevens (1791), 4. T. E. 224, 469.

(5)

2 Inst. 478.

(c)

3 Geo. rv.

Car.

&

(d)

c.

71; Hill, Hxp. (1827), 33 E. E. 664; 3

P. 225.

Eepealed 7 & 8 Geo. IV.

Digitized

c.

27,

s.

1.

by Microsoft

WORDS OP RANK

IN DESCENDING ORDER.

extreme strictness of construction

best

may be,

603

perhaps,

attributed to the excessive severity of the

law in question {a).

A statute which spoke of indictments before
justices of the peace and "others having power
to take indictments," was understood, on the
general ground under consideration, as not applying to the Superior Courts
c.

42

(c),

which authorises

But 11

(&).

&

12 Vict.

justices of the peace to

inquire into indictable offences committed on the

high seas or abroad, and to bind the witnesses to

appear at the next " court of Oyer and Terminer,
or jail

delivery, or superior court

of a

County

Palatine, or the Quarter Sessions," would authorise

a justice to hold an inquiry into an offence com-

Governor in his colony,

which is triable by the Queen's Bench. That
court was included in the words, " court of Oyer
mitted by a Colonial

and Terminer "

SECTION

(d).

VI.

MEANING OF SOME PARTICULAR

EXPRESSIONS.

may

be convenient to mention, in conclusion,

the meaning in which a few words and expressions
It

(o) 1 Bl.

176

{d)

88.

Comp. Child

Fletcher v. Sondes, 30 E. E. 32

Wright
(6)

Coram.

V.

B.

v.

Hearn, L. B. 9 Ex.
Paty, 2

W.

Bl. 721

Pearson, L. E. 4 Q. B. 682.

2 Eep. 46b.

B.

v.

V.

(c)

Sees. 1 (1)

Eyre (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 487.

Digitized

by Microsoft

and

2.

604

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

in frequent use in statutes are, in general, understood.

Unless

contrary

the

appears,

intention

in

statutes passed after 1850, words importing the

masculine gender include females, the singular

includes the plural, and the plural the singular;

the expression " person " a " body corporate " (a)
the word " county " means also county of a town
or of a city

the word " land " includes messuages,

tenements, and hereditaments, houses, and buildings of any tenure the words " oath," " swear,"
;

and " affidavit," include affirmation, declaration,

and declaring, in the case of persons

affirming

by law allowed to declare or affirm, instead of

swearing and the word " month " means calendar
month (6). But "six months" may sometimes
mean the period between two feast days, as
between Michaelmas and Lady-day (c).
Half a
year consists of 182, and a quarter of a year of 91,
;

days

(d).

Expressions of time in an Act of Parliament

mean

(unless

is

it

(a) Mouselly. L.

&

otherwise

N. W. By.

(6) Interpretation Act, 1889,

(c)

See Morgan

[1917] 2 K. B., at p. 842.

Co.,

&

52

specifically stated)

53 Vict.

generally. Walker v. Constable, 8 Wils. 25

Co.,

34 L.

Barlow

J.

Oh. 165

v. Teal,

54 L.

(d) Co. Litt. 135b

e.

Davies, 3 C. P. D. 260.

v.

See, however,

Sogers

v.

Hull Dock

Wilkinson v. Calvert, 47 L. J. C. P. 679

J.

63, ss. 1, 3, 4.

Q. B. 400.

6 Eep. 61b

Digitized

Cro. Jac. 167.

by Microsoft

COMPUTATION OF TIME.

605

mean time, and in

Ireland, Dublin mean time (a).
But " statutory
time " in summer is one hour in advance of
Greenwich mean time (6).
In the computation
of time, distinctions haye been made by the

in Great Britain, Greenwich

Courts which were founded chiefly on considera-

and justice.
The general
anciently, seems to have been that both terms

tions of convenience
rule,

or endings of the period given for doing or suffering

something were included

forfeiture

was involved

but

when

a penalty or

in non-compliance with

a condition within the given time, the time was

reckoned by including one and excluding the

other of the terminal days

(c).

distinction

was

afterwards made, depending on whether the point

from which the computation was to be made was

an act to which the person against whom the time
was privy or not. Thus, if the time ran

ran,

" from "

when he was

notice of action,

it

or received

might justly be computed

as

arrested,

including the day of that event

but not

ran from the death of another person (d)

& 4i

(a) 43
(&) 6

&

so, if it
;

a fact

Vict. c. 9.

7 Geo. V.

c.

14

&

45.

These pro-

by Order

in Council to

7 Geo. V.

visions as to time have been extended

c.

the Isle of Man.

(c)

and

De Morgan, Oomp. Aim.

Eeas. in Politics, vol. I.

(d)

Parke

Per
B.,

Sir

W.

Young

v.

387

cited in Sir G. 0. Lewis' Obs.

n.

Grant, Lester v. Garland, 15 Ves. 253

Higgon, 6

Digitized

M. & W. 53 Newman
;

by Microsoft

v.

per

HardwicJce,

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

606
of

as in the previous cases,

which he would not,

necessarily be cognisant, or, in other words, in such

and cognate cases the exact meaning is signified by

the phrase " from and after " (a). But it has also
been

laid

down

that

a period of time allowed

when

between the dates of two

acts to be done by another person, as where it is
enacted that no action shall be brought against a

to a person is included

justice until notice of the intention

.to

bring

it

has

been given to him a month before the writ

is

issued, both the terminal days are to be excluded (6).

The

notice having been given on the 28th of April,

was held, was rightly brought on the

29th of May what was requisite was that two
days of the same number should not be comprised
An Act which received
in the computation (c).
the action,

it

3 Nev.

months

& P. 368. Insurance against accidents for twelve

" from " Nov. 24th, 1887, covers an accident occurring

on Nov. 24th, 1888; South

Sickness

&

Staffordshire

Tramways

Co. v.

The

Accident Assurance Association (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B.

47, to the contrary Glassington v. Rawlins (1800), 3 East, 407

applied Migotti

v.

Gohill (1878), 48 L. J.

M.

C. 48.

(a) Sheffield Corp. V. Sheffield Electric Light Co., [1898] 1 Oh.,

at p. 209.
(&)

24 Geo.

(1840), 6

Blunt

Weeks
(c)

V.
v.

M.

II. c. 44,

& W.

54.

Per Alderson

s. 1.

See Pellew

Heslop, 47 E. E. 664

B.

v.

v.

B.,

Young w.JSiggon

Wonford, 9 B.

&

West Biding, 23 E.

0. 134

.421

Wray, L. E. 3 Q. B. 212.

Freeman

v.

Bead, 30 L.

Fairmaner, 7 L. J. Ex. 140

Migotti v. Golvill, 4 C. P. D.

Digitized

M.

J.

B.

233

C. 123.

v. Price, 8

See also Wehh

Moo. P.

v.

C. 203

Southam, Be, 51 L. J. Oh. 207.

by Microsoft

COMPUTATION OP TIME.
the Royal

company power
after

on August

assent

607

gave a

1899,

9,

which was to cease

to take lands,

three years from the passing of the Act.

The company served

a notice to treat for the

purchase of lands on August

1902

9,

that the notice was served in time,

it

was held

being

it

now

well-established rule that where a particular time

is

within which an

given, from a certain date,

act

to be done, the day of the date

is

is

to be

(6),

or so

excluded (a).

when

Again,

many

so

"clear days "

many

days " at least "

are given to do an act,

(c)

or " not less than " so

many days are to intervene,

both the terminal days are excluded from the
computation
the rule

day

is

In other

((^).

to exclude the

In order to

(e).

cases,

first

satisfy

would seem,

it

and include the

the provision of

last
s.

1,

(a) Goldsmiths Go. v. West Metrop. By., 72 L. J. K. B. 931.

(6)

B.

Herefordshire Jus., 3 B.

V.

See Walker

6 Jur. 537.

11

ffHara

(c)

&

Aid. 681

Crystal Palace

Liffin v. Pitcher,

Gas

60

Co.,

Dissented from in The Courier (1891), 61 L.

Q. B. 781.
;

v.

Zouch

v. Elliott
V.

(1893), 62 L.

&

Empsey, 4 B.

J. Q.

Aid. 522

|L. J.

J. P.

B. 317.
B.

v. Salop,

8 A.

&

E.

173.

{d) Baihoay Sleepers Co., Be, 29

Oh. D. 204

Waddington, 18 L. J. Q. B. 250 ; McQueen

K. B. 606
(e)

Emmerson

See Archb. Pr.

[1892] 1 Q. B. 161
A.

& E.

635.

v. Oliver,

J.

M.

ed.

G. 63

v.

72 L.

J.

Badcliffe v. Bartholomew,
;

Williams v. Burgess, 12

Sundays have been held included

Digitized

Bobinson

43 Sc. L. E. 291.

25th

p. 66,

61 L.

v. JaeHson,

by Microsoft

in

computation

INTERPRETATION OF STATnTBS.

608

Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (now s. 1, Bankruptcy Act,

1914), which enacts that a debtor commits an act
of bankruptcy if execution has been levied by
seizure of his goods and the sheriff has held them
for 21 days

necessary that the sheriff should

it is

hold the goods for 21 whole days, excluding the

day of seizure (a).

When

a statute requires that something shall

be done "forthwith," or "immediately," or even

" instantly," it would, probably, be understood as
allowing a reasonable time for doing

An

it (b):

appUcation to deprive a plaintiff of costs, which

must be made " at the trial," was deemed made in

when made an hour

time,

after the trial

and the judge was trying another cause

lonless expressly excepted,

(N.

S.), at p. 724.

Milch

V.

38

v. Wilson,

Forsdike

M.

B.

V. Aston,

0.

196

Thompson

J.

M.

J.

Massey

10 L.

J.

Ex. 243

M.

Gibbs v. Stead, 8 B.

0. 31;

Lowe

C. 137.

v.

&

Id.

and

Norton,
C.J.,

L. E. 4 Ex.

Somes, 28 L. J.

v.

198

v.

Cockbum

per

v. Sladen,

Hancock

Heiherington,

per Eolfe B.,

per Cockburn C.J., B. v.

Comp. Exp.
C. 533

Fox, 16 Q. B.

further, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,

"

r.

Q. B. 382; Brighty

19 L. J. M. G. 236

Gostar v.

v. Gibson,

L. J. Bank. 87

32 L.

2 C. P. D. 202

Berkshire Jus., 48 L. J.

16 L.

C, Ord. LXIV.

S.

L. E. 3 C. P. 607

v. Stone,

Griffith V. Taylor,

13

Middlesex JJ. (1843), 2 Dowl.

v.

But see E.

North, [1895] 2 Q. B. 264.

(6) See Toms

Id.

(c).

Franhau, [1909] 2 K. B. 100.

Be

(a)

B.

was over,

tit.

"

Sillence,

Tennant

47

v. Bell,

D. 667.

See

Forthwith " and

Immediately."
(c)

Order LXV.E.S.C; EynastonY.Mackinder,iTL.J.Q.B.

Digitized' by

Microsoft

COMPUTATION OF TIME.
If the

statute

periodically

some

require

and

609

act

be done

to

once in a certain

recurrently

space of time, as, for instance, the inspection of

the boilers of steamers once in six months, it

would probably be understood to mean that not

more than six months should elapse between the
two acts. It would not be satisfied by dividing
the year into two equal periods, and doing the
act once in the beginning of the first, and once
at the end of the second period (a).
A repealed
Act which imposed a penalty for absence for more
than a certain time in any one year, means not a
calendar year computed from the 1st of January,
but a year computed back from the day when the
action for the penalty was brought (b).

down

It used to be laid

as a general rule that

Courts refused to take notice of the fraction of a

day,

for

the uncertainty,

which

always the

is

mother of confusion and contention

civil cases, a judicial act,

(c)

such as a judgment,

taken conclusively to have been done

76.

See also Page

v.

and in

is

at the first

Pearce, 10 L. J. Ex. 434.

Gomp. B.

v.

Berks, 4 Q. B. D. 469.
Virginia

(a)

& Maryland

St.

Nav. Co.

Taney & Camp-

Maryland Eep. 418.

bell's

43 Geo.

(6)

III.

c.

84,

repealed

restrictions as to non-residence

Cathcart v.
(c)

v. V. S.,

Hardy (1814), 2 M. &

and re-enacted

by 1 & 2

Vict.

c.

106,

S. 534.

Clayton's Case, 5 Eep. lb.

39

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

with
s.

32

610

IJTTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

moment

day

of the

But

(a).

as regards the acts

of parties, including in this expression acts

though in form

which,

judicial, are in reality the acts of

Courts do notice such fractions, whennecessary to decide which of two events

parties, the

ever

it is

happened

first

Thus, they will notice the

(b).

hour when a party issued a writ of summons, or

filed

goods

sheriff seized

(c).

declaration, or the

delivered

or

bill,

person

who was keep-

ing a dog at noon without a license would not

escape from conviction by procuring a license at

one p.m.

Where

(d).

the

Crown

Sundays
except

preferred

is

are'

(6)

V.

J.,

Campbell

Marshall

Migotti V. Colville
Bulloch, 4 Q. B.

See further,

(d)
(e)

v.

v. Pitt,

Smith, 8 Dowl. 340

23 L. J. Ex. 42

(c)

limited

Eep. 93b

per Lord Mansfield, Comhe

Chick

(e).

B. 264.

3 Burr. 1434 ; per Patteson J.,

Edwards (1853),

M.

Clarice v.

G. 48

J. G. P.

281

Tomlinson

v.

Bradlaugh, 8 Q. B. D. 63.

p. 739, inf.

2 Lev. 141, 176

Campbell

v.

and per

Gur., JR. v. Edwards, sup.

Strangeways, 3 C. P. D. 107.

A.-G. V. Capell, 2 Show. 636; B.

Giles V.

v.

James (1874), 43 L.

(1878), 48 L. J.

D. 230

than six days,

Strangeways, 8 G. P. D. 107

per Gut., B.

v.

is less

Wright v. Mills, 28 L. J. Ex.

See also Be North, [1895] 2

Per Grove

title of

included in computations of time,

when the time

(a) Shelley's Case, 1

223.

the Crown and

on the same day, the

of the subject accrue

the

title of

Graver, 36 E. E. 27

-B.

v.

v.

Ex. 42.

Digitized

Giles,

8 Price, 293;

Edwards (1853), 23 L.

by Microsoft

J.

COMPUTATION OF TIME.
in which case the

Sunday

611

excluded

is

It has

(a).

been held, however, that where an Act making no

mention of Sunday required that a recognisance
should be entered into in two days after notice
of appeal, and the notice was given on a Friday,

Monday were

recognisances on the following

late

though Sunday was the

could

not be entered

Sundays

includes

into

too

last day,

and they

then

" Daily

(b).

Of course, when an Act

(c).

Sunday, the days given

expressly excludes

for

doing an act are working days only (d).

continuing

act,

ment, dates, in
allowed

such as trespass or imprison-

the computation of

bringing

for

from the day of

it,

(&)

its

C, Ord. LXIV.,

(a) R. S.

an

action

time

the

respect

in

termination

(e).

of

So,

2.

r.

M.

Simpkin, Exp. (1859), 29 L. J.

0. 23

Peacock

v. B.,

27 L. J. C. P. 224.
(c)

London

{d) Pease

G. C. v. S. Metropolitan

v.

Gas

Co.,

Norwood, L. E. 4 C. P. 235

73 L.

J.

Ch. 136.

Micks, Exp., L. R.

20 Eq. 143.
(e)

603

L. J.

Massey

v. Johnson,

Collins v. Bose, 8

M.

0. 121

12 Bast, 67

Hardy

L. J. Ex. 273

v.

Byle, 9 B.

Pease

v.

&

As

Whitehouse v. Fellowes, 30 L. J. 0. P. 305.

C.

Ghaytor, 32

to Subsidence, see Barley Main Colliery Go. v. Mitchell, 11 App.

Cas. 127 ; Crumbie v. Wallsend Loc. tZ., [1891] 1 Q. B. 503. See,

however, Wallace
Lichfield,

see

24 L.

cases

Whitehouse

in
v.

25 L. J. Ch. 644

v. Blaekwell,

J.

Q. B. 360.

Bathishill v.

Fellowes, sup.

Digitized

As

to

Beed, 25 L. J.

As

to

Eggington

v.

Continuing Nuisance,
C.

P. 290,

and

Encroachment, Coggins

by Microsoft

v.

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

612

bankrupt remaining abroad with intent to defeat

his creditors commits a fresh act of bankruptcy
,

every day

(a).

Distances were formerly measured by the nearest

and this is
and most usual road or way (b)
undoubtedly the popular manner of measuring
;

them

But

(c).

access were adopted, should

it

by a tidal river, the

of

be a carriage-way,

or a bridle-path, or a footpath ?

hour of the day

mode

the nearest practicable

if

distance

way were

If the

might vary every

Unless a contrary intention

appears, distances will, " for the purposes of any
Act passed after " 1st January, 1890, be measured
(d).

in a straight line

on a horizontal plane

(e)

indeed,

without enactment, that would seem a universal

rule for all Acts, without distinction (/).

In the Interpretation Act, 1889, and every subBennett, 2 C. P. D. 568

Welsh
(a)

V.

(d)

V.

28 L.

Hawk.

Comp. 23 L.

54.

8 Q. B. D. 603

J. C. P.

144 n.

Lahe v. Butler, 5 E. & B. 97.

Per Lord Campbell, Lake v. Butler, sup. See
J.,

14 C. B. 678

J.

Ch. 867

v.

L. J. Q. B. 294.
see Mouflet

C. 115

Buignan
;

v.

Walker,

Coulbert v.

1.

52 & 53Vict.

(/) Lake

M.

Mouflet v. Cole, L. E. 8 Ex. 32

Stokes v.

Jewell v. Stead, 25 L. J. Q. B. 294

Saffron Walden, 15 L. J.

Troke, 1 Q. B. D.
(e)

v. Schmidt,

{Mayor), [1900] 1 Q. B. 324.

Per Coleridge

Grissell,

B.

Ham

Bunny, Exp., 26 L. J. Bank. 83.

(6) 1
(c)

West

Bumball

c.

63,

Butler,

As

v. Oole,

s.

34.

5 E.

& B. 97; Jewell v. Stead, 25

measurement of distance,

to the general

42 L. J. Ex.

Digitized

8.

by Microsoft

DISTANCESPARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS.

618

sequent Act, the expression "person," unless the

contrary intention appears, includes any body of
persons corporate dr unincorporate

(a),

and the

same expression includes any body corporate in

the construction of any previous enactment relating to an offence punishable on indictment or

summary

conviction

(6).

In every Act expressions referring to writing,

unless the contrary intention appears, are to be

construed

including

as

references

to

printing,

and other modes of

representing or reproducing words in a visible
form (c).
In every Act subsequent to 1866, unless the
contrary intention appears, the word " parish
means, as regards England and Wales, a place for
which a separate poor rate is or can be made, or a

lithography, photography,

separate overseer appointed

An

offence

made

(d).

punishable, in the language of

our old statutes, by "judgment of

is

thereby made a felony

ment
(o)

but

member,"

when

the judg-

" forfeiture of body and goods," or to be

is

52 & 53 Vict.

N. W. By.

c.

63,

(1918), 87 L.

(&)

52 & 53 Vict.

(c)

Id.

s.

20.

{d) Id.

s.

5.

(e)

(e)

or

life

0.

s.

J.

63,

19.

And

see Mousell Bros. v. L.

K. B. 82.

s.

(1).

1 Hawk. 305.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

614

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

at the

and goods,

King's will for body, lands,

the offence

is

" second offence "

punishment,

(a).

When

the subject of

distinct

a misdemeanour only

it is

is

an offence committed after con-

When a case is made triable,

first (b).
or a penalty recoverable in " a Court of Eecord,"

viction of a

the Supreme Court of Judicature alone,' but not

the Quarter Sessions, is intended (c). The punishment of " fine and ransom " is a single pecuniary

and when to be imposed "at the

King's pleasure," this is to be done in his Courts
and by his justices (e).
When imprisonment is
provided, immediate imprisonment is generally
understood (/), and " forfeiture " means forfeiture
to the Crown, except when it is imposed for
penalty

((Z),

wrongful detention

or

dispossession;

in

which

cases the forfeiture goes to the benefit of the party

wronged

(y).

(a) Co. Litt.

391

3 Inst. 145.

(6) 2 Inst. 468, which was relied on and applied in B. v. South

Shields Licensing Jus. (1911),

(c)

6 Eep. 19b, 2 Hale, 29

80 L.
;

J.

K. B. 809.

Jenk. Cent. 228.

(d) 1 Inst. 127a.

(e) 1 Hale, 375.

(/) 8 Eep. 119b

(gr)

comp. 11

& 12

Vict. c. 43,

1 Inst. 159a, 11 Eep. 60b.

Digitized

by Microsoft

s.

25.

CHAPTEE XIL
SECTION

I.

IMPLIED

ENACTMENTS

NECESSAEY

INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES.

Passing from the interpretation of the language

of statutes, it remains to consider

what intentions
the Legislature, where it

are to be attributed to
has expressed none, on questions necessarily arising

out of

its

enactments.

Although, as already stated

(p. 148),

the Legis-

presumed to intend no alteration in the

law beyond the immediate and specific purposes
lature is

of the Act, these are considered as including

all

the incidents or consequences strictly resulting

from the enactment.

Thus, when the Legislature imposes upon the promoters of a railway or
other undertaking an obligation to construct and

maintain works,

it

necessarily follows that they

cost of construction and mainten-

must bear the

ance, unless there be an express or plainly implied

provision to the contrary
(a)

West India Improvement

(a).

An Act (5) which

Co. v. A.-G. of Jamaica,

[1894]

A. C, 243.
(&)

9 Geo.

Geo. IV.

c.

27,

I.
s.

c.

22 (The Black Act), repealed by 7 & 8

1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

616

declared an oilence felony would impliedly give

all

the incidents of felony

and

it

would make

it
it

an offence to be an accessory before or after it {a).

Where an Act directs that a new offence which it
creates shall be tried by an inferior Court accord-

common law, the

Common Law Court,

ing to the course of the

inferior

Court

subject

tries it

as a

aU the incidents of common law proceedings,

and subject therefore to removal by writs of
Where
error, habeas corpus, and certiorari {b).
the widow of a copyholder became entitled to
dower by custom, it was held that she became
entitled to all the incidents of dower, such as,
among others, to damages, under the Statute of
Merton, when deforced of her dower (c), and to
the same right of thirds in her husband's copyholds as, at common law, she had in his freeholds,
so that her thirds in his copyholds would be
unaffected by any alienation by him (d).
Where
trustees were appointed by statute to perform
duties which would, of necessity, continue with-

to

out limit of time,

it

(a) 1 Hale, 632, 704

See also B.
(b)

was held that from the nature

Ooalheavers' Cage (1768), 1 Leach, 66.

Beyce (1767), 4 Burr., at

v.

Per Lord Mansfield, Hartley

v.

p.

2075.

Hooker (1777), 2 Cowp.

524.
(c)

20 Hen. III.

(d)

Boe

V. Jones,

d.

Bidden

24 L.

J.

Shaw

v.

Thomj)8on, 4 Eep. 30b.

v. Gwinnell,

10 L.

J. Q.

Ch. 123.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B. 212

Powdrell

IMPLIED ENACTMENTS LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES. 617

of the powers given to them, they were impliedly

made

a corporation

When

(a).

a local authority

had statutory powers to "recover" expenses,

was thereby also impliedly empowered not only
sue for them, but to sue in
tion,

of

although

to

designa-

its collective

The right
"inspect" and "peruse" a

not incorporated

shareholders

it

to

(6).

register of debenture stock, impliedly carries with

The enactment might

otherwise confer a mere illusory right (c).
The
Bankruptcy Acts, in requiring a bankrupt to

it

the right to take copies.

answer self-criminating questions

trade and

made

affairs,

relative to his

his answers subject to the

general rules of the law of evidence, and conse(a) Newport

Trustees, Exp., 16 Sim.

Lords of Admiralty, 11 C. B. 420

346

Comp. Williams

v.

Biversv. Adams, 3 Ex. D. 361.

&

0. 349, and Jeffreys v.

was implied from the
circumstance that there would otherwise be no means of
Gomp. Salford
enforcing the rights given by the statute.

See also Tone Conservators

Ash, 10 B.

v.

Gurr, 36 E. E. 769, where incorporation

(Mayor)

Lancashire

v.

G.

G.

(1890), 25

Q. B. D. 384;

59

L. J. Q. B. 676.
(6) Mills V. Scott, L. E.
(c)

26

& 27

Vict.

c.

By., 57 L. J. Ch. 615

L. J. Gh. 112
Traffic Cas.

8 Q. B. 496.

118,
;

s.

28

Nelson

v.

Perkins v. London

327; Ormerod

Ch. 505, C. A.

v. St.

Mutter

v.

Eastern

&

Midlands

Anglo-American Land

&

Go.,

66

N. W. By., 1 Ey. & Can.

George's Iron Works,

[1908]

but this implied right to take copies

negatived by an express provision as to

mode

is

of

obtaining

copies, Balagh&t Gold Go., Be, 70 L. J. K. B. 866.

See also

E. 27 (18)

Ord. LXV., E.

S.

Digitized

C, 1883.

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

618

quently admissible

.in

evidence against him, even

To hold otherwise would

in criminal proceedings.

have been, in

effect, to

suppose that the Legisla-

changing the law which had

hitherto protected him from answering, intended
also to make the further change, by mere implicature, in expressly

tion, of suspending,

regards

as

statements

the

pro

the ordinary rule

tanto,

self-prejudicing

of

admissibility

[a).

The Judgments Extension Act, 1868

(31

&

32

which provided for the execution, in

Scotland and Ireland, of judgments recovered in
England, was considered as having impliedly
abohshed the rule of procedure which required
Vict.

b. 45),

that a plaintiff residing out of the jurisdiction

should give security for costs

(which was, that

for the rule

the logical reason

if

the verdict were

against the plaintiff, he would not be within the

reach of the process of the Court for costs) having

been swept away by the enactment (b).

So, the owner or master of a ship is tacitly
relieved from liability for the injuries done by the
ship through the acts or neglect of a pilot, where
(o)

JB.

V.

Scott (1866),

(1872), 42 L. J.

176

(6)

M.

Sankey, Be, 59 L.

Baehurn

v.

J.

J. M. C. 128
B. v. Widdop
Erdheim (1896), 65 L. J. M. C.

25 L.

C. 9; B. v.

K. B. 238.

Andrew (1874), 43 L.

not applied Howe Machine

Co.,

J. Q.

order subsequently discharged).

Digitized

B. 73.

Principle

In re (1889), 41 Ch. D. 118 (but

by Microsoft

INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES.

619

the employment of the latter is compulsory by

law; the pilot performing a duty imposed by

and being neither appointed by nor under

the control of the owner or master (a).
statute,

An Act which
impliedly gives
one,

it

simply creates a corporation,

the general legal attributes of

among which

an ordinary power to make

contracts (b) but, speaking generally, its powers
are only those which are expressly conferred, or
which, by necessary imphcation, are included in
is

the express powers

whilst under the Companies

Acts, 1862 and 1867, replaced by Companies (Con-

Company
by its Memorandum of Assocontract entered into by a Company

soKdation) Act, 1908, the powers of a

are further restricted
ciation

(c).

beyond its competency could not be ratified even

by the unanimous assent of the shareholders,
(a) Carruthers v. Sydebotham, 16 E. E. 392

W.

95

27te Agricola,

2 Eob.

W.

10

Lucey

v.

Ex. 196; The Clan Gordon, 7 P. D. 190;

7 Wallace, 67.

Geo. V.
(b)
v.

0.

As

to General

Law

The Maria, 1 Eob.

Ingram, 9 L. J.

Comp. The China,

Pilotage, see 2

of

&

31.

See Ashbury &c. Co.

v.

MicM, 44 L.

Manchester Waterworks, 22 E. E. 278

J.
;

Ex. 185

Shears

Broughton

v. Jacob,

L. E.

1 0. P. 513, and the cases collected in S. of Ireland Colliery v.

Waddle, L. E. 3 C. P. 463
(c) Id.

268

4 Id. 617.

See also London

East Anglian By.

L. J. 0. P. 23

L. J. Ex. 305

C. C. v. A.-G. (1902), 71 L. J.

Co. v. Eastern

Counties

By.

Co.,

Oh.

21

South Torhshire By. Co. v. Great N. By. Co., 22

A.-G.

v.

G. E. By., 48 L. J. Oh. 428

Mersey By., 76 L. J. Oh. 568.

Digitized

by Microsoft

A.-G. v.

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

620
for this

would be an attempt to do what the Act

Parliament prohibits

of

(a).

between a Statutory Corporation and a Corporation incorporated by Royal

Charter is well settled. The former can do such

"The

difference

acts ouIt/ as are authorised, directly or indirectly,

the latter, speaking

everything that an ordinary

by the statute creating

can do

generally,

it;

however, the Corporation

by Charter be a Municipal Corporation, then they

individual can do.

subject

are

If,

to the restrictions imposed by the

Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and will be

restrained from applying their borough fund to
purposes not authorised by that Act

Where an Act provided

expenses incidental to passing

(6).

the costs and

that
it,

should be paid

by the Metropolitan Board, but did not state to

whom they should be paid, it was held that
they were payable to the promoters only, and

(a)

672

Per Lord Cairns, Ashbury

44 L.

J.

&c. Go. v.

(&) A.-G. V. Newcastle-upon-Tyne

and N. E. By., 58 L.

558, 560; 23 Q. B. D. 492, 497; A.-G.

(1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 489
367, C. A.

Per Harwell

v.

J.

J.,

A.-G.

v.
J.,

Manchester, 75 L. J. Ch.
British S. Africa

Beers Mines, 79 L. J. Ch. 345, affirmed 80 L.

J.

(1911), 245.

by Microsoft

Go. v.

Ch. 65

reversed in H. L. (without affecting the above dictum),

Digitized

Q. B.

Tynemouth Corp.

A.-G. v. L. G. G. (1901), 70 L. J. Ch.

334; see also per Swinfen Eady

Be

EicM, L. E. 7 H. L.

Ex. 197.

W. N.

INCIDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES.

not to

them

agents and other persons

621

employed by

(a).

private

Act which,

annexing a rectory

after

to the deanery of Windsor, recited that the dean's

place would oblige

residence at the latter

his

frequent absence from the rectory, and required

him to appoint a curate to reside there, was

deemed to give him, by implication, an exemption
from residence

But

{b).

this extention of

an enactment

is

confined

to its strictly necessary incidents or logical con-

"When, for instance, a statute requires

sequences.

the performance of a service,

it

implies no pro-

vision that the person performing

it

shall be re-

munerated (e). An Act which empowered justices

to discharge an apprentice from his apprenticeship,
if ill-treated by his master, would not inferentially
empower them to order a return of the premium
for however just it might be that such a return
should be made, and convenient that it should be
ordered by the tribunal which cancelled the indenture, such a power was not the logical or necessary
;

(a)

Wyatt

v.

Metrop. Bd. of Works (1862), 31 L. J. C. P. 217.

Distinguished in Haddon's (Ld.) Estate Act,

W.

N. (1889),

96, C. A.
(6)
(e)

605
292.

Wright

V.

Legge, 6 Taunt. 48.

Per Lord Abinger, Jones

v.

Carmarthen (1841), 8 M. &

B. V. Hull, 22 L. J. Q. B. 324
See also Alresford

v. Scott,

Digitized

B.

v,

7 Q. B. D. 210.

by Microsoft

W.

Allday, 26 L. J. Q. B.

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

622

incident or result of that which

was expressly

Money received by

the treasurer of

conferred

(a).

a trading club on account of the club

is

members as
owners, because the club was formed
less

the property of the

none the
beneficial

in contra-

4, Companies Act, 1862, and has

consequently no legal existence as a company,

vention of

s,

co-partnership

association, or

company

Where

(6).

a gas

required by statute to supply gas to

is

the pubKc lamps in a town from sunset to sunrise

sum

annual

at a fixed

per lamp, the burners to

than a certain amount of gas per

no implied provision that on failure
of the supply on certain days it is only to be

consume not

hour, there

less

is

sum (c).

The Tithe Act, 1836,

which authorised a tenant who paid the tithe
rent-charge to deduct the amount from the rent
next due, gave a tenant no implied right to sue the
entitled to a smaller

landlord for the payment, the landlord not being

liable to

pay the tithe (d). And s. 13, Stannaries

(e), which gives power to a cost-book

Act, 1869
(a)

B.

(6)

25 & 26 Vict.

V.

Vandeleer, 1 Stra. 69

solidation) Act,

1908

B.

Bichmond Gas Go.

v.

(d)

6 & 7 Will. IV.

c.

As

21 E. E. 569

East

Bickmond
71,

s.

80

to land tax, see

1 Brod.

v. Pell,
s.

8 L.

(1846), 2 Car.

& Bing.

& K.

13.

Digitized

M.

C. 33.

Corp., [1893] 1 Q. B. 56.

;

Dawes

Andrew

37.

As

v.

v.

to

Thomas, [1892]

Handcock (1819),

when payable by

tenant, Parish v. Sleeman (1860), 29 L. J. Ch. 96

Lunn

J.

Companies (Con-

1,

Tankard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548.

v.

(c)

1 Q. B. 414.

89, repealed

c.

(e)

by Microsoft

Manning

32 & 33 Vict.

c.

v.

19.

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

623

miuing company to bring an' action against a shareholder for unpaid calls, in the name of their purser,
does not consequently authorise

the

preseht a bankruptcy petition in his

purser to

own name on

company against a shareholder in

a judgment recovered by him in such

behalf of the
respect of

action (a).

County Council incorporated under

the Local Government Act,

1888,

is

purely

statutory body, and has not the powers of a munici-

pal or

common

law corporation, and therefore the

possession of statutory powers to purchase and

work tramways does not empower it to work

omnibuses in connection with the tramways (b).

Where

a statute requires a thing to be done,

but does not impose a specific fine for not doing

it is

it,

not for the Court inferentially to draw the

conclusion that a penalty

SECTION

II.

IMPLIED

is

incurred

(c).

POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS.

Where an Act confers

a jurisdiction,

it

impliedly

grants, also, the power of doing all such acts, or

employing such means, as are essentially neces-

sary to

its

(a) Nance, Be,

B.

&
(6)

0.

178

Cui

execution.

jurisdictio data

[1893] 1 Q. B. 590.

Sunderland Bd.

51 & 52 Vict.

c.

41

v.

See Guthrie

Hammond

v,

London

C.

G. v.

Fish, 3

A.-O. (1902), 71

Puhford, [1895] 1 Q. B. 223.

Digitized

ea

Frankland, L. E. 8 Q. B. 18.

L. J. Oh. 268.
(c)

v.

est,

by Microsoft

624

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

quoque concessa

esse videntur, sine quibus jurisdictio

Thus,

which

Act

an

explicari

non

empowers

justices to require persons to take

potuit{a).

an

oath as special constables, or give them jurisdic-

empowers

tion to inquire into an offence, impliedly

them
fail

apprehend the persons

to

to attend

them

before

for

who

unlawfully

those purposes

otherwise the jurisdiction could not be effectually

where an inferior Court is

empowered to grant an injunction, the power of
punishing disobedience to it by commitment is
impliedly conveyed by the enactment
for the
power would be. useless if it could not be enexercised

So,

(5).

forced

And

(c).

statute

it

is

laid

empowers a justice

him

or to cause

down that where

to bind a person over,

to do something,

and the person,

in his presence, refuses, the justice has impliedly

commit him to jail till he complies {d).

An Act which authorises the making of by-laws,
authority to

impliedly authorises the annexation of a reasonable

(a) Dig. 2, 1, 2.
(6)

Bane
A.

Oath before

& B.

Justices,

Methuen,

v.

See also

430.

12 Eep. 131

27 E. E. 546.

Eawe

Benson, 11 L. J. Ex. 348.

Constables, 1

& 2 WUl. IV.

Geo.

61

V.

c.

v.

Hawk.

Comp. B.

Planner, 1 Saund. 10

15

Burton

v.

c. 41
45 & 46 Vict. c. 50 4 & 5
and see Commissioner of Metrop. Pplice v.
;

(c)

Martin, Exp. (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 212, 491.

(d)

c.

s.

Twyford, 5

See also Statutes relating to Special

Hancoch, [1916] 1 K. B. 190.

Hawk.

13,

c.

v.

16,

s.

2.

Digitized

by Microsoft

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

625

pecuniary penalty for their infringement, recoverable (in the absence of other provision) by action
or distress

(a).

The enactment

that at the election of poor

law guardians the votes should, be taken and
returned as the Commissioners should direct,

impliedly authorised the appointment of a returning ofl&cer (6). An Act which, after empowering
the parishioners to elect an assistant overseer,

provided that this power should cease where an

had been appointed by the Poor

Law Commissioners (who had previously no power
to make such an appointment), and while their
assistant overseer

order of appointment remained in force,

would

seem to have given the Commissioners that power

by implication (c). Where a judgment was recovered in a County Court against its bailiff, a
power to appoint a special baihff to levy execution
in that case was held to be necessarily incident to
the Court

So

s.

(6)

Vict.
(c)

Kyi

Eep. 63a; 2

Q. B. 152
63,

was held that when a duty was imposed

it

{a) 5

(d).

B.

v.

Corp. 156

Hall

v.

Nixon, L. E. 10

See 32 & 53 Vict.

Sankey, 3 Q. B. D. 379.

4 & 5 Will. IV.

c.

B.

101)

B.

V.

c.

76,

Greene, 21 L. J.

V.

s.

40 (repealed in part

see 7

Bellamy

I.S.

v.

& 8

Oldham, 16 L. J. M. 0. 110.

M.

C. 137.

See Cullen

v. Trimble,

sup. p. 242.
{d)

o.

32.

Hoyle (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 220.

40

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTBBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

626

on a county, and costs necessarily arose in questioning the propriety of an act done to enforce
that .duty

instance,

for

as,

disputing

in

the

imposed on the county for

neglect to repair the county jail the justices,
who had the superintendence of the county purse,
had impliedly a right to defray such costs out
of a fine

liability

of

it (a).

In the same way, when powers,

privileges, or

property are granted by statute, everything indis-

pensable to their exercise or enjoyment

is

im-

would be in a grant
between private persons. Thus, as by a private
grant or reservation of trees, the power of entering on the land where they stand, and of cutting
them down and carrying them away, is impliedly
given or reserved and by the grant of mines, the
power to dig them (b) so, under a Parliamentary
authority to build a bridge on a stranger's land,
pHedly granted

also, as it

the grantee tacitly acquires the right of erecting,

4 T. E. 591, per Lord Kenyon; B.

(a) JB. V, Essex,

U Q. B.

D. 358.

See A.-G.

v.

Council V. Leiih Harbour Commissioners, [1899] A. C. 508

Jenkins

&

Co. v. Torquay Corp., [1902] 1

L. J. E. B. 109.

company

(h)

V.

K. B. 601

Leith

Brooks,

(1901), 71

See also as to the implied right of a trading

to borrow, General Auction Go. v. Smith, 60 L. J. Oh.

723; per Buckley

Hinds

v. White,

Brecon, 10 Oh. D. 204

J.,

Mansel

v.

Buenos Ayres Tramways

Shep. Touchst. 89

Cohham,
Co.,

76 L.

74 L. J. Oh.
J.

Oh. 17.

Eoll. Ab. Incidents, A.

Digitized

by Microsoft

327

IMPLIED POWEES AND DUTIES.

627

on the land, the temporary scaffolding which

essential to the execution of the

is

Where
make and

work

{a).

an express statutory 'right is given to

maintain something requiring support, the

statute,

in the absence of a controlling context,

must be
taken to mean that the right of support shall

accompany the right to make and maintain. If

the Act does not provide any means of obtaining
compensation

for the loss occasioned to the land-

owner by his having to leave support, this is an

argument against the Legislature having intended
to give such right

but

contains provisions

if it

under which compensation can be obtained, it

needs a strong context to show that the right of
support is not given (b).
So,

if

the Legislature authorises the construction

(o) Clarence By. Co. v. G. N. of

England By.

Co.,

12 L. J.

Q. B. 145.
(6)

L.

&

N. W. By.

Clippem Oil Co.

v.

Comp. Buabon Co.

Co. v. Evans,

v. (?.

W.

1,

By., [1893] 1 Ch. 427

of Dudley, 64 L. J. Ch. 291.

gr.

62 L. J. Ch.

approved in

Edinburgh Water Trustees, 73 L. J. P. C. 32.

As

Bell

v.

Earl

to the construction of Acts, ex.

Inclosure Acts, involving, or relating

to,

a severance of the

Surface from the Subjacent Minerals, see per Lord Blackburn,

50 L.

JDavis V. Treharne,

J. Q. B. 667, cited

L.C., Love V. Bell, 53 L. J. Q. B. 258

Gas. 833

Bank

by Lord Selborne

Dixon

v.

Wlite, 8 App.

of Scotland v. Stewart, 28 Sc. L. E. 735

Sharlston Collieries

v.

hnowle Colliery Co.

v.

Westmorland, 73 L. J. Ch. 341 n.

Bishop Avjcldand Co-operative

Ch. 541.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Socy.,

Neio

Butter-

75 L. J.

628

INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.

work or the use

of a

of

particular thing for

la

a particular purpose, the permission carries with

it

impliedly an exemption from responsibility for

any damage arising from the use, without negligence {i.e., the neglect of some care which one is
bound by law to exercise towards somebody (a))
are fired by
as, for instance, when haystacks
locomotive engines running on railways
the

to

general

statutory

that

rule,

(b).

But

authority

absolves from responsibility where no negligence

shown,

is

(5

the

see

Bdw. VII. oil).

Eailway Fires Act, 1905

Where, however, trustees and

persons are authorised to execute a work,

oflScial

such as to raise a road, to lower a

make

hill,

or to

a drain, they are impliedly authorised,

if

necessary for the due execution of their task, to

Per Bowen

(a)

L.J.,

Atnos

V.

29 L.

Quartermaine

v.

V.

Pease, 38 E. E. 207

D. 601)

31 L. J. C. P. 12

Ex. 212

Vaughan

Dunn

v.

Freemantle

Blyth

v.

v.

Birmingham Waterworks

Birmingham Canal

Hammersmith By. Co.

v.

Co.,

Lord Blackburn

Stretton's

Co.,

25 L.

L. E. 8 Q. B.

v.

Co.,

J.

42

Brand, L. E. 4 H. L. 171; A.-G. v,

L. E. 4 0. P. 629; Geddis

431

Taff Vale By. Co.,

London & N. W. By.

Metrop. By. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 384;

v.

Ex. 247 (questioned by Bramwell L.J. in Powell

J.

Fall, 5 Q. B.

186

18

(1887),

Duffy (1890), 6 T. L. E. 339, C. A.

B.

(6)

Thomas

This case considered and explained in

Q. B. D., at p. 694.

v.

Bann

National Telephone Co.

Derhy Brewery

Canadian Pac. By. Co.

Digitized

Co. v.

v.

Cracknell v. Thetford,

Co., 3
v.

App. Oas. 454, per

Baher, [1893] 2 Oh.

Derhy {Mayor), [1894] 1 Ch.

Boy, [1902] A. C. 220.

by Microsoft

IMPLIED POWEES AND DUTIES.

629

prejudice the rights, or injure the property of third

persons without liability for action provided they

do no more than the statute under which they

and requires them

are acting authorises

But

to do (a).

in like circumstances a private individual or

corporation would be liable whether he were guilty

Where Commissioners
(6).
have to construct works, and may levy rates to
pay for their construction, there is an implication,
of negligence or not

unless

it

be clearly negatived by something in the

Act to the contrary, that

within their power

it is

to levy a rate to provide for a liability incurred

through the work being done negligently by their

servants (c).
And a statute which authorises a

Local Authority to employ a proper number of

persons to act as firemen, impliedly authorises

such

and

firemen

preserve

to

order during a

exclude such persons from the burning

to

premises as

it

may

be necessary to exclude, so as

which would

to prevent the inconvenience

(a)

0. B.
(6)

Per Williams
N.

S., at p.

J.,

Taff Vale By.

Galhworfhy

Mersey Docks
Bridge Co.
V.

v.

Whitehouse

780; 30 L.
v.

J. C.

v. Selhij

J., at p.

Dam

FeUowes

Society of

Railway Servants,

Commissioners, [1892] 1 Q. B. 348

v. Gibhs (1866),

L. E. 1 H. L. 93

Southampton Local Board, 28 L.

;

53 L.

by Microsoft

J.

Southampton
Q. B. 41

J. P. 0.

Drainage Commissioners (1892), 61 L.

Digitized

10

(1861),

432.

Williams (1884), 9 App. Gas. 418

Selby

v.

arise

P. 305.

Amalgamated

[1901] A. 0. 426; Earwell

(c)

fire,

J.

64

B.

Q. B. 372.

B.
v.

INTBBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

630

from

overcrowding

with

interference

or

work (a).
But when an Act confers such powers,

their

also

it

exercised

impliedly requires that they shall be

only for the purposes for which they were given,

and subject to the conditions which it pi'escribes,

and also with due skill and diligence, and in a way
to prevent a needless mischief or injury

(5),

power, for instance, to establish asylums for the

would not authorise the establishment of a

small-pox hospital in such a place or circumstances
sick

as to be a

common

nuisance

(c).

Again, a grant of fish in a pond does not carry

with

an authority to dig a trench to

it

(a) Carter v.
(6)

Jones

E. E. 591

v.

Thomas, [1893] 1 Q. B. 673.

Bird, 24 E. E. 579; Grocers' Co. v. Bonne,

Clothier v. Webster, 31 L. J. C. P.

Chadwick, 43 E. E. 659

293
V.

Collins v.

Bann

the

let

Lawrence

316

Trower

App. Gas. 430

Boij (1901), 71 L. J. P. C. 51.

Wandsworth Board, [1898]

But

2 Oh.

v.

G. N. By. Co., 20 L. J. Q. B.

v.

Middle Level Commrs., L. E. 4 C. P. 279

Co. (1878), 3

43

Geddis

Canadian Pac. By. Co.

v.

see Southwarh Water Co. v.

603

and East Fremantle

Corp. V. Annois (1901), 71 L. J. P. C. 39.

(c)

30

Vict. c. 6,

s.

5 (extended 39

Metrop. Asylums District

Canadian Pac. By. Co.

v.

v.

& 40

Vict.

c.

61, ss. 40, 41)

Hill (1881), 50 L. J.

Parke, 68 L.

Q.

B.

353

J. P. C. 89, which last

two cases were cited and applied by Joyce J. in Metrop. Water

Board v. Solomon, 77 L. J. Gh. 520. See also Bapier v. London
Tramways Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588 Vernon v. St. James's Vestry,
;

16 Gh. D. 449.

Comp. L. B.

&

S.

C. By. v.

Truman, 11 App.

Gas. 45 and Jordeson v. Sutton &c. Gas Co., [1899] 2 Ch. 217.

Digitized

by Microsoft

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

water out to take the

fish,

631

since they can be taken

by nets or other devices, without doing such

damage (a) and, in like manner, a statute does
not give by implication any powers not absolutely
;

An

essential to the privilege or property granted.

authority to construct a sewer on the land of

another, for instance, would not carry with
right to lateral support from the land,

if

the

it
it

was

possible to construct an adequate sewer indepen-

dent of such support

An Act

(6).

of Parliament

does not, by authorising persons to repair and

them
which is

cleanse a navigable river, impliedly authorise

to dig, in the bed of the river (the soil of

vested in the owner of a several fishery) a canal

or passage to a

new

wharf, for the convenience of

their barges, to the prejudice of the fishery

(c).

Authority given to make a railway for the passage

of waggons, engines and other carriages, does not
impliedly give power to use locomotives on

other means of traction

fore, if injury arises

may be

employed.

it

as

There-

from the use of a locomotive,

under such circumstances, the general rule of law

implies, that a person who uses a dangerous thing
is

liable to

an action

(a) Finch's Disc,

for

any injury which he does

on Law, 63

Gearns

v.

Baker, L. E. 10

Ch. 355.
(6) Metrop.

Boderick
(c)

v.

Board

v.

Metrop. By.

Co.,

38 L.

Aston Local Board, 5 Ch. D. 328.

Parfheriche v. Mason, 2 Chit. 658.

Digitized

by Microsoft

J. C. P.

172
'

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

632

Ordinary railway, gas, and mining companies, on this principle, have no implied power

by

it (a).

to draw, accept, or indorse bills or notes

not essential to their business

is

for this

So,

(b).

it

has

been held that a Colonial legislative body has,

by the Act or charter

which constitutes it, the power of removing and
keeping excluded from the chamber where it carries
on its deliberations, all persons who interrupt its
proceedings for such a power is absolutely indisimpliedly granted to

it

pensable for the proper exercise of

functions

its

But a power

of punishing such offenders for their

contempt of

its

authority

purpose, and so

is

is

not necessary for this

not granted by implication

(c).

by Act of Parliament in persons

for public purposes, a power of conveying away
any part of it would not be impliedly granted (d)
If land is vested

(a) Jones v. Festiniog

By. Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 733

Guardians Armagh, Union

on appeal); B.
Powell

V. Fall,

v.

5 Q. B. D. 597

15 Q. B. D.

Abbott's,

v. Bell,

[1900] 2

Ir.

E. 871 (affirmed

Bradford Navigation, 84 L.
;

Gas Light

See Bylands

1.

&

J. Q.

Cole Co.\.

v. Fletcher,

B. 191
St.

Mary

L. E. 3 H. L.

330.
(6)

Bateman

v.

Mid-Wales By.

Co.,

L. E. 1 0. P. 499, and the

cases collected there.

(c)

Id.

Keilley v. Carson, 4

347

Brown, Be, 33 L.

1 P. C. 328

Barton v

App.

Cas., at p. 203.

717

and comp. Fielding

(d)

Moo. P.

Wadmore

v.

J.

C. 63

Q. B. 198

Fenton

v.

Hampton^ 11

Boyley. Falconer, L. E.

Taylor (1886) 55 L. J. P. C. 1

See Spilsbury

v. Micklethwaite,

v. Thomas (1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 103.

Dear (1871), L. E. 7 C. P. 212 Tepper

Digitized

by Microsoft

11

9 E. E.

v.

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

633

" a paxliamentary franchise of this kind

bit of property

is

not a

which the owner can dispose

of

just as he might a stick or a table or an acre of

land;

So, where

nothing of the kind "(a).

it is

a statute prohibited bathing on the shore except

from bathing machines, which the local authorities were empowered to license, that power did
not entitle a licensed person to place a bathing

machine on the shore without the consent

owner of the shore (h).

The concession
carries with

it

of privileges or

implied obligations.

of the

powers often
For instance,

an Act which gives a power to dig up the soil of

streets for a particular purpose, such as making
a drain, impKedly casts on those thus empowered
the duty of filling up the ground again, and of
original condition

restoring the street to its

Nichols (1864), 34 L. J. C. P. 61

(1879), 11 Oh. D. 611

8 App. Gas. 623

L. J. 852, 0. A.

(c).

Mulliner v. Midland By. Co.

Ayr Harbour

Trustees v. Oswald (1883),

G. W. By. v. Solihull Bural Council (1902), 86

Stretford Union Council v. Manchester &c. By.

(1903), 1 L. G. E. 683.
(a)

Per Cozens-Hardy M.E.,

Tramways

Co.,

Eccles Corp. v. South Lancashire

79 L. J. Oh. 765, in support of which dictum the

learned judge cites from the judgment of Lord Hersehell L.C.

in Edinburgh Street

Tramways

(6)

Mace

v. Fhilcox,

(c)

Gray

v.

(1876), 45 L.

L.

J. Q.

Co. v. Edinburgh,

63 L.

Q. B. 771.

33 L. J. 0. P. 124.

Pullen (1864), 34 L. J. Q. B. 265

J. Q.

J.

B. 446

Groves

v.

B. 862.

Digitized

Bower

v.

Peate

Wimborne {Ld.) (1898), 67

by Microsoft

INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

634
If

imposed a

it

work

repair a

on one person to keep in

liability

possession of another,

in the

it

would be understood as impliedly imposing on

the latter the obligation of giving notice of the

needed repair to the party

A public

liable (a).

body, authorised to

tow-path and to take

bound to keep

make

a bridge or

impliedly

tolls for its use, is

in proper repair, as long' as

it

it

takes the tolls and invites the pubKc to use the

work

or at least, to give those

to use
it

whom

they invite

due warning of the defect which makes

it,

unfit for use {b).

authority

statutory

If

primarily for their

own

given

is

persons,

to

benefit and profit rather

than for any advantage which the public

may

incidentally derive, such as to cut through a high-

way and throw a bridge over the cutting, or to

substitute a new road for the old one the burden
of maintaining the new work in repair would be
;

impliedly cast on them, and not on the county

or parish

Another duty which would

(c).

also be

(a) London & S. W. By. Co. v. Flower, 1 G. P. D. 77

Mahin v.
WatMmon, L. E. 6 Ex. 25. See Scaltoch v. Harston, 1 C. P. D.
106 Brown v. G. E. By. Co., 2 Q. B. D. 406.
;

Winch

(6)

V. Allen,

D. 116.

v.

Comp. Ching

L. J. K. B. 481
Gillow
(c)

V.

B.

Thames

Conservators, L. E. 9 C. P.

31 L. J. Q. B. 283

Durham
V.

v.

Morris
C.

Forbes

v.

378

Surrey C. C, 78 L. J. K. B. 927,
v.

Carnarvon

C, 80 L.

J.

C.

Nicholl

Lee Cons. Board, i Ex.

C, 79 L.

J.

affd.

79

K. B. 670

K. B. 880.

Kent, 12 E. E. 330; B. v. Lindsey, 12 E. E. 529;

Digitized

by Microsoft

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

impliedly imposed on

would be that

635

them by such an enactment

of protecting the public

from any

danger attending the use of the new work. If it

was a swing bridge, for instance, they would be
bound to take due precautions to prevent persons
from attempting to cross it, while it was open (a).
If the

work was a railway, crossing a highway on

a level, they would be impliedly bound to keep

the crossing in a proper state to admit of the use

of the

highway by

damage

carriages, without

them (b).
And this implied

obligation

would

not

to

be

excluded on the principle expressum facit cessare

taciturn, by the fact that certain duties are expressly

imposed by statute on railway companies who

make such crossings
ex.
gr., to
erect and
maintain gates where the public road crosses the
railway, and to employ men to open and shut them,
and to keep them closed except when carriages
have to cross (c). So, notwithstanding all such
;

B.

V. Kerrison,

223
49

14 E. E. 491

HertfardsMre C. C.

v.

B.

New

North Staffordshire By. Co.

Leech

V.

v.

North Staffordshire By.

Lancashire
(a)

v.

&

Manley

Ely (1850), 19 L.

J.

M.

G.

Biver Co. (1904), 74 L. J. Oh.

Bale, 27 L. J.

29 L.

Co.,

J.

M.
M.

0. 147

C. 150;

Yorkshire By. Co. v. Bury, 14 App. Gas. 417.

v. St.

Helen's Co., 27 L. J. Ex. 159.

(6) Oliver v. N. E. By. Co. (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 409.

See

Jenner v. S. E. By., 55 S. J. 553.

(c)

Oliver v. N. E. By. Co. (1874), sup.

L. E. 7 H. L. 12.

See also Wyatt

Digitized

v.

iV.

0.

by Microsoft

E. By. Co. v. Wanless,

W. By. (1865), 34

INTEEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

636

company would be bound,

express provisions, the

by implication,

to prevent all passage along the

portion of the highway thus intersected,

was dangerous to cross (a).

But power to pull down the wall

when

it

of a house with-

out causing unnecessary inconvenience would not

impliedly involve the obligation of putting up a

hoarding for the protection of the rooms exposed

by the demolition (h). A statutory obligation so to

do is, however, imposed by the London Building
Act, 1894(c).

Sometimes the express imposition

impliedly imposes

of one diity

Thus, when

another.

it

was

enacted that no license for the sale by retail of

consumed on the
more
grounds, the obligation was

beer, cider or wine, not to be

premises, should be refused except on one or

four

of

specified

imposed by implication on the justices, of stating

on which of the specified grounds they based their
refusal

The Ballot Act,

(c?).

L. J. Q. B. 204

[1900] 2

Ir.

distinguished in

London & N. W. By.

Lunt

(6)

Thompson

(c)

57 & 68 Vict.

(d)

32 & 33 Vict.

52

c.

Gorman

which imposes,

v.

Waterford dc. By.,

E. 341, see p. 348.

(a)

Geo. V.

1872,

V.

24,

s.

v. Hill (1870),

90

c. cexiii., s.

c.

27,

s.

L. E. 1 Q. B. 277.

(2).

8 (repealed, 10

112, Sched. 7)

45 L. J. M. C. 39

Co.,

L. E. 5 C. P. 564.

B.

v.

Bdw. VII. and

Smith, Exp., 3 Q. B. D. 374

Chertsey JJ. (1878), 47 L. J.

Digitized

M.

Syhes (1875), 1 Q. B. D.

C. 104.

by Microsoft

B.

v.

IMPLIED POWERS AND DUTIES.

637

in express terms, certain specific duties

on the

presiding ofiicers at polling stations, casts also on

those

by implication, the duty of being

present at their stations during an election, and of
providing the voters with voting papers bearing
the

officers,

mark required by thp Act

official

{a).

duty or right imposed or given to one,

may

by implication a corresponding burthen

also cast

on another, as in the case of the proviso in the

Commission of the Peace, requiring the Quarter
Sessions not to give judgment in cases of difficulty
unless in the presence of one of the Judges of
Assize which impliedly requires the judge to give
;

his opinion

ment Act,

So, the Charitable Trusts

(b).

1855(6-),

which enacts that

Amend-

it shall. not

be lawful for the trustees of a charity to make any

grant otherwise than (among other things) with
the approval of the Charity Commissioners, was

considered as requiring the Commissioners to give

their approval in a case where "the grant

was passed (d).

before the Act

The grant

may

of a privilege or of property to one,

sometimes impliedly give a right to another

James (1873); L. E. 8 0. P. 489
Howard (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 273.

(a) Pickering v.

in Ackets v.

c.

was made

(6)

Per

(c)

18

136,

considered

Cur., B. v. Chantrell, L. E. 10 Q. B. 587.

&

19 Vict.

c.

124,

s.

29 (repealed in part, 23

&

24 Vict.

s. i;.

(d) Moore V. Glench (1875), 1 Ch. D. 447

Digitized

by Microsoft

45 L.

J. Cli. 80.

INTERPBETATION OP STATUTES.

638

Thus, an Act which empowered a hospital

person.

to take and hold lands

by

or purchase,

will, gift,

without incurring the penalties of the Mortmain

Acts, was held to empower persons to devise or
convey lands to it; it being considered that the

But power

Act would otherwise be nugatory (a).

given to a corporation to take lands only avoided

the necessity of obtaining a license to hold in mort-

main, and did not affect the disability of the

grantor (b). And an Act which gave one railway

company power

to purchase certain lands

construct a railway according to the

and to

deposited

plans and books of reference, would not give by

impHcation to another company the correlative

power to

sell

any of those lands to

it (c).

Again, in giving judicial powers to affect prejudicially the rights of

person or property, a statute

understood as silently implying,

when

it

is

does not

expressly provide, the condition or qualification

that the power

is

to be exercised in accordance

with the fundamental rules of judicial procedure,

such, for instance, as that
before

its

(a) Perring
V.

the

exercise,

v.

which requires

person

sought

Trail (1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 775

that,

to

be

comp. NetJiersole

Indigent Blind, 40 L. J. Ch. 26.

(6)

Mogg

v.

Hodges, 2 Ves. sen. 52, cited in Webster v. Southeij

(1887), 36 Ch. D.
(c)

B.

V. S.

9.

Wales By.

Co.,

Digitized

19 L.

J. Q.

B. 272.

by Microsoft

IMPLIED JUDICIAL DUTIES.

639

prejudicially affected shall have an opportunity of

defending himself (a).

On

this ground,

ment Act,

1834, 4

which authorises

Law Amend-

under the Poor

&

Wm.

IV. c. 76, s. 27(6),

"
justices
at their just and proper

discretion " to order out-door relief to an aged or

pauper who

infirm

order could be

unable to work, no such

is

made without summoning those on

whom

the order was to be made(c).

So, where
an Act authorised justices, where it appeared that
the appointment of special constables had been
occasioned by the behaviour of persons employed

by railway
works, to

company
services,

or other companies, in executing public

make an

order on the treasurer of the

to pay the Special constables for their

which order,

allowed by a Secretary of

if

State, should be binding

on the company

held that no such order could be validly

without

giving

(a) Bagg's Case, 11

657

Emerson

21 L.

v.

J. Q. B.

company

the

Eep. 99

JB.

notice,

v. Univ.

238

v.

judicium ab unS, parte

ferentes,

neque recusanti judicium."

Eepealed

(,_)

B.

V.

Jenkins,

32 L. J. M. C.

unquam

ita

absenti

Ohrysostom,

eo

qui

M.

by Microsoft

1.

judicarunt,

accusatur

Epist. ad Innocen-

S. L. E., 1874.

Totnes Union (1845), 14 L. J.

Digitized

an

Exp. Bamshay,

tem.
(6)

made

and

Barnes, L. E. 2 0. P. 384

Be Pollard, L. E. 2 P. C. 106 B. v.
" Neque
Scythas neque Sarmatee
;

was

of Cambridge, Stra.

Newfoundland, 8 Moo. P. 0. 157

Thorburn

it

C. 148.

640

INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

opportunity of being heard against

it {a).

So an

Act which gives a constable power to seize pirated

copies of music, and provides that on the seizure
of any such copies, a Court of summary jurisdiction shall, on proof that they are infringements of copyright, order them to be forfeited or
destroyed, gives the Court no power in the absence
of a summons duly served on the person from

whom

the music was seized

(6).

Again, where a

Colonial enactment authorised the

declare a lease forfeited,

if it

Governor to

was proved

to the

Commissioner that the lessee had

failed to reside on the demised land, the Commissioner could not lawfully be satisfied without summoning the lessee and holding a judicial inquiry (c).
satisfaction of a

The Metropolis Management Act, 1855, which

required that before laying the foundations of a
building a seven days' notice should be given to

the district board, and authorised that board to

order the demolition of any building erected with-

out such notice, was construed as impliedly imposing on the board the condition of either giving
the presumed defaulter a hearing before making
the order, or notice that the order had been made,
(a) 1

&

2 Vict.

c.

80 ; B.

v. Cheshire

Lines Committee, L. E. 8

Q. B. 344.
(6)

Edw. VII.

c.

15.

See 6 Bdw. VII.

[1903] 1 K. B. 275.
(c)

Smith

V.

B.,3 App. Cas. 614.

Digitized

by Microsoft

c.

36

Francis, Exp.,

IMPLIED JUDICIAL DUTIES.

641

SO that he might remonstrate, or appeal, before

proceeding to the demolition of his building and
;

a district board, which

had confined itself to the

letter pf the Act, and had demolished a building
respecting which it had received no notice, without first calling on the owner to show cause against
its order for doing so, was held liable in an action,
as a wrong-doer (a).
A statute which required
justices to issue a distress warrant to enforce a

rate or other charge, even though

to issue

it

" on proof of

it

directed

them

demand and non-payment,"

would nevertheless be

construed

impliedly

as

requiring that they should not do so, without

summoning the party against whom it was

demanded, and giving him a hearing against the
step proposed to be taken against him (6).
An Act which empowered a bishop, when it
appeared to his satisfaction, either from his own
first

knowledge or from proof laid before him, that the

duties of a benefice were inadequately performed, to
require the incumbent to appoint and pay a curate

and

he

if

(a) 18

Cooper

failed to

& 19

V.

Vict.

c.

comply within three months,

120,

s.

76 (amended 25 & 26 Vict.

Wandsworth Board (1863), 32 L.

Clerhenwell

Vestry v.

Feary,

24 Q. B. D. 703

Smeihwick Local Board, 24 Q. B. D. 712

c.

C. P.

J.
;

A.-G.

102)

185;

HopJcins
v.

v.

Hooper,

[1893] 8 Gh. 484.

See Harper

(6)

425

Painter

v.

v.

Carr, 4 E. E.

Liverpool

Gas

440

B.

v.

Hughes, 3 A.

Co., Id. 433.

41

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

&

B.

642

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

himself to

make

stipend

the appointment and to

fix

the

was considered as importing the same

condition of giving a hearing before exercising the

power;

and,

not authorising the

acting on his own personal

therefore,

as

bishop, even when

knowledge, to issue the requisition (which was in
the nature of a judgment) without having given

the holder of the benefice an opportunity of being

heard

(a).

A power

to

remove a person from

his oflSce or

employment for lawful cause only, would, on the

same principle, involve the condition that it was
due hearing, or the
opportunity of being heard, had been given to the
person' proposed to be removed (6).
But it would,
to be exercisable only after a

of course, be different

able

arbitrarily

assigned

and

if

the person was remov-

without

any cause being

(c).

It is obvious that

new jurisdiction,
(a) Capel v.

where an Act which creates a

gives any person dissatisfied with

Child (1832), 37 E. E. 761

1 L. J. Ex. 205,

questioned by Alderson B. in Hammersmith Bent Charge,

(1849), 4 Ex. 94.
Bartlett

See Bonaher

v.

Be

Eeans, 20 L. J. Q. B. 137

Kirwood, 23 L. J.

v.

Abergavenny

v.

Q. B. 9.
Comp. Marquis of
Llandaff (Bp.) (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 460; 57

L. J. Q. B. 233.
(6)

B.

(c)

Teather, Exp., 19 L. J.

14 L.

J.

V.

Smith, 13 L. J. Q. B. 166.

Q. B. 67; B.

Sandys, Exp., 4 B.

& Ad.

v.

M.

C. 70; B. v. Darlington School,

Bayly, [1898] 2

863.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Ir.

E. 335, 347;

IMPLIED JUDICIAL DUTIES.

its

643

decision an appeal to another judicial authority,

which

is

empowered

sion, as to it shall

to confirm or annul the deci-

appear just and proper, the right

of being heard in support of his appeal

given to the appellant

Under the

is

impliedly

(a).

County Court
Act (9 & 10 Vicfc. c. 95) (b), which empowered the
judge, if satisfied on the hearing of a judgment
debtor's summons that the judgment debtor had
the means of paying his debt, to order him to
pay it either in one sum or by instalments, and if
he failed to obey, to commit him to jail it was
held that an order to pay by future instalments,
and in default of paying any of them to be committed, was invalid for it made the debtor liable
to imprisonment for not making a payment at a
provision of the

first

future time, without then having an opportunity

of defending himself.

As the language

of the

Act

was not inconsistent with the general principle

that a person ought not to be punished without

having had an opportunity of being heard, it was

construed as tacitly embodying it. The judge
could not properly exercise any discretion until
the time of commitment
(a)

B.

V.

(c).

Canterbury (Archbp.), 28 L. J. Q. B. 154.

instances, Phillips' Charity, Be, 9 Jur. 959

Be, 10 Jur. 512

(6)
(c)

Davenport

Eepealed 51 & 52

v. B.,

3 App. Cas. 115.

Vict. c. 43,

s.

188.

See Kinning's Case, lOQ. B. 730

Digitized

See other

Fremington School,

Kinning

by Microsoft

v.

Buchanan,

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

644

would be different where the statute gave a

power of immediate commitment in default of immediate payment (a). And again, if the opportunity
of defence was provided at another stage, there
would be no adequate ground for thus implying
the condition in question. For instance, when a
statute provided that if a rent-charge was in arrear,
it might be levied by distress, and that if it
remained in arrear for 40 days and there was
no distress, a judge, upon an affidavit of these
facts, might order the sheriff to summon a jury
to assess the arrears unpaid; it was held that
such an order might well be made ex parte. The
party subject to prejudice had his opportunity of
It

defence before the sheriff (i).

So,

where an Act

authorised justices to inquire and adjudge

settlement of a pauper lunatic, and to

the

make an

order on his parish to pay for his maintenance,

and empowered the parish to appeal against any

such order; it was held that the order might
be

made without giving the

parish sought to be

affected notice of the intended inquiries

8 C. B. 271

Alley

v.

Dale, 10 C. B. 62.

Atherton, L. E. 9 Q. B. 4

711.

Gomp. Stonor

v.

Lovering

v.

(c).

And

See also Eesketh

Fowle (1887), 57 L.

J. Q.

B. 387;

Watson, In re (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 85.

(a)

Arnold

(i)

Hammersmith Bent Charge, Be

v.

Dimsdale, 22 L. J.

{c)MonUeigh, Exp., 5

M.

C. 161.

(1849), 19 L. J. Ex. 66.

D. & L. 404.

Digitized

v.

Dawson, L. E. 10 G. P.

by Microsoft

IMPLIED JUDICIAL DUTIES.

645

an application to the Court by a trustee in bankruptcy for leave to prosecute a bankrupt for an
offence under certain repealed sections of the
Debtors Act, 1869 (a), was properly made ex parte
and without notice to the bankrupt (b).

An Act which empowers

two or more justices, or

other persons (c), to do any act of a judicial, as
distinguished from a ministerial, nature impliedly
requires that they should

all

and acting together in

performance, whether to

its

be personally present

hear the evidence, or to view when they are to act

on personal inspection (d) to consult together, and

form their judgment (e) and in the case of justices
;

authorised to try offences summarily, to abstain

from exercising their jurisdiction when it appears
that a bond fide claim of right or title is set up (/).
(a)
s.

See 8 Bdw. VII.

c.

15,

10

s.

and 4 & 5 Geo. V.

(1),

c.

59,

168, Sohed. 6.
(6)

Marsden, Exp. (1876), 2 Ch. D. 786.

(c)

So, directors of companies, D'Arcy v.

(1866), L. E. 2 Ex. 158

Tamar By.

Haycraft Gold Beduction

But

In re (1900), 69 L. J. Ch. 497.

&

Mining

Duck

see

v.

Co.
Co.,

Tower

Galvanising Co. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 625.

{d)

B.

V. Cambridgeshire,

(e) Billings v.

B.

3 T. E. 380;

454

Battye

787

Cook

v.

v.

Greeley, 8 East,

B.

V.

L. J.

M.

C. 81.

Totnes,

18 L.

(/) Per Blackburn

J.,

J.

319

M.

White

Digitized

B.

38; B.

v. Forrest, Id.

Loveland, 5 E. E. 533

578

4 A. & E. 111.

Prinn, 2 "W. Bl. 1017

v.

Hamstall Bidware,

v.

v.

Winwich,

Grindley
;

B.

0. 46

v.

B.

v.

8.

T. E.

Barker, 4 E. E.

Mils, 2 B. & Ad.

v.

Aldborough, 18

Feast (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B.

by Microsoft

INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES

646

When

the act to be performed

is ministerial, it is

not necessary, on general principles, that the persons authorised to do

should meet together for

it

statute

which gave such

authority would therefore not

be construed as

the purpose; and the

impliedly requiring

When
Court to

and a

it (a).

new jurisdiction is given to an existing

deal with new matter in a different mode

different procedure, it is understood, unless

the contrary be expressed or plainly implied, to be

intended to be exercised according to the general

inherent powers of the Court

It
is

(6).

has been already mentioned that

when

power

conferred to do some act of a judicial nature, or

of public concern

and

interest, there is implied

obligation to exercise

when

it,

the occasion for

This implied obligation

arises (c).

making

it

imperative

but

it

usually said

is

when

to modify the language creating the power,

permissive, by

an

it

seems

to be a matter of implied enactment, rather

than

of verbal interpretation.
358

373

41 L.

J.

BrooJcs v.

(a) Hopper,

Bawdy, In

M. C. 81 Birnie v. Marshall
Eamlyn (1899) 79 L. T. 734.
;

Be

(1867), L. E. 2

re (1885),

Q. B.

15 Q. B. D. 426

(6) Bale's Case (1881), 6 Q. B.

Digitized

367.

54 L.

D. 376.

(c) Sup. pp. 424-443.

by Microsoft

(1876), 35 L. T.

J.

Explained in
Q. B. 474.

IMPEEATIVE OE DIKEOTOEY,

SECTION

When

lU.IMPEEATIVB OE

647

DIEEOTORT.

a statute requires that something shall

be done, or done in a particular manner or form,

without expressly declaring what shall be the

consequence of non-compliance, the question often

arises,

what intention

by inferWhere, indeed, the

whole aim and object of the Legislature would
ence

to

is

to be attributed

the Legislature

be plainly defeated if the command to do the

thing in a particular manner did not imply a
prohibition to do

it

any other, no doubt can be

in

entertained as to the intention.

for instance, of the

1855

(a),

The enactment,

Metropolitan Building Act,

that the walls

of buildings should be

constructed of brick, stone, or other incombustible

though containing no prohibitory words,

obviously prohibited by implication and made
illegal their construction with any other (b).
So,
material,

the directions in the rubrics of the Prayer

for the

performance of the

rites

Book

and ceremonies

of the Church, are equally imperative in prohibit-

ing

all

(a) 18

omissions and additions

& 19

c. ccxiii., s.

Vict.

c.

(c)

Westerton
v.

s.

Again, where

12 (repealed, 57

&

58 Vict,

215, Sched. 4).

(6) Stevens v. Gourley,

Martin

122,

(c).

v.

29 L.

J. C. P. 1.

Liddell (1857), reported by Moore, p. 187

MaconocMe (1868), L. R. 2 P.

C. 365

187.

Digitized

by Microsoft

38 L. J. Ecc.

648

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

made, in terms, a condition precedent, to the validity or legality of what is done

as when, for example, the deed of a married woman
was to take effect " when " the certificate of her
acknowledgment of it was filed (a); or where in

compliance

is

bankruptcy it was provided that no appeal should

be entertained "unless" certain rules were comwith

plied

(b)

the

neglect

the

of

statutory

would obviously be fatal. It is now,

however, enacted by s. 147 (1) of the Bankruptcy
Act, 1914, that no formal defect shall invalidate
requisites

proceedings.

The

reports

are

full

indications of intention

in

without

cases

of

some

of

any

which the con-

ditions, forms, or other attendant circumstances,

prescribed by the statute have been regarded as

essential to the act or things regulated

their omission has

been held

by

it,

and

fatal to its validity

while in others, such prescriptions have been considered as merely directory, the neglect of which
did not affect its validity, or involve

any other
consequence than a liabihty to a penalty, if any
were imposed, for breach of the enactment (c).

The

propriety, indeed, of ever

(a) 3
s.

7)

(6)

&4

32

&

Dickinson,
(c)

Will. IV.

c.

Jolly v. Hancock,

33 Vict.

Be

c.

74,

s.

22 L.

treating the pro-

86 (repealed, 45
J.

71 (repealed, 46

& 47

(1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 736.

Gomp. sup.

p.

424

et seq.

Digitized

& 46

Vict. c. 39,

Ex. 38.

by Microsoft

Viot.

c.

52,

s.

169)

IMPERATIVE OK DIEECrORY.

649

visions of any statute in the latter

manner has

been sometimes questioned

(a)

but

it is justifiable

in principle as well as abundantly established

numerous

by

authorities.

It has

been said that no rule can be laid down

whether the command is to be considered as a mere direction or instruction involving
no invalidating consequence in its disregard, or as

for determining

imperative, with an implied nullification for disobedience, beyond the fundamental one that it

depends on the scope and object of the enactment (J). It may, perhaps, be found generally
correct to say that nulHfication is the natural and
usual consequence of disobedience; but the question is in the main governed by considerations of

convenience and justice

(c),

and when that

would involve general inconvenience or

result

injustice

to innocent persons, or advantage to those guilty

of the neglect, without promoting the real aim

and object of the enactment, such an intention

not to be attributed to the Legislature.
In the first place, a strong line of distinction

is

may be drawn between cases where the prescriptions

(a)

Per Martin

on Interp.
(6)

De

B.,

Bowman v.

Blyth, 7 E.

&

B. 47

Per Lord Campbell, Liverpool Borough Bank

G. P.

&

J.

507

per Lord Penzance, Howard

v.

P. D. 211.
(c)

Sedgwick

of Stats., p. 375.

See per Lush

J.,

B.

v. Ingall,

Digitized

2 Q. B. D. 208.

by Microsoft

v.

Turner, 2

Bodington, 2

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

650

Act affect the performance of a duty,

and where they relate to a privilege or power (a).
Where powers or rights are granted, with a direcof the

tion that certain regulations or formalities shall be

compUed

with,

it

seems neither unjust nor incon-

venient to exact a rigorous observance of

as

them

the acquisition of the right or

essential to

and it is therefore probable

was
the
intention
of the Legislature.
that such
But when a public duty is imposed, and the
authority conferred

statute requires that

shall

it

be performed in a

certain manlaer, or within a certain time, or under

other specified conditions, such prescriptions

may

well be regarded as intended to be directory only

when

injustice or inconvenience to others

who have no

control over those exercising the

in cases

duty would
essential

result

if

requirements were

and imperative.

Taking the former

when a

such

statute

class of cases, it

cohfers

right,

seems that

privilege,

or

immunity, the regulations, forms, or conditions

which it prescribes for its acquisition are imperative, in

them

the sense that non-observance of any of

is fatal.

Thus, where the repealed Engrav-

ing Copyright Act, 1734, gave to the designers

of prints the sole right of printing

them

for 14

years after the day of publication, adding, " which

(day) shall be truly engraved, with the
(a) See per

Denman

J.,

Digitized

Caldow

v. Pixel!,,

by Microsoft

name

2 C. P. D. 562.

of

IMPERATIVE OE DIEBOTOBY.

651

the proprietor, on each plate " ; it was held that

the neglect to comply with this provision was
fatal to the copyright (a).
So, under the repealed

Copyright Act, 1842, that no proprietor of copyright in a hook should be entitled to sue for its
infringement unless he had

made an entry at
and time of the first
publication of the book, and the name and abode
of the publisher, it was held that a suit was not
maintainable, where the day of publication was
not stated truly, or only the month was stated;
or the publishers were not described correctly,
that is, neither by the style of the firm, nor by
Stationers' Hall of the title

the names of the individual partners (b). The

innkeeper whose common law liability for the

goods of his guests

limited,

is

&

notice as required by 26

obtain the exoneration,

27 Vict.

8 Geo.

(a)

Sched. 2

(6)

Avanzo

& 6

Sched.

29 E. E. 541

Vict, e. 45 (repealed 1

8 Vict.

c.

was held
c.

v.

& 2 Geo. V.

c.

Mudie, 10 Ex. 203.

&

it

Brooks

Goioie,

v.

7-

41, does not

& 2 Geo. V.

v.

See also

2).

c.

So

(c).

13, repealed 1

c.

Newton

E. E. 348

II.

he posts up a

his notice is inaccurate

if

any material particular

in

if

46,

s.

36,

Gock, 42

46,

s.

36,

12 (repealed 1 & 2 Geo. V.

For a disquisition on the Copyright

which consoKdates the law of Copyright, see Clerk and
Lindsell on Torts, Chap. XXI. Low v. Boutledge, 33 L. J. Ch.
c.

46,

s.

36, Sched. 2).

Act, 1911,

717

Wood

v.

Boosey, L. E.

L. E. 7 Bq. 270
(c) Spice'v.

Henderson

Bacon

Potter, 4 Ex. D. 142

2.

Q. B. 340

v.

Maxwell, 5 Ch. D. 892.

(1877), 2 Ex.

Mather

Digitized

v.

Mathieson

D. 463.

v.

See Gregson

Brown, 1 0. P. D. 596.

by Microsoft

Harrod,

v.

INTERPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

652

made by a lodger under the

repealed Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871 (a),
must rigidly comply with the provisions of that
Act, which was made for the benefit of the landthat a declaration

and consequently a
the time of levying one dis-

lord as well as the lodger,

made

declaration

would

tress

at

not

the lodger against a

protect

subsequent distress, but he must

declaration

{b).

make

a fresh

repealed Act which, in authoris-

ing ^the confinement of lunatics, prohibited their

reception in asylums without medical certificates
in a given form, setting forth several particulars,

and among them, the street and number of the

house where the supposed lunatic was examined,

made

a strict compliance with those provisions

which omitted
the street and number of the house where the
examination took place, was held insufficient to

imperative

so that a certificate

justify the detention of the lunatic

(a)

Bepealed by 8 Edw. VII.

(6)

34 & 35 Vict.

Q. B. 734

Amendment

[1912] 1 Ch. 462

T. L. E. 459

79,
v.

s.

Fulham

The following

J. K. B. 242.

of Distress

c.

Godlonton

53,

c.

{c).

Where

s. 8.

Thwaites

v.

Wilding, 52 L. J.

& Hampstead

Property

Co.,

are decisions under the

Act, 1908

Sogers, Eungllut

it

74

Law

Jarvis v. Hemmings.{No. 1),

&

Co. v.

Martin (1910), 26

affirmed, [1911] 1 K. B. 19, G. A.

As to goods com-

prised in a hire purchase agreement, see London Furnishing Co. v.

Solomon (1912), 28 T. L. E. 265

Co.,

Jay's Furnishing Co. v.

Brand &

[1914] 2 K. B. 132; affirmed, [1915] 1 K. B. 458; but

see Eaekney Furnishing Go. v. Watts (1912), 28 T. L. "E. 417.

(c)

16 & 17 Vict.

c.

96.

Digitized

The care and treatment

by Microsoft

of lunatics

653

IMPEEATIVE OE DIRECTORY.

was enacted that a person who objected to a voter's

qualification might be heard in support of his objection, if he had given notice to the voter
and it
was provided that, besides the ordinary way of
serving it, the notice might be sent by post,
;

addressed

to'

his place of abode " as described " in

the Hst of voters prepared by the clerk of the peace

it

was held that

is

now

by post a notice, not to the

address so given, which was incorrect, but to the
true address, was not a compliance with the Act,
and therefore that the objector could not be heard
on mere proof of posting the notice (a).
Sec. 55, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (repealed,
s.
24, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), which
enacted that ships should be transferred by an
instrument in a form containing certain particulars, and executed with certain formalities,
and registered, was deemed to render an unregistered mortgage of a ship inoperative (b); although
to send

by 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5. As to cases of mental

& 4 Geo. V. c. 28 B. v. Finder, 24 L. J. Q. B.
Comp. Shuttleworih, Be, 16 L. J. M. C. 18.
regtilated

deficiency, see 3

148.

(a) Noseworihy v. Buchland,

V. St. Luke's,

Gage

v.

C. P. 38
(6)

M'Daid, [1898]
;

43 L. J. C. P. 27.

See Gifford

Chelsea (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 141 (not followed in

Hinhs

W.

N. 104)

Smith

v. Safety Lighting Co.,

v.

Huggett, 31 L. J.

4 Ch. D. 607.

Per Lord Campbell, Liverpool Borough Bank

L. J. Ch. 379.

Comp. Ward

v.

Beck,

32 L.

Siapleton v. Haymen, 33 L. J. Ex. 170.

(1878), 3 P. D. 182

Chasteauneuf

Digitized

v.

J.

v. Turner,

30

C. P. 113;

See The Andalusian

Capeyron, 7 App. Cas. 127.

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

654

there was no express declaration, as in the earlier

and repealed Act in pari materid, that transfers in

any other form should be null and void (a). So, it
was held in one case, that s. 97 of the Com1845, 'which
prescribes the form in which contracts " may " be

panies

Consolidation Act,

Clauses

entered into on behalf of companies, was impera-

was thought that, being

in the affirmative, they did not take away preexisting rights and powers, and that a contract,
not complying with its provisions, but partly
performed (c), might be enforced (d).
When a
company or public body is incorporated or established by statute for special purposes only, and is
tive (b)

but in another

it

altogether the creature of statute law, the prescriptions for its acts
essential
(a)

Comp. Le Feuvre

mortgages
c.

and contracts are imperative and

their validity

to

Miller,

v.

(e).

If

articles of

its

26 L. J. M. 0. 175

of ships sold to foreigners, see

s.

52, 6

&

as to

Bdw. VII.

48 (Merchant Shipping Act, 1906).

(&)

Leominster Canal Go.

v.

Shrewsbury &c. By. Co. (1857), 26

L. J. Oh. 764.
(c)

(d)
V.

Wilson

p.

V.

464

et seq.

West Hartlepool

Co.,

34 L.

See Green

J. Gh. 241.

JenMns, 29 L. J. Oh. 505.

(e)

V.

See sup.

Cope

London

V.

Thames Haven &c.

&

Blachwall By. Co., 19 L. J. Ex. 308

Bennett, 27 L. J. 0. P. 314.
Bennett, 29 L. J. Ex. 157

Q. B. 363

Young

v.

Co.,

18 L.

J.

Ex. 345

Biggie
v.

See also Cornwall Mining Co.

v.

Irish Peat Co. v. Phillips,

Leamington (Mayor), 8 App.

Bottomley's Case, 16 Oh, D. 681.

Digitized

Frend

30 L. J.

Gas. 517

See further, sup. pp. 618, 619.

by Microsoft

655

IMPERATIVE OE DIRECTORY.

association prescribed the attestation of proxies

the omission of this formality would vitiate them

Such a company, empowered

(a).

by mortgage, under certain circumstances, not more than

a given sum, to be appUed in carrying out the Act,
would be limited to its statutory power, and all
borrowing not so expressly authorised would be
to borrow

company

invalid as regarded the

(6).

So, enactments regulating the procedure in Courts

seem usually to be imperative and not merely

tory

If, for

(c).

direc-

instance, an appeal from a decision

be given, with provisions requiring the fulfilment of

certain conditions, such as giving notice of appeal

and entering into recognisances, or transmitting

documents within a certain time, a strict compliance would be imperative, and non-compliance
would be fatal to the appeal (d). The 57 Geo. III.

V.

Harhen

La

Trinidad (1887), 37 Gh. Div.

(6)

WenlocJc

H. L.
p.

23 Oh. D. 14

(a)

619

(E.)
;

v. Phillips,

Biver

v.

Dee

distinguished in Browne

1,

Go.

10

(1885),

A.

C.

354,

South Torhshire By. Go, v. Great N. By. Go., sup.

Chambers

v.

Manchester &c. By.

Comp. Gork and Toughal By.

Goltman, Be, 19 Ch. D. 64.

Co.,

As

to

Be

Go.,

33 L.

J.

Q. B. 268.

L. E., 4 Ch. 748.

an implied

See

right to borrow,

see General Auction Estate and Monetary Co. v. Smith, [1891]

3 Gh. 432, and sup. p. 626 n.

(c) See,

however,

inf. p.

672

et seq.

M, & S. 446 B. v. Carnarvon, 22

E. E. 636; B. v. Bond, 6 A. & B. 906; B. v. Lancashire, 27
L. J. M. C. 161 ; Morgan v. Edwards, 29 L. J. M. 0. 108 Woodhouse V. Woods, 29 L. J. M. C. 149; Fox v. Wallis, 2 0, P. D.'
{d) B. V. Oxfordshire, 1

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

656

which required that no action should be

brought against a clergyman for any penalty
incurred under it, until notice had been delivered
to him, and also to the bishop "by leaving the
same at the registry of his diocese," was held,
with perhaps extreme rigour, not complied with by
a delivery to the deputy registrar at the house of
the latter, who carried it next day to the registry (b).
The County Court rule, which required that in
99

c.

(a),

summons should be

actions to recover land the

delivered to the bailiff 40 days at least before

and be served within 35 days

before that day, was similarly held imperative;
so that if the summons were not delivered to the
bailiff in due time, though the latter should serve
the return day,

it

in the prescribed time, the judge

jurisdiction to try the cause

would have no

(c).

The provision of the Public Health Act, 1875,

that " every appointment of an arbitrator under
the Act
45; B.

when made on behalf of

V.

Anglesey Jus., [1892] 2 Q. B. 29;

Queen, 27 L. J. C. P. 224

205

to in

Simpkin, Exp., 29 L. J.

(a) Eepealed, 1
Qx)

the local authority

&

2 Vict.

Peacock

Aspinall v. Sutton, 63 L. J.

M.
c.

106,

Palmer, 8 Q. B. D.

v.

9.

The

rule

133

v. Shaiv,

Williamg

referred

was amended

meet the point raised in this case. See also

1 Ex. D. 425
Tennant v. BawUngs, 4 C. P. D.

in 1883 so as to

Brown

C.

s. 1.
;

Barker

The

M.

C. 23.

Vaux V Vollans, 38 E. E. 305 4 B. & Ad. 525

Howard v. Bodington (1877), 2 P. D., at p. 211.

(c)

v.

y.

Swansea Canal

Digitized

Co., L.

R. 3 Ex. 158.

by Microsoft

IMPERATIVE OE DIRECTORY.

657

common seal, and on behalf of

any other party under his hand," has similarly
been held to be mandatory (a).
shall be tinder their

The same imperative

effect seems, in general,

presumed to be intended, even where the observance of the formalities is not a condition exacted
from the party seeking the benefit given by the
imposed on a Court or public
officer in the exercise of the power conferred on
him; when no general inconvenience or injustice

statute, but a duty

The 5

caUs for a different construction.

requiring that the writ

Bliz. c. 23,

Be Contumace

shall be brought into the Queen's

Capiendo

Bench, and be

there opened in the presence of the judges, the

omission of this apparently idle ceremony was

deemed fatal to the validity of an arrest made in

pursuance of the writ, though

had been enrolled

An enactment which
in the Crown Office (5).
provided that every warrant issued by a Court
should be under its seal, was equally imperative,
and not only was a commitment under an unsealed
warrant invalid, but the person who had obtained
it

without taking care that the Court performed

(a) 38

L.

it

J.

& 39

Vict. c. 55,

Q. B. 181.

As

of the parties has

ment, see Stoker

(b) Bale's

to repeal

v.

s.

180

Gifford

to jurisdiction of

withdrawn

an

and Bury, Be, 57

arbitrator

when one

his notice disputing apportion-

Morpeth Corp., [1915] 2 K. B. 511.

Case (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 376

by necessary implication

of the

note pp. 402, 403, as

Act of Elizabeth.

42

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.

658
its

duty of sealing

was held

it,

the person arrested under

the former, but

was

it

damages to
This was hard on

liable in

it (a).

essential for the latter that

So, the

the warrant should be duly authenticated.

strict

observance of the Provision in the Pubhc

Worship Regulation Act, 1874, requiring that the

bishop shall send to the inculpated clergyman a
copy

of

the

representation of the

acts

illegal

imputed to him, within 21 days, was held

essen-i

the validity of the proceedings subsequently

tial to

taken against him

so that those proceedings were

void where the copy had not been sent

prescribed time

(b).

after the

till

If commissioners, authorised

were required by

to fix the boundaries of a parish,

the Act to advertise the boundaries which theyfixed,

and to insert them in their award, and the Act

declared that the boundaries " so fixed " should be
conclusive

a variation between the boundaries set

award and those advertised would

vitiate the award, as the requisites of the Act would
not have been complied with (c). Where a statute
in the

forth

enacts that convictions or orders shall be

(a)

Viet.

Van Sandau, Exp., De G. 303.

63, s. 149 (repealed, 38 & 39

c.

B.

So, a rate under 11

WorTcsop Board, 34 L. J.

M.

Smith

Southampton Corp., [1902] 2 K. B., at p. 250.

(la)

(c)

V.

Howard
B.

V.

v.

& 12

Vict. c. 55, s. 343, Sched. V.,

pt. III.)
V.

in

C.

220

discussed

Bodington (1877), 2 P. D. 203.

Washbrook, 4 B. & C. 732;

L. J. Q. B. 26.

Digitized

by Microsoft

B.

v.

Arkwrigkt, 18

IMPERATIVE OE DIEECTOEY.
certain form,

it

is

peremptory and not merely

The
ment Committee Act, 1862
directory

provision of the

(a).

London, 32

&

659

33 Yict.

c.

Union Assess-

(repealed in part as to

67, ss. 74, 77), regarding

the deposit of the valuation list for inspection was

held obviously imperative
for the omission
:

would have
tions,

On

left

persons aggrieved by any altera-

without a timely opportunity for appealing

(a).

the other hand, where the prescriptions of a

pubKc duty
and to invalidate acts done in neglect of them
would work serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons who have no control over those
statute relate to the performance of a

intrusted with the duty, without promoting the

essential aims of the Legislature

tions

seem

to be

such prescrip-

generally understood as mere

instructions for the guidance and government of

those on

whom

the duty

words, as directory only.

may

be penal

(6),

is

imposed,

or, in

The neglect

indeed, but

it

of

other

them

does not affect

the validity of the act done in disregard of them.

has often been held, for instance, when an Act

ordered a thing to be done by a public body or
It

public officers, and pointed out the specific time

when

was to be done, that the Act was directory only, and might be complied with after the
it

(a) B. V. Chorlton Union, L. E. 8 Q. B. 5

B.

Q. B. D. 199.
(b)

See

ex. gr. Clarke v. Gant,

Digitized

22 L.

J.

by Microsoft

Ex. 67.

v. Ingall,

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

660

Thus, the 13 Hen. IV. c. 7,

which required justices to try rioters " within a
month" after the riot, was held not to limit the

prescribed time

(a).

authority of the justices to that space of time, but

only to
neglect

an

them

render
(b).

officer to

To hold

liable

to

penalty for

that an Act which required

prepare and deUver to another ofl&cer

on or before a certain day, under

a penalty, made a list not delivered till a later day
invalid, would, in effect, put it in the power of the
person charged with the duty of preparing it, to
a

list

of voters,

a conclusion too un-

disfranchise the electors

reasonable for acceptance

(c).

The Poor Law Ameridment Act, 1834

(tZ),

in

providing that the Commissioners should direct the

elections of one or

more guardians

included in the Union, did not

tion of the

Board

for

each parish

make the

constitu-

of Guardians invalid because

one parish refused to elect a guardian (e). The

enactment in the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act,

(a)

Per Littledale

(6)

E.

(c)

B.

V.

V.

Smith

5 & 6 WiU. IV.

c.

Morgan

Bremner, 30 L.
V. ingall,

(d)

(e)

B.

&
V.

v. Jones,

1 B.

& Ad.

334.

76 (repealed, 45 & 46 Vict.

Rochester (1851), 7 B.

Ex. 222

B.

J.,

Ingram, 2 Salk. 593.

B. 910; Hunt

Parry, 25 L.

v.

J. C.

&

P. 33

B.

v.

J.

0. P.

o.

76

Todmorden (1841), 1 Q. B. 185.

Digitized

50,

s.

5)

141

Bmmfitt

v.

Lofthouse, L. E. 1 Q. B. 433

2 Q. B. D. 199.

5 Will. IV.

c.

v. Hihhs, 29 L. J.

by Microsoft

IMPERATIVE OE DIRECTORY.

1871

(a),

661

which provides that within three months

of the avoidance of a benefice, the bishop shall

direct the surveyor to report the

make good the

to the time

sum

required to

dilapidations, is directory only, as

for it was a duty, not a privilege,

which the statute imposed on the bishop and his
neglect would otherwise have defeated the object
of the statute by rendering the estate of the late
incumbent exempt from liability for his dilapida;

tions

5 Geo. IV.

(&).

when any

c.

84,

having enacted that

convict adjudged to transportation by

any British Court out of the United Kingdom was

brought to England to be transported, it should
be lawful

to

imprison him in any place of confine-

ment provided under

the place in

not

one

of

was held that if

which a prisoner was confined was
the Act,

ifc

appointed places, the

the

officers

concerned might be liable to censure, but the

detention was not unlawful so as to entitle the
prisoner to be discharged

(c).

no impediment to this construction, that

no remedy for non-compliance with the
there
2 Hen. V. c. 4(c?), which requires
direction.
It is

is

(a)

34

&

35 Vict.

44 & 45 Vict.
(6)
V.

c.

43 (amended 35

&

36 Vict.

96,

c.

and

c. 25).

Per Denman

J.,

Caldow

v. Pixell,

2 C. P. D. 566

Gleaves

Marriner (1876), 1 Ex. D. 107.

(c)

Brenan's

abolished.

Case,

See sup.

(d) Eepealed as to

16 L.

J.

Q.

B.

285.

Transportation

p. 262.

England by

Digitized

S.

L. E., 1863, save

by Microsoft

s. 2.

INTEBPEBTA.T10N OF STATUTES.

662

justices to hold their sessions in the first

Epiphany,

Michaelmas,

after

translation of St.

Easter,

and

week
the

Thomas the Martyr, has always

So, 6
be merely directory (a).
the
hold
requires
justices
to
which
Eich. II. c. 5,
their sessions in the principal towns of their
county, was held to be directory, not coercive (b).
And yet it would be difficult to say that there
would be any remedy against justices for appointing their sessions on other days or places than
those prescribed by the statute (c).
The same construction was put on 54 Geo. III.
c. 84, which enacted that the Michaelmas sessions

been held

to

should be held in the week after the 11th of

October, instead of the time then appointed {d)

though such a construction would seem to have

the earlier law substantially unaltered, an
intention not lightly to be imputed to the Legis-

left

lature.

Though 43

Eliz. c. 2 requires that overseers of

the poor shall be appointed yearly in Easter week,

they

may lawfully be

the year

(e).

appointed at any other time of

In the same way, enactments fixing

the time for the election of churchwardens and

(a) 2 Hale, P. C. 50.
(6) Id. 39.
(c)

Per Parke

B.,

Owynne

(d) B. V. Leicester, 7 B.
(e)

p.

V.

&

v.

Burnell, 2 Bing.

C. 6.

Sparrow, 2 Stra. 1123.

Digitized

by Microsoft

N. C.

39.

IMPERATIVE OR DIRECTORY.
other parochial and municipal
held to be directory only (a);
if

imperative,

663

officers,
or,

have been

at all events,

they would not be construed as

depriving by implication the Court of Queen's

Bench

of the power of ordering an election at

a different time from that prescribed, where there

had been a wrongful omission to hold it at the

proper time, and public inconvenience resulted
from the omission

(6).

So, the regulations for the conduct of elections

under the Ballot Act, 1872 (c), are so far directory

only, that an election is not invalidated by the
non-observance of them, unless the non-observance

was

of a character contrary to the principle of the

might have affected the result of the

election (d)
and, under the same Act, the requirement that the presiding officer shall stamp his
mark on the face of each ballot paper delivered
Act,

or

to a voter is directory, whilst a like requirement

as regards the

paper

is,

mark on the back

without doubt, imperative

(o) Anon., 1 Ventr. 267

B.

B.

V.

DenhysUre, 4 East, 142

B.

V.

Sneyd, 61 E. E. 843.

(6)

B.

V.

v.

of the ballot
(e).

& Ad. 211

B. & Ad. 310

Oorfe Mullen, 1 B.

B.

Sparrow, 2 Stra. 1123

v.

Norwich, 1

B.

v. Bochester,

7 E.

& B.

910.
(c)

35 & 36 Vict.

(d)

Woodward

c.

33.

v. Sarsons,

L. E. 10 0. P. 733; Phillips

17 Q. B. D. 805.
(e)

Akers

v.

Howard, 55 L.

Digitized

J.

Q. B. 273.

by Microsoft

v.

Goff,

664

mTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

which " required " the

of the peace in England to settle a table

The 26 Geo.
justices

II. c.

14

(a),

of fees at their quarter sessions " held next after

the 24th of June, 1753," and, such table being
approved by the justices " at the next succeeding

general quarter sessions," to lay

before the

it

judges at the next assize for confirmation, was

held imperative as to the requirement that a table
settled

one sessions should be confirmed at

at

the next

which had been submitted

for confirmation at the next, but had not been
confirmed till a later sessions, to which its consideration had been adjourned, was invalid (6).
so that one

But, prior to the passing of the Criminal Justice

Administration Act, 1914, which alters the law,

it

would have been competent to the justices

at

quarter sessions to settle a table at a subsequent

date to that prescribed, though the statute required

them

to do

might

in 1763.

It

compelled

to

it

be

respect the statute

The usual

was

perform

was directory (c).

provision in the commission of the

peace that no justice

named

in

it

shall be capable

of acting or authorised to act unless

(o)

Eepealed, 4 & 5 Geo. V.

scale of fees, see

which they
and in this

a duty

s.

e.

58,

6 and Sched.

1,

s.

he

44, Sched. 4.

shall

have

As to existing

Criminal Justice Administra-

tion Act, 1914.

(b)

Bowman

Swansea Nav.,
(c)

Lewis

V.

v.

Blyth, 26 L. J.

It.

E. 3 Ex. 158.

M.

C. 57.

Dames, L. E. 10 Ex. 86.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Williams

v.

IMPBBATIVE OR DIRECTORY.

665

taken the oaths required by law, would lead to

intolerable inconvenience and injustice if it were
imperative, and struck with invalidity every act of

an unqualified

were held void,

If his acts

justice.

was pointed out by the King's Bench,

it

who

all

persons

acted in the execution of a warrant issued

by him, would act without authority a constable

who arrested, and a gaoler who received the
arrested person, under it, would be trespassers.
Resistance to them would be lawful everything
done by them would be unlawful and a constable,
and the persons aiding him might become amen;

able even to a charge of murder, for acting under

an authority which they reasonably considered

themselves bound to obey, and of the invalidity
of which they were wholly ignorant (a). Such
consequences could not reasonably be supposed
to

have been intended

the interest of the public

required that the acts should be sustained

and

the just conclusion was that the Legislature in-

tended by the prohibition only to impose a penalty

for its infringement.

On the same general ground,

men who had been in office
(a) 18 Geo. II.

c.

the acts of alder-

20 (repealed, 6 Edw. VII.

Sched., which see for existing qualifications)

(repealed as to certain places, 18

Pier Go.

v.

several years

for

&

19 Vict.

Hannam, 3 B. & Aid. 266.

c.

by Microsoft

16,

c.

s.

51 Geo. III.
48,

Comp. B.

E. E. 775.

Digitized

s.

5)

v.

(2),

c.

36

Margate

Vereht, 14

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

666

without re-election, were held valid until their

the provision that
successors were appointed
they should he elected annually being regarded
;

as directory only {a).

The

provision in

55, of the

s.

Act relating to

Army

Mutiny, 13

&

Act, 1881,

modified by subsequent legislation),

14 Vict.

c.

5 (repealed,

s.

80,

that a recruit shall, on enKstment, be asked certain

questions touching his personal history was considered merely directory, and the omission to ask

them

did not invalidate the

enlistment

(b)

for

another section provided that every person

who

money should be deemed an

The Parochial Assessments Act,

received enlisting
enlisted soldier.

1836

(6

&

7 Will. IV.

96), after requiring that

c.

every poor rate should set forth a number of

particulars given in a form, respecting the persons

and properties rated, and that the churchwardens

and overseers should sign a declaration at the foot
of the form, added that " otherwise the rate shall

be of no force "

was held that these last

words were confined to the signatures, and did not

affect

(c)

it

the validity of the rate

(a) Foot V. Truro, 1 Stra. 625.

13 Q. B. 687, and Holgate

V.

Corfe Mullen, 1 B.

&

(6) Walton v. Gavin,

(c)

32

&

This provision
33 Vict.

e.

67,

s.

when

the other

See also Scadding

v. Slight,

21 L.

J.

v.

Q. B. 74.

Lorant,

See B.

Ad. 211.

20 L.

is

J.

Q. B. 73.

repealed as regards the Metropolis

77.

Digitized

by Microsoft

by

IMPERATIVE OR DIRECTORY.

667

requisites

were negleoted; because a different

construction would have led to inconveniences

which the Legislature must be presumed not to

have intended (a). The Public Health Act, 1848,
in requiring that rates made under it should be
published like a poor rate, was also held directory
only; on the ground of the great inconvenience
which would result from nullifying a rate whenever
any of the particulars and forms required were not
accurately given and followed (b).
The latter Act,
indeed, omitted the nullifying words which the
former contained and the omission was considered
to show an intention that such an inconvenience
;

should not follow

(c).

The Act which enacted that no copy

of a bill

of sale should be filed in any Court unless the

original

was produced

to the officer duly stamped,

did not invalidate the registration

if

the

bill

was

not duly stamped when so produced. The object

of the enactment was to protect the revenue ; and
this .was

thought sufficiently attained

if

the deed

was afterwards duly stamped, without going

the extreme of holding the registration void (d).
(a) B. V. Fordham, 11 A.

L.

J. C.

(6)

11

&

12 Vict.
;

c.

63 (repealed, 38

Le Femre

See sup. pp. 560-561.

Turner &c., sup.

{d)

24

B. 73.

See Gole

v.

Greene, 13

P. 30.

Sched. V. pt. III.)

(c)

&

bo

& 25

& 39

v. Miller,

Viet, c, 55,

26 L.

J.

M.

s.

343,

G. 175.

Comp. Liverpool Borough Bank

v.

p. 649.

Vict. c. 91.

s.

Digitized

34 (repealed, 33

by Microsoft

& 34

Viet.

c.

99)

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.

668

The provision

which required
the Court to cause notice of the filing of an
of 7 Geo. IV.

c,

57,

insolvent's position to be given to the creditors,

was held to be merely a direction to the Court,

and compliance with it not a condition precedent
to the validity of the discharge (a).
^

So, an

Act (12 Geo.

which empowered

II. c, 29)

the Quarter Sessions to appoint treasurers, "first

was held
directory as regards this provision, and as not
affecting the validity of the appointment, which
was held complete though no security was

giving

given
It

be

security to

accountable,"

(b).

has been held

that the neglect of

mere

formal requisites in keeping the register of the

shareholders of a joint stock company, however
fatal for

some purposes,

others.

Thus, the

is

immaterial as regards
that

provision

the

should be sealed, though essential to

producible in evidence,

is

register

its

being

immaterial as regards

making a person a shareholder, if there be in fact

a book bond fide intended to be a register. But
the neglect to number and appropriate the shares
Bellamy
54

& 55

v. Saull,

Vict.

e.

(a) Eepealed,

68.

S.

s.

J.

B.

As

Q. B. 366.

to existing law, see

41.

L. E., 1783

Reid

So, as to sales of real estate (1

Wriglit V.
(6)

32 L.

39,

v. Croft,

&

2 Viet.

5 Bing. N. C.
c.

110,

s.

47),

Maunder, 4 Beav. 512.

V.

Batteson (1832), 38 E. E. 191

Digitized

by Microsoft

2 L.

J.

K. B. 33.

IMPEBATIVE OB DIEBCTORY,

669

would be fatal (a). And the provisions in the

Companies Act, 1862 (repealed, s. 93, Companies
(Consolidation) Act, 1908), directing that a register
shall be

mortgages and charges on

the property of the company, to be open to the
kept of

inspection

of

all

creditors,

and imposing penalties

on any of the company's

officers who contravene

them, are directory, so that they do not affect

the validity of unregistered mortgages

Where an Act (c) provided

(b).

that no beer license

who was not

should be granted to any person

"resident occupier" of the premises sought to

be licensed, under the penalty of the license being

null

and void; and

it

required, further, that the

applicant should produce to the licensing officer

a certificate from the overseer of the parish, that

he was such resident occupier; the latter provision was considered to be only directory, and
a license obtained without the certificate good.

The

from the

omission,

nullifying words
(a)

112;

Per

passage,

later

of the

which were appended to

Cur., Henderson v.

Boyal British Bank, 26 L.

Wolverhampton Waterworks Co.

v.

J.

the
Q. B.

HawJesford (1859), 31

L. J. 0. P. 184; Vallance v. Fall (1884), 53 L. J. Q. B. 459.

(6)

Wright

V. British

&

Mansions

Co.,

v.

Horton (1887), 12 App. Gas. 371

American Shoe

Go. (1902),

Be, L. E. 4 Eq. 601

Be, L. E. 7 Oh. 289.

71 L.

&

4 Vict

G.

61,

Bandall, Ltd.

Oh. 683

Marine

comp. Patent Bread Co.,

See another illustration in Bosanquet

Woodford, 13 L. J. Q. B. 93.
(c)

J.

s. 1.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.

670

former was some indication of a difference of

intention

besides,

though

was reasonable that

it

a license to a person not properly qualified should

would hardly be reasonable that it

should be void, if the holder was duly qualified,
merely because the licensing officer had not been
satisfied of the qualification by the particular
means provided by the Act which might have
been wrongfully withheld by the overseer (a). And
it is now provided by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.
be void,

it

35,

c.

s. 2,

that " a person shall not be disquaHfied

for receiving a beer retailer's license

by reason

only that the premises in respect of which he

applies for a license are not a dwelling-house, or

that he

is

not the real resident owner and occupier

of the premises."

convictions

Again, a provision

sporting

for

without

(6)

that

certificate

should be registered with the commissioners of

taxes was held directory only, so that the omission
to

register

conviction

did not affect the validity of the

it

(c).

The Public Health Act,

1848, in empowering

the Local Board of Health to enter into

all

con-

Act into executwo provisions which may be taken

tracts necessary for carrying the

tion, contained

(a) Thompson v. Harvey (1859), 28 L. J.

(6)

which
(c)

52 Geo. III.

c.

93 (repealed, 32

&

M.

see).

Mason

v.

Barker (1843), 1 C.

Digitized

& K.

100.

by Microsoft

C. 163.

33 Vict.

c.

14,

s.

39

IMPERATIVE OK DIEBCTOEY.

671

as illustrating the distinction under consideration.

It enacted that contracts exceeding J610 in value

should be sealed with the seal of the board that

they should contain certain particulars and that
;

"every contract

so entered into shall be binding;

provided always
that before contracting for
the execution of any work, the board shall obtain
.

from the surveyor a written estimate of the probable expense of executing it and keeping it in
repair."
The first of these requisites was decided
to be imperative, and a contract unsealed was
consequently held inoperative against the board

and the

The power

rates.

contract so as to

to

bind the rates could not have been exercised

if

had not been given by the Act; and, being

it

entirely the creature of the statute, it could not

be exercised in any other manner than that pre-

by the statute (a). But the provision

which required an estimate was held to be merely
scribed

a direction or instruction for the guidance of the

(a) 11

&

12 Vict.

stance by 38

& 39

27 L. J. C. P. 314
207

Ashbury

v.

Q. B. D. 529
L. J. Q. B. 713

c.

63,

Vict.

55, ss. 178,

c.

Eunt

85, repealed

and re-enacted

174

Frend

H. L. 653

Eaton

v.

in sub-

Bennett,
J. C.

Tunhridge Wells Improvement Commissioners

Torquay, 71 L. J. K, B. 109

D. a, [1895]

L, J. C. P. 30; Melliss

Q.

P.

Basker, 7

Boyal Leamington Spa (1883), 52

v.

Smthhorough Loc. Board (1888), 60 L. T. 172;

U.

v.

Wimbledon Loc. Bd., 48 L.

v.

Biche, L. E. 7

Young

s.

B,

British Insulated Wire Go.

463.

Comp.

v. Shirley. Loo..

Digttized

Brooks

Cole

v.

v.

Prescot

Green,

Bd., 16 Q. B. D. 446.

by Microsoft

v,
v.

13

INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.

672

board, and not

condition precedent the per-

was essential to the validity

It was remarked that in the
of the contract (a).
former case the party contracted with knew, or
had the means of knowing, what forms were
required by the Act, and could see to their
observance; while in the latter, he had. not, it
was said, the same facihty for acertaining whether
the board had consulted their surveyor. The nonformance of

"wliich

observance of the latter provision would, however,

probably impose

on

board

the

the penalty of

having no remedy against their constituents for

reimbursement

(b).

been said that there

It has

no such exact

is

in Acts of Parliament

division of sections

into

those that are directory and those that are imperative as is ordinarily

assumed to be a categorical

which exhausts every possible

division

section.

section

may

class of

be imperative as regards

the voluntary action of parties, but not so where

such events happen that

attended

its

The provision,

to.

provision cannot be

therefore, of

s.

42 (IS)

&

of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32

(a) Nowell v. Worcester (Mayor), 23 L. J. Ex.
Mitchell, 19 L.
(6)

Per

By.

v.

Co.,

v.

Worcester,

E. G. By., 21 L. J. C. P. 23

22

Turquand, 24 L.

139

Bonar

v.

Ex. 302.

Parke B., Nowell

Anglian By.
<jcc.

J.

33

L. J.

J.

Q. B.

Q. B. 327

Digitized

69;

Nugent

sup.

Boyal British
v.

See

McGregor

v.

East

Deal

Bank

v.

Smith, 1 0. P. D. 423.

by Microsoft

OBSERVANCE EXCUSED.
Vict.

c.

67), that

673

the assessment sessions shall be

held after February

1st,

but so that

all

appeals shall

be determined before March 31st, while imperatively

requiring that the Court shall do aU in
to obey its mandate,

power

its

would not operate so

as to

prevent a continuance of the sessions after March

30th, where, through necessity or default of the

Court itself, whether culpable or not, the business

was not then concluded. Parties who have done
that the statute requires of

all

them

are not to

lose their right of appeal because the final hour

was struck on March 30th.

be read, as

all

enactments

The enactment must

are, subject to their

not

being made absurd by matters which never could

have been within the calculation or consideration

of the Legislature

SECTION

IV.

(a).

LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA CUILIBET

LICET RBNUNTIARE JURI PRO SE INTRODUCTO.

Enactments which impose duties on conditions

when

are,

these are not conditions precedent to

the exercise of a jurisdiction, subject to the

that lex non cogit ad impossibilia aut

maxim

inutilia.

They

are understood as dispensing with the performance

of

what

is

impossible

prescribed,

is idle

or

{b).

32 & 33 Vict.

(a)

when performance

o.

67

iJ. v.

London Jus. and London

C. G.,

[1893] 2 Q. B. 476.

As

(h)

to performance,

where the duty has not been imposed

43

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

674

Thus, where an Act provided that an appellant

should send notice to the respondent of his having
entered into a recognisance, in default of which

was held that

the respondent before service was

the appeal should not be allowed,

the death of

it

not fatal to the appeal, but dispensed with the

service

&

20

In the same way, the provision of

(a).

21 Vict.

43,

c.

2,

s.

which similarly makes

the transmission by the appellant, of a case stated

by

justices to the Superior Courts, within three

days from receiving

a condition precedent to

it,

the hearing of the appeal

when

with,

days

{b),

was held dispensed

the Court was closed during the three

was impossible

since compliance

(c).

by superior

authority, but has been voluntarily assumed, see

Paradine

Jane, Aleyn, 26,

v.

Wright, 29 L. J. Q. B. 43.

L. J. Q. B. 164

Boast

and the cases

v. Firth,

Myers, L. E. 1 0. P. 615

v.

Caldwell, 32

L. E. 4 C. P. 1

2 Id. 651

cited in Hall v.

See also Taylor

Qifford

C. P. 577; Howell v. Goupland, 1 Q. B. D. 258;

Marsland, 2 Ex. D. 1

Jacobs

v.

Appleby

v. Watts,

v.

L. E. 5

Nichols

v.

Credit Lyonnais, 12 Q. B. D.

589.
(o)

B.

V. Leicestershire,

19 L. J. M. 0. 209.

See also Brumfitt

V. Boberts, sup. p. 169.

(6)

Morgan

v.

Edwards (1860), 29 L.

M.

Woods, 29 L. J.

V.

319

De

(c)

788.

M.

0. 108

Norris v. Carrington, 16 0. B. N. S. 10

G. & J. 229.

L. J.

J.

Mayer

M.

v.

C. 98

Woodhouse

Harrison, Exp., 2

See, however, inf. pp. 683-684.

Harding, L. E. 2 Q. B. 410.
;

0. 149; Stone v. Dean, 27 L. J. Q. B.

B.

See also B.

v.

v.

See B.

v.

Allan, 33

Bloomsbury County Court Judge, 17 Q. B. D.

London Jus. and London

Digitized

by Microsoft

C.

C, sup.

p. 673.

OBSERVANCE EXCUSED.

675

In such cases, the provision or condition is dispensed with, when compliance is impossible in the
nature of things. It would seem to be sometimes
equally so where compliance was, though not impossible in this sense, yet impracticable, without

any default on the part of the person on whom

the duty was thrown. An Act, for instance, which
made actual payment of the rent, as well as the
renting of a tenement, essential to the acquisition of a settlement, would probably be complied
with, if the rent was tendered, though it was not

accepted

out of the

respondent in an appeal kept

If the

(a).

way

to avoid service of the notice of

appeal, or at all events could not be found after

due diligence in searching for him, the service

would probably be disthe appellant was entitled

required by the

statute

pensed with

So,

to

appeal,

(b).

subject

if

the

to

condition

of

giving

security for costs within a certain time, he

would
if he

be held to have complied with the condition,

As

to

when

notice of appeal to respondent's solicitor satisfies

the Act, see Godman

v. Grofton,

[1914] 3 K. B. 803.

A technical

omission to serve justices, with notice of appeal, in time does

not necessarily oust jurisdiction, Simmonds

K. B. 894. As to what
will justify

is

v. Elliott, [1917] 2
such a determination by justices as

an appeal, Oaten

(a)

Per Bayley

(6)

Per

Our.,

J.,

B.

v.

Morgan

v.

Auty, [1919] 2 K. B. 278.

AmptMll, 2 B.
v.

&

Hill JJ., Woodhouse v. Woods, sup. p. 674.

Carruthers, 27 L. J.

M.

0. 273.

Digitized

0. 847.

Edwards, and per Orompton and

by Microsoft

See also Syred

v.

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES,

676

and was ready to complete the security

within the limited time, though it was, owing to
offered

the act of the Court, or of the respondent, not

completed tiU long after (a).

Indeed, the Courts

sometimes exercise a discretion in extending

will

time (when not going to the jurisdiction) where the

non-compliance arose from excusable mistake

(b).

Where, however, the act or thing required by

the statute

is

a condition precedent to the jurisdiction

of the tribunal, compliance cannot be dispensed

and if it be impossible, the jurisdiction fails.

It would not be competent to a Court to dispense
with what the Legislature had made the indiswith

pensable foundation of

Thus, the

its jurisdiction.

Act which enacts that justices, at the hearing of a

bastardy summons, " shall hear the evidence " of
the mother, and such other evidence as she may
adduce; and which authorises them to make an
affiliation

order

"if the

mother's

evidence be

corroborated in some material particular by other

testimony," makes the evidence of the mother so

essential to the jurisdiction that no order could be

made without
the hearing
(a)

Waierton

Aston, 19 L. J.
(6)

Ousach

(c)

B.

15.

V.

it,

(c).

v.

woman died
But an appeal may be

although the

Baker, L. E. 3 Q. B. 173.

before

heard

See also B.

v.

M. C236.
L. k N. W. By.

V.
Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 347.
Annitage (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 773 42 L. J.
;

Comp. Bitton's Case, 2 Salk, 490, sup.

Digitized

by Microsoft

p. 370.

M.

C.

OBSERVANCE EXCUSED.
although the mother be dead

677
So, under the

(a).

County Courts Act, 1875, which em-

(repealed)

powered a party to move the appellate Court or a

judge at chambers for a new trial " within eight
days after the decision," the time could not be extended by either "Court or judge (6). Under s. 13,
Admiralty Court Act, 1861(c), which gave the Court

same powers, when a vessel

of Admiralty the

or

proceeds was under arrest, as the Court of

its

Chancery had under the Merchant Shipping Act,

1854 (now Merchant Shipping Act, 1894) (d), over
suits for limiting the liability of shipowners, no
jurisdiction could be exercised by the former
Court, when the ship was lost.
The jurisdiction
of the Court depended on the ship, or the proceeds of its sale, being under arrest
and the
shipowner could not give it jurisdiction by paying
;

(o) B. y. Leicestershire JJ. (1850), 19 L. J.

38 & 39 Vict.

(6)

see

s.

120,

V.

Salop,

Ashdown

v.

As

50.

Tennant

v.

Brown

v.

on appeals,
Shaw (1876),

BawUngs, i C. P. D. 133.

6 Q. B. D. 669; Ahier
Curtis,

C. 209.

to present procedure

County Courts Act, 1888.

1 Ex. D. 425

B.

e.

M.

v.

31 L. J. M. C. 216

See also

AMer, 10 P. D. 110;
;

Edwards

v.

Boberts,

[1891] 1 Q. B. 302.
(c)

(d)

24 & 25 Vict.

As

to

when

c.

Asiatic Petroleum Go.

419

10,

s.

13.

the hmitation does not apply, see

v.

Lennard's Carrying

but see Ingram and Boyle

v. Services

Co.,

ss.

502-509.

[1914] 1 K. B.

Maritimes due Treport,

[1914] 1 K. B. 541, C. A. As to when a substituted authority

for negligence, The Oscar II., [1919] P. 171.

is liable

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

678

sum

into Court a

ceeds

equivalent to

value or pro-

its

(a).

Another maxim -whioli sanctions the non-ohservance of a statutory provision, is that, cuilibet
Every one
licet renuntiare juri pro se introducto.
has a right to waive, and to agree to waive the
advantage of a law or rule made solely for the

and protection of the individual, in his

private capacity (6), and which may be dispensed
with without infringing on any public right or
public policy.
Thus a person may agree to waive
benefit

the

benefit of a Statute of Limitation

trustees of a turnpike road

tolls,

may,

The

(c).

demising the

in

waive the provision of the Act which requires

that the demise shall be signed by the sureties

of the

lessee

benefit

of an

carry so

he does
with

(a)

James

him to
him and

entitles

of luggage with

added, by taking a ticket

(e).

condition that

W. By.

v. S.

17 L.

J.

M.

Go. (1872) L. E. 7

C. 70

B.

v.

Ex. 287.

(6)

McAllister v. Bochester {Bp.), 5 0. P. D. 194.

E.

Go. V. Paul, 7

Moo. P.

See also

Shurmer, 17 Q. B. D. 323.

(c)

I.

the

he shall carry
The only person intended to be

the express

V. Belton,

may waive

passenger

enactment which

many pounds
so, it may be

no luggage
B.

(cZ).

C. 85

Lade

v. Trill,

6 Jur.

272, per Knight Brace V.-C.

{d)

Marhham

(e)

Bumsey

L. J. C. P. 244
V.

v.

Stanford, 14 C. B. N. S. 376.

v. A".
;

E. By. Go. (1863), 14 C.

N.

S.

641

discussed and distinguished in Mercantile

Gladstone (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 233

Digitized

37 L.

by Microsoft

J.

Ex. 130.

32

Bank

WHEN OBSERVANCE MAY BE

benefited by such an enactment

passenger himself

company

maximum

is,

it (a).

679

obviously, tbe

and no consideration

policy is involved in

a trading

WAIVED.

of public

statute authorising

to levy tolls within a specified

does not bind them to enact uniform

toUs from

persons alike

all

but they are entitled,

in the absence of an express provision requiring

equality, to remit

any part of the

persons, at their discretion

When

tolls to particular

(6).

a person does waive the. benefit of any

such law, he cannot recall the concession, after

it

has been acted on, and insist on the right which

the rule gave him,

tenant, for instance, whose

goods had been distrained, might waive the enactment (s. 1, 2 WiU. & Mary, c. 5), which required

and
he could not, after the sale, be heard to complain
Where
that no appraisement had been made (c).
a question between two railway companies has
an appraisement before the

sale of the

goods

been tried on the merits without either party

raising the point that the matter ought to be
referred to arbitration, it is too late on the hearing
Bank

(a) Mercantile
(6)

v. Gladstone, sup. p.

Bungerford Market Go.

L. J. Q. B. 25

v.

v.

per Willes

J.

Steamboat Go. (1860), 30

City

Northampton Gorp.

678

Ellen (1904), 70 L. J. K. B.

329.
(c)

Bishop

11 A.

& E.

before sale

owner

V.

Bryant, 6 0.

&

P. 484.

By s. 5, 51 &
now unnecessary,

777.
is

of the goods, requires

Digitized

it

by

See also Aihins

52 Vict.

c.

21,

v.

Kilhy,

appraisement

except where the tenant, or

writing.

by Microsoft

INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

680
of

an appeal to

referred

insist that the case

should be so

(a).

regulations concerning the procedure and

The

may

same way,
when not going to the jurisdiction, be waived by
those of whose protection they were intended.
Thus, s. 14, 13 & 14 Vict. c. 61 (6), which gave an
appeal from a County Court, provided the appellant, within ten days, gave notice of appeal and
practice of Civil Courts

security for costs

and

in the

after directing that the

appeal should be in the form of a case, enacted

that no judgment of a County Court Judge should

be removed into any other Court, except in the

manner and under the provisions above mentioned it was held that the want of due notice
and security might be waived. The provision was
intended for the benefit of the respondent, and
was not a matter of public concern (c). So, a
defendant in an action in a County Court which
;

has jurisdiction over the case subject to leave

(a) L. 0.

(i

B. By.

v. S.

E. By., 40 Ch. D. 100.

(6)

See County Courts Act, 1888,

(c)

Parle Gate Iron Go. v. Goates (1870), L. E. 5 C. P. 634

Waterton

v.

Baker (1868), 37 L.

Long, 1 Q. B. 740

Freeman

v.

Tyerman

Bead, 30 L.

31 L. J. Q. B. 259

J.

M.

s.

120.

J. Q.

B. 65.

v. Smith,

25 L.

G. 123

See also B.
J.

v.

Q. B. 359

Palmer v. Metrop. By.

Go.,

Begent V. S. Stores, Be, 8 Ch. D. 75.

Application to the County Court Judge to take a note of point

of

law raised

is

not a condition precedent to appeal, Abrahams

Bimmoch, [1914]

W.

N. 449.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

WHEN OBSERVANCE MAY BE

may waive want

being given,
a defendant,
justices

even

the

if

summons,

of leave (a)

criminal

and

before

case

matter be within their

waive any irregularity in the

subject

may

jurisdiction,

in

681

WAIVED.

or indeed dispense with the

altogether; and he does

such cases not,

so in

indeed, by appearing merely

(6),

summons

but by appearing

and entering on the case on its merits. The

tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter, he
would not be allowed to take his chance of prevailing on the merits,
to a

and

mere preliminary

to reserve his objections

irregularity

a statute requires justices to

So where

(c).

make known

to a

party his right to appeal, and the steps necessary

to carry out this right, such as giving notice of

appeal and entering into recognisances, the party

may waive this provision (d).

But when public policy requires
(a) Moore v.

505.

And

(6)

B.

L. J.

M.

y. Wells,

(c)

B.

Gamgee (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 244

V.

& M.

Carnarvon, 5 Nev.

C. 169

69 L.

J. Q.

B.

B.

v.

364; B.

Hughes, 4 Q. B. D. 614.

v.

Shaw, 34

Camp. Dixon

25 Q. B. D. 249.
383; B.

V. Barret, 1 Salk.

(1859), 28 L. J.
V.

see Alderson v. Palliser (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 935.

B. V. Aikin, 3 Burr. 1785

B.

the observance

M.

Smith, Id. 110

B.

v. Stone,

v.

Johnson, 1 Stra. 261;

1 East, 639

B.

v.

Berry

G. 86; B. v. Fletcher, L. E. 1 C. G. E. 320;

;

B.

v.

Widdop, L. E. 2 G. G. E. 8

Bolton

V. Bolton, 2 Gh. D. 217.

(d) B. V. Torkshire, 3

M. &

S.

493

and does so by declaring

that he does not intend to appeal.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEBPRETATIOK OF STATUTES.

682

the

of

be waived by an
Privatorum conventio juri pvblico non
Private compacts are not permitted

provision,

individual.
derogat{a).

render that sufficient, between them-

either to

which the law declares essentially

selves,

cient

cannot

it

insuffi-

or to impair the integrity of a rule necessary

for the

common

such, for instance, as

welfare;

the enactment which requires the attestation of

Thus, the invalidity of the service of

WiUs(5).

on a Sunday cannot be waived for it is

a matter of public policy that no such proceeding
should take place on Sunday (c). It has been held
a writ

maxim

that the

volenti

non

not to be

fit injuria is

applied to cases of injury occasioned by the breach

of a statutory duty imposed for the

others as well as the injured party

same

authority,

which

is

authorised to

On

(rf).

a public body, such

principle

of

benefit

as

make

the

a local
by-laws,

cannot dispense with them in particular cases, the

by-laws not being for its benefit but for that of the
public

(e).

It is said to

be a general understanding

(a) Dig. 50, 17, 45.

(6)

227

366.
(c)

Per Wilson
Croker

See

v.

J.,

New York

Taylor

Habergham

v.

Vincent (1793), 2 Ves. jun.

Hertford (Marquis) (1844), 4

Moore

P. C. 339,

Civ. Code, Art. 1968, n. 2.

v. Phillips,

6 E. E. 575.

(d) Baddeley v. Earl Granville, 19 Q. B. D. 423

Thomas

v.

Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685.
(e) Mcintosh, Be,

61 L.

J.

Digitized

Q. B. 161. S3e, howaver, G.

by Microsoft

By.

WHEN OBSERVANCE MAY NOT BE WAIVED.

683

in the profession that a prisoner can consent to

nothing ; at

the course of his

least, in

trial (a).

In

criminal matters, a person cannot waive what the

law requires

Where, upon a

(6).

trial for felony,

the jury was discharged, and, at the

new

trial,

some

of the witnesses, after being sworn, had their

evidence read over to them by the judge from

and the counsel for the Crown and

the prisoner had afterwards liberty to examine
and cross-examine them, it was held that this
course of proceeding vitiated the trial, and that
his notes,

the consent or acquiescence of the prisoner did

not cure the

criminal

The object of a
was observed, was the adminis-

irregularity

trial,

it

(c).

tration of justice in a course as free from doubt or

chance of miscarriage as human administration

of it can be not the interests of either party.
;

Consent cannot give jurisdiction (d)

V.

and there-

Goldsmid, 54 L. J. Ch. 162, on which see Haynes

Ford, 80

v.

L. J. Ch. 234.
(a)

Per

(b)

Per M. Smith

Cur.,

B.

v.

Bertrand (1867), L. E. 1 P. C. 520.

J.,

Park Gate Iron

Co. v. Ooates (1870),

L. E. 5 G. P. 639.
(c)

528

651.

B.

V.

Bertrand, sup.

See also B.

v.

Bloxham, 6 Q. B.

^er Pollock C.B. and AldersomB., Graham

Gomp. B.

v.

Thornhill, 8 C.

&

P. 575;

v. Inglehy, 1

B.

(1903) (The Veronica Case), 67 J. P. 267; B.

(1909), 25 T. L. E. 374.
{d)
1
V.

Lawrence

Dowl. N.

S.

v.

Ex.

Moneon

Lawrence

See Best, Exp., 18 Ch. D. 488.

v. Wilcock,

566

v.

11 A.

&

B. 941

Exp. Bohertson, 44 L.

J.

Beaumont, 24 L. J. Ex. 301.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Lismore

v.

Bank. 99

Beadle,

Jackson

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.

684

any statutory objection which goes to the

jurisdiction does not admit of waiver. Thus, s. 33,
fore

Summary

which empowers
the determination of an infor-

Jurisdiction Act, 1879,

either party, after

mation by justices to apply to the Court to state

a case, requires that the

made

who heard

to all

it,

application should be

and the objection that

them cannot

the case was stated by some only of

be waived, because

goes to the jurisdiction

it

and the provision of 20

&

21 Vict,

c,

48,

s.

2,

(a)

which

requires the appellant from a decision of justices

to transmit the case in three days to the Court
of

Appeal, could not be waived by the respondent,

on the ground either that

it

went to the

jurisdic-

tion, or that it related to a criminal case, or that

the justices had an interest in the observance of

the rule

a provision that a

So,

(b).

time goes to the

shall be served within a certain

and must be observed

jurisdiction,
(a)

42

&

43 Vict.

c.

49

Westmore

summons

(c).

Paine, [1891] 1 Q. B.

v.

This provision does not apply to an adjudication by

482.

justices

on a matter within

s.

164 of the Merchant Shipping

Act, 1894, Wells V. McSherry, [1914] 1 K. B. 616.

(6)

Morgan

v.

Edwards (1860), 29 L.

V. B.,

27 L. J. C. P. 224.

177

Great N. Committee

4 Q. B. D. 614.

J.

M.

v.

Sheehan, 12 L. J. Ex.

Comp. Peters
v. Inett,

2 Q. B. D. 284

Keating

J.

4 C. P. D. 80.

Dixon

V.

B.

v.

Peacock

Hughes,

See the remarks in Parle Gate Iron Go.

Ooates, L. E. 5 C. P. 634, dubit.

(c)

0. 108

Wells, 25 Q.

Digitized

B. D. 249.

by Microsoft

Bennett

v.

v.

Athins,

CONTRACTS MADE NON-PBBFORMABLE.

685

may

be added here, that a person is sometimes estopped by his own conduct from availing
It

himself of legislative provisions intended for his

For

benefit.

instance, a prisoner for debt, repre-

senting a person to be an attorney, to

who

warrant of attorney,
profession,

could not

attest a

did not belong to that

afterwards be allowed to

impeach the warrant on the ground of inadequate

attestation (a)
and the grantee of an annuity, on
;

whom
grant,

the duty

cast of enrolling the deed of

is

would be estopped from taking any advantage

from his neglect to enrol

Where an Act

it (6).

of Parliament compels a breach

of a private contract,

the contract

is

impliedly

repealed by the Act, so far as the latter extends

or the breach is excused, or is considered as not

falling

within the contract

of the

(c).

The

interyention

in altering the situation

Legislature,

of

the contracting parties, is analogous to a convulsion of nature, against which they, no doubt,

may

provide; but

(a) Jeyes v. Booth, 1

if

they have not provided,

B. & P. 97; Cox

y.

it

Cannon, 4 Bing.

N. C. 453.
(6)

Molton

V.

Camroux, 18 L. J. Ex. 356

15 L. J. 0. P. 223.
grove,
(c)

Turner

v.

Browne,

See also Be Cannon, 20 Q. B. D. 690

JITms-

Bxp., 3 M. D. & D. 386, and Greener, Exp., 15 Ch. D. 457.

Per

Cur., Brewster v. Kitchell or Kitchin (1697), 1 Salk.

198- discussed and applied, Austerherry

29 Oh. D. 760, C. A.

Digitized

v.

by Microsoft

Oldham Corp. (1885),

INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

686
is

generally to be considered as excepted out of

Thus, where land was leased to

certain persons, who covenanted to build a workhouse on it, and not to use the house or land

the contract

(a).

any other purpose than the support of the

poor of the parish and the Poor Law Commissioners, under 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, incorporated
the parish in a Union, and removed the paupers
to the Union workhouse, whereupon the house
was shut up and the land was let at a rack rent
which was applied in aid of the rates it was held,
that the covenant had not been broken, or, alternatively, that the breach was excused by legislative

for

compulsion

And
stress

(b).

where urgent national

or danger precludes a contractor from carrya like rule applies

ing out certain clauses of contractual obligations

man

If a

(c).

covenants not to do a thing which

was unlawful at the time

Act subsequently makes

of the covenant,

and an

lawful only, but not

it

imperative, to do it;

the covenant is unaffected

by the Act (d). Where a lessee covenanted, for
himself and his " assigns," that he would not build
on the demised premises and he was afterwards
;

(a)

Per Pollock O.B., Berwick

(6)

Doe

{Duke)

V.

V.

Barrow

Steel Co., 2 Q.

& 8 Geo. V.

(c)

{d)

Per

v.

Bugeley (1844), 13 L.

c.

Oswald, 3 E.
J.

M.

C. 137.

& B.

678.

See Devonshire

B. D. 286.

25.

Gur., Brewster \. Kitchell or Kitchin, 1 Salk. 198.

Digitized

by Microsoft

CONTRACTS MADE NON-PEEFOEMABLE.

compelled, under an Act of Parliament, to

land to a railway company,

who

on

built

it

687
sell

the

it

was

held that the company was not an " assign " within
the meaning of the covenant.

The

Legislature,

was considered, had, in compelling the

it

sale,

created a kind of assign not contemplated by

or lessee

either lessor

entered into

and

so,

when the

was

contract

the lessee could not justly

be held responsible for the acts of such an assign.

was not reasonable to impute to the Legislature

the intention that he should remain liable for
the non-performance of that which it had, itself,
prevented him from performing (a).

It

(a) Baily v.

also
V.

Wadham

v.

Be

Crespigny (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 180.

Postmaster-General, 40 L. J. Q. B. 310

London (Mayor), 30 L. J. C. P. 225

48 L.
Co. V.

J.

Ch. 226.

Newington

v.

See

Brown

Cotttngham,

But see Long Eaton Becreation Grounds

Midland By. (1902), 71 L.

Digitized

J.

K. B. 837.

by Microsoft

CHAPTER
SECTION

I.

XIII.

CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGAL ACTS.

and has always been, an established rule

no action can be maintained on a
contract made for or about any matter or thing
which is prohibited and made unlawful by statute.
It

is,

of law that

Such a contract is void (a). What has been

done in contravention of an Act of Parliament
cannot be made the subject of an action (b). Thus,
as the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, 18 & 19
Vict.

c.

122

(c),

prohibits the use of combustible

materials for building walls in the metropolis, the

builder of any such walls could not maintain an
action for the price of erecting

55 Geo. III.
unqualified

c.

them

(d).

As s. 14

194, forbids medical practice

persons,

(a) Bartlett v. Yinor, Carth.

contract
252

per

by

made between

Bowen

L. J., Melliss

v.

SUrley, 16 Q. B. D. 453.
(6)

Per Lord Ellenborough, Langton

(c)

Eepealed by 57 & 58 Vict.

which Act

c.

v.

Hughes, 1

ccxiii., s.

M. &

S. 593.

215, Sched. 4

see.

(d) Stevens v. Gourley (1859),

but distinguished, Harris

v.

29 L.

J.

C. P. 1.

p. 248.

Digitized

Eecognised

de Pinna (1886), 33 Ch. Div. 238

by Microsoft

PENALTY MAKES AN ACT ILLEGAL.

689

such a person and a duly qualified medical practitioner, that the latter should assist the

in carrying

on a medical

And

for illegality (a).

would be void
manner although

practice,

in like

Pharmacy Act, 1908, adds

who may sell poisons,

2 of the Poisons and

s.

former

to the category of persons

persons licensed by a local authority under the

section,

does not confer upon an unlicensed

it

assistant of such a licensed person the right to sell

a poisonous substance on behalf of his employer

would seem, however, that

It
if

this

(6).

would not be so

the unqualified person did not himself practise,

but merely employed a duly qualified assistant to

do so, and a Kke rule applies to a corporation (c).

waterman being prohibited by a

local statute

from taking

an apprentice, unless he was the

occupier of a tenement wherein to lodge him it
was held that no settlement was gained by service
under an indenture of apprenticeship made con;

trary to this provision

When
an

a penalty

is

imposed

omission

act, the act or

(a) Davies v.

(d).

Makuna

for
is

doing or omitting

thereby prohibited

(1885), 29 Oh. D. 596; 64 L. J. Ch.

1148.
(6)

Pharmaceutical Society

Pharmaceutical Society
(c)

49 L.

10 Geo.

(d)
V.

v.

J.

II. c.

v.

Q. B. 736

31

Gravesend, 3 B.

Nash

(1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 416

Jacks (1911), 80 L.

Pharmaceutical Society

Association,

B.

v.

5 App. Gas. 857, H. L. (E.).

& 8 Geo. IV.

c.

Ixxv.,

240.

44

LS.

Digitized

K. B. 767.

London and Provincial Supply

repealed 7

& Ad.

J.

by Microsoft

s.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

690

and made unlawful for a statute would not inflict

a penalty on what was lawful (a).
Consequently,
when the thing in respect of which the penalty
is imposed is a contract, it is illegal and void.
In the case cited above, the Act had declared
;

that

should not be lawful to take the apprentice,

it

and imposed a penalty

another, where service

for

doing so

(b)

and in

under an indenture of
apprenticeship as a sweep was similarly treated,
the statute had not only declared the apprentice-

"void,"

ship

master

(c).

imposed

but

penalty on

Sec. 24 of the repealed 7

&

the

8 Vict.

110, in enacting that every promoter of a joint

c.

stock
its

company concerned

behalf before

its

in

making contracts on

provisional registration, should

be subject to a penalty of ^25, impliedly rendered

every such contract illegal and therefore void

(d).

So, 25 & 26 Vict. c. 89, in enacting that no company of more than 20 persons should be formed for
carrying on any business for gain unless it were
registered, rendered illegal and void all contracts
Per Lord Holt,

(a)

Bartlett v.

Hatherley, Cork &g. By.

(6)

B.

(c)

28 Geo. III.

V. Gravfisend, sup. p.

8 B.

well,

(d)

&

Bull

c.

Vinor, sup,

.p.

688

per Lord

Be, L. E. 4 Ch. 748.

Co.,

689.

48 (repealed

S.

L. E., 1871)

B.

y.

Hips-

0. 466.
V.

Chapman, 22 L.

Bogers, 24 L. J. C. P. 158.

As

J.

Ex. 257.

See also Ahbott

to restrictions

business under Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, see

of that Act.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

on commencing
s.

87

PENALTY MAKES AN ACT ILLEGAL.

for carrying

on

its

business

if

691

the company was

not

registered (a).
The Act which imposes a
penalty on certain classes of persons for exercising
their ordinary callings

on Sunday, not only sub-

jects the offender to the penalty, but invalidates

every contract made in the course of any such

prohibited exercise, so far as the right of the
offender,

tracted

and of any person with

if
privy to what made

concerned

Highway

Act, 1835 (5

50), in imposing a penalty of

surveyor

he conare

it

illegal,

&

6 Will. IV.

(b).

Sec. 46,
c.

whom

who had any

JIO on a road

share in a contract for

supplying work or materials, or horse labour, for

any of his highways, without the written license

of two justices, was equally fatal to his recovering
any payment for such supplies or services (c). Sec.
50, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (repealed, s. 15,
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), which enacted that
the certificate of a ship's registry shall be used

only in relation to the navigation of the ship, and

imposed a penalty on any person, in possession

(a) Padstow Assur. Assoc, Be, 20 Oh. D. 137

Jennings

of
v.

Eammond, 2 Q. B. D. 225 Shaw v. Benson, 11 Q. B. D. 563.

In the case of Banks the number of persons is now reduced to
See s. 1 (1), Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.
10.
;

(6)

Fennell v. Bidler (1826), 5 B.

(1827), 29 B. E. 514

Bloxsome

v.

&

C. 406

Smith

337.
(c)

Barton

v.

Piggott (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 86.

Digitized

v.

Sparrow

Williams (1824), 27 E. E.

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

692
it,

who

refused to give

it

up to the person entitled

to its custody for

the purposes of navigation,

impliedly prohibited

its

use for any other purpose

and void, and

it even against the
the right of possession and property

and rendered a pledge of it

giving no right to detain
pledgor,

if

illegal

had vested in him (a).

Further, any contract connected with or growing out of an act which is illegal is also invalid.
Thus, a contract to dance at a theatre not duly
licensed cannot be enforced by action (b). It being
unlawful for any agent at

an election, except
the expense agent, to make any payments on
behalf of a candidate, even for current expenses,

who made any such payments

a sub-agent

amount from

not, for this reason, recover the

principal
are,

So, a contract to

(c).

&

by 8

9 Vict.

be enforced

(c?).

contracts.

But

c.

could

make

his

bets (which

109, irrecoverable) cannot

It is a contract

make

to

void

as a betting contract is void only

and not illegal, when a bet has been received by

an agent the principal may recover it from him (e).
(a) Wiley v. Crawford, 30 L. J. Q. B. 319.
(6) Gallini

,v.

Lahorie, 2 E. E. 581.

^rmisiead, 38 E. E. 406

See also

Levy V lates, 8 A.

&

Be

E. 129

Begnis
;

v.

Elliott v.

Bichardaon, L. E. 5 0. P. 744.
(c)

Vict.

26
c.

&

51,

27 Vict.
s.

28)

0.

29 (repealed and re-enaoted, 46

&

47

Parker, Be, 52 L.^J. Ch. 159.

(d) Oohen v. Kittell, 58 L. J. Q. B. 241.

(e) Bridger v. Savage,

54 L.

Digitized

J.

Q. B. 464.

by Microsoft

See, however,

CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGAL ACTS

693

As 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99 (a), required that for

the better manifesting by whom the business of
a pawnbroker was carried on, every person who
.

on should cause his name to be painted

an agreement for a partnership in
that business, which included a stipulation that
carried

it

over the shop

name

the

of one of the partners should not be

painted up, was illegal and void (6). And so would

be an agreement to let premises to a person, with
the object of enabling him to sell spirituous
liquors there without a license

a brothel

as

woman

paramour

or

(c?),

Mattos

it

"kept"

be used by a

her one

receiving

provided

&

before

that

33 L. J. 0. P. 55

v. Billing,

L. J. Q. B. 219, on which see 55

De

use

(e).

Where an Act
Bosewarne

to

purpose of

the

for

or to

(c),

Bead

56 Vict.

Anderson, 52

v.

c. 9,

considered in

Benjamin, 63 L. J. Q. B. 248, Tatam

v.

L. J. Q. B. 30, Levy

a ship

v.

Beeve, 62

Warhurton, 70 L. J. K. B. 708, and

v.

Saffery v. Mayer, Id. 145.

(a) Repealed

and replaced, 35 & 36

requires that the

of a

names

pawnbroker

Vict.

c.

93,

of all persons carrying

which by

s.

13

on the business

shall be legibly painted over the door of the

place of business.
(6) Armstrong v. Lewis (1834), 41 E. R.

Warner
01.

&

v.

Armstrong, 3

F. 237

Fraser

v. Hill,

(c) Bitehie v. Smith,

18 L.

Macq. H. L.

J. C.

(d) Crisp V, GhvrcMll, cited 1 B.

P.

Uffill V. Wright,

3 L. J. Ch. 101

&

80 L.

Digitized

J.

v.

Howden, 12

0. 392.

9.

P. 340

L. J. Ch. 454.
(e)

10

M. & K. 45; Gordon

K. B. 254.

by Microsoft

Smith

v.

White, 35

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

694

the

sailed,

master

officer's certificate

should obtain

the clearing

that the whole cargo was below

deck, and forbade him, under a penalty, to sail

without the certificate or to place any cargo on

deck; a voyage in contravention of these pro-

would be

and a policy of insurance

on the cargo effected by its owner, who was privy

visions

illegal,

to the transaction, void

Where

(a).

a statute prohibited brewers from using

any ingredients but malt and hops in brewing

was held that a druggist who sold drugs
to a brewer with the knowledge that they were
to be used in making beer, contrary to the Act,
and under circumstances which made him a
beer, it

participator in the illegal transaction, could not

recover the price of the drugs

But mere knowledge

(b).

of the purposed illegality,

(a) See the two cases of Gunard v. Byde (1858), 2 E. & E. 1,

and E. B. & E. 670; Wilson v. Banhin, L. E. 1 Q. B. 162;
Dudgeon v. Pembroke (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. ,581; West India
Tele. Go. V. Some & Golonial Marine Insurance Go. (1896), 65

L. J. Q. B. 616.
(b)

24 L.

See Holman
J. 0. P.

Hodgson

v.

v.

158

Cowp. 341

Johnson, 1

Langton

Temple, Id. 738

Gaslight Go. v. Turner, 54 E. E. 808.

23 L.

J.

Q. B. 276

Bay, 17 C. B. N.
Beeston

V.

S.

Geere

188

v.

Beeston, 1 Ex. D. 13

v.
;

See also Fisher v. Bridges,

Mare, 83 L.

Hobbs

J.

Ex. 50

aay

v.

Henning, 34 L. J. C. P. 117

Brooher

1052.

Digitized

Abbott v. Sogers,

Hughes (1855), 14 E. E. 531

Paxton v. Popham, 9 East, 408
v.

by Microsoft

v.

Wood, 5 B.

4;

Ad.

CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGALITY.

695

without actual participation or privity in it, would

not affect the contract. Thus, a sale of goods
in

a foreign country, with the knowledge that

the purchaser intended

to

smuggle them

into

England, but without any participation in the

transaction, would not be invalid

The question has

{a).

when an Act

frequently arisen,

prescribes regulations, forms, or other attendant

more

circumstances,

nected with

or

immediately con-

less

either with

contracts,

or

without

penalties for non-compliance, whether a contract

entered into in disregard of any of them

is

thereby

prohibited, *and so illegal, or whether the object

of the

Act

not sufficiently attained by

is

the

and the chief test for

its decision seems to be whether the provisions
have, or have not, some object of general policy,
which requires that the contract should be

imposition of the penalty

invalidated.

Thus,

under penalties, that

required,
for sale

has been held that enactments which

it

should be

dimensions

{b)

of

at

or that

least

persons

all

bricks

made

certain specified

who

corn,

sold

except by certain measures, should be liable to

(a)

Rolman

2 E. E. 675

v.

Cowp. 341

Johnson, 1

LigUfoot

v.

Gomjp.

tenant, 4 E. E. 735.

Henning, 34 L. J. 0. P. 117.
(V)

Law

V.

Waymell

Hodson, 10 E. E. 518.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

Bead,

See Hdbbs

v.

696

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

a penalty (a)

or that vendors of coals

under a penalty,

should,

with the coals sold, a

deliver,

ticket setting forth their weight

and the number

which they are contained (b) or that

farmers and others should sell butter in firkins
of a certain size, branded with their own and the
of sacks in

makers' names

(c)

prohibited

all

made
made them

contracts

in disregard of such provisions, and

no action could be maintained for

the price of the goods sold. On the same ground,
where printers were required to af&x their names
to the books which they printed, it was held that
a printer could not maintain an action for his
work and materials in printing a booTs: in which
he had omitted to comply with this statutory provision (d).
The policy of these Acts was to prevent
all such dealings
and it would have been imperfectly attained, if the sellers had been merely
void, so that

subjected

remained

to

The same

while

penalty,

liable to

the

purchasers

be sued.

stringent effect has been given to

enactments which imposed, under a penalty, regulations relating to personal qualification.

Thus,
McOl.

(a) Tyson v. Thomas,

(6) Little V. Poole,

9 B.

& Yo.

&

119.

0. 192

Oundell

v.

Dawson, 17

L. J. C. P. 311.
(c) Forster v. Taylor,

39 E. E. 698.

(d) Bensley v. Bignold, 24 E. E. 401.

BoUnson, 2 C.

&

J. 209.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also Stephens

v.

CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGALITY.

697

an Act which imposed a penalty on an unqualified

who drew conveyances for reward, would
invalidate any contract with him for such a purperson
pose

So, a local

(a).

Act which imposed penalties

on persons for acting as brokers in the City of

London, who had not been admitted and paid
certain fees for the benefit of the City (inasmuch
as its object was, not the enrichment of the citizens

London, but the protection of the public by preventing improper persons from acting as brokers),
was held to invalidate the dealings of an unqualfied
broker, so far as to prevent him from recovering payment for his services in that capacity (b).
But it would not affect his right to recover
from his employer money paid on his behalf
of

complete

to

the

irregular

was a transaction
broker

It

(c).

distinct

has

been

purchase

for

this

from his character of

held that an enact-

ment, which provided that no person interested

in a contract with a company should be capable
of being

a director, and that

company were concerned

(a)

4:4:

Geo. III.

98,

c.

s.

14;

a director of

if

any

in

Taylor

contract

Growland Oas Co.

v.

(1854), 23 L. J. Ex. 254.

(b)

6 Anne,

57 Geo.

c.

16,

s.

4 (2), altered as to amount of penalty by

Bowlands (1836), 6 L. J. Ex. 63.

III. c. 60; Cope v.

Observations appUed, Melliss

v.

Shirley Local

Board (1885), 55

L. J. Q. B. 143.
(c)

Smith

Henley, 1 0.

V.

&

Linda, 27 L. J. 0. P. 196, 335.

P. 574

Latham

Digitized

v.

Hyde, 1 0.

by Microsoft

Comp. Steel

& M.

128.

v.

INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.

698
"with

the company, he
did

director,

contract

(a)

not,

should
law,

at

probably,

would be void

If,

(b).

cease

invalidate

equity

in

be

such

to

contract

the

however, the company or the

directors, after full disclosure of the interest of the

contracting du'eotors, chose to affirm the contract

would probably be binding on the company

it

even in equity (c).

But where the

object of the

Act

is sufficiently

attained without giving the prohibition so stringent

an

and where

effect,

pendent

it is

also collateral to or inde-

of the contract, the statute is

understood

as not affecting the validity of the contract.

Thus

it

has been held by the House of Lords

Companies Act, 1862,

wbich imposed a penalty of ^50 upon every officer
of a limited company "who knowingly and wilfully
that the provision of

s.

43,

authorised or permitted the non-registration of

mortgages,

charges specifically affecting the

or

property of a company, was not to be construed as

also invalidating debentures issued to a director,

because he had omitted to register them

(a) Foster v.

Oomp. Barton

v.

Oxford dc. By. Go. (1853), 22 L.

Port Jackson

Co.,

17 Barbour,

(d).
J. C. P. 99.

New York

E.

397.
(fc)

Aberdeen By. Go.

(c)

Murray

v.

v. Blaikie (1854), 1

Epsom Local Board

Macq. H.

0. 461.

(1896), 66 L. J. Oh. 107,

at p. 109.
(d)

25 & 26 Vict.

c.

89,

(Consolidation) Act, 1908

s.
;

Digitized

43, repealed,

Wright

v.

s.

100

(2),

Oompanies

Eorton, 12 App. Gas. 371.

by Microsoft

CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGALITY.

And where an Act

699

subjected every licensed dis-

a penalty of d6200,

he sold spirits by
retail, or even wholesale, anywhere within two miles
of the distillery, and required that every license

tiller to

if

name and abode of every person

was
held that the omission, in the
;
license, of the name and abode of one of the
five partners in a distillery, and the retailing of
should state the

licensed

it

by him, did not

spirits

affect

the sale,

so

as

to prevent the partnership from recovering the

price (a).

So, the provisions of an Act

which im-

posed penalties on every dealer in tobacco who

omitted to paint his name over the entrance
of his premises, or

who

dealt in tobacco without

were understood as not affecting the

validity of a contract by a tobacconist who had
neglected to comply with them. They were mere
fiscal regulations, the breach of which was unconnected with the contract; their object was to
protect the revenue, and this was completely
a license,

attained by the enforcement

On

the same ground

it

of the penalty

{b).

has been held that the

omission of a broker to send to his principal a

stamped contract note in respect

(a)

Brown

Temple,

v.

14 E.

Duncan

Man. & Ey. 114

(1829), 6

738; Johnson

Wetherell v. Jones, 3 B.

& Ad. 221

v.
;

Smith

V.

Mawhood. 15 L.

Digitized

J.

a sale of
;

Hodgson

v.

Hudson, 10 E. E. 465;
Bailey

Q. B. 115.
(6)

of

Ex. 149.

by Microsoft

v.

Harris, 18 L. J.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

700

stock on the

17

s.

by

Stock Exoliange, as required

Eevenue Act, 1888, though subjecting

(1),

the former to a penalty of ^620 does not prevent

him from recovering from the

mission on such sale

&

39

40 Geo.

693), affords

(p.

cases.

(a).

III. c. 99

(b),

already referred to

an illustration of the two classes of

required a pawnbroker

It

name and

com-

his

latter

to paint

his

and it also
required that before he made any advance on a
pledge, he should make certain inquiries of the
pledger as to his name, abode, and condition in
life, and should enter the results of them in his
books and on the duplicate. A breach of the
former provision would not affect the validity
of a pledge but a breach of the latter would do
door

business over his

so, for

they are directly and immediately con-

nected with the

contract

contract

into

entered

and

(c),

contravention

in

statutory duty, whether the prohibition

or

is

(a)

is

of

express

implied from the imposition of a penalty, wiU

51 & 52 Vict.

c.

8,

repealed, 54

for re-imposition of duty, see ss.

[1894] 1 Q. B. 114.
(3),

generally

Eor

& 55

52-53

Vict.

c.

Learoyd

39,
v.

s.

123,

Bracken,

definition of " Contract note," see

s.

77

Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.

(6)
j^c)

Eepealed, 35 & 36 Vict.

Fergusson

Victorian

v.

Norman

Baylesford

c.

93,

s. 4.

(1838), 50 E. E. 613.

Syndicate,

Ltd.

v.

624.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Dott,

See also

[1905]

Oh.

WHETHER WHOLE OE PART OF CONTRAOT

not support an action

IS VOID.

And d fortiori this

(a).

case where a statute with the view

protection to the public imposes

doing some particular act

(ft).

is

701

the

of affording

a penalty for

The

object of the

Legislature by imposing such regulations, being to

guard against abuses, and this object would be

but imperfectly attained if the contract were held
good.

was once considered a rigid rule that when

the bad part of a contract was made illegal or
void by statute, the whole instrument was invaUdated
while, if the invalid part was void at
It

common

law,

was

valid

while

a statute being,

common law

the

common

the remainder of the instrument

reason

tyrant making

(c)

all

or

void

it

was

said, strict law,

according

divided

to

again, the former like a

the latter, like a nursing

making void only the part where the fault

But this is not
is, but preserving the rest {d).
the true test. The question whether the whole
father

instrument, or only the

invalid

part

is

void,

depends on the more rational ground whether the

(a) Gundell v.

Damon

Taylor (1834), 3 B.
(6)

D'Allax

(c)

Norton

V.

v.

&

(1847), 17 L. J. 0. P. 311; Forster v.

Adol. 887.

Jones (1854), 26 L. J. Ex. 79.

Simmes, Hob. 12.

(d) Maleverer V.

Bedshaw, 1 Mod. 35

1 Ventr. 237.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Mosdel

v.

Middleton,

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

702

vitiated part be severable from the rest, or not.

If the one cannot be severed

the whole

void

is

but

from the other part,

be severable, whether

if it

the illegality was created by statute or by the

common

may be rejected, and

Thus, though some of the

law, the bad part

the good retained

(a).

rules of a Trade

Union may be

yet

it

illegal

and

void,

does not follow that the whole of the rules

are unenforceable

deed was made on a

If a

(6).

part

consideration,

was

v^hich

of

the

illegal,

whole instrument would be void, for every part

of it would be affected by the illegal consideraand a contract of which the consideration (c)
;

any part illegal cannot be enforced.

But it would be otherwise if only some of the
promises which constituted the consideration,

tion

See per Willes

(a)

C.

in

is

250;

P.

Pickering

Turner

]per

G. M. & G. 275

J.,

L.J.,

v.

Ufracomhe By.

Biddell v. Leeder, 1 B.

Exp., L. E. 9 Oh. 583. See also Baker

Div. 520, per Chitty

J.,

v.

&

C. 327

E. 3

De

Browning,

Hedgecoch (1888), 39 Ch.

and the cases there

cited; Byrne, Exp.,

Burden, In re (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310, 0. A.

263

Co., L.

S. E. By.,

Jortin v.

57 L.

J. Q. B.

Isaacson, In re. Mason, Exp. (1894), 64 L. J. Q. B. 191

&

Continental Tyre

Bubher Co.

v.

Heath (1913), 29 T. L. E.

308.
(b)

Osborne

L. J. Oh. 315.
(c)

v.

Per Tindal

Shackell

Amalgamated

Comp. Swaine
G.J.,

v. Bosier,

Walte

Socy.

of Bailway Servants, 80

v. Wilson, inf. p.
v. Jones, 1

2 Bing. N* C. 646

Collins v.

E. E. 43.

Digitized

704.

Bing. N. 0. 662, and

by Micfosoft

Gwynne, 51

WHETHER WHOLE OR PART OP CONTRACT

were

and the

illegal,

illegality did

not taint the

Thus, although a rent-charge on a living

rest.

was invalidated by a
chargings
void

703

IS VOID.

which declared

statute,

with

benefices

of

pensions

all

utterly

which created such

was held good and was

a covenant in the deed

pay

a charge, to

enforced

it,

Where

(a).

a bill of sale comprised real

as well as personal chattels,

it

was held void as

regards the latter, because not in accordance with

the

form

statutory

But

(b).

was

it

valid

as

regards the real chattels, because the legal and

illegal

portions

the deed were

of

severable

(c).

So though a bill of sale transferring a ship by

way of mortgage was void, in consequence of the
omission to recite the certificate of registry, a
similar covenant, by the mortgagor, to repay the
secured by the same deed,

money advanced, and

was held

valid

and binding

So, a tenant

[d).

may

be sued on his covenant to pay his rent clear of

all taxes, although in another part of the lease he
covenants to pay the landlord's property tax an
;

(a)

Mouys

borough
(&)

116

45

v.

Leaie, 8 T. E. 411, approved by Lord Ellen-

8 East, 234.

C.J., Kerrison v. Cole,

& 46

Vict.

Brandon Hill

c.

43,

v.

s.

Lamh

Cochrane

v. Entwistle,

59

(1914),

S. J.

25 Q. B. D.

75

Lester v.

Hickling, [1916] 2 K. B. 302.

(c)

Byrne, Exp., Burdett, Be, 57 L. J. Q. B.

Mumford

v.

Collier,

25 Q. B. D. 279

L. J. Q. B. 191.
(d) Kerrison v. Cole,

8 East, 234.

Digitized

2i63.

See also

Isaacson, Be. (1894), 64

by Microsoft

INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.

704

engagement which was penal and void (a). Where

a miner entered into a contract of employment
with the owners of a colliery, by which he agreed
not to leave his employment without giving
fourteen days' notice, and further agreed that
deductions in contravention of s. 12, Coal Mines
Kegulation Act, 1887, might be made from
it was held that the whole contract
employment was not rendered illegal by the
latter agreement, but he was liable to
pay
damages to the colliery owners for leaving with-

his wages,
of

out notice

body
of

is

rules

its

so illegal

On

And

(b).

a friendly society or corporate

not disabled from suing by reason of some

being

in

restraint

trade

of

and

(c).

same principle, a by-law which is

partly good and partly bad is valid as to the
former part, if the latter is distinct and separable
from it {d) and orders of justices and of other
the

(a)

See

GasJcell v.

15 Bast, 440

London

(Bp.),

C. B. 774
(b)

King (1809), 11 Bast, 165

Beadshaw

v.

5 Taunt. 727

c.

58

Kearney

See also Chell

[1893] 1 Q. B. 700.

v.

Synge,

Greenwood

v.

Pallister v. Gravesend (1850), 9

The Buchhurst Peerage, 2 App. Gas.

50 & 51 Vict.

Howe

Balders, 4 Taunt. 57

v.

1.

Whitehaven Colliery

v.

Co.,

Hall (1896), 12 T. L. E.

408.
(c)

Swaine

Amalgamated
{d)

157

B.

V.

v.

Wilson,

Socy. of

24 Q. B. D. 252.

Bailway Servants, sup.

J.,

Hall

v.

Digitized

v.

p. 702.

Lmdie, 31 L. J. M. C.
Nixon, L. E. 10 Q. B. 160
per

Faversham, 8 T. E. 352

per Quain

Camp. Osborne

B.

v.

by Microsoft

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REMEDIES.

and

authorities,

award

the

of

705

are

arbitrators

similarly treated (a).

SECTION

When
makes

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REMEDIES.

II.

a statute creates a

new

obligation,

or

unlawful that which was lawful before, a

corresponding right

thereby impliedly given,

is

either to the public, or to the individual injured

and sometimes
Again, if the Legislature gives to an
to both.
association of individuals (e.g. a Trade Union)

by the breach of the enactment

which is neither a corporation nor a partnership

nor an individual, a capacity for owning property
and acting by agents, such capacity in the absence
of express enactment to the contrary involves the
necessary correlative of liability to the extent of

such property, for the acts and defaults of such

agents
Bayley
1

H. &
(a)

(b).

J.,

Clark

B.

V.

v.

M.

& Ad. 95

Stoke Bliss (1844), 13 L. J.

6 Q. B. 256; B.
L. J.

Denton, 1

C. 168

Brown

v.

Holyhead,

See p. 523, sup.

C. 601.

v.

M.

C. 151

B.

v.

Oxley,

Bobinson, 17 Q. B. 466; B. v. Green, 20

Goddard, Be, 19 L.

J. Q.

B. 305.

(affirmed by the House

of Lords) in Taff
Per Parwell J.
Vale Bailway v. Amalgamated Society of Bailway Servants, 70
L. J. K. B. 905. That decision caused a labour agitation
(6)

resulting in the passing of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906,

unfortunate Act legalised breaches of contract

which
and interferences

done " in contemplation or furtherance of a Trade Dispute,"

and prohibited actions of tort against a Trade Union.

if

45

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEBPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

706

Where

a statute creates an offence and specifies

by

certain persons as those

whom

the provisions

be enforced, no other person can

prosecute for the offence (a). Where a penalty

Act

of the

shall

imposed nothing being said as to who 'may

recover it, nor is it enacted for the benefit of
is

a party aggrieved, the offence not being against

an individual, the penalty belongs to the Crown,

and the Crown alone can maintain a suit for it (6).
a

If

statute

grievance

(c),

or

prohibits

matter

of

commands a matter

public

of public

convenience (cZ), all acts and omissions contrary

to its injunctions are misdemeanours
and if it
omits to provide any procedure or punishment
for such act or default, the common law method
;

given;

of redress is impliedly

that

is,

the pro-

cedure by indictment, and punishment by fine

or imprisonment without hard labour, or both.

The Court may

require the

also

and be of good
EHz. c. 2, in

find sureties to keep the peace

Thus,

behaviour (e).

(a)

R.

V.

7,

s.

CuUtt, 22 Q. B. D. 623

43

defendant to

Anderson

v.

Hamlin, 25

Q. B. D. 221.
(b)

354.
(c)

29 & 30 Yict.
Comp. A.-G.
jB. v.

(d)

B.

(e)

Euro's

V.

c.

v.

19,

s.

Bradlaugh, v. Glarhe, 8 App. Cas.

Exeter Corporation, sup. p. 324.

Sainshury, 2 E. E. 433.

Davis, Say. 133

Hawk.

c.

25,

s.

B.

v. Price,

11 A. & B. 727.

and see the cases collected

J. Office 11,

Digitized

by Microsoft

in

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

empowering

707

justices to order the father or other

pay

relation of a pauper to

for his maintenance,

impliedly provided for the enforcement of the

order by indictment

Churchwardens and overseers were indictable for not making a rate to

reimburse constables as directed by 14 Car. II.
0. 12, the word " may " in a statute being the
same as " shall " in acts relating to justice or
the public weal

the

(a).

refusal

So,

(6).

or neglect

by

father of a child to furnish the registrar of

births,

when

requested, the particulars required

by 6 & 7 Will IV. c. 86,

misdemeanour (c).
Where

an indictable
was enacted under

20, is

s.

it

the repealed Quarantine Acts (d) that aU persons

coming from a place infected by the plague should

obey such orders as the King in council shoiild
make the disobedience of any such order, being
a disobedience of the Act, would be indictable,
and punishable by fine and imprisonment (e).
But the matter must be strictly of public con;

If the statute extends only to

cern.

persons,

or

to

particular

matters of a private nature, as

(a) B. V. Bobinson, 2 Burr. 799

B.

v.

Balme, 2

Cowp

648

B. V. Ferrall, 2 Den. C. C. 51.

Barlow, 2 Salk. 609.

(b)

B.

V.

(c)

B.

V. Price,

(d) See the

11 A.

&

B.,727.

PubHc Health

Act, 1896 (59

(e) B. V. Harris, 2 E. E. 358

B.

v.

Walker, L. B. 10 Q. B. 855.

Digitized

&

60 Vict.

c.

Haigh, 3 T. E. 637

by Microsoft

19).
;

B.

y.

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

708

those

relatiBg

to

Where

by lords on their
would not be indictable (a).

distresses

tenants, disobedience

the burden of repairing a private road

owners and occupiers of tene-

for the use of the

ments

in nine parishes, was thrown upon the

owners and occupiers in six of those parishes;
the latter were held not indictable for the nonof the

repair

because

road,

duty did not

the

concern the public, but only the individuals

who

had a right to use the private road (b).

If the statute which creates the obligation,
whether private or public, provides in the same
section or passage a specific
for enforcing

it,

means

or procedure

no other method than that thus

provided can be resorted to for that purpose

(c).

Thus, where the Land Tax Eedemption Act directed

that the tax should be added to the rent in

Hawk.

(a) 2
(h)

B.

V.

25,

c.

s.

all

4.

Bichards, 5 E. E. 489.

See also B.

v. Storr,

3 Burr.

1698, and B. v. Aikins, Id. 1706.

(c)

U.

Per

Stirling J.,

C, 67 L.

J.

Grand Junction Waterworks

Hampton

Co. v.

Oh. 610, fully cited and applied by

in Merrick v. Liverpool Corp., 79 L. J. Oh. 756, 757.

Lord Tenterden, Doe

Denman, B.
A.-G.

V.

v.

V.

Bridges, 1 B.

&

Ad. 859

Wake

v. Sheffield

not apply to the equitable

V.

See per
per Lord

Lamplmgh

v.

Norton,

(Mayor), 12 Q. B. D. 145

County Court Judge of Essex, 18 Q. B. D. 707.

Cooper

J.

Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 887; per Lord Bsher M.E.,

Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667;

22 Q. B. D. 457
B.

v.

Eve

remedy by Injunction.

This does

See

ex. gr.

Whittingham, 49 L. J. Ch. 752, followed in Carlton

Digitized

by Microsoft

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

709

future bishops' leases, and should be recoverable

in the

same way

was held not

as the rent,

it

recoverable by any other means

(a).

&

6 Bdw. VI.

25

c.

(b),

breach of

which enacted that no

person should keep an ale-house, but such who

should be admitted thereunto and allowed in open

by two

sessions, or

under the penalty of

justices,

summary commitment by justices

for three days,

was not subject to prosecution by indictment (c).

The 21 Hen. VIII. c. 13 (d), having enacted that
no spiritual person should take lands to farm, on
pain of forfeiting ^610, it was held that an offender
could not be indicted for a breach of this enact-

ment, but could only be sued

Similarly,

no indictment will

for the penalty

lie

(e).

against an over-

seer of a parish for wilfully inserting the

names

of unqualified persons in the voters'

or for

Illmtrators v. Coleman, 60 L. J. K, B. 510;

London Waterworks, 28 Oh. D. 138; A.-G.

L. J.

Gh. 726.

L. J. K. B. 238

Doe

Oswaldtwistle

v.

Distinguished in B.

A. C. 387.

(a)

Pasmore

V.

v.

Stepney

list,

Hayward

v.

East

v. Basingstoke,

U.

45

D. C, [1898]

Corp.

(1901),

71

[1902] 1 K. B. 317.

Bridges, 95 E. E. 483.

Cojjip.

Scottish

Widows'

Fund V. Graig (1882), 51 L. J. Oh. 363. See also Bailey v.

Badham (1885), 54 L. J. Oh. 1067 30 Oh. D. 84 Tthymney By.
;

Go. V.

Bhymney Iron

Go.,

(b)

Eepealed, 9 Geo. IV.

(c)

B. V. Harriot, 4

{d) Eepealed, 1
(e)

&

per Gur., Gouch

61,

c.

Mod. 144

2 Vict.

2 Hale, P. 0. 171
v. Steel,

25 Q. B. D. 146.

c.

B.

35.

s.

B.

106,

v.

Buck, 2 Stra. 679.

s. 1.

v. Wright, 1

Burr. 543.

23 L. J. Q. B. 121.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See also

INTEEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.

710

any other of

in

specified

offences

tlie

51,

s.

Parliamentary Voters Eegistration Act, 1843, as

the section specifies a particular penalty for the
offences created,

and thereby excludes

Where an Act which,

all

others

(a).

requiring shareholders to pay,

on their shares, provided that in case of

default the company might sue them in the courts
it was held that an action would not
in Dublin
calls

lie

England (6).

in

If the newly-created

duty

is

simply an obligation

the general
pay money
rule would seem to be that the payment cannot
be enforced in any other manner than that
though the provision be
provided by the Act
not contained, as in the above cases, in the same
section as that in which the duty was created.
for a public purpose,

to

Thus, 43 Bliz.

c, 2,

which, by

s.

imposition of a poor rate, and, by

the

parochial

officers

to

authorised the

2,

4,

s.

by

levy

empowered

distress

the

from those who refused to pay, Hmited the

officers to this remedy, and gave no right of

arrears

action for a poor rate

(a)

&

Sched. 8)
(6)

7 Vict.

B.

Dmdalk

c.

(c).

18 (repealed, 7

v. Hall,

By. Go.

&

8 Geo. V.

(c)

London

v. Taj>8ter,

Court, 14 Q. B.

1 Q. B. 667.
;

v.

64,

s.

47,

See also B.
B.

Watson (1877), 46 L.

Digitized

v.

v.

Judge of

D. 905.

Stevens v. Evans (1761), 2 Burr. 1157, per

Discussed in Danhy

o.

[1891] 1 Q. B. 747.

County Court Judge of Essex, 18 Q. B. D. 704

City of

where high-

Similarly,

by Microsoft

J.

Denison

M. C,

J.

at p. 181.

IMPLIED EEMBDIES.

way

711

were made payable under a statute

rates

which prescribed a particular procedure for their

recovery, it was held that that method only could
be pursued, and that no action lay (a).
It is, however, a general rule, that where an
Act of Parliament creates an obligation to pay
money, the money may be recovered by action,
unless some other specific provision is contained
in the Act (6)
that is, unless an exclusive remedy
be given (c) and the question may arise whether
the particular remedy given by the Act is cumula;

tive

or

Where

substitutional for this right

of

action.

a harbour Act required the master of a

ship to pay certain duties to the trustees of the

harbour; and besides empowering the latter to

distrain for them, enacted that any master who
eluded payment should stand liable for the payment of them, and that they should be levied in
the same manner as penalties were directed by the

Act to be levied (that is, by action or distress), it

was held that the latter remedy was cumulative,
(a)

London B.

&

S. 0.

Chap. V. Sect.
(6)

By. Co.

I. p.

Per Parke

v.

K. E. 348

(c)

B.

V.

Per Martin
Hull

&

and sup.

235.
Hills, 11

B., Shepherd v.

Maurice

Price, 1 Q. B. D.

See also

Yo. 450.

Watson, 4 G. P. D. 118

ex. gr. Steinson v. Heath, 3 Lev.

;

&

ElUcomhe, Model.

Underhill V.

264

v.
;

400

Marsden, 19 L.

Booth

v. Trail,

Ex. 55.

Pelham

See also
1

v. Pichersgill,

J. 0. P.

12 Q. B. D.

152

Bait

v.

8.

B., Hitchinson v. Gillespie, 25 L. J. Ex. 109

Selhy By.

Co.,

Digitized

13 L.

J.

Q. B. 257.

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

712

and that as the Act had made the master liable

This
to pay the dues, an action lay for them (a).
decision is said to have been based on the ground
that the particular remedy given by the Act did
not cover the whole right (6). But where a bylaw required a traveller without a ticket to pay
the fare from the station whence the train

end

started to the

&

9 Vict.

and by s. 145,
forfeitures imposed

of his journey,

penalties for

c. 20,

first

by the by-laws were recoverable before justices;

it was held that the by-law did not create a debt
recoverable in a Court of civil jurisdiction

Where an
and

is

injunction of a statute

,is

(c).

general,

not contained in a clause specifying only

particular remedies for the breach of such injunction,

such breach

may

be subject to the

common

law procedure and punishment, though there be

Thus,
afterwards a particular remedy given (c?).

under 10
(o)

&

11 Will. III.

Shepherd

v. Hills (1855),

distinguished in

St.

c.

11

17,

which declared, in

Ex. 55; 25 L.

Pancras Vestry

v.

Ex. 6;

J.

Battenhury (1857), 26

L. J. C. P. 243.
(6)

N.

Per Williams

J., St.

Pancras Vestry

v. Battenhv/ry,

2 0. B.

S. 487.

(c)

London B.

&

S. C.

By. Co.

tinguished in G. N. By.

v.

v.

Watson, 4 C. P. D. 118

Winder, [1892] 2

dis-

Q. B. 595

61

L. J. Q. B. 608.
{d)

citing

Per Lord Denman

B.

Say. 133

V.
;

B.

C.J.,

B.

Wright, 1 Burr. 543.

v.

v.

Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 883,

See sup. 330.

Gould, 1 Salk. 381.

Digitized

by Microsoft

JB. v.

Davis,

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

the 1st section, that keeping a

public nuisance, and, by the 2nd,
of one liable
action,

it

dictable

713
lottery

made

was a

the keeper

by penal
was held that the offender was also in-

(a).

to a penalty recoverable

&

7 Vict.

73

c.

(b)

having enacted,

in one section, that no person should act as an

who was

attorney or solicitor

not duly admitted

and enrolled; and in another, that a breach of

this prohibition should be deemed a contempt of
Court; it was held that the offence was also
indictable (c).
So, where a statute prohibited the
erection or maintenance of a building within
ten feet of a road, declaring such an erection
a

common

nuisance;

and,

in

another section,

authorised two justices to convict the proprietor,

and to remove the structure

it

was held that an

indictment, also, lay for the nuisance

The underlying
stated

principle

being

{d).

as

already

that where a statute renders acts punish-

able for the

time,

first

if

the statute contain no

general prohibition, the acts are not punishable

(a)

B.

V.

Crawshaw, 30 L.

(6) Partially

23 & 24 Vict.
(c)

is

B.

V.

c.

repealed,
127,

S.

B.

name

V.

E.

Buchanan (1846), 15 L.
v.

is

not

{No.

2),

1874,

Be

Gregory, 5 B.

J. Q. B. 227.

The

Milman, 18 Q. B. D. 471.

solicitor struck off the rolls

[d)

L.

C. 58.

and

see

26.

s.

a criminal, Osborne

to use his

M.

J.

But a

for allowing an unqualified person

Eede, 59 L. J. Q. B. 376.

& Ad.

Digitized

offender

555.

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

714

by indictment but only in the manner prescribed

by the statute (a).
The same principle applies when tbe duty is
a private one.
Thus, the Distress for Eent Act,
1737 (11 Geo.

II. c.

19),

which, after (by

s.

1)

authorising ilandlords to seize the goods of their

when

tenants,

and

fraudulently

clandestinely

removed to elude a distress, gives them, by

s. 4 (5), a summary remedy before justices, for reovering double the value of the goods removed,
against a tenant,

him

any person who

or

assisted

was held to give them also, by implication,

the right of suing for damages for the fraudulent
;

or clandestine removal

(c).

Where churchwardens

refuse

to

allow an in-

spection of their accounts, the Court would not

mandamus

refuse a

that duty,

if

to enforce the performance of

advisable,

on public grounds, merely

because a pecuniary penalty, applicable to the use

of the poor of the parish,

was imposed

for the

refusal (d).
(a)

B.

V.

Hall, [1891] 1 Q. B. 747, at p. 751.

(6) Sec. 4 is partially repealed

(c)

Bromley

546

v.

v.

Bugge-Price, 1 Ex. D. 269

J. C. P.

White, 1
(d)

B.

662

28 E. E. 498.

Digitized

Vict.

c.

43,

s. 4.

Horsfall v. Davy,
Co., 1 C.

& K.

discussed in Pulsford

See also Brain

and the cases collected

Sm. L. C. 266, 12th

V. Clear,

Newcastle By.

Devenish, [1903] 2 Ch., at p. 634.

50 L.
V.

Boss

by 47 & 48

Eolden, 31 E. D. 727

See also ColUnson

Stark, 169.

V.

v.

v.

Thomas,

in the note to Ashby

ed.

See also

by Microsoft

Liclifield v.

Simpson,

715

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

When

a statute imposes a ministerial, as dis-

tinguished from a judicial, duty, for the benefit

of particular individuals, any of these,

directly

if

injured by the breach of the duty, has impliedly

whom

a right to recover, from the person on

duty

is

him contrary

to the statute

(a),

the

done to

cast, satisfaction for the injury

unless, of course,

a different intention

is to be collected from the

Thus, an incorporated vestry, which refused
to perform the statutory duty of removing dirt
and ashes, was held liable in an action by the

Act.

party aggrieved, for the expenses incurred from

the refusal

decided

Although in a

(6).

was
duty by a

later case it

that a statutory breach of

corporation to

remove

street

from

refuse

the

streets within its district did not give a right of

damage by

action to a person suffering special

reason of

such breach

(c).

But, on the other

hand, an unsuccessful candidate at an election is

entitled to sue the returning officer for compensation, if the loss of the election
15 L.

J.

Gt

Q. B. 78, and see

was owing to the

Northern Fishing Co.

v.

Edgehill

(1883), 11 Q. B. D., at p. 226.

(a) 2

27

Westmr. 13 Edw.

per Gur., Couch

in Bobertson v.
68, at p. 72

I. c.

v. Steel

60

1 Inst. 56a

Anon., 6

(1854), 23 L. J. Q. B. 121

Amazon Tug & Lighterage

questioned Atkinson

v.

Co. (1881),

Newcastle

&

Mod.

approved

51 L. J. Q. B.

Gateshead Water-

works Co. (1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 776.

Leonard, 2 Q. B. D. 145.

(6)

Bolborn Union

(c)

Saunders v. Holborn District Bd. of

v. St.

Digitized

oris, [1894] 1

by Microsoft

Q. B. 64.

INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

716

neglect of the prescriptions of the Ballot

oflScer's

Act, 1872, upon the ground that such duties were

merely ministerial

An

{a).

action was held main-

by the party wronged against a deputy

tainable

postmaster, for not delivering a letter according

duty under the repealed 9 Anne, c. 10,

though he was also liable, under the same

to his
s.

Act, to a penalty for detaining letters, recoverable

by a common informer (6). Under the repealed

8 Anne, c. 19, which gave authors the sole right
of printing their works for fourteen years, and
provided that if any other person printed them
without consent, he should forfeit the printed
matter to the proprietor, and a further penny for
every sheet, one half to the Queen, and the other
half to the informer, the author was also entitled
to sue for damages (c).
If a railway company
were prohibited, for the protection of the owner
of one ferry, from making a line to another ferry,
an action would lie for breach of the prohibition,
without special damage {d).
{a)

35

&

0. P. 489.
(6)

Bowning

8 Edw. VII.
(c)

36 Vict.

c.

33

c.

Beckford

v.

Pickering v. James (1873), L. E. 8

See also Fotherhy

v.

Goodchild, 2

48, ss. 53

and 57

and a

Torts, Chap.
(d)

Bl. 906.

For

existing law, see

(/).

Hood, 4 E. E. 527.

v.

Ludlow, 21 L. J. 0. P. 169.
Act, 1911,

Meirop. By. Co., L. E. 2 0. P. 188.

W.

See also Novella

disquisition thereonin Clerk

and Lindsell on

XXI,

Chamherlaine

v.

Chester By. Co., 18 L. J. Ex. 494.

Digitized

v.

For existing law, see Copyright

by Microsoft

717

IMPLIED REMEDIES.
See. 38, Companies Act, 1867 (repealed

s.

80,

Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908), which, after

requiring that every prospectus and notice of a
joint-stock company, inviting persons to subscribe
for shares shall specify the dates and names of the
parties to contracts entered into by the company
or its promoters before the issue of the prospectus

or notice, declares that every prospectus which

does not comply with this provision shall be deemed

fraudulent on the part of those
issued

as regards those

it,

who

who knowingly
take shares on

the faith of such prospectus, and in ignorance of

the unmentioned contract, was held to give by

implication to such shareholders a cause of action
against every such issuer of the prospectus
If,

indeed, the breach of the

new duty

(a).

is

made

by the Act subject to a pecuniary penalty recoverable only by the party aggrieved, the inference
would seem to be that this penalty was intended
as a compensation for the private injury, as weU
and there
as a punishment for the public wrong
remedy
for
either
the
one or
other
no
would be
the other (6). Thus, where an Act provided that
;

(a) Charlton v.

Bay, 31

Law

Times, 437.

See Goner's Case,

Twycross v.
1 Oh. D. 182, per James L.J. and Bramwell B.
Grant, 46 L. J. C. P. 686 Shepheard v. Broome, 73 L. J. Ch.
;

608

per Lord Lindley,

Calthorpe v.

Trenchman (1904), 75

L. J. Oh. 92.
(6)

Per

Cur.,

Couch, v. Steel, sup. p. 716.

Digitized

by Microsoft

See Partridge

v.

INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES.

718

one fishing-boat interfered with another under

if

certain circumstances, the party interfering should

recoverable

a penalty,

forfeit

summarily before

whom

powers were given of enforcing

justices to
their decisions by distress and imprisonment it
;

damage was
maintainable, but that the party injured was
limited to the remedy given by the statute (a).
was held that no action

It

been

has

for special

indeed, respecting

observed,

this

no duty was imposed on the defendant

by the Act that he was only prohibited, under
a penalty, from exercising- the right of fishing
to the extent that he had it at common law;
that he was not bound to perform any particular
case, that

duty created by the Act, but only to forbear to

do that which, but for the Act, he might have

done

But

(6).

may

it

suggested distinction

is

be doubted whether the

substantial.

If,

for the

protection of particular persons, an Act prohibited

company from making a line in a certain

direction, the company would seem liable to an
action by those persons for damages sustained
from a breach of the enactment (c). At all events,
the only duty created, if any, was one to the party
a railway

sup. pp. 354, 356

B.

Naylor, Cro. Eliz. 480

M.

Hamlin, 25 Q. B. D. 221.

C.

94

Anderson

v.

(a) Stevens v. Jeacocke,

v. Hicks,

17 L. J. Q. B. 163.

(6)

Per Cur., Couch

(c)

See Ghamberlaine v. Chester By.

v. Steel, sup. p.

Digitized

715.
Co., sup. p.

by Microsoft

716.

24 L.

J.

IMPLIED EEMEDIES.

and

injured;

719

the Act, in expressly creating

as

that duty, also provided a special remedy for

its

breach, none other can be implied.

The

where

right of action,

limited to those

who

exists, is strictly

it

and immediately
The Conthe enactment.

are directly

within the scope of

tagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869 (32

Vict.

c.

70,

s.

57), for

with infectious

33

example, in imposing a

who send animals

penalty on those

&

diseases,

may

give

to

market
right

of

action to the owner of an animal in the market,

which caught the disease from the infected animal

of the offender, the object of the Act being to
protect those

but

it

who

expose animals for sale there

would not give a right

of

action to the

purchaser of the diseased animals which had been

wrongfully exposed, for the Act did not aim at
the protection of buyers in the market

an Act which requires a railway

their line,

may

(a).

company

So,

to fence

give the adjoining landowner an

action for a breach of the enactment,

if

his cattle

on the Hne in consequence; but a passenger injured by an accident

caused by such cattle getting on the line, would
are injured

(a)

Ward

law, see 57
of the

v.

&

by getting

Hohhs (1878), 48 L.

58 Vict.

c.

57,

s.

J. Q. B. 281.

As

to existing

22 (IX.), and see as to.Clause 12

Animals (Transit and General) Order, 1912, and offences

thereunder, North Staffordshire By.

v.

Waters (1913), L. G. E.

289.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

720

not be entitled to an action for the neglect to

fence

(a).

The general

was formerly considered

of wider application
for it was deemed that
whenever a statutory duty was created, any
person who could show that he had sustained an
injury from the non-performance of it, had a
right of action for damages against the person on
whom the duty was imposed. Accordingly, where
an Act (repealed and replaced by 67 & 58 Vict.
c. 60, s. 200) required the owner of a ship to
keep on board a sufficient supply of medicines,
under a penalty of 20 recoverable at the suit
of any person and divisible between him and the
Seamen's Hospital, it was held that the owner
was liable also to an action by a seaman, for
compensation for the special damage which he
had! sustained from a neglect to supply the ship
with medicines, as required by the Act (6). But
principle
;

this proposition

cannot be now regarded as law.

Whether any such

Buxton

(a)

L. J.

v.

B. 258.

'right of action arises

by im-

N. E. By. Co. (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 549

Discussed and applied, Thomas

v.

37

Bhymney By.

(1870), 39 L. J. Q. B. 141.
(6)

135.

Couch

As

illness to

V. Steel,

sup. p. 715

Holmes

v.

Clarke, 39 L. J. Ex.

to expenses of medical attendance in case of injury or

seamen, see 6 Edw. VII.

c.

48,

s.

34.

Provisions in ease of Emigrant Ships, see 57

s.

303.

Digitized

by Microsoft

For Medical

& 58

Viet.

c.

60,

721

IMPLIED REMEDIES.
plication

Act

must depend on the purview

of

the

(a).

Where

was enacted that a waterworks company should (1) fix and maintain fire-plugs; (2)
furnish water for haths, wash-houses, and sewers
it

keep the pipes always charged at a certain

pressure, allowing all persons to use the water
(3)

for

extinguishing

fires,

without

compensation;

and (4) supply the owners and occupiers of houses

with water for domestic purposes; subject to a
penalty of ^10 for any breach of any of those
duties, recoverable

by the common informer, and

to a further penalty of forty shillings a day for

breaches of the second and fourth duties, recover-

was held that the owner

of a house burnt down through the company's
neglect to keep their pipes duly charged, had
no right of action under the statute against the
It was improbable that Parliament
company.
would impose, or the company would have conable

by any ratepayer

it

sented to undertake, not only the duty of supplying gratuitously water for extinguishing

fires,

but,

in addition, the Hability of compensating every

householder injured, as well as of paying the

penalties attached to the neglect of their duty.
Besides, the circumstance that penalties for breach
(a)

See Atkinson

v.

Newcastle Waterworks Co., 2 Ex. D. 441,

per Lord Cairns, Oockburn

O.J.,

and Brett L.J.

Johnston

Consumers' Gas Go. of Toronto, 67 L. J. P. C. 33.

46

i.s.

Digitized

by Microsoft

v.

INTEBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

722

and fourth duties were recoverable

by the ratepayers, raised the inference that the
other obligations were intended for the public
benefit only (a). So where a duty was for the first
time imposed by statute (17 & 18 Vict. o. 104) (b)
on the master of a ship, subject to a penalty of
JBIO, to give a seaman a certificate of discharge,
it was held that an action for damages for breach
of this duty was not maintainable (c).
Where, however, no penalty is provided by an
Act for the contravention of its provisions, a
person injured by a breach of an absolute and
unqualified duty imposed by an Act, has an
undoubted cause of action and where a penalty
of the second

is

imposed, the cause of action remains, unless

it

appears from the whole purview of the Act,

that

the

intended

Legislature

remedy should be by proceeding

that

the

only

for the recovery

of the penalty (d).

.

The

true principle

Waterworks Co. (1877), 46 L. J. Ex.

(a) Athinson v. Newcastle

775

that where the public

is,

Johnston v. Consumers^ Gas Go. of Toronto, [1898] A. C.

447, P. C.
(6)
c.

Eepealed, 67

48, Bs. 31
(c)

109.

17

&

and

18 Vict.

See also

Q. B. D. 225.

& 58

Vict.

c.

60,

s.

745,

and see 6 Bdw. VII.

33.
c.

104,

s.

172

Yallance v. Falle, 18 Q. B. D.

G. N. Steamship Co. v. Edgehill (1883), 11

Discussed in Sharp

v. Bettie (1884),

Sess. Cas. (4th ser.), 745.

{d) Groves V.

Wimhorne, [1898] 2 Q. B. 402.

Digitized

by Microsoft

11 Ot. of

723

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

duty imposed by the Act is not intended for

the benefit of any particular class of persons, but
for that of the public generally,

no right of action

accrues by implication to any person who suffers

no more injury from its breach than the rest
of the public.
Where a specific remedy is provided by statute, proceedings must be taken to
enforce it, and if no specific remedy is so provided
the proper course is to proceed by indictment. A
public injury

is

indictable

unless the sufferer from

but

it is

not actionable,

breach has sustained

its

some direct and substantial private and particular

damage beyond and in excess of that suffered in

common

with the rest of the public (a).

If A.
digs a trench across the highway, he is indictable
only but if B. falls into it, A. is liable to an
;

action by B. for the particular injury sustained

It

(6).

has been held that the obstruction of a navi-

gable river becomes a private injury as well as a

public nuisance,

the inn of the

if

access

V. Bristol

Bock

who

plaintiff,

(a) Iveson v. Moore, 1 Salk.

B.

Go.,

15

Cheater &c. By. Co., sup. p. 716

Per WiUs
'

(6)

J.,

Gould

B.

11 E. E. 440

v. Oswaldtwistle

loses

customers in

v. Bussell, 8 E. E. 506
per Cur., Chamberlaine v.

Glossop v. Heston Loc. Bd., 12

Oh. D. 102, distinguished in Jones

145; Pasmore

thereby prevented to

is

v.

U.

Llanrwst U. C, 80 L. J. Oh.

B. C, [1898] A. 0. 387.

Clegg v. Earby Gas Co., [1896] 1 Q. B. 592.

V.

BirJcenhead Corp. (1910), 8 L. E. G. 395.

see Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, 6th ed. Chap.

Digitized

by Microsoft

I.,

pp. 33

And
et seq.

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

724

consequence

(a)

but

it is

now

established that a

person injured in respect of goodwill by a temporary obstruction created under statutory powers

has no remedy by action (b).

Where, however,
the public duty of repairing a sea-wall was imposed

on a municipal corporation,
individual whose house
in consequence

of the

it was held that an

was damaged by the sea,

neglect of this duty to

keep the wall in repair, was entitled to sue the

corporation for compensation (c). But the injury
must be the proximate, necessary, or natural result
of the infringement of the duty

the infringement

being the cama causans, and not merely a causa

sine

qud non, of the special damage

(d).

Nor does any

right of action arise where the

duty has been imposed by the Legislature for a
purpose altogether foreign to individual interests.
(a)

Bose

Market

v. Groves,

12 L. J. C. P. 251

Co. (1835), 2 Bing.

1 App. Cas. 662

Marshall

per Blackburn J.

N. C. 281

Wilkes

Lyon

v.

Hungerford

v.

Fishmongers' Co.,

L. E. 7 Q. B. 171,

v. Ulleswater Co.,

Beckett v. Midland By. (1867), L. E. 3 C. P.

82, at p. 96.

Case (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 175.

(5) Bicket's
(c)

Lyme Begis

sup. p. 173.

v.

Henley, 37 E. E. 125

See Nitrophosphate Co.

v. St.

Buck

Ch. D. 503.

See also per Brett L.J., Olossop

12 Ch. D., at

p. 121.

(cT)

15 L.

Benjamin
J. Q.

v. Storr,

L. E. 9 0. P. 400

B. 59; Walker

Bomney Marsh

v.

v.

Goe, 3

H.

Trinity House, L. E. 5

Digitized

v.

Williams,

Eatherine Docks

&

v.

Colchester v. Brooke,

N. 395

Ex.204

by Microsoft

Co.,

Heston Loc. Bd.,

4 Id. 350;

7 Id. 247.

IMPLIED REMEDIES.

.725

Thus, although shipowners were required, under

the repealed Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act,
1869, to provide pens and footholds for cattle on
board, no action lies against them under the Act

by the owners of cattle which are washed overboard, owing solely to the neglect to provide those
appliances

the Legislature, in providing or

for

authorising such regulations, did not contemplate

the protection of proprietary rights, but had in

view solely the sanitary purpose of preventing
the communication of infectious disease to cattle
in sea transit

(a).

So, although the parish surveyor of highways

subject to penalties under the

for

any neglect

Highway

is

Act, 1835,

of his duties regarding the main-

tenance of the parish roads, he does not thereby,

become

an action at the

liable to

who has

suit of a private

damage from their

non-repair, or from an obstruction to which the
surveyor was, personally, no party. The duties
thus imposed on him are duties to his parish, not
the Act having been passed, not
to the public
person

suffered special

new

to create a

liability either in

the parish or in

other persons, but to provide for the fulfilment of

the surveyor's duty to the parish

(a)

32 & 33 Vict.

discussed in Groves
(6)

Toung

McKinnon

v.

v.

c.

v.

70

The duty

(&).

Gorris v. Scott (1874), L. E. 9 Ex. 126,

Wimhorne (Lord), [1898] 2 Q.

Penson (1853),

Digitized

B., at p. 407.

& N. 760 2 H. & C 197

23 L. J. M. C. 97 Foreman v.

Bavig (1862), 7

by Microsoft

INTBKPEETATION OP STATUTES.

726

of keeping the roads in repair,

puhKc, lay on the parish

like a county, could not be

as

regards the

and though a parish,

sued civilly, as it was

not a corporate body, and could not be compelled

to appear in Court

ground

furnished no

their

above
an action (6) for

to

liable

officer

non-feasance merely, and not misfeasance

liabiKty of a local authority

logical

circum-

making, under the

for

stances,

this

(a),

The

(c).

not more exten-

is

sive (d).

And

must now be taken

it

as settled

law that a

transfer to a public corporation of the obligation

to repair does not of itself render such corpora-

feasance

(e).

E. 6 Q. B. 214

Canterbury, L.

Q. B. 487

mere non-

to an action in respect of

tion liable

Taylor

Q. B. 218

Gibson v. Preston, L. E. 5

Hindley Loc. Bd., L. E. 10 Q. B. 219

Greenhalgh, L. E. 9

v.

M.

v.

White

v.

Poole {Mayor), 19

Q. B. D. 602.

Men

(a) Bussell v.

of Devon, 1 E. E. 585.

Comp. Hartnall

Hyde Commissioners, 33 L. J. Q. B. 39.

Camp. Blaekmore
(6) Per Cur., 2 H. & G. 198.
Vestry, 9 Q.
(c)

{d)

Cowley

v.

v.

Greenhalgh, 1 Q. B. D. 36.

Newmarlcet

Municipal Council of Sydney

V.

Thompson

Loc.

v.

[1893] A. C. 524

Q. B. D. 462

332

v.

Bd.,

[1892]

C.

A.

Bourhe, [1895] A. C, 433

Moore

v.

Lambeth W. W.

Steel v. Dartford Loc. Bd.,

60 L.

J. Q. B.

256

Short v. Hammersmith Corp. (1911), 104 L. T. 70.

Digitized

354;
Pictou
Co.,

17

Brighton (Mayor), [1894] 1 Q. B.

Eolborn Bd. of Worhs, [1895] 1 Q. B. 64.

(e)

End

B. D. 451.

Pendlebury

V. Geldert,

Mile

v.

v.

by Microsoft

Saunders

REPEAL.

Where

a person

3 Edw. IV.

c.

(a),

727

imported cards contrary to

which provided that the cards

it was held that

so imported should be forfeited

he was not
to

whom

liable to

an action at the suit of one

the King had granted a license to import

cards, paying rent to the King,

and who alleged

that he was thereby disabled from paying his

rent

been intended

whom

did not seem to have

for the prohibition

for the benefit of the person to

But

the license was granted.

damage may have been considered

SECTION

III.

besides, the

too remote

(b).

REPEAL REVIVAL COMMENCEMENT.

Where an Act

and the repealing

repealed by another, which manifests
repealed,

is

enactment is
no intention that the first shall continue repealed,
the common law rule was that the repeal of the
second Act revived the first and revived it, too,
ab initio, and not merely from the passing of the
|

reviving Act(c).

But

this rule

does not apply

to repealing Acts passed since 1850.

(a)

Eepealed as to England,

(6)

EoU. Ab. Action sur case, M.

judgment
(c)

4 Inst. 325

Phillips V. Hopwood, 10 B.

496, per Best O.J.

Kemp

V.

S. L. E., 1863.

in Gouch, v. Steel, 3 B.

2 Inst. 686

&

Where an

& B.
;

0. 39

16,

p.

106,

cited in the

402.

Case of Bishops, 12 Eep. 7

;

Fuller v. Bedman, 29 L. J. Oh. 324

Waddingham

(1866), L. E. 1 Q. B., at p. 358.

Digitized

Tattle v. Grimuoood, 3 Bing.

by Microsoft

and see

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

728

or in part,- a former Act,

Act repealing, in whole

is

itself repealed, the last repeal does not

now

revive the Act or provisions before repealed, unless

words be added reviving them (a). It is doubtful

whether this rule applies to a repeal by implication (see sup. pp. 285-295) but it seems not to
;

Act was only modified by

the second, by the addition of conditions, and
the enactment which imposed these was, itself,
afterwards repealed (6).
Semble, in such a case,
the original enactment would revive.
Where an Act expired or was repealed, it was
apply where the

first

the absence of provision

formerly regarded, in

to the contrary, as having never existed, except

and transactions past and closed (c).

Where, therefore, a penal law was broken, the
offender could not be punished under it, if it
expired before he was convicted, although the
as to matters

& 53

(a)

52

(6)

Mount

Viet.

V.

c.

63,

11.

s.

See also Levi

Taylor, L. E. 3 C. P. 6^5.

Sanderson, L. E. i Q. B. 332

v.

Mirfin v. Attwood, L. E. 4 Q. B.

330.
(c)

For a discussion on

[1918]

W.

Tenterden, Surtees

Tindal C.J.
v.

V.

9 B.

Kay

v.

&

C. 752

rule, see
;

per Lord

Churchill v. Crease,

Goodwin, 6 Bing. 582, per

A.-G. v. Lamplugh (1878), 8 Ex. Div., at p. 217

Thorn, 10 L. J. Ex. 125

L. J. Ex. 338

Comp. B.

v. Ellison,

See also

5 Bing. 177.

Morgan

this proposition, see Bennett v. Tatton,

N. 291, and as to the general

Simpson

v.

Steavenson v. Oliver, 10

Beady, 11 M. &

W.

West Biding, 1 Q. B. D. 200.

Digitized

by Microsoft

346, per

Parke B.

729

REPEAL.

prosecution was begun while the Act was

in

force

while
after

it

it

was

committed against

offence

in force,

still

Thus 10

&

which made larceny above

23,

c.

it,

could not be tried

ceased to be in force.

Will. III.
shillings

An

(a).

still

11
five

a capital offence, having been repealed

on the 20th of July, 1820, by 1 Geo. IV. c. 117,

an offence against the earher Act committed on the
11th of July, could not be punished in the following

under the new Act, for it was not in

force when the theft was committed, nor under

September

the old one, for

the

it

was not in

In an action

trial (6).

force at the time of

for

than forty

less

defendant pleaded that the debt ought

shillings, the

have been sued for in a local Court of Bequests.

But the Act establishing that Court having been

to

repealed after the plea but before the

plea failed

Where an Act which

(c).

trial,

the

authorised

on a road was repealed, it was

doubted whether the rails could lawfully remain {d).
Where a plaintiff got a verdict for one shilling,

the laying of

(a) 1

M.

V.

rails

Hale, P. C. 291, 309

London

1456

Jus., 3 Burr.

Miller's Case, 1

W.

Bl. 451

Charrington v. Meatheringham,

& W. 228 B. v. Mawgan, 8 A. & E. 496 B. v. Denton,

21 L. J. M. C. 207 B. v. Swan, 4 Cox, 108 U.S. v. The Helen,

2 M.

6 Cranch, 203.
McKenzie, Euss.

(b)

B.

(c)

Warne

(d)

B.

V.

v.

&

E. 429.

Beresford, sup. p. 401.

V. Morris, 1

B.

&

Ad. 441.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.

730

in June, 1840,

and

tlie

judge did not grant a

him

under 43 Bliz.
c. 6, until the following month, by which time
that Act was repealed by 3 & 4 Vict.- c. 24 it
certificate to deprive

of costs

was held that the power of certifying could not

be exercised, in such a case, after the repeal,

and that the certificate was void (a). Sp, where

an action was brought and judgment recovered
in 1867, in a case where title was in question,
and the plaintiff would then have had his costs,
either by the presiding judge's certificate, under
13

&

14 Vict.

61,

c.

or

by a judge's

order, to

which he would have been entitled ex debito justitise

& 16 Vict. c. 54, but he obtained neither

under 15

until after the 1st of January,

of those Acts
c.

142 (which

c.

43)

1868,

when both

& 31
51 & 62

stood repealed by 30

Vict.

is itself repealed by
Vict.
was held that the powers under those
Acts had ceased to exist, and could not be
;

it

exercised in the plaintiff's favour

Under
(a)

earlier

Morgan

v.

friendly

(b).

Acts,

societies

Thorn (1841), 10 L.

J.

Ex. 125

claims

Butcher

v.

Henderson (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 335.

(6)

Butcher

from Hestall

Morgan

v.

v.

v.

Henderson (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 335, dissenting

London

&

S. W. By. Go., L. E. 3 Ex. 141, where

was not cited. See also Wood v. Biley,
26; Doe v. Holt, 21 L. J. Ex. 335; Levi v.

Thorn, sup.,

L. E. 3 C. P.

Sanderson (1869), 38 L. J. Q. B. 135 (explaining Butcher

Henderson^
22

Gamp. Doe

v.

Boe, 22 L. J. Ex, 17

Id. 175.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Hobson

v.

v.

Neale,

731

REPEAL.

against a society could be enforced only by suing

its officers.

The 25 & 26

Vict. c. 87 (a), repealing

those Acts, provided for the incorporation of the

and provided also that all legal proceedings then pending against an officer on account
of a society might be prosecuted by or against
societies,

name, without abatement. But the Act made no provision respecting

the recovery of claims which were then pending,
but which had not been sued for. It was held

the society in

its registered

that neither the officers

in its

new

(6),

nor the society

corporate capacity

in respect of such claims

(c),

itself,

could be sued

but that the individual

members of the society were liable to be sued for

them (d).
Now, under the provisions of s. 38 (2), Interpretation Act, 1889 (52

&

53 Vict.

c. 63),

any repeal

by that Act or any subsequent Act, unless the

contrary intention appears, does not
(a)

revive anything not in force, or existing

at

the time at which the repeal takes

effect; or
{b)

(o)

by 56

affect the previous operation of

Eepealed by 39

&

57 Vict.

c.

& 40

Vict.

c.

45,

which

is

any enact-

itself

33 L. J. Q. B. 66.

(6)

Toutill V. Douglas,

(c)

Linton v. Blakeney Go-op. Socy., 34 L. J. Ex. 211.

{d)

Dean

v.

repealed

39.

Mellurd (1863), 32 L. J. 0. P. 282, distinguished

in Queensland Industrial Society v. Pickles (1865), 35 L. J. Ex.

Digitized

by Microsoft

1.

INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.

732

ment

so repealed or anything duly done

or buffered under any enactment so re-

pealed; or
(c)

affect

any

privilege,

right,

obligation, or

acquired, accrued,

liability

or incurred

under any enactment so repealed (a)

any penalty,

(d) affect

ment incurred

forfeiture, or

or

punish-

any offence
committed against any enactment so repealed
(e)

(b)

in respect of

or

any investigation, legal proceeding,

or remedy in respect of any such right,

affect

privilege,

obligation,

liability,

penalty,

punishment as aforesaid

forfeiture, or

and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or

remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced,
and any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment
may be imposed, as if the repealing Act had not
been passed (c).
If a contract was illegal when it was entered
into, and the statute which made it so is afterwards repealed, the repeal will not give validity
to the contract, unless

it

appears that the repeal-

ing enactment was intended to have a retrospective

(a)

Lewis

(6)

See as to

[1918]
(c)

870.

v.

W. N.

Hughes, [1916] 1 K. B. 831, 0. A.

effect

See Gicynne

And

on Statutory Order, Bennett

v.

Tatton,

292.
v. Drewitt,

see Traill

v.

[1894] 2 Ch. 616

63 L. J. Oh.

McAllister (1890), 25 L. E. (Ir.) 524.

Digitized

by Microsoft

733

REPEAL.

operation, and thus to vary the relation of the

parties to each other (a).

An enactment that offenders should be prosecuted and punished for past offences, as if the
Act against which they had offended had not
been repealed, was held to create no fresh power
to punish, but only to preserve that which before
existed and not to authorise punishment after the
Act which created the offence had ceased to exist (J).
;

Sec. 11, Interpretation Act, 1889, declares that

when any Act passed

after

1850 repeals another

in whole or part, and substitutes

some provision

or provisions in lieu of the provision or provisions

repealed, the

latter

provision

substituted

remain in force until

the

come

into

or

provisions

operation by force of the last-made Act.

only declaratory of the

provision

is

rule

When

(c).

This

common law

the Interpretation Act, 1889, or

any Act passed after its commencement repeals

and re-enacts, with or without modification, any
provisions of a former Act, references in any other

Act to the provisions

so repealed are, unless the

contrary intention appears,

to be

construed as

references to the provisions so.re-enacted

(a)

653.
(6)

L. J.
(c)

(d)

Jaques

V. Withy, 1

Comp. HodgJcinson

The

M.

Irresistible,

H.

Bl. 65

(d).

Hitchcock v. Way, 45 B. E.

Wyatt, 13 L. J. Q. B. 54.

v.

7 Wheat. 551.

Gomp. B.

v.

Smith, 31

C. 105.

Per

Our., Butcher v. Henderson, L, E. 3 Q. B. 335.

52 & 53 Vict.

c.

63,

s.

Digitized

38

(1).

by Microsoft

INTEKPBETATION OF STATUTES.

734

temporary Act be continued by a subsequent one, or an expired Act be revived by a

If a

later one, all infringements of the provisions con-

tained in

it

are breaches of

renewing or reviving statute

Where

it

rather than of the

(a).

the provisions of one statute are, by

and the

reference, incorporated in another,

earlier

statute is afterwards repealed, the provisions so

incorporated obviously continue in force, so far

part of the second enactment

as they form

Thus,

when 32 & 33
provisions

certain

Vict. c. 27

as

enacted that

(c),

appeals

to

under the new Act, and 35

&

repealed the Act of G-eo. IV.,

those provisions remained in

they formed part

of

32

&

36

61, should

c.

respecting the grant of

effect

certificates
Vict.' c.

94,

was held that

it

full force,

33 Vict.

Quarter

to

Sessions comprised in the 9 Geo. IV..

have

(b).

c.

27

so far as

(d).

empowered two justices

of the county where a prisoner was detained in
custody, who had been acquitted of felony on
Sec. 54, 9 Geo. IV.

c.

40,

the ground of insanity, to determine his settle-

(a)

109

B.

V.

Morgan, 2 Stra. 1066

Dinghy

v.

Shipman

v. Henbest,

i T. E.

Moor, Cro. Eliz. 760.

8 A. & E. 405; B.

(6)

B.

(c)

Eepealed, 10 Bdw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.

V. Stoch,

v. Merionethshire,
c.

6 Q. B. 334.
24,

s.

112,

Sched. VII.
{d)

B.

V.

Smith (1873), L. E. 8 Q. B. 146.

Adcooh (1878), 47 L.

J.

M.

Digitized

0. 123.

by Microsoft

Comp. Bird

v.

735

OBSOLETE STATUTES.

ment, and to order his parish to pay such a sum

a

as

Secretary of

maintenance

State should direct, for his

and the Act contained

pro-

also

visions with reference to appeals from such orders.

Sec.

7,

& 4 Vict.

c.

54

much

section, repealed so

reciting the ahove

(a), after

of it as related to the

Secretary of State, and enacted that the justices

should order the payment of such sum as they
should, themselves, direct.

Act

of Geo.

Five years

the

later,

IV. was totally repealed.

It

was

held that the justices had authority to make the

&

4 Vict. (6), and that

perhaps even the right of appeal had been impliedly
order under the Act of 3

preserved (c).

law is not repealed by becoming obsolete (d).

Thus, trial by battle, with its oaths denying resort
to enchantment, sorcery, or witchcraft, by which

(a) Eepealed, 47
(&)
(c)

B.

V.

& 48

Vict. c. 64,

Per Blackburn

J., Id.

See

395.

10 Q. B. 579,
(d) White V. Boot, 2 T. E. 274
Thomas, McGl. & Y. 126,
3 T. E. 362

s.

17.

Stepney, L. E. 9 Q. B. 383.

B.

v.

Wells,

& A. 193
The reasoning

jper

JR. v.

Lewes Prison, L. E.

per Hullock B., Tyson

Lord Kenyon, Leigh

4 Dowl. 562

The India {No.

L. J. P. M.
650.

in this case is disapproved in

v.

v.

Kent,
2),

33

Purchas (1871), L. E. 3 P. C.

Eebbert

v.

Bead

v.

Bp.

of Lincoln, [1892] A. C. 644. Acts of the Scottish Parliament

may become repealed by " desuetude " Hoggan v. Wood,
;

[1889] 16

Eetfcie (Justiciary), 96.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

736

God might be

the law of

of the devil exalted

assize,

(a),

depressed and the law

introduced in the time of

practically superseded

in force in 1819

it for

The

(b).

by grand
Henry II., had

though the

trial

centuries,

was

stiU

writ of attaint against

was not abolished until

Until 1789, the sentence on women
1825(c).
for treason and husband-murder was burning
alive; though in practice ladies of distinction
were usually beheaded, while those of inferior

jurors for a false verdict

fire

reached

Drawing and quartering was

stiU part

were

rank

them

(d).

strangled

before

the

the sentence for treason until

of

1870.

UntU

was an indictable offence to sell corn

in the sheaf before it had been thrashed out and
measured (e)
an Irish Act (28 EHz. c. 2), against
witchcraft, was stiU in force in 1821 (/); and, as
late as 1836, insolvents in Scotland were bound to
wear a coat and cap half yellow and half brown (g).
So, at common law eavesdroppers, or such as
1844,

it

(a)

2 Hale, P. 0. 233

(6)

59 Geo.

B&

137

(c)

Aid. 405

3 Bl.

Comm.

337.

discussed in Cobbett

v.

19 E. E. 349

6 Geo. rV.

211

3 Inst. 197

(/) 1

c.

50,

s.

60.

Post. Or. L. 268.

& 2 Geo. rV.

& 8
c.

Vict. c. 24.

For the English Acts relating to

18.

Witchcraft, see p. 632, Supp. to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary.

{g)

Grey (1850), 19 L. J. Ex.

4 Ex. 729.

(d) 3 Inst.
(e)

til. c. 46. Ashford v. Thornton (1818),

6&1

Willi IV.

c.

56,

Digitized

s.

18.

by Microsoft

OBSOLETE STATUTES.
listen

737

under walls or windows or the eaves

of a

house, to hearken after discourse, and thereupon

to frame

tales,

are

and a common scold seems

conviction upon indictment) to

to fine (a)

still liable

subject (after

still

and mischievous

slanderous
;

be placed in a certain engine of correction called

the trebucket or cucking-stool, or ducking-stool,

when placed therein, to be plunged in water

her punishment (b).
To destroy any of the
King's victualling stores seems to be still a capital
and,

for

offence

It is

(c).

a temporal and indictable

still

offence to deny the being or providence of the

Almighty,

or,

the offender was educated

if

in,

or ever professed the Christian religion, to deny

its

or

the divine

(d).

An Act

truth,

Scriptures

which

imposes

persons

who

authority of the

of 1786| is

penalty

the

Hawk.

upon

slaughter horses or cattle without

a license, or at unlicensed hours

(a) 2

in force

still

flogging

of

Holy

c.

10,

c.

75,

58,

s.

4 Bl.

Suffragan

(e).

Comm. 169; Bum's

J,

Eavesdroppers.
(6)

Hawk.

Nuisance,
(c)

Sec. 1, 12

Act, 1772.

s.

14; 4 Bl.

Burn's

169;

J.

Geo. III.

c.

24,

Dockyards

&c. Protection

" So far as related to Scotland," this death penalty

was repealed by the

Statute

{d) 9 Will. III.

35,

c.

Grim. L., Vol.

Law

Eevision Act, 1892,

amended by 53 Geo.

regards the Holy Trinity.

(e)

Oomm.

s. 4.

III.

c.

160, as

See also Mr. Justice Stephen's Hist-

2, pp. 459, 488, 493.

Sec. 8, 26 Geo.

III.

c.

71,

the Knackers Act, 1786,

47

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INTEEPEETATIOK OF STATUTES.

738

bishops are

now appointed under 26 Hen. VIII.

Act had not been put into

force for four hundred years (a)
and at the present
day s. 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876,
has been so strained in its interpretation as to
include numerous articles obviously never within
14, although the

c.

the contemplation of the framers of the section.

But as usage
pp. 631

a good interpreter of law (see sup.

is

et seq.),

so non-usage lays an antiquated

any construction, weakening, or even

nullifying its effect (6).
And penal laws, if they
have been sleepers of long time, or if they be
grown unfit for present use, should be, by wise

Act open

to

judges, confined in the execution

Down

to the reign of

Henry

(c).

VII., the statutes

passed in a session were sent to the sheriff of

every county with a writ, requiring him to proclaim them throughout his bailiwick, and to see
to

their

Some Acts

observance.

Act of 1641,

for

(the Triennial

example) contained a section

that they should be read yearly at

and assizes. But proclamation, or any
other form of promulgation, was never necessary

requiring
sessions

repealed, as regards

London, by

Health (London) Aot, 1891, 54

c.

14,

&

62 Vict.

(b)
(c)

s.

142 and Sched. V. Public

55 Vict.

c.

76.

was extended by 51 & 52

26 Hen. VIII.

and explained by 61

(a)

&

c. 11.

See ex. gr. Leigh v. Kent (1789), 3

Lord Bacon, Essay on Judicature.

Digitized

T. E. 364.

by Microsoft

Vict.

c.

56,

COMMENCEMENT OP OPERATIONS.
to their operation

73&

Every one is bound to

take notice of that which is done in Parliament.
As soon as the Parhament has concluded anything, the law presumes that every person has
notice of it;

(a).

Parliament represents the

for the

body of the whole realm, and therefore it never

was requisite that any proclamation should be

made

the statute took effect before

statute takes

from the

effect

(b).

first

moment

day (c) on which it is passed, unless

another day be expressly named, in which case it
comes into operation immediately on the expira-

of

the

By

tion of the previous day (d).

a fiction of law,

the whole session was formerly supposed to be

held on

day

its

first ^day,

and every Act,

fixed for

the

if

and to last only that one

no other day was expressly

beginning of

its

operation,

took

(a) In Prance, a law took effect only from the date of

ComuUum had no
Livy, 39,

4.

force

till

its

In ancient Borne, a Senatua

insertion in the Bulletin des Lois.

deposited in the Temple of Saturn

See Suet. Aug. 94.

Edw.

(&)

Per Thorpe

(c)

In a case decided early in 1882, the Supreme Court of the

G.J. (39

III.), cited in

i Inst. 26.

United States took notice of the hour when an Act was passed,
for the purpose of determining
of

bonds issued by the town

later

it

on the same day

(d) Interpretation Act, 1889,

The bonds were

the Act prohibiting their issue

;

and the bonds were held

valid.

Digitized

affected the validity

of Louisville.

issued early on the 2nd of July

was passed

whether

s.

36

(2).

by Microsoft

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

740

by

effect,

It followed that

session.

day of the
a statute, passed on

from the

relation,

if

the last day of the session,

first

made

a previously

innocent act criminal or even capital

who

(a), all

had been doing it during the session, while it

was stiU innocent and inoffensive, were liable to
suffer the punishment prescribed by the statute (6).
But to abolish a fiction so flatly absurd and
13 enacted that the
Clerk of Parliaments should indorse on every Act,
immediately after his title, the date of its passing
unjust

33 Geo. III.

(c),

c.

and receiving the Eoyal assent (d). This indorsement is part of the Act, and is the date of its
commencement, when no other time is provided.
But where a particular day is named for its commencement, but the Eoyal assent is not given till
a later day, the Act would come into operation
only on the later day (e).
() See ex. gr. B.

&E.

Thurston, 1 Lev. 91

v.

B.

v. Bailey,

Euss.

1.

(6) 4 Inst.

25

1 Bl.

Oomm.

Banter, 6 Bro. P. 0. 486

the authorities

cited

in

70, note

by Christian; A.-G. v.
660 and

Latless v. Holmes, 4 T. E.

Plowd. 79a.

See The Brig Ann,

1 Gallison, 62.
(c) 1 Bl.

Comm., 70

n.

Id) Sup. pp. 72-77.

(e) Burn v. Garvalho (1834), 4 Nev. & M. 893.
See. 9,
Newspaper Libel and Eegistration Act, 1881, 44 & 45 Vict. c. 60,

required printers to
1881, yet

it

make

certain returns before the 31st of July,

was not passed

Digitized

till

the following 27th of August.

by Microsoft

COMMENCEMENT OF OPEEATIONS.

When

a Bill to continue an Act which

741
is

to

same session does not receive the

Royal assent until the Act has expired, the continuing Act takes effect from the date of the
expiration; except that it does not aflfect any
person with any punishment for any breach of the
Act between the expiration of the earlier and the
passing of the later Act (a).
Every statute passed since 1850 is a public Act
and judicially noticed, unless a contrary intention
expire in the

appears in the statute

(6).

(a) 48 Geo. III.

e.

106.

(6) Interpretation Act, 1889,

Digitized

by Microsoft

s. 9.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX
ABBOTS, PRIORS, AND OTHER PRELATES, meaning
ABJURATION OATH,

of,

601

construction of, 20
time for taking, 14

ABSENCE,
beyond the

seas, affidavit on behalf of one, 24

limitation of actions, effect on, 29

service, from,

summons on

meaning of, 176

absent party, 22

ABSOLUTA 8ENTENTIA EXPOSITOBE NON INDIOET,

application

of,

ABSURDITY,
construction to avoid, 4, 406, 446
presumption against, 356, 362-369

ABUSE OF POWERS,

construction to prevent, 226-284

ACCEPT, meaning of, 97

ACCESSORY, meaning of,

ACCOUNT,

477, 616

" on account of," meaning

ACKNOWLEDGMENT,

meaning

ACT OF GOD,
ACT OF PARLIAMENT,

of,

471, 491

of, 68, 69,

exception on account

of,

138

175

ancient times, in, form of, 452, 453

construction and interpretation of.

See Construction Inteeprbtation; Statute.

continued by Act passed after its expiration, effect of, 741
knowledge of, presumption of, 789
See Peivatb Act.
private.
See Public Act.
public.
repeal of. See Repeal.
See Title.
title of.
ti/rbi ei orbi, not addressed, 317

ACTING OR P RACTISING,

Digitized

apothecary, as, 474

by Microsoft

744

INDEX.

ACTION,
fit to be tried, what is, 171
limitations on statutory right of, 284, 708-710, 716
meaning of, 104, 108, 147, 240, 360, 411
new form of, effect of creation of, 240, 705
statute repealed during pendency of, effect of, 730
statutory duty, for breach of, 705

ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTE, provisions protecting,

ACTUAL MILITABT SEEVICE, meaning of, 127

412, 413

ACTUAL POSSESSION, meaning of, 63

ACTUALLY PRESENT, meaning of, 102
ADAPTATION,
ADDITION,

of

meaning

clerical omission,

when not

words to the subject, 109

of

supply

of, 25,

444

permissible, 25

ADDRESS, meaning of, 118

ADJACENT, meaning of, 124
ADJUDGED BANKRUPT, meaning
ADMINISTER,
drugs,

of,

389

meaning of, 473, 490

meaning of, 85

illegal oath,

ADMIRALTY, jurisdiction
ADULTERATION,
meaning of, 90, 186
mens rea in case of,

of court of, 33, 34, 62, 243, 278, 316, 401

58,

195

purchaser's predjudice, to, 491

unadulterated, selling as, 562

ADVANTAGE,
one's own wrong, of, avoidance of, 374
rule of law to one's, waiver of, 678

ADVOWSON,

meaning

of,

297, 298

AFFIDAVIT,
absent party, on behalf

of,

24

Bills of Sale Act, 1878, under, 15

meaning of, 136, 141, 604

AFFIRMATIVE STATUTE,
AGAINST, meaning

of,

later often invalidates earlier, 284, 285

444, 470

AGENT,
or other, meaning of, 586
principal, as representing, 134-140, 162, 471, 493, 494

AGGRIEVED PERSON,

meaning

Digitized

of, 13, 340,

by Microsoft

345, 854

745

INDEX.

AGREEMENT,
violation of statute, in, effect
writing, in, meaning of, 347

ALL, meaning

of,

of,

686-705

393

ALL CLAIMS WHATSOEVER, meaning of, 268, 278

ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, meaning of, 582
ALL OTHER, meaning of, 68, 585, 602
ALLOTMENT, meaning of, 169
ALL PERSONS, meaning of, 156, 292, 357
ALL PRACTICABLE SPEED, meaning of, 182
ALMS, meaning

ALMSHOUSE,

577

of,

meaning

of,

99 n.

ALTERATION,
erroneous expression in statute does not

effect,

544

presumption against, 149, 159, 160, 235-244

retrospective operation of, 381-405

AMBIGUITY,
construction in case

36-39, 356

of,

unambiguous language to be

strictly followed,

356

AMERICAN STATUTE,
jurisdiction, conferring, construction of, 552

revenue laws

in,

construction

AMOUNT, jurisdiction
ANALOGOUS ACTS,

of,

509

according to, 243

consideration in construing a statute

of,

542.

