Attorney General v Lockwood
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Date | 22 January 1842 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 152 E.R. 160
EXCHEQUER OF PLEAS.
S. C. 6 Jur. 171: affirmed, 10 M. & W. 464. Referred to, Ex parte Attwater; In re Turner, 1876, 5 Ch. D. 32; Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 198; In re Dawson; Pattisson v. Bathurst, [1915] 1 Ch. 630.
[378] the attorney-general v. lockwood. Exch. of Pleas. Jan. 22, 1842.- The keeper of a beer-shop, licensed under 1 Will. 4, c. 64, & 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 84, is liable to the penalties imposed by 5G Geo. 3, e. 58, s. 2, for having in his possession any of the prohibited articles therein specified, or any other article or preparation to be used as a substitute for malt or hops.-In order to render such a person liable to those penalties, for having in his possession any of the articles enumerated in the 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, s. 2, it is unnecessary to aver or prove, either that the party had them in his possession to be used as a substitute for malt or hops, or that he had them in his possession with any criminal intention. But 9M. 4JW. 379. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LOCKWOOD 161 where the information is for having in his possession any article not designated by name in that section, it is necessary to shew that it was intended to be used as a substitute for malt and hops in the making of beer. [S. 0. 6 Jur. 171 : affirmed, 10 M. & W. 464. .Referred to, Ex parte Attwater; In re Turner, 1876, 5 Ch. D. 32 ; Slierras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 198; In re Dawson; Pattisson v. Bathurst, [1915] 1 Ch. 630.] This was an information against the defendant under 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, s. 2, for that'he, being a retailer of beer, after the 5th July, 1817, and before the exhibiting of the information, to wit, on &c., at &c., received and took into and had in his custody and possession, a large quantity, to wit, 500 pounds weight of liquorice, contrary to the form of the statute in that case made and provided, whereby, and by force" of the statute &c., the said William Lockwood, so being such retailer of beer as aforesaid, and so offending as aforesaid, hath, for his aforesaid offence, forfeited and lost the sum of £200. There was a second count, for receiving into his custody and :possesgion an article or preparation as a substitute for malt and hops, he being a retailer of beer; a third for having in his custody and possession liquorice, he being a dealer in beer; and a fourth, for having in his possession a certain preparation as a substitute for malt and hops, he being a dealer in beer. The defendant pleaded not guilty. At the trial before Lord Abinger, C. B., at the Middlesex Sittings after last Easter Term, it appeared that in the month of February, 1840, the defendant was licensed to sell beer by retail, under 1 Will. 4, c. 64, and 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 84. The license was to sell beer, ale, and porter, by retail, in the dwelling-house of the said William Lockwood, and in the premises thereunto belonging, but not to be drunk or consumed in the houae or premises. On the 29th of February, 1840, the officers of excise found upon the defendant's premises 28 Ibs. of liquorice in a sack of roasted malt. It was contended that the possession of the liquorice under the circumstances was an offence against the act [379] 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, s. 2. The facts above stated were admitted at the trial, and a verdict was taken for the Crown on the first count of the information, for one penalty of £200, subject to the opinion of the Court, the Crowti to be at liberty to enter the verdict on any count of the information that might be applicable to the facts proved. In Trinity Term, 1841, Kelly obtained a rule to enter a verdict for the defendant, upon the ground that the defendant, being licensed under the beer acts, wasr not liable to the penalties under the 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, s. 2; or to arrest the judgment^ on the ground that the count applicable to liquorice contained no allegation thaJJ it waa forior as a substitute for malt or hopa. The Solicitor-General, Jervis, and Wilde, shewed cause. It will be contended on the other side, first, that as this was the case of a person selling beer, not under a magistrate's license, but under and by virtue of the stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 64, continued by 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 84, the provisions of the 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, do not apply; and secondly, that the information is defective, in not stating that the defendant had the; liquorice in his possession as a substitute for malt and hops. As to the first objection,-the words of the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, s. 2, are, "That from and after the 5th, day of July, 1817, no brewer or brewers of, or dealer or dealers in, or retailer or re tellers of, beer, shall receive or take into, or have in his, her, or their custody or possession, or make, or use, or mix with, or put into any worts or beer, any liquor, extract, calx, or other material or preparation, for the purpose of darkening the colour of worts oi1 beer, or any liquor, extract, calx, or other material or preparation, such as has been heretofore or as shall hereafter be made use of for or in the darkening of thejcolour of ^rts or beer, other than brown malt, ground or unground, as commonly used in brewing, or shall receive or take into, or have in his, her, or their custody or poses-[380]-sipn, or use, or mix with, or put into any worts or beer, any molasaqs, honey, liquorice, vitriol, quassia, coculus Indiue, grains of Paradise, Quinea pepper, or opium, or any extract or preparation of molassea, honey, or liquorice, &c. &c., or any article or preparation whatsoever for or as a substitute for malt or hops ; and if any such brewer or brewers of, or dealer or dealers in, or retailer or retailers of beer, shall receive or take into, or have in his, her, or their custody or possession, or make or use in brewing, or mix with or put into any worts or beer, any liquor, extract, calx, or other material, or preparation, for the purpose of darkening the colour of worts or beer, or any liquor, extract, calx, or other material or preparation, such as has been Ex. Div. viii.-6 162 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. LOCKWOOD 9 M. &W. 381. heretofore or us shall hereafter be made use of for or in the darkening of the colour of worts or beer, other than brown malt, ground or unground, as commonly used in brewing, or shall receive, or take into, or have in his, her, or their custody or possession, or shall use, or mix with, or put into any worts or beer, any molasses, honey, liquorice, &o., or any extract or preparation of molasses, honey, liquorice, &c., or any article or preparation whatsoever, for or as a substitute for malt or hops; all such liquor, extract, calx, molasses, &c. &c., article and preparation as aforesaid, and also the said worts and beer respectively, shall be forfeited, together with the casks, vessels, or other packages containing the same, and shall and may be seized by any officer or officers of excise; and such brewer or brewers of, dealer or dealers in, or retailer or retailers of beer, so offending as aforesaid, shall for each and every such offence forfeit and lose the sum of £200." It will be said that the stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 64, has made an alteration in the law, arid that the stat. 56 Geo. 3, c. 58, does not apply to a person who sells beer by retail under that act. But the state of the law is this. Persons who retailed beer were required originally, aa alehouse-keepers, by the stat. 5 & 6 Edw. 6, c. 25, to take out a magistrate's [381] license. The stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, c. 64, has done no more than allow persons to sell beer by retail, without having that particular sort of license; it has not introduced any new traffic of any kind; a person sells beer by retail, and keeps an alehouse, now as he did before; but the legislature enables him to do so without a magistrate's license. That act does not at all affect the question, whether he is to be considered a seller of beer by retail; all that can be said is, that such person is not a seller of beer who ia required to take out a magistrate's license. The object of the legislature was, that retailers of beer should not have it in their power to adulterate the beer they sold to the public, and it can make no difference whether the retailer of beer haa a magistrate's license or not. The stat. 11 Geo. 4 & 1 Will. 4, e. 64, recites, that it is expedient for the better supplying the public with beer in England, to give greater facilities for the sale thereof than are at present afforded by licenses to keepers of inns, ale-houses, and victualling-houses ; and it enacts, that it shall be lawful for any person who shall obtain a license for that purpose under the provisions of this act, to sell beer, ale, and porter by retail in any part of England in any house or premises specified in such license. It enables them to do so without having a license under the former statutes, having taken out one under that statute; but the act itself shews that such a person is a retailer of beer; and it then goes on to state the mode in which the license is to be obtained. The 13th section enacts, that if any person so licensed as aforesaid shall knowingly sell any beer, ale, or porter made otherwise than from malt and hops, or shall mix or cause to be mixed any drugs or other pernicious ingredients with any beer sold in his house or premises, or shall fraudulently dilute or in any way adulterate any such beer, such offender shall for the first offence forfeit any sum not less than £10, nor more than [382] £20, as the justices before whom such offender shall be convicted shall adjudge. The 14th section regulates the time for keeping open the houses, and irpposes a penalty for a breach of that regulation ; and the 15th points out the mode iri which the penalties may be recovered. It is clear that those penalties are imposed on breaches of the act by the keepers of beerhouses under that statute, but there is nothing preventing the general regulations applying to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Lovett v Payne
-
R v Sakhuja
...153 my noble and learned friends, Lord Reid and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, cited the words of Baron Alderson in A.G. v. Lockwood [1842] 9 M. & W. 378, 398: "The rule of law, I take it, upon the construction of all statutes, and therefore applicable to the construction of this, is, whethe......
-
London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman
...leads to a plain and clear contradiction of the apparent purpose of the Act or to some palpable and evident absurdity." ( Attorney-General v. Lockwood, 1842, 9 M. & W. 378 at p. 398.) It appears from the evidence that it has not been the practice of the Railway Company, although the rule in......
-
R v Phekoo
...will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea." 14 After referring to the words of Baron Alderson in Attorney-General v. Lockwood (1842) 9 M. & W. at 398 Lord Reid continued: "It is also firmly established that the fact that other sections of the Act expressly re......
-
Pauline chronology and the problem of evidence: a legal perspective
...eg, per Parke B in Bland v Crowley 6 Exch 522, 529; per Bramwell B in Fowell v Tranter 3 H & C 458, 461; Attorney General v Lockwood (1842) 9M. & W. 378, 398 per Alderson B; Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132. 29. See, eg, per Lord Morris in Bank of Australasia v Palmer [1897] AC 540, 545; per L......