R v Woodrow
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 May 1846 |
| Date | 01 May 1846 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 153 E.R. 907
IN THE COURTS OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. 16 L. J. M. C. 122. Referred to, Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918.
[404] regina v. woodrow. May 1, 1846. - A dealer in and retailer of tobacco is liable to the penalty of £200, imposed by the 5 & 6 Viet. c. 93, s. 3, for having in his possession adulterated tobacco, although he had purchased it as genuine, and had no knowledge or cause to suspect that it was not so. - Where an officer i of excjse, by whom an information for penalties is exhibited, is absent at the time of the hearing, and there is an appeal against the judgment, on the part of the Crown, to the quarter sessions, under the 7 & 8 Geo. 4, e. 53, s. 82, the notices of appeal required by s. 8!i may, by virtue of the 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 51, ss. 22 and 23, be given and signed by any officer of excise who is present conducting the proceedings. [S. C. 16 L. J. M. C. 122. Referred to, Sherras v. De Rutzen, [1895] 1 Q. B. 918.] This was au appeal from the judgment of two justices of the peace for the borough of Great Yarmouth, in the county of Norfolk, upon an information exhibited by order oJ the commissioners of excise, by William Hedges, officer of excise in the said borough, ; against Nevill Fuller Woodrow, a licensed dealer in tobacco by retail, keeping a shop i within, the said borough ; which information was for the forfeiture of ,£200, for that, \ before anql at the time of the committing of the offence thereinafter mentioned, he ! (Woodronj) was a dealer in tobacco; and that, being such dealer in tobacco, at Great I Yarmouth), on the 28th of September, 1844, at &c,, he had in his possession fifty-four i pounds weight of manufactured tobacco, (not being roll tobacco), to wit, cut tqbacco, * which tobacco had then and there added thereto, and mixed therewith, certain other materials and things and matter than water only, that is to say, sugar, molasses, and other saccharine matter, to wit, three pounds weight of sugar, three pounds weight of molasses, and three pounds weight of other saccharine matter, to the said William Hedges unknown, contrary, &c. ; whereby, &c. ; and also for the forfeiture of the tobacco. The information was heard on the 25th of March, 1845, before William Henry Palmer, Esquire, the then Mayor, and William Yetts, Esquire, two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace for the said borough, and was by them dismissed. ; William Marks, an officer of excise, was present before the magistrates to conduct and REGINA V. WOODROW IS M. & W. 405. did conduct the case, on behalf of the excise; Hedges, the officer by whom and in whose name the information had been exhibited, not being present on its being dismissed. Notices of appeal, signed by the said Marks, in his own name, and not as the agent of Hedges, were served upon the justices and the respondent; and in [405] due time notice of trial of the appeal at the sessions was served, which was signed by Hedges. At the trial of the appeal, at the Quarter Sessions held for the said borough, on the 94th day of June, 1845, it was objected by the counsel for the respondent, that due notice of appeal and of the trial had not been given, the first notice being signed by Marks and the second by Hedges. The Court overruled the objection, reserving the point. Upon the merits being gone into, the Court found that the respondent was a licensed dealer in tobacco by retail, and that he kept a shop in Great Yarmouth ; and that, upon the 28th September, 1844, an officer of excise had seized in the respondent's shop, in a drawer where he kept his tobacco for the purposes of sale, fifty-four and a half pounds of manufactured tobacco, which, on being subjected to the usual tests, was found to .have added thereto and mixed therewith four per cent, of saccharine matter; that the adulteration had been made in the course of the manufacture, and not afterwards; and that the respondent had purchased the tobacco of a manufacturer as genuine tobacco, and believed that the tobacco seized was genuine, and that he had no knowledge nor cause to suspect that the tobacco he so purchased, and which was seized, had any saccharine matter added to or mixed therewith, or that it had been manufactured in any other way than as directed by law. The Court of Quarter Sessions dismissed the appeal, subject to a case for the opinion of the Court of Exchequer, upon two points: - 1st, Whether the notices of appeal and trial were sufficient. 2nd, Whether the respondent had been guilty of the offence charged in the information. The judgment of Quarter Sessions to be quashed or confirmed, as the Court may decide upon the above questions. If the order of sessions should be quashed, then the respondent to be convicted in the mitigated penalty of £50, and the tobacco seized to be forfeited. [406] J- Wilde, for the Crown. First, as to the sufficiency of the notices of appeal. The act of Parliament under which these proceedings were taken is the general Excise Regulation Act, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 53; the 82nd section of which enacts, that "in case any officer who shall exhibit any information, or any person or persons against whom any information shall have been exhibited, &c., before any justice or justices of th£ peace as aforesaid, shall feel aggrieved by the judgment given therein byjsuch justices, it shall be lawful for such officer or such person or persons, upon gh'iug such notice as hereinafter mentioned, to appeal therefrom to the justices assembled at the next general Quarter Sessions of the peace ; and it shall be lawful for the justices of the peace at such general Quarter Sessions, upon being served with such notice, and they are hereby respectively authorised and required, to hear, adjudge, and finally determine such appeal: and if, upon any such appeal, any defect in form shall be fouud in the information or in anytpart of the proceedings thereon or relating thereto, or in the record thereof, every such defect of form shall thereupon be rectified and amended by order of such justices, or the major part of them." Then sect. 83 points out what notices shall be required to be given by the appellant party. It says, " that no such appeal as aforesaid shall be allowed, unless the party or parties appellant shall, at and immediately upon the giving of the judgment appealed against, give notice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mohamed Ibrahim v PP
-
Charles v Skeete
... ... 197 And Bagley, J. said (ibid. at p. 552): “… as to knowledge, the clause itself says nothing about it” ... 198 Then there is the case which has been said to be an early leading case on strict liability — R. v. Woodrow , (1846) 153 E.R. 907 ... The defendant was found guilty of having in his possession adulterated tobacco although he did not know it was adulterated. A court of four judges (Pollock, C.B., Parke, B., Alderson, B. and Rolfe, B.) upheld the conviction, holding that knowledge way not essential to ... ...
-
Maguire v Shannon Regional Fisheries Board
...GOVT (WATER POLLUTION) ACT 1977 S3(1) DAVIES V HARVEY LR 9 QB 433 AG V LOCKWOOD 9 M & W 378 FITZPATRICK V KELLY LR 8 QB 337 R V WOODROW 15 M & W 404 ROBERTS V EGERTON LR 9 QB 494 R V STEPHENS LR 1 QB 702 R V MEDLEY 6 C & P 292 BARNES V AKROYD LR 7 QB 474 MORDEN V PORTER 7 CB (NS) 641 Synops......
-
Warner v Metropolitan Police Commissioner; R v Warner
...not possibly be said to be in possession of it." 64In this connection reference may usefully be made to the case of Regina v. Woodrow, 15 M. & W. 404. In that case (in 1846) a dealer in tobacco was held liable to the monetary penalty imposed by section 3 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 93. There was a pr......
-
Strict Criminal Liability: A Violation of the Convention?
...Resurgence of Mens Rea: III—Rise and Fall of Strict Liability’(1989) 30 Boston College Law Review 337 at 340, 345.2 (1846) 15 M & W 404, 153 ER 907.3 See, e.g., D. Ormerod, Smith & Hogan Criminal Law, 6th edn (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 2005) 136.4Pain vBroughtwood (1890) 24 QBD 353 an......