ANCIENT STATUTES,
AND, equivalent to
ANIMAL, meaning

or,

become

when, 421-424
417, 474 n.

of, 416,

ANNOYANCE, meaning of, 588

ANOMALY, construction so as to
ANY, meaning

ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY

'

of,

obsolete, treatment of, 735-738

avoid, 346

150, 417, 502

ACT OR THING WHATSOEVER, meaning

AGENT, meaning of, 161
COURT, meaning of, 150
DWELLING-HOUSE, ETC., meaning of, 598
JUDGMENT OR ORDER, meaning of, 165
JUSTICE, meaning

of,

Digitized

150

by Microsoft

of,

158

68,

INDEX.

746

ANY OFFICER, meaning of, 62

ANY OBDEE, meaning of, 80
ANY OTHER ARTICLE OR THING, meaning of, 596
ANY OTHER MANNER, meaning of, 146, 481
ANY PART OF A DRAMATIC WORK, meaning of, 350
ANY PERSON, meaning of, 62, 502
ANY PLACE, meaning of, 566, 594
ANY QUAY OR WHARF, meaning of, 502
ANY QUESTION ARISING, meaning of, 163
ANY RIGHT OP COMMON, meaning of, 578
ANY WILL, meaning of, 81
ANYTHING DONE, meaning of, 27
APOLOGY,

publication

of,

requisites to, 211

APOTHECARY, acting and practising as, meaning of,

APPARENT POSSESSION, meaning of, 121

474

APPEAL,
meaning

104, 165

of,

reasonable, 19
time for, bow fixed, 13
notice

of,

APPEARANCE,

meaning

APPOINT, meaning

of,

of,

370

409

APPREHENSION, meaning of, 420

ARBITRATION, enlargement of time

for,

ARISING,

164

question,

meaning

of, 163,

ARTICLE, meaning of, 558, 596

AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, meaning

ASSEMBLE, meaning of, 81

ASSIGNMENT, meaning of,
ASSIGNS, wbo

are, 686,

of,

construction

of,

366

213, 456

687

ASSOCIATED WORDS, construction of, 571-582

ASSURE, meaning of, 97
AT LEAST of time, meaning of, 607
AT THE KING'S PLEASURE, meaning of, 613, 614
AT THE OFFICE OF, meaning of, 419
AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, meaning of, 344

Digitized

by Microsoft

142

INDEX.

747

AT THE TRIAL, meaning of, 608

AUTHOR, consent of, what is, 135
AUTHORITY, vmder or in pursuance of, construction of, 412-415
AUTHORISED AND EMPOWERED, meaning of, 425
BAILIFF, proceedings against, 28
BAITING, meaning of, 473

BALLOT ACT^

1872, construction

of, 60,

636

BANKINa,
Acts, construction of, 294
operations, limitation of, 212, 213

BANKRUPTCY,
adjudged bankruptcy, meaning

of,

389

discharge in, effect of, 19, 32

offence under Debtors' Act, 1869, meaning
seizure of goods under elegit, power of, 31
warrant of attorney in case of, 34, 35

BANKRUPTCY

of,

421

ACTS,

bankrupt's rights and powers imder, 349, 411, 412, 567, 568, 570,

576
construction

of, generally, 541,

576

powers under, 227

Crown, not binding on, 249
evasion of, 223
creditors'

jurisdiction under, 258,'_267, 270

BARRATRY, meaning
BASTARDY,

of,

196, 200

Acts, construction of, 259, 275

summons, issue and service of, 17, 22

BEDDING, meaning of,

180

BEERHOUSE, meaning of, 107 n.

BEGGAR, meaning of, 96
BEGINNING TO DEMOLISH, meaning of,
BEING MARRIED, meaning of, 557
BELIEF,

erroneous, effect

of,

497

178

BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY, meaning

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION,

of,

133

limitations on, 131, 132, 138, 139, 147, 501-503

preference to be given to, 123-147

BENEFIT,

rale or law for individual, waiver of, 678-687

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

.748

BETTING,

legality of, 692

BEYOND THE
BICYCLE,
BIGAMY,

SEAS, meaning

Acts against, construction

mens rea in case of, 178

BILL,

of, 29, 30,

409

as a carriage, 71, 481

of,

257

PAELIAMENTAEY,

continuing an Act which expires before passing of

engrossment of, 75
originally a mere petition to the King, 72

741

it,

BILLS OP EXCHANGE ACT, 1882, construction of, 25, 48

BILLS OP SALE ACTS, construction of, 15, 31, 135, 168, 173,

197,

198, 210, 212, 225, 316, 379, 886, 667

BOATS AND VESSELS, meaning of, 587

BODY AND GOODS, forfeiture of, 613
BOHEA TEA, meaning of, 107
BOILEE, meaning

of,

131 n.

BONA FIDE,
'

acts so done, contrary to statute, effect of, 178, 346, 415

statutory discretion or power, necessary to exercise of, 227, 359,
413.
See also Mens Bba.

BONAM PARTEM,

IN, construction

in,

553-556

BOND OE OTHEE SPECIALITY, meaning of,

BOOK, meaning of, 131 n.
BOOTH, not a house or other

583

tenement, 591

BOEEOW,
borrow, owe, or take up money, meaning
power to, 522, 626 n., 655

of,

213

BEEAKAGE, LEAKAGE AND DAMAGE, meaning of

BEEAKING,
burglarious, what is, 487
prison, meaning of, 176

BEIDGE, meaning of, 98, 130

BEITISH SHIPS, meaning of,
BEOKEE, meaning of, 64

158

BEOUGHT BEPOEE THEM, meaning

of,

420, 421

BUILDING,
erection

meaning

of,

powers as to,

57,

113

of, 57, 112, 113, 127,

Digitized

558, 591

by Microsoft

367

INDEX.

749

BURDENS, ACT IMPOSING,

American revenue laws, construction of, 509
construction of, generally, 501-515
costs, with reference to, 510
forms and solemnities in contract, with reference
Imutation of actions, with reference
taxation, with reference to, 504-508

BURGLAEY,

to,

to,

510-515

503

interpretation of the term, 487

BUSINESS,
carrying on, meaning

meaning

of,

of,

580

584

BY-LAW,
local authority, of, construction of, 185, 523-530
partly good and partly bad, validity of, 523-524, 526, 704
penalty for infringement of, power to annex, 624, 625
statutory, construction of, 523-527

BY VIETUE

OF, meaning

of,

412, 413

CAPITAL OFFENCE, what is, 737

CAKBIAGE, meaning of, 71, 481
CAEEIEE, liability pf, 23
CAEEY ON BUSINESS, meaning of,

118, 580

CASE,
(instance), meaning of, 358-360
(receptacle), meaning of, 127, 579

CASH

IN, meaning

of,

129

CAST AWAY OE DESTEOY, meaning of, 581

CASUS OMISSUS, not within canons of interpretation,
CATTLE, meanmg

of,

29

602

CAUSE TO ATTEND SCHOOL, meaning of,

CEASED TO EESlfiE, meaning of, 259
CERTIOEAEI, removal

of conviction to

371

High Court

CES8ANTE BATIONE CESSAT LEX,

by, 18

appHcation

of, 81,

CHAMBEES, when a " house," 71

CHANGE OF LANGUAGE, as change of intention, 66,
CHAEGEABLE TO THE PAEISH, meaning of, 67 ^
CHAEGES,
retrospective, when authorised, 365
statutes imposing, how construed, 503-510, 588

Digitized

by Microsoft

565

82

750

INDEX.

CHARITABLE PUBPOSES, meaning of, 544

CHAEITABLE TRUST, meaning of, 448
CHARITABLE USES ACT, 1735, oonstniotion

of,

52,

214-216,

325, 384

CHARTER PARTY,
breach of, jurisdiction as
construction of, 41
stamp on, 507

to,

83

CHATTEL,
meaning

of, 145,

471

meaning

of, 173
valuable security, or, meaning

personal,

of,

471

CHILDREN, meaning of, 106, 486

CIRCULARS, OR OTHERWISE, meaning

of,

593

CLAIM,
compensation,

for,

meaning

right, of, justification of,

of,

345

178

CLEAR DAYS, meaning of, 607

CLEAR YEARLY VALUE, meaning

of,

70

CLERICAL ERROR, emendation of, 446

CLERK OF PARLIAMENTS, indorsation
COAL, meaning

on Act by, 740

473

of,

CODIFYINa ACT,

construction

of,

47

COIN, payment

in,

COKE

rules for interpretation of, 89, 485

(LORD),

meaning

of,

201

COMMENCEMENT OP ACT OP PARLIAMENT, when,

COMMITTEE, proceeding before, reference to, 5158
COMMON, right of, meaning of, 578
COMMON LAW, statute re-enacting, effect of, 8
COMMON LODGINa-HOUSE, meaning of, 132
COMMUNIS EBROB FACIT JUS, application of, 585
COMPANIES ACTS, construction of, 48, 59
COMPANY,
created for special purpose, powers
dwelling-place of, 118-120
incorporated by Act of Parliament,

member

meaning

of,

654

meaning

of,

180
powers and duties impliedly conferred on, 626
public, what is, 147
of,

of,

Digitized

by Microsoft

107

739, 740

751

INDEX.

COMPENSATION,
Parliamentary powers, under, 172
penalty as, 717

COMPETENT TO DISPOSE, meaning of,

COMPULSOEY POWERS. See Powers.
COMPUTATION OP TIME,

97

generally, 604
special oases, in, 11, 12, 344, 659-663, 680
See also Time.

CONDITION,
meaning

of,

140

statutory duty imposed under, effect

CONDUCT,

647, 648

of,

estoppel by, from statutory benefit, 685

CONFERRING RIGHTS,
273-279

statute,

how

far

affecting

foreigners,

CONFISCATION, presumption against,

CONFLICT. See Ebphgnancy.

CONJECTURAL CONSTRUCTION,

501

admissibility of 21, 35
,

CONJUNCTION, substitution of, 421-424

CONSENT, JURISDICTION BY, power

CONSEQUENCES

of construction,

how

to give, 683, 684

far to

be considered,

6, 35,

148, 294, 615

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS, effect of,

CONSOLIDATION ACT, construction of, 48, 109
CONSTRUCTION,

296-313

absurd, avoidance of, 356-369

abuse of powers, to prevent, 226-234
all terms of statute to be regarded, 33, 40, 54
alteration of law, how far presumed, 148-177
beneficial, adoption of, 123-147, 504

burdens imposed, where, 501-530

conflicting provisions, in case of, 142, 143

consequences not contemplated, effect of, 6, 33, 34, 294

when to be considered, 35, 148-205, 615
contemporaneous circumstances, by reference to, 43, 45, 46, 50,
51, 531
criminal statute, of, 462-501
Crown, as affecting, 244-254
earlier statute, by reference to, 61, 62
equitable, when allowable, 447-461
equivocation, causing, effect of, 36, 37
evasion, to prevent, 206-226
extension of meaning, when allowable, 83, 123, 144, 145

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

752

CONSTBUCTION con^irewed.
external oiroumstanoes, reference to, 47, 53
grammatioal, modification of, 36, 406
imperative or directory statute, of, 647-673
implication, by, 615-646
impossibility, not to create, 673-678
in hona/m partem, 553-555
in favorem vitce, 462, 466
inconvenience to be avoided, 839-356
intention of legislature, according to, 36, 406-447, 484
interference with obligations to be avoided, 369-381
limited, when, 197-205
literal, when not followed, 36, 37
when to be followed, 36, 38
omission, power to supply, 443-446
oversight in statute, effect of, 33
penal law, of, 462-501
preamble, by reference to, 77-92
reasonable, to be, 339-356
rights encroached upon, where, 501-530
statute, imposed by, effect of, 541-552
strict, in general to be followed, 94
tautological expressions, of, 556
technical language, of, 34
title of Act as modifying, 74, 75
unjust, to be avoided, 356-369
unreasonableness to be avoided, 339-356
usage, by reference to, 531-541
variation of language, in case of, 564-571
whole, as a, 33, 40, 54
.

conteMpobanea expositio
TISSIMA IN LEGE,

jest

optima et fob-

application of, 531

CONTEXT,
earlier Act, reference to, 61, 64, 542,

examination

of, 35,

544

54-65

expired and repealed Acts, reference to, 66

in pari materia, Acts not, reference to, 70, 544
later Act, construction of, use of, 64
rules and orders, use of, 65
similar Acts, reference to, 68

CONTINUING ACT,

taking effect

of,

741

CONTEACT,
forms and solemnities, Act imposing, construction of, 510, 653655, 695
illegal acts, connected with, avoidance of, 688-705, 732
interference with, to be avoided, 369-381, 685
repeal of statute making illegal, effect of, 732
void by statute, effect of, 380, 881, 685-705

Digitized

by Microsoft

753

INDEX.

CONTRAEY TO NATUBAL EQUITY, STATUTE, effect of, 459

CONTEAVENTION OF STATUTE, right of action, how affected
by, 688, 698, 701, 705-727

CONTKOL,
possession or control, meaning

proper control, meaning

of,

371

342

of,

CONVENIENCE,
presvunption in favour of, 339-356
statute commanding matters of public, construction

CONVEYING, meaning

of,

706

581

of,

CONVICTION,
eyidence, as, 30
felony, of,

meaning

of,

396

CO-PAKTNEESHIP, meaning of, 114

COPYING, meaning of, 481, 491, 617 n.
CORN, GRASS, OR OTHER PRODUCT, meanmg
CORPORATION,
affidavit by,

how made,

of,

587

141

certain purposes, for, acts of, 523, 654

corporate building, meaning of, 127

examination of debtor who

meaning

is,

24

617, 619, 620, 654

person, as a, 110, 156, 573
powers of, construction of, 523, 619, 654
recognisance on appeal by, 143
residence of, 115, 119
of,

COSTS,
Crown, against, 249, 252
executor, against, 403
if

thought

fit,

meaning

of,

232

in discretion of Court, meaning

may

of,

151, 289

meaning of, 428

not exceeding and less than 5,
give,

403, 410
private Act, of obtaining, to whom payable, 620
repealed statute, under, where action pending, 730
solicitor's action for, 402
statute allowing, construction of, 45, 510

COUNTERFEIT

COIN, meaning

COUNTY, meaning

of,

of,

485

604

COUNTY COUNCIL, statutory powers of, 623

COUNTY COURT, admiralty jurisdiction of, 33,
COUNTY, RIDING, DIVISION, meaning

of,

243

586

48

LS.
Digitized

by Microsoft

754

INDEX.

COUET,
discretion of, meaning of, 151
jurisdiction of, statutory provisions as to, 45, 235-244

open, what

is,

15

COUET OF EECOED,
COWS, meaning

meaning

of,

614

572

of,

CEAFT (WHEEEY

OE), meaning

of,

587

GEEDIT, obtaining, meaning of, 196, 197

CEEDITOE, meaning of, 113, 158, 357, 418

CEIMINAL CAUSE OE MATTEE,

CEIMINAL STATUTE,

meaning

of,

134 n.

construction of, 176, 261-263, 462-501

waiver of, 684

CEOWN,
exclusion
inclusion

of,

implied, 244-254, 549

of,

when, 251-253

officers of, position of, 253,

penalty generally payable

254

to,

CVI JUmSDICTIO DATA EST, EA QUOQUE CONCESSA

ESSE VIDENTUB, SINE QUIBV8 JVBI8DICTI0
EXPLICABI NON POTVIT, application of, 623, 624
CUILIBET LICET BENUNTIABE JUBI PBO SE INTBODUCTO, application of, 678-687
CUMULATIVE PENALTIES, when given, 351-356
CUMULATIVE EEMEDIES, provision for, 711
CUSTOM,
effect of,

how

531-541

far affected

by

statute, 315,

320-323

CUSTOMS ACTS,
commodities mentioned in, how construed, 107
construction of, 480, 503-509
evasion of, to be avoided, 508
prohibited goods, landing of, 480
United States, in, construction of, 509

CUTTING,
DAILY,

indictment

for,

466

includes Sunday, 611

DAMAGE,
collision, by, meaning of, 113
making good, meaning of, 174, 175
meaning of, 63

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

DANGEROUS ARTICLES,
DATE,
DAY,

755

conveyance

of,

182

as part of Act, 77, 739, 740

clear, not less than, at least, 60.7

lawful, presumption in favour of, 152, 153

DEATH,
order made by deceased magistrate, discharge
penalty of, infliction of, 736, 737

DEBENTURE,

26

statutory provisions as to, 61, 579

DEBT, meaning of,

DECLARATORY
DEFAULT,
DEFECT,

of,

89, 100, 101,

ACT,

wilful,

476

restrospeotive operation

meaning

of, 64,

of,

394, 3^5

199

intended to be remedied, ascertainment of, 43

presumption of contemporaneous existence of, 46

DEFENDANT, as successful party, costs to, 249

DEFINITE AND CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STOCK,

meaning

508, 509

DELIVERY,
delivery or transfer, meaning
of&oe, at the, meaning of, 419
gift,

of,

576

DEMOLISH, meaning of, 497

DEPENDING, meaning of, 101
DEPOSIT RECEIPT, stamp duty in respect of, 506"
DESERTION, meaning of, 177
DESUETUDE, Soots Acts repealed by, 735 n.
DETENTION, in charter party, meaning of, 41
DIRECTLY, OR INDIRECTLY, meaning of, 495
DIRECTORY, enactments imperative or, effect of, 647-673
DISCLAIM, meaning of, 203, 389
DISCLOSED, meaning of, 364
DISCRETION,
court, of,

meaning

of,

n.

151

judicial, provision for, 228, 232, 358, 434, 439,

meaning

of,

441-443

228, 232, 434

DISPENSATION, with performance, when permissible,

DISPUTE, meaning of, 163, 242
DISTANCE, measurement of, construction of, 612

Digitized

by Microsoft

673-687

of,

756

INDEX.

DISTRESS, meaning

DOCKETING,

162

of, 151,

abolition of, 29

DOCUMENT, meaning of, 472

DOMESTIC ANIMAL, meaning
DOMICIL, foreign, exclusion
DONE, meaning of, 184

DOWER

ACT,

DRAFTSMAN,

of,

of,

474 n.

268, 275

1833, construction of 52, 55

errors of, correction of, 38, 49, 149, 407, 447

DRIVER, meaning

DRUNKENNESS.
DUEINa, meaning
DUTY,

of,

496

See
of,

Mens Eba.

392, 411

Acts imposing, how construed, 501-515

implied, when, 623-646
power coupled with, 424-443
prescriptions affecting performance of a, distinguished from those
relating to a privilege or power, 648-673

DWELLING, meanmg'of, 119, 579

DWELLS OR CARRIES ON BUSINESS, meaning
DYING WITHOUT ISSUE, meaning of, 559

EA QVM FEEQVENTIUS AOCIDUNT,

view

to,

laws

571-608

candidate's pow.ers at, 21

EMBEZZLEMENT, meaning of, 472, 491

EMPLOYED, meaning of, 493
EMPLOYMENT, in or about a shop, meaning of,
EMPOWERED, meaning of, 425
ENABLING statutes, when compulsory, 424-443
ENCLOSURE ACTS, construction of, 59, 546
ENCOURAGING,

meaning

of,

125

489

ENDEAVOURING TO PROCURE, meaning of, 495

ENGLAND OR ELSEWHERE, meaning of, 267

Digitized

by Microsoft

580

made with a

368

EARLIER ACT, reference to, 61

EASEMENT, meaning of, 55, 128 n.
EJUSDEM GENERIS, words and expressions,
ELECTION,

of,

INDEX.

757

ENGLISH SUBJECTS ABEOAD, application of statute to,

ENaEOSSMENT of Bill in Parliament, 75, 76, 738, 739
ENLAEGEMENT OP TIME, for award, meaning of, 142
ENTEEING OE BEING, meaning of, 563
ENTEETAINMENT, meaning of, 574

256 n.

EQUITY,
equitable construction of statute, 447-461
statute contrary to, effect of, 459-461

within the, meaning

of,

450, 458, 459

EQUIVALENT TO VEEDICT OF A JUEY,

EQUIVOCATION, words or phrases,
EEEONEOUS BELIEF, how ;far

of, effect of,

meaning

of,

201

36-39

to be considered in statutory

offence, 181

EEEOE, law, or fact, of, in statute, effect of, 544-547

ESTOPPEL, from benefit of enactment, 678-685
EVASION,
construction to prevent, 206-226, 350, 508
evade, meaning of, 206, 218-225
sometimes allowed, 225, 340

EVEEY,
etc., meaning of, 157, 163
building, meaning of, 558
person, inhabitant, etc., meaning of, 121, 154, 321, 361

conveyance, matter,

new

EVIDENCE,
fresh, meaning of, 152
satisfactory, meaning of, 157

truly given,

meaning

of,

415

EXCEPTION, or saving clause, construction of, 281

EXCESS OF JUEISDICTION, presumption against,

EXCLUSION,

EXECUTION OF OFFICE,
EXEMPTION,

255

of class of persons, construction of, 168

meaning

of,

164, 165

statute granting, construction

of,

507, 508, 515-517

EXPIEED ACT,
in pari materid, consideration
operation of, 727-738

of, 47, 65,

66

EXPOSED FOE SALE, meaning of, 474

EXPBESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTEBIUS,
tion

of,

548, 573

Digitized

by Microsoft

applica-

758

INDEX.

EXPBESSUM FACIT CESSABE

T^CITtrjlf, application of 635

,

EXTEENAL CIECUMSTANCES, consideration of, 40-47

EXTRA TEBSITOBIUM JUS DICENTI IMPUNE NON
PABETUB, application of, 255
EXTEAOTINa SPIEITS, meaning of, 185
EXTEADITION,

construction of Acts relating to, 44, 45, 407, 420

FAIE PBICE, meaning of,

129

FALSE PEETENCES, meaning of, 492, 493

FALSE SIGNALS, obstruction by making, 489
FANCY BEEAD, meaning of, 481
FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS, construction of, 261,
FEE SIMPLE, meaning of, 105, 169-171
FEMININE, included in masculine, 604
FINAL JUDGMENT, meaning of, 97 n., 477

275, 316

FINE,
imposition by implication

meaning

of,

of,

706

614

FINE AETS COPYEIGHT ACT,

1862, construction

of,

60

FIT,
think, meaning of, 424, 439-441
to be tried, meaning of, 171

FIXTUEES, meaning of, 173

FOOD, adulteration of, meaning

of, 58,

186

FOE OE IN NAME OF, meaning of, 471, 491,

FOE SAFE CUSTODY, meaning of, 472
FOEEIGN ATTACHMENT, appUoation of provisions for, 65
FOEEIGN ENLISTMENT ACTS, construction of, 44, 494
FOEEIGNEE,

statute

how

far applicable to, 110, 111, 263-279, 407,

408

FOEPEITUEE, judgment of, meaning of, 613,

FOEGED INSTEUMENT, meaning of, 146
FOEM, STATUTOEY,
interpretation
interpretation

observance

of.

by reference

to,

614

65

510
See Formalities.

of, 66,

FOEMALITIES,

statutory, observance of, 14-16, 162, 163, 272, 273,

645, 646, 695, 696

Digitized

by Microsoft

75&

INDEX.

FORMED, partnership, meaning of, 103

FORTHWITH, meaning of, 608
FOUR, THREE, OR TWO HOUSEHOLDERS,

meaning

of,

521

522

FRACTION OP A DAY,

FRAME RENT,

deduction

notice
for,

of,

FRAUD, meaning of, 195

FREQUENTING, meaning of, 474
FRESH EVIDENCE, meaning of,
FROM,
loss of

609

construction

of,

587

152

notice as from, 482

generally, 606
thenceforth, meaning of, 389
life,

meaning

of,

FRUSTRATE,
FURIOUS,

void and of none

riding or driving,

effect,

what

is,

meaning

of,

372

496

GAME,
qualification for killing, 20
taking, meaning of, 490, 492

unlawful pursuit

GAMING,

GAS, meaning

GENDER,

of,

what

suffering to go On,
of,

is,

420

meaning

of,

489

107

masculine includes feminine, 604

GENERAL ACT, construction of, 313-829

GENERAL ALTERATIONS, presumption against, 149
GENERAL RULES, consideration of, 65, 315, 510
GENERAL WORDS, interpretation of, 38, 56, 109, 149,

315, 464,

583-603

QENEBALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEBOGANT,

of,

application

301, 313-329

GENEBI FEB SPECIEM BEBOOATUB,

a,-piilioa.tion oi,

588

GENERIC WORDS, following more specific, effect of, 583-603

GENUS, statute dealing with, application of, 145, 301, 314-329
GIFT, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER, meaning of, 576
GIN, meaning

of,

107 n.

GIVEN,
notice, sufficiency of, 54
ordered to be, application of, 495

relief

Digitized

by Microsoft

760

INDEX.

GOOD CHARACTER, meaning of,

GOOD FAITH,

475

act done in, contrary to statute, effect of, 178, 415

statutory discretion or power, in case of, 227, 359, 413

GOODS, meaning of,

GRAIN, meaning of,

GRAMMAR,
GROSS,

70, 112, 127, 145, 198, 575,

589

107 n.

construction according to, 3, 36, 95, 406

common, 578

rights in, in relation to rights of

GUILTY MIND.

See

Mens Rba.

GUN, USING, what is,

GUNPOWDE R,

492

carriage

by railway

of,

HACKNEY CARRIAGE, meaning of,

HALF A YEAR, meaning of, 604
HARDSHIP,

182

566

not to influence interpretation,

7,

10,

11,

356-369,

395-401

HAVING,
or conveying, meaning of, 581
or keeping, meaning of, 581

HEADING,

of section, importance

of,

92

HEARD AND FINALLY DETERMINED, meaning

HELD,

of a house,

meaning

HEREDITAMENT,
HIGHWAY,

of,

meaning

563

of,

591

cattle on, provision as to, 67

passing upon, meaning of, 125

HIMSELF, meaning

of, 139,

HISTORY, of statute, to
HOG, meaning of, 467

140

be considered, 38-47

HORSE, meaning of, 467, 571,

HOSPITAL, meanmg of, 99
HOUSE,

572

chambers as a, 71
inhabited, meaning of, 71, 597
place, as a, 574, 597
unlicensed theatre, as a, 591

HOVERING

ACTS,

reference to, 272 n.

Digitized

by Microsoft

of,

237

761

INDEX.
IDIOT,

IF

non-responsibility

THEY THINK

IGNOEANCE, of
ILLEGALITY,

of,

177

FIT, meaning

of,

424, 425, 439-441

iUegality, effect of, 181, 739

covenant lawful at the time,

effect of, 686

illegal acts contracted for, effect of, 688-705

IMMEDIATELY,

IMMOEAL

meaning

of,

608

ACT, meaning

of,

489

IMMUNITY, how far implied, 648

IMPAIRING OBLIGATIONS, construction

to

avoid,

369-381,

685-687

IMPEEATIVE STATUTES,
IMPLIED DUTIES,

construction

of,

647-673

duty imposed by statute, where, 236, 636, 637

jurisdiction, la connection with execution of, 236, 240, 623, 638,
646

644-646

justices, of, 236, 239, 241, 603, 624, 639, 641,

privileges or powers conceded, where, 633-636

IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED

ENACTMENTS,

deemed mcidental

JUEISDICTION, when

to statute, 615-623

granted, 236-244, 623-646

POWEES, deemed to be granted, 623-646

EEMEDIES, where new obligation created,
EEPEAL,

705-727

operative, when, 281-296, 728, 731, 732

penal statute, in, 329-338
repugnant enactment, in case of, 281, 283, 295

IMPOSING BUEDENS,
IMPOSSIBILITY,

statute,

how

construed, 501-510

of performance, construction in case

IMPRISONMENT,

meaning

of,

IMPEOPEE NAVIGATION, meamng of, 124

IN ANY OTHEE MANNEE, meanmg of, 146
IN BONAM PABTEM, construction of words,
INCAPACITATED PEESON,
IN CASH, meaning of, 129
IN DISPUTE, meaning of, 163
IN FAULT, meaning of, 65
VITJE,

construction, 462, 466

Digitized

673-678

553-555

presumption against inclusion

153, 156, 166, 177

IN FAVOREM

of,

614

by Microsoft

of,

762

INDEX.

INFBAUDSM LEGIS FACIT, QUI SALVIS VERBIS

SENTENTIAM EJUS CIBCUMVENIT,

LEGIS,

application

of,

208

IN GOOD FAITH. See Bon! Fide.

IN OE ABOUT A SHOP, meaning of,

IN PARI MATERIA,

125

construction of statute which

is,

62, 458,

571

IN RESPECT OF, meaning of, 556 n.

IN SERVICE, SOLDIER, meaning of,
IN WRITING, meaning

INCIDENTS,

127

347

of,

necessary, inclusion in statute

INCLOSURE ACTS,
INCOME, meaning
INCONSISTENCY,

of,

construction

of, 546,

of,

621, 626

627 n.

505, 579

construction

to

avoid, 4,

280-284.

See also

EBPUGNANCy.

INCONVENIENCE,
modification of language to avoid, 406
presumption against construction producing, 339-356, 665

INCORPORATION,
of Parliament, by, meaning of, 107
body, of a, by implication, 617, 619
general Act, of, into special one, 315, 320, 323, 330
statute on one subject, by, of provisions of another, 314, 320

Act

INCORRECT WEIGHT, UabiUty in respect

INDEFEASIBLE, meaning of, 16
INDICTMENT,
information not included

meaning

of,

of,

196

27

in,

generally, 569

INDIRECTLY, meaning

INDORSEMENT,

of,

meaning

495
of,

138, 189

INELIGIBILITY,

of officer, construction of, 152

INFANT,

of, 153,

capacity

INFERIOR COURT,

156, 166

statute giving jurisdiction to, 235-244

INFORMATION,
indictment not included

meaning

of,

in,

27

generally, 251, 568 n.

INHABITANT, meaning

of,

114^117, 121, 122, 246

INHABITED DWELLING-HOUSE,

Digitized

meaning

by Microsoft

of,

116

763

INDEX.

INJUEIOUSLY AFFECTED,

meaning

of,

171, 172 n.

INJUSTICE,
construction involving, effect of, 7, 16, 19, 356-369
modification of language to avoid, 406
presumption against, 356-362, 366-369

INSPECT, meaning

of,

617

INSTANTLY, meaning of, 608

INSTITUTED, meaning of, 101

102 n.

n.,

INSTRUMENT,
gaming,

of, meaning of, 588

salmon catching, for, meaning

INSTRUMENTS,

of,

589

statute regulating, construction

510-515

of,

INTENTION,
change or variation of language, in case of, 564-571
consequences not intended, exclusion of, 9, 10, 148
expression of, importance of, 2, 10
legislature, of, to be followed, 36, 48, 49, 93, 110, 123, 152, 164,
165, 484, 571
modification of language to meet, 148, 406-447
none expressed, interpretation where, 2, 13, 25

words going beyond, how to be treated,

7, 9,

INTENTS TO ALL, meaning of, 582

INTERESTED IN A CONTRACT, meanmg
INTERESTS,

10, 20,

of,

148

496

as distinguished from rights, 556 n.

INTERMEDDLE, meaning of, 236

INTERNATIONAL LAW, presumption

against violation

of,

273, 407

INTERPLEADER

ACT, held not

to bind the

Crown, 250

INTERPOLATION,
penal Act, in case of, 482
words, of, how far permissible, 406, 409, 410, 443

INTERPRETATION,
of, 571-582
ejusdem generis, 583-603
fundamental rule of, 1, 4, 11
general words, of, 38, 56, 583-603
in bonam pa/rtem, 553-555

associated words,

incidental matters, of, 3

making law as distinguished from, 11

natural and ordinary sense primarily to be taken,
object

of, 1,

1,

3-8, 13

11

See Construction Statute.

statute, of.
words of statute, of, generally. See Words.
imposed by statute, effect
;

Digitized

by Microsoft

of,

542

262-

INDEX.

764,

INTEEPEETATION ACT,
See 52

& 53

Vict.

o.

1889.

63 in the Table of Statutes.

INTOXICATING LIQUOR,
IS

sale of, 23

WITHIN THE LIMITS,

ISSUE, meaning

of,

ISSUE, WITHOUT, meaning

IT

meaning

of,

563

97

SHALL BE LAWFUL,

JEWISH DISABILITY,

of,

559

construction

construction

JOINT PENALTY, infliction

JUDGE, meaning of, 308

of^

of,

of, 20,

429-435, 443 n.

552

352-355

JUDGMENT,
final,
life

meaning

97 n.
613
meaning of, 165
of,

or member,

order, or,

of,

JUDICATURE ACT,

1875, oonstruotioii

JUDICIAL DUTIES, statute

JUDICIAL POWERS,
Act giving,

of, 49,

289, 319

giving, construction of, 638

effect of, 437-443,

623-646

prejudicially affecting person or property, exercise of, 358, 638.

See

aho Jurisdiction.

JURISDICTION,
alteration of, effect of, 235-244
condition, precedent to, observance of, 673-687j

consent cannot give, 683

creation of new, construction in case of, 240-244, 517-522
established, presumption against interference with, 235-240
excess of, presumption against intention towards, 255-262
impliedly conferred, when, 623-646
taken away, when, 237-240
Judgments Extension Act, 1868, under, 618
legislative, extent of, 255
statute conferring, construction of, 307, 318, 515-530, 623-646

JUST AND CONVENIENT, meaning of, 151

JUST AND EQUITABLE, meaning of, 592
JUSTICE. See Injustice.
JUSTICES,
any or the nearest, meaning

of,

150

inquiry into indictable offences by, 603

statute empowering, construction of, 236, 239, 241, 603, 624, 639,
641, 644-646

two or more, meaning

of,

Digitized

645

by Microsoft

765

INDEX.

KEEPING OUT OF THE WAY,

of debtor,

meaning

of 133
,

KING'S PLEASUEE, punishment, at, meaning of, 614

KING'S PEINTER, record of statutes printed by, 76

KNOWLEDGE,
See Mens Eba.
knowingly, interpretation of, 197, 490, 565, 598
servant's, as that of master, 137
statutory provisions, of, presumption of, 739
guilty.

LABOUE, meaning of, 584

LABOUREE, meaning of, 584, 585
LAND, meaning of, 55, 56, 547, 572,

LAND

TAX,

liability for,

622

604

n.

LANGUAGE,
of, construction of, 36-39
interpretation with reference to subject-matter of, 95-123
unambiguous, may be determined by usage, 531
variation of, effect of, 553-571

ambiguity

LAST PLACE OF ABODE,

LATER ACTS,
LAWFUL,

meaning

of,

259

in pari materia, examination

cause, necessity of, 642

excuse, what is, 485
it shall be, construction

of,

of,

64

424, 429-435, 440, 443 n.

purpose, meaning of, 590

sense, words to be understood

in,

553-556

LAY HANDS, on a priest, meaning of, 36

LEAVING CATTLE, meaning of, 566
LEGES EXTBA TEBBITOBIUM NON OBLIGANT,
tion

of,

applica-

255

LEGES POSTEEIOBES PBIOBES CONTBABIAS ABBOGANT, application

LEGISLATURE,

of,

281

excess of jurisdiction by, presumption against, 255-262

jurisdiction of, extent of, 255

LESS THAN, meaning

LETTEE,
nieaning

of,

of,

410, 607

596

threatening, sending

LEVEL CEOSSING,

of,

488

keeping

Digitized

of,

636

by Microsoft

766

INDEX.

LEX NON OOGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA, application. of, 673-678

LEX PLUS LAUDATUB QUANDO RATIONE PBOBATUB,
application

LIABILITY,

of,

559

implication

of,

705-727

LIFE OE MEMBEE, JUDGMENT OF, meaning

LIGHT AND UNJUST, of scales, meaning of, 167
LIKELY TO BE, chargeable, meaning of, 562
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS,

of,

613

absence beyond the seas and, 29

ambassador, in case of, 264
Crown, in case of, 249
foreigner, as affecting, 278
statutes as to, contraction of, 11, 12, 264, 347, 408, 503
strict construction in case of, 503
waiver of benefit of, 678

LOAN,
meaning

of,

parochial

224

relief, of,

496

LOCAL ACT, construction of, 72,

LOCAL LAW,

293, 310, 527-530

interpretation by reference to, 540, 541

modification by statute of, 323

LOCOMOTIVE, meaning of, 481

LODGES, meaning of, 121 n.
LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES, implied

enactments as

621-623

LOP,

trees,

LOEDS,

meaning

exemption

LUGGAGE,
LUNACY,

of,

of,

100
145

interpretation of, 565

mens rea in case

of lunatic, 134 n., 177

removal of lunatic to hospital, authority for, 26
service on lunatic, failure to provide for, 28
virill of lunatic, validity of, 156

MADE,
continue, to, meaning of, 476
of, generally, 55 n., 558

meaning

MAGISTEATE,
order of deceased, discharge of, 26
See also Justices.
qualification for, 21.

Digitized

by Microsoft

to, 615, 619,

767

INDEX.

MAGNA CHAETA, construction of, 64,

145

MAGNATES AND NOBLEMEN, who are, 575

MAIMED SOLDIERS, meaning of, 421
MAKE A REVOLT IN A SHIP, meaning of, 176
MAKING GOOD DAMAGE, meaning of, 174, 175
MANDATORY ENACTMENTS, construction of, 647-673
MANOR,

>

map, as evidence, 157

royalty, in combination with, 602 *

MARGINAL NOTE, importance of,

MARKET ACT, application to town

76
built after passing of, 480

MARRIAGE ACT, 1835, construction of, 261

MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT, meaning of, 130
MARRIED,

meaning

557

of,

MARRIED WOMAN,
action by and against, 80, 126, 163
capacity of, 154, 163

meaning

of,

126, 257

MARRY, construed in two senses in same section,

MASCULINE, includes feminine, 604
MASTER, liability for acts of servant of, 137

557, 558

MAY,
cases on, 443 n.
as, 424-429
shall, as, 435-439,

must,

707

MEASURE,
distance, of, rule as to, 612
enactments as to sale by, application

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE,

meaning

MEETING,

155

meaning

of, 81,

MEMBER, meaning of,

of,

of,

259

130

130

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT,

intentions of, not

to

sidered, 49

MENS BEA,
absence of, interpretation with reference to, 193-197
bigamy, in case of, 178
bond fide, effect of, 178-181, 185, 193-197
criminality of act notwithstanding absence of, 185-188
defined, 177, 195
drunkard, in case of, 178
guilty mind, importance in criminal law
incapacitated person, in case of, 177
offence, as ingredient of, 177-197

Digitized

of,

by Microsoft

177

be con-

INDEX.

768

MERCANTILE AGENT,
METALS, meaning

of,

meaning

of,

161, 162

601

MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE,

MINES AND MINERALS,

meaning

of,

494

lead mines not included in lands and coal mines, 572

reservation of minerals, construction of, 170
working of, restriction on, 59

MINISTERIAL TDUTIES,
645, 715

statute imposing, construction of, 437,

,

MISAPPREHENSION,

legislature, by, of

law or

fact, effect of,

544

MISCHIEF,
meaniag of, 450, 466, 478
statutory powers to be exercised so as to avoid, 630

statute, of, within,

MISDEMEANOUR,

what breaches

of statute constitute a, 706, 723,

724.

MISTAKE,
statute, in, construction in case of, 544, 548

33-35
emendation of, 446

effect of,

MODIFICATION,
language of statute, of, how far permissible, 406-443
mistake of legislature, in case of. See Mistake.
omissions, by supplying, 443-447, 482

MONEY, meaning
MONOPOLY,

of,

588, 589

Bank

of England, of, protection of, 212, 213

statute establishing, construction of, 515
value, meaning of, 101, 102

MONTH,

meaning

of, 102, 604,

606

MOTIVE, guUty, absence of, effect of, 195

MULTIPLICITY OF WORDS, construction

MULTIPLY VOICES,
MUST, may

as,

conveyance

in case of, 556-560

to, effect of,

374

424-429

NAVIGATION,
by-laws as to, what authorised, 525
improper, what is, 124
navigating within limits of port, meaning

NEAREST,
justice,

who

way, what

150
612

is,

is,

Digitized

by Microsoft

of,

563

'

769

INDEX.

NECESSARY INCIDENTS, attachment to statute of, 615-623

NEEDLESS MISCHIEF, powers granted by statute not to encourage,
630

NEGATIVE ACTS, statute involving,

NEGLIGENCE, meaning of, 124

NEW

285

JURISDICTION,

enactment creating, to be construed strictly, 517-530

presumption against creating, 235-244

NEW
NEW
NEW

STREET, what constitutes a, 367 n.

THINGS, extension of statutes to, 144,
TRIAL,

in

County Court, power

477-484

to order, 518

NEWSPAPER,
meaning

of,

506

publication encouraging to murder in, 489

NEXT,
appointed, meaning
sessions,

meaning

of,

of,

14

344, 664

NO ACTION SHALL BE BROUGHT, meaning of, 272, 360

NOBLEMAN, who is, 575
NON EST INTEBPBETATIO, SED DIVINATIO, QU^
BE CEBIT A iirSB^, application of, 457
NON-OBSERVANCE,
forms and conditions prescribed, of, effect of, 649-673
statutory provisions, of, when excused, 673-687

NON -PERFORMANCE, of statutory duty, remedy in

NON-USAGE, effect of, 735-738

NOSCUNTUB A

SOCIIS,

NOT LESS THAN,

case of, 705-727

application of, 574

meaning

of,

607

NOTICE,
meaning

of,

54

validity of, 135, 136, 138

NOVA CONSTITVTIO FUTUBI8 FOB MAM IMPONEBE

DEBET, NON PiJ^r^iJITIS, application of, 881, 382

NOW OR HEREAFTER, meaning of, 388

NOXIOUS,
drug,
trade,

meaning of, 473, 490

what is, 588

NULL AND

VOID, meaning

of,

372

49

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

770

INDEX.

OATH,
See Abjoeation Oath.

abjuration.

meaning

of,

604

OBJECT OP ACT,
consideration of, 148
presumption against alteration of law beyond, 149

OBLIGATION,
implied from concession of privileges, when, 633-637
presumption against interference with, 869-381

OBSCENE, meaning of, 195

OBSEEVANCE, of conditions, when excused, 673-687
OBSOLETE STATUTE, effect of, 735-738
OBSTEUCTION, meaning of, 177, 489, 588
OCCASIONED BY NEaLECT OB DEFAULT, meaning of
OCCUPIED, meaning of,
OCCUPIER, meaning of,
OFFENCE,
meaning

of,

46

121, 563
116, 120, 121, 128, 129, 246, 598

852

meaning of, 551

same, meaning of, 159
two or more offenders, imposition
offender,

OFFENSIVE BUSINESS,

of penalties in case of,

ETC., interpretation

of,

351-356

588

OFFICER,
presumed to appointment of, 62
special powers conceded to, 164
eligibility

OMISSION,
accidental,

in.

statute, effect of,

482

act done, included in, 134

meaningless and repugnant words, of, 419

non-incorporation of earlier Act, effect of, 30, 568
penal statute, in, effect of, 482
proclamation, in, effect of, 469
statute, in, how dealt with, 26, 29-31
power to supply, 407, 443^46, 482

ON ACCOUNT OF, meaning of, 491

ON THE MASTER'S APPEARANCE, meaning of, 370
ON THE TRUE FAITH" OF A CHRISTIAN, oath, construction
of,

552

ONCE IN SIX MONTHS,

meaning

of,

609

OPEN,
court, meaning of, 16
inspection, for, meaning of, 164

Digitized

by Microsoft

771

INDEX.

OPENED, KEPT OR USED FOR BETTINO. meaning of, 599

OPTIMA EST LEGUM INTEBPBES CONSUETUDO, application

of,

531

OR, when equivalent

to and, 35, 421-424

ORDER, meaning of, 80, 368 n.

ORDERED, meaning of, 496
ORDINARY LUGGAaE, meaning of,
OTHER,
agent,

meaning

of,

565

586

meaning of, 596

building, meaning of, 590, 595
business, meaning of, 588
cattle, meaning of, 602
charges, meaning of, 587
craft, meaning of, 587
instrument, meaning of, 589
labourer, meaning of, 585
manner, meaning of, 481
metals, meaning of, 601
obstruction, meaning of, 588
person, meaning of, 311, 584, 585
personal estate, meaning of, 589
place, meaning of, 597
prelate, meaning of, 601
product, meaning of, 587
royalty, meaning of, 601, 602
school, meaning of, 587 n.
specialty, meaning of, 90
than land, meaning of, 591
water, meaning of, 602
work, meaning of, 594
article or thing,

OTHERS,
having any spiritual, etc., liviiig, meaning of, 60
having power to take indictments, meaning of, 603

OTHERWISE, meaning of, 558 n.

OUSTING JURISDICTION, presumption against, 235-240
OUT OP ENGLAND, meaning of, 258
OVERSIGHT IN STATUTE. See Mistake Omission,
;

OWN
OWN WRONG,

PROFIT, meaning

364

of,

liability for,

367

OWNER, meaning of, 129

OYER AND TERMINER, COURT

Digitized

OF, meaning

by Microsoft

of,

603

INDEX.

772
PAPIST, taking

of abjuration oath by, 14,

PABI MATEBIA,

20

construction of statute

PARISH, meaning of, 613

PABISH OFFIOEB, supplying
PARK, trespassing on, 516

m,

62, 458,

571

goods, 337, 495

PAELIAMENT,
biU

of, 72, 73, 738, 740

duty of, 740
court cannot question authority of, 272
everybody presumed to have knowledge of act
oath by member of, 20

in,

clerk

history

of,

739

of,

entry on, 72, 73

session of, duration of, 739
rolls,

PAEOCHIAL RELIEF,

meaning

of,

577

PART,
meaning

of,

350

repeal of part of statute, 728

statute partly exceeding jurisdiction of legislature, effect

PART PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT,

of,

specific

454, 654

PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS, meaning of some,

PARTNERSHIP, Companies Act, 1862, and, 103

603-614

PARTY,
chargeable, meaning of, 68, 511, 512
meaning of, generally, 105, 250

PASSING,
date of, 77, 739
proclamation of, 738
highway, upon, meaning of, 125

Act

of,

PAST OFFENCES. See Rbteospective

PAYMENT OF MONEY,
enforcement of statutory duty as

PENAL

of,

to,

Operation.

711

ACT,

act excusable, operation where, 176

construction of, generally, 462-501
expiry before conviction of, effect of, 728
implied repeal in, 329-338
limitation of actions under, 534
mens rea in case of, 177-197

non-usage, effect of, 738

repeal of, pending proceedings, 728-732

PENAL LIABILITY,

for act of servant, 137, 187-193

Digitized

by Microsoft

257

performance

INDEX.

773

PENALTY,
construction

of,

167, 300, 307, 328-338, 340, 848, 351, 353, 362,

465,696
contract, attached to making of, effect of, 380, 689, 690
Crown's right to, 3
implied repeal when penalty altered in later statute, 332
joint or several, when, 351-356

PENDING

SUIT,

effect of alteration of

meaning

of,

law on, 394j 729-732

101

PEOPLE, KINGS, PRINCES, AND, meanmg

of,

577

PERFORMANCE,
condition imposed by statute, of, when excused, 673-687
prescriptions as to public duties, of, when directory, 659

PERIODICAL PERFORMANCE,

statute

imposing, construction

609

of,

PERMISSIVE WORDS, effect of, 424-429

PERSISTENT CRUELTY, meaning of, 396
PERSON,
all persons, meaning of, 156
corporation as, 110, 573, 613
every, meaning of, 154, 361
good character, of, meaning of, 475

meaning

of,

generally, 105, 110, 111, 164, 217, 321, 379, 471, 557,

604
other,

meaning of, 585

meaning of,

so offending,

PERSONAL
PERSONAL
PERSONAL
PERSONAL

ACT,

PEW,

LUGGAGE,

320, 527-530
173, 589

589

meaning

of,

565

meaning

of,

418

617

presenting

allotment

PILOT,

of,

CHATTELS, meaning of,

ESTATE, meaning of, 56,

PERUSE, meaning of,

PETITION,

483, 496

construction

of,

169

of,

qualification for, 18

PIRACY, meaning
PLACE,

of, 96,

122, 468, 480, 481

of, generally, 586, 599

place for betting, meaning of, 599
place of abode, meaning of, 117, 118, 259
place out of England, meanin| of, 258

meaning

public,

meaning

of,

492, 574

Digitized

by Microsoft

774

INDEX.

PLANT, meaning

PLEADING,
PLUBAL,

588

of,

form

construction

of,

of,

55

singular and, 604

POLICY OF IN8UEANCE,
chattel or valuable security, whether, 499
construction of, 516

POLICY, PUBLIC.

See.

Public Policy.

POOE LAW,
Acts relating to, construction of, 337
settlement, construction of, 216
suspension of order for removal, meaning

POPULAE MEANING,

420

of,

interpretation according to, 3, 98

POSSESSION,
land, of,

meaning

meaning

of,

of,

servant, by, 212

taking from, what

POST OFFICE,

POWEE, shall
POWEES,

63

generally, 138, 290, 371, 409, 485-487, 581

is,

486

" on behalf of the," meaning

have, meaning

of,

of,

493, 494

426

abuse of, construction to avoid, 226-234

compulsory, construction of, 517
implied, wherein, 623-646
statutory, construction of, 517-530, 626

PRACTICABLE SPEED,
PEACTICE.

meaning

of,

182

See Procedueb.

PEAYEB BOOK, construction of, 50, 535-537,

PEEAMBLE, of statute, importance of, 77-92
PEEFEEEED, indictment, meaning of, 103
PEEJUDICE OP PUECHASEE,
PEEMISES, meaning

of,

meaning

of,

statutes understood not to affect, 244-254

PEESENCE,
of, 14,

meeting,

at,

21

meaning

PEESENT EIGHT,

491

222

PEEEOGATIVE EOYAL,
meaning

647

of,

155

meaning

Digitized

of,

372

by Microsoft

775

INDEX.

PRESUMPTION,
absurdity, against, 356-369
abuse of powers conferred, against, 226-234
alteration of previous law, against, 149, 235-244, 280

change

of language, from, 66
consistency of statute, in favour of, 280
contemporaneous defects, that legislation dealt with, 45, 46
creation of new jurisdiction, against, 241-244 ^
Crown, inclusion of, against, 244-254
encroachment on rights, against, 501-530
evasion, against intention to allow, 206, 350
excess of jurisdiction, against intention to create, 255-262
impairing of obligations, against, 369-381
inconsistency, against, 280
inconvenience, against, 339-356
injustice, against, 356-369
international law, violation of, against, 262-273
ouster of old jurisdiction, against, 235-238
principles of general application, against overriding of, 149, 157
repugnancy, against, 280
retrospective operation, against, 365, 381-383
same sense attached to same language, that, 66, 556, 560
taking advantage of own wrong, against, 370
unreasonableness, against, 339-356

PEICE,

fair,

what

is,

PRIEST, wounding

PRISON,

in,

129

in street of, 36

meaning

of,

538

PRIVATE ACT,
construction of, 72, 231, 527, 615
parliamentary history of, reference to, 51, 529
powers given by, construction of, 230, 231, 527-530
public Act incorporated in, repeal of, 26
repeal by, effect of, 328

PRIVATE REMEDIES,

implication

of,

705-727

PBIVATOBUM CONVENTIO JVBI PUBLICO NON DEBOGAT, application of, 682

PRIVILEGES,
Act conferring, how construed,

515-517, 626-646

obligations impliedly accompanying, when, 633-646

PROCEDURE,
alteration of, effect of, 400
Crown, as affecting, 252, 253
foreigner, as affecting, 273-279
retrospective operation on, 397-405
rules of, power to make, construction

680
statutorily prescribed, adherence
waiver

of,

517-521

of,

Digitized

to, 616,

708

by Microsoft

INDEX.

776

PBOCEEDING INSTITUTED, meaning of, 101 n,

PROCLAMATION OF STATUTE, in ancient times,
PEOCUBE, endeavouring to, meaning of, 495
PBODUCT, meaning of, 587, 588
PROHIBITED GOODS, what are,
PBOHIBITION, by

statute, effect

738

480

on contract

PBOMULGATION OP STATUTE,

685

of,

never necessary, 738, 739

PBOPEETY,
grant by statute

meaning

of, effect of,

626

generally, 128, 270

suit respecting, -what is, 24
recovered, meaning of, 24
of,

PEOPEIETOB,

agent

of,

meaning

514

of,

PBOSECUTION INSTITUTED,

meaning

PEOTECTION, of act done under

PBOVISIONS, meaning of, 96

statute, 413

PBOVISO,

construction

of,

of,

101 n.

281, 283

PUBLIC ACT,
incorporated in private Act, effect
what is, 741

PUBLIC BENEFIT,

of,

26

accord with, as governing interpretation of

statute,

PUBLIC BUILDING, meaning of, 492

PUBLIC COMPANY, meaning of, 147
PUBLIC DUTY,
breach of, remedies for, 705-727
performance of, statutory prescription

of,

659

PUBLIC GRIEVANCE, prohibition by statute

PUBLIC PLACE, meaning of, 492, 566
PUBLIC POLICY, statute passed on grounds

of, effect of,

of,

706

construction of,

681, 706

PUBLIC PURPOSES,
of,

priva,te statute giving

powers

for,

527

PUBLIC REFRESHMENT, meaning of, 574

PUBLIC REMEDIES, provisions conferring, 705-727
PUBLIC RESORT, PLACE OF, meaning of, 574
PUBLICATION,
rate of, 28
statute, of, not necessary, 738,

Digitized

739

by Microsoft

construction

777

INDEX.

PUNCTUATION, importance of, 75, 76

PUNISHMENT, change ot, effect of, 330.
PUKCHASER, who is, 491

PURSUANCE

OF, IN, meaning

See also Public Ebmbdies .

412

of,

QUANDO ALIQUID PBOHIBETUB, PBOHIBETUB ET

OMNE FEB QUOD DEVENITUB AD ILLVD, application of, 208

QUARTER

SESSIONS,

QUAY, ANY, meaning

appeal from one to another, 83

of,

502

QUI FACIT FEB ALIUM FACIT FEB

SE,

prmoipal and agent, 134-140, 162, 471, 493, 494

statutory recognition of the maximum, 137

QUORUM, provision

562

for, 287,

RAILWAY,
Act, construction of, 72, 631
construction of words affecting liability
obstructing, what amounts to, 489
rating of, 32
ticket obtained by false pretences, 499
tolls of, cases as to, 97 n

RANK,
RATE,

words

of,

in descending order, 601

of,

417

Crown, how far applicable to, 247, 248

publication of, 28
railway, in case of, 32
retrospective operation of, 365
unoccupied premises, in respect of, 17
water, cases as to, 97 n.

READING WORDS INTO STATUTE,

power as

443-446, 482

REAL ESTATE ABROAD,

power

over, 268-271

REASON,
reason to believe, meaning of, 57
statute contrary to, effect of, 459

REASONABLE,

construction to be, 339, 559

REASONABLE NOTIQE,
RECITAL,

of appeal,

what

is,

19

in statute, effect of, 550, 551.

RECORD, COURT

OF, meaning

Digitized

of,

614

by Microsoft

to, 26,

29-31, 407,

778

INDEX.

BECOED OF STATUTES, keeping of,

RECOVER, meaning of, 503, 617
RECOVERED, meaning of, 24, 103, 104
RECTORY,
of, 298
exemption from residence

72, 73, 741

charging

at,

621

REFRESHMENT, house for, meaning of,

REFUSING TO QUIT, meaning of, 194

574

REGULATIONS,
fiscal, effect of,

699-701

power to make, construction of, 517, 518, 523, 524

prescribed by statute, when imperative, 648, 695
relating to personal qualification, effect of, 696

REMAINDERMAN, statute rela,ting to,

REMEDIAL STATUTE,
application of, 141, 144-146
different meaning to same words

21

when penal

or remedial, 560

REMEDIES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE,

governed by lex fori, 277
implied grant of, 705-727

REMUNERATION,

in case of statutory service, 621

RENT, meaning of, 97

RENUNCIATION, of rights, what
REPAIRS, meaning

is,

25

509

of,

REPEAL,
effect of, generally, 8,

727-735

implied, when, 281-296, 326, 329-338

negatived, when deemed, 296-313
part of Act, of, interpretation by reference to, 67
penal statute, in case of, 329-338
private Act, by, extent of, 328
public Act, of, effect on private Act of, 26
repealed Act, interpretation by reference to, 66, 68-71
repealing statute, repeal of, effect of, 727

REPUGNANCY,
avoidance of, 4
generaUy, 280-296
modification in case

REQUIRED, meanmg
RESIDENCE,

of,

of,

406-447

664

ceased to reside, meaning

meaning

of,

of,

259

generally, 78, 118-120, 217, 259

Digitized

by Microsoft

779

INDEX.

EESIDENT,
occupier,

meaning

meaning

of,

of, generally,

669
116-120

RESTRICTION,
fitness of matter, to, 95
operation of Act, of, to its scope

and

object, 148

RETARD, meaning of, 177

RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION,
rate, of, 365
statute, of, 365, 381-405, 733

RETURN,
from abroad, meaning of, 409
procure the return to Parliament, meaning
returning to work, meaning of, 494, 495

BEVENUE LAWS,

construction

of,

495

See also Customs Acts.

336.

REVIVAL, of repealed statute, provisions

REVOLT, > ship, meaning of, 176
RIGHT, meaniag of, 578
RIGHTS,

of,

as to, 727-732

interests, as distinguished from, 556 n.

meaning of, generally, 128, 578
statute conferring, effect of, 650

foreigners

when

included in, 273-279

of, 501-510, 578

encroaching on, construction

RIVER, meaning

of,

565

ROADS AND STREETS, meaning of, 574

ROLLS OF PARLIAMENT, entry of statute

on, 72, 73, 76

ROOT, meaning of, 588

ROTATION, of ports, meaning of, 368
ROYAL ASSENT TO ACT, 607, 741

ROYAL MARRIAGES ACT, 1772, construction of, 260

ROYALTIES, MANORS AND OTHER, meaning of, 601,
RUBRICS, construction of,
RULES, STATUTORY,
interpretation

50, 535-537, 647

by reference

to,

65

66, 93, 283 n., 523

construction of, 517, 518

of,

power

to

make,

RUNNING AWAY,
SAFE CUSTODY,
SAILOR,

meaning
meaning

of, 67, 470,

of,

472

absent beyond the seas,

Digitized

486

summons

on, 22

by Microsoft

602

780

INDEX.

'

SALARY OR INCOME,

meaning

579

of, 576,

SALE,
exposed

meaning

for,

meaning of,
usual, what

of,

474

generally, 490, 491

is,

481

SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1893, construction

SALMON, illegal possession of, 184 n.
SAME,
cause,

of, 48,

70

meaning of, 362

meaning of, 159

offence,

SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE, meaning of, 157

SAVING CLAUSE, construction of, 281, 282
SCALES,
and unjust, when, 167
meaning of, 482, 483
light

SCHEDULE,

repugnant, construction

283

of,

SCHOOL,
attendance, meaning of, 371
Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, in, 587 n,

SCOPE OF ACT,

construction by reference to, 39, 83, 95, 161, 406

SEAL, requirement

of, 15, 27,

657, 668, 671

SEAMAN,
meaning
desertion

of,
of,

168 n.

meaning

of,

177

SEARCH, meaning of, 426

SECOND OFFENCE, meaning
SECTION, heading

of,

of,

importance

614

of,

92

SECURITY, VALUABLE, meaning of,

SEISED IN FEE, meaning of, 105
SELL, meanmg of, 125, 140, 143, 490
SELLER, who is, 614
SEND, meaning of, 488

SEPARATE BUILDING,

meaning

of,

471, 499

558

SERVANT,
absenting himself, meaning of, 176
of, as that of master, 134-140, 189-193, 471
knowledge of, construed as master's, 137
meaning of, 585
act

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

781

SETTLEMENT,
mesming of, 97
poor law, oonstruotion

216, 220

of,

SEVEBANCE OF SUBPACB,
SEX,

statute involving, caseg on, 627 n.

distinction not recognised, 154,

604

SHALL,
and lawfully may, 443 n.
be empowered, 427
be lawful, 429-435
have been resident, 78
interpretation of, generally, 435-441, 443 n., 566

SHAKES,
goods and merchandise, whether, 575
stock, included in, 494

SHEEP, meaning of, 572

SHEEIFF, officer of, taking

unlawful fees by, 472

SHIP,
British,

meaning of, 158

what is, 581, 582

casting away,

damage done

by, liability for, 175

dangerous, detention of, 57

destroying, what is, 581
meaning of, 131,485, 494
revolt in, meaning of, 176

SHOOT, CUT, STAB, OB WOUND, meaning of,

SHOP, meaning of, 125
SHOBT TITLE, provision for, 73
SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE, effect of, 388

582

SIGNATUEE,
meaning

of,

514

provision for, meaning

of,

138

sufficiency of, 69

SINGLE SITTING, what is, 559, 560

SINGLE WOMAN, meanuig of, 125, 126
SINGULAB, includes plural, 604
SLAUGHTEB-HOUSE, meaning of, 594
SLAVE TEADE, abolition of, construction

of

Acts

for, 44,

SOLDIEB,
in actual service, meaning of, 127
sick and tnaimed, meaning of, 421

SOVEIIEIGN,

foreign, not affected

Digitized

by criminal

by Microsoft

law, 263

256

n.,

266

782

INDKX.

SPECIAL AND GENERAL ACTS, compared,

SPECIFIC WORDS, preceded by general, effect
SPIRITS, meaning

of,

72,

313-329

of,

583-603

107 n.

OR WOUND,
STAMP ACTS,

STAB, CUT,

meaning

of,

467

construction of, 204, 226, 351, 395, 506-509

evasion of, when justified, 225, 226

STANDING,
STATE.

charge

for,

meaning

of,

587

See Crown.

STATUTE,
abuse of powers, construction to prevent, 226-234
adding terms to, not justifiable, 25
aim of, to be considered, 39
ancient proclamation of, 738
beneficial construction of, 123-147, 504
ease not provided for in, how to be dealt with, 26
clerical error in, emendation of, 446
codifying, construction of, 47
common law re-enacted by, effect of, 8
conflict in provisions of, effect of, 142, 143
construction imposed by, effect of, 541-552
See Constkuction.
of, generally.
costs, inflicting, construction of, 510
criminal, construction of, 261, 262, 462-501
date of passing

of,

77

defined, 1
earher legislation, effect on, 8
statute to be construed as one with, 61
effectual, when, 739, 740
encroaching on rights, etc., construction of, 501-530

equitable construction of, 447-461

evasion, construction to avoid, 206-226
exclusion of class of persons in, effect of, 168
extension of meaning of, not allowable, 83
foreigners, applicability to, 263-279
general, effect on particular of, 314, 328
imperative or directory, construction of, 647-673

implied enactments in, 615-646

imposing burdens, construction

of,

501-530

inpa/ri materia, construction of, 62, 458, 571

incorporation in later statute of, 26, 30
intention of, importance of, 406-447
interpretation of incidental matters in, 3

words

in.

See Intekprbtation

limited construction of, when, 197-205

local, construction of, 527-530
restriction of,

263-279

Digitized

by Microsoft

Word.

783

INDEX.

STATUTEconiiMMet?.
marginal note on, importance of, 76
ministerial duty imposed by, enforcement of, 715
monopoly, establishing, construction of, 515
negative terms of, construction of, 303
non-mention of earlier, effect of, 30
non-observance of, when excused, 673-687
obsolete, how dealt with, 735-738
official record of, 76
omission in, power to supply, 443-446
particular, how affected by general, 314, 323, 328
^
'
penal, construction of, 462-501
implied repeal in, 329-338
personal, construction of, 320, 527-530
plain language to be followed, 11, 13, 25
preamble of, importance of, 77-92
previous law to be considered, 39, 43
procedure prescribed by, to be followed, 708
proclamation in former times of, 738
proviso in, construction of, 281
public, what is, 741
pimotuation of, importance of, 75, 76
recital in, effect of, 550, 551
remedial, construction of, 447, 477
remedies prescribed by, enforcement of, 705-727
repeal of. See Repeal.
repealed, interpretation by reference to, 66-68
repugnancy between, construction where, 280-296
retrospective operation of, 9, 365, 381-405
revival after repeal of, 727
scope of, to be considered, 39, 83, 95, 161, 406
section of earlier Act introduced into later, construction
subtraction from terms of, not justifiable, 25
superfluous provisions in, effect of, 548-550
tautology in, effect of, 556
temporary, effect of continuance of, 734
title of, importance of, 73-75
variation of language in, effect of, 564-571

of,

61

vested rights, affecting, 9

whole, to be construed as, 40

STATUTE OF FEAUDS,

construction

of, 49,

70,250,272,454, 511-

515, 575

STATUTE OF LIMITATION. See Limitation of Actions.

STATUTORY POWERS, land acquired under, how to be used,
STEP IN PROCEEDINGS, meaning of, 46
STOCK,
debentures, distinguished from, 579
goods and merchandise, whether, 575
shares, whether inclusive of, 494

Digitized

by Microsoft

631

INDEX.

784

STOCK JOBBING,
STREAM, meaning

statute to prevent, 478

565

of,

STREET, meaning of, 170, 545,

STBICT CONSTEUOTION,

566, 597

and personal Acts, of, 527

penal statute, of, 462-501

local

new

517-530
501-510
establishing monopolies,' of, 515-517
regulating forms and solemnities, of, 510-515

statute creating

jurisdiction, of,

encroaching on rights,

etc., of,

STRUCTUBE, meaning of, 113

SUBJECT-MATTER, words to be understood
SUBSCRIBED, meaning of, 515
SUFFERING AND SUFFERED, meaning

according

of,

to,

95-123

188, 190, 192, 476,

489, 565

SUFFICIENT,
evidence, meaning of, 397
signature, what is, 515

SUIT, meaning

of,

518

SUM ADJUDGED, meaning of,

340

SUMMONS,
absent party, on, 22
bastardy, issue of, 17
service of, 22

beyond the

sailor

seas, on, 22

SUNDAY,
by-law closing canal on, validity of, 525
computation of time, when included in, 611

made on, validity of, 378, 379, 691

election on, validity of, 153
meaning of, 147, 153, 490, 611
service of writ on, validity of, 682
contract

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
applicsible, 2,

ACT,

1677, class of persons to

379

SUPERFLUOUS ENACTMENTS,

effect of,

548-550

SUPPRESSION, of nuisance, meaning of, 475

SUSPENSION, of removal of pauper, meaning

SWEAR,

meaning

of,

604

TAKING,
fish,

meaning

of,

580, 581

game, meaning of, 492

money, meaning of, 471-473
possession, from the, meaning

Digitized

of,

486

by Microsoft

of,

420

whom

785

INDEX.

TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ONE'S OWN WEONG,

construction

against, 370

TAUTOLOGY,
TAX, Act

construction in case

abolishing, construction

TAXED CART,

meaning

of,

of,

556

387

542

of,

TAXING ACTS, construction of, 223, 248, 504

TECHNICAL WORDS, interpretation of, 3, 104
TELEGRAM, an instrument within Forgery Act,
TELEGRAPH, includes telephone, 146

TEMPORARY
TENANT,

ACT,

effect of

continuance

of,

146

734

rate payable by, 17

TENANT IN PEE SIMPLE, meaning

TENANT IN TAIL, meaning of, 325
TENEMENT, meaning of, 591

of,

105

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION, statute jprima/aMe limited to, 255

THEN AND THERE, meaning of, 466

THINK FIT, meaning of, 424, 439-441

THINK JUST, meaning of, 518
THREAT,

prohibition

of,

593

TIME,
abjuration oath, for taking, 14
appeal, for, how fixed, 13, 346, 659
application of, meaning of, 344

compliance after, validity of, 659

computation of, rule as to, 604
estimation of, when none fixed, 29
where period fixed, 11-14, 604
Greenwich, implication of, 605
lawful day, presumption in favour of, 152, 153
limited, construction of, 345, 411, 416, 453, 604-612
next appointed, meaning of, 14
Quarter Sessions, for complaint to, 13, 345
reasonable, when implied, 29
statute takes effect at what, 739, 740
statutory, meaning of, 605

TITLE,
construction by reference
part of statute, as, 73-75

to, 74,

75

50

I.S.

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

786

TOLL,
avoiding turnpike, when no evasion, 222
duty implied from power to exact, 634
exemption of Crown from, 247
Eailway Act, in, cases on, 97 n.

waiver of power to demand maximuic, 678

TOPPINa OF TREES, power as to,

TOTAL INCOME, meaning of, 504
TOWN, meaning of, 480

TRADE UNION,

100

rules of, validity of, 702

TRADER, meaning

of, 78, 79,

567

TRADESMEN, ARTIFICER, ETC., meaning of,

TRAMWAY, grant of right to work, etc., 633 n.
TRANSFER, meaning of,'576
TRANSPORTATION, abolition of, 262
TRAVELLER, meaning of, 121 n.
TREATY, reference in construing statute

to,

584

45

TRESPASS, meaning of, 449, 491, 563

TRESPASSER, meaning of, 449, 492
TRIAL BY JURY, new trial after, 147
TROOPS, foreign, not subject to criminal law, 263
TRUE FAITH OF A CHRISTIAN, meaning of, 552

TRUSTEE FOR SALE, meaning of, 514

TURN LOOSE, meaning of, 565
TWO OR MORE, judges, meaning of, 537

DVM CONTBABIM LEOES

VBI

QUE ABBOGAT

NOVA,

SUNT, SEMPER ANTI-

application of, 281

UNDER,
authority, meaning of, 412
distinguished from " in respect "

of,

556 n.

UNIFORMITY ACT, Construction of, 50

UNITED KINGDOM, words having different
parts of, interpretation

of,

meanings

107, 108, 162

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

revenue laws

of,

construction

of,

509

statute conferring jurisdiction, construction of, 552

Digitized

by Microsoft

in different

INDEX.

UNJUST WEIGHT,
UNLAWFUL,
act,

meaning

meaning

167, 196

of, 166.

purpose, meaning

of,

475

UNLAWFULLY, meaning of,

UNLESS,

of,

787

effect of the term,

166, 167, 180

648

UNBEASONABLENESS, presumption against,

UNTIL COMPLETED, meaning of, 417

339-356

USAGE,
effect of, in construction of statute, 531-541
local, not affected by general statute, 320

non-usage, effect

of,

738

USE,
dwelling,

etc., as,

410, 476

meaning of, 492

navigation, in, meaning of, 131, 132
workhouse, for, meaning of, 98
gun,

of,

USUALLY SOLD, meaning of, 481

USURY ACTS, construction of, 209
VT BBS MAOIS VALEAT QUAM PESEAT,

application of,

419

UTI LOQUITUB VULGUS, application of, 98, 108

UTTERLY PKUSTEATE, VOID, AND DF NONE EFFECT,
meaning

VAGABOND,

of,

372

meaning

of,

96

VALID, meaning of, 157, 163

VALUABLE SECURITY, meaning

of, 471,

499

VALUE,
clear yearly, meaning of, 70
ship, of, naeaning of, 516

VARIATION,
interpretation, of, 559

language,

of, effect of,

564

VEGETABLE PRODUCTION, meaning of, 588

VEBBA CABTABUM F0BTIV8 ACCIPIUNTUB CONTBA
PBOFEBENTEM, application of, 528
VESSEL USED IN NAVIGATION, meaning of, 132
VEST, meaning

of,

170

Digitized

by Microsoft

INDEX.

788

VESTED EIGHT,
no one has, in a course

of procedure,

400

statute affecting, operation of, 9, 383-401

VOCATION, money
VOID, meaning

earned in unlawful, assessment

of, 66,

of,

555

165, 202, 372, 373, 375-378, 380, 381, 567

VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA,

application

of,

682

VOLUNTAEY,
annuity, meaning of, 582
contribution, meaning of, 508
meaning of, generally, 582
settlement, meaning of, ,395

VOTE, entitled

to,

construction

of,

470

WAGERING, Acts against, construction of, 198, 199, 210

WAIVER, of benefit of, statutory provisions, power as to, 678-687
WANDERING ABROAD, meaning of, 474 n.
WAREHOUSE, meaning of, 579, 597
WARRANT OP ATTORNEY,
bankruptcy, effect
void,

WATER

of,

on, 34, 35

when, 213, 214, 224

RATE,

cases on, 97 n.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES,

of, 482
and unjust, 196, 259, 483

examination
light

WHARF, ANY, meaning of, 502

WHATSOEVER, meaning of, 158,
WHEN, meaning of, 648

159

WHENEVER REQUIRED, meaning of,

WHERRY, LIGHTER, OR OTHER
WIDOW, included in " single woman,"

16

CRAFT, meaning
when, 126

WILFUL,
meaning of, 167
meaning of, 64, 199
meaning of, generally, 167, 194, 199
wilfully, meaning of, 166, 180, 194
act,

default,

WILL,
interpretation of, general rule as to, 4, 13
presence of witnesses at signing, meaning

Digitized

by Microsoft

of,

14

of,

587

INDEX.

789

WITH,
all practicable speed, meaning of, 182
intent to defeat creditors, meaning of, 570
same horses and carriages, meaning of, 422

WITHIN,
British jurisdiction, meaning of, 277
limits of port, meaning of, 563

month,

a,

meaning

of,

660

WITHOUT A KEEPER, meaning of, 67, 566

WITHOUT ISSUE, used in two senses in same will,
WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE, meaning of, 485

WOODEN STEUCTURE, meaning of,

559

113

WORDS,
absurdity, interpretation in case
analogous, interpretation of, 555

of,

406

associated, interpretation of, 571-582

beneficial, interpretation of, 123-147
change of meaning in course of time, effect of, 108
collocation of, power to alter, 406
consequences, interpreted by reference to, 148
coupled together, interpretation of, 574
different meanings, with, interpretation of, 96, 107, 108, 656-564
ejusdem generis, interpretation of, 583-603

extended meaning given

to,

when, 123

general, mterpretation of, 38, 56, 109, 149, 464, 583-603

generic, following more specific, 583-603
grammatical construction of, 3, 95, 406, 485
implied restricted meaning of, 55
in bonam partem, to be interpreted, 553

interpolation of, power as to, 406, 409, 410

meaning imposed by

legislature, effect of, 542

555, 556
natural ordinary sense to be taken, 1, 4
particular, interpretation of, 418
plain meaning of, to be taken, 5-8, 20
popular use of, reference to, 95, 98, 101, 107, 108
primary meaning of, to be taken, 375
rank, denoting, interpretation of, 600
reading into statute of, not justifiable, 25

multiplicity

of, effect of,

rejection of, power as to, 406

rules as to interpretation of, 95-147
technical, interpretation of, 3

WORK,

meaning

of,

584

WORKHOUSE, meaning of, 98

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Digitized

ACTS, construction of,

by Microsoft

124, 345

790

INDEX.

WOUND,

meaning

WEIT, lost,
WRITING,

of,

467, 682

procedure in case

of,

27

meaning of, 613

requirement of, 511

YEAR,
and a quarter
meaning of, 609
half a,

YOUNG OF SALMON,

of a, 604

meaning

of,

184 m.

THE END.

PEIKTED IB OREAT BBITAIN BT WILLIAM CLOWES AMD BOMB, LIMITED

'
LOMDOH AMD BBCCLBB.

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft

Digitized

by Microsoft