The Queen against Wilcock
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 May 1845 |
| Date | 15 May 1845 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 115 E.R. 509
QUEEN'S BENCH
S. C. 1 New Sess. Cas. 651; 14 L. J. M. C. 104; 9 Jur. 729.
[317] THE queen against wilcock (a)3. Thursday, May 15th, 1845. Under sects. 10 and 14 of stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56 (for preventing frauds, &c. by persons employed in the woollen and other manufactures), a party may be convicted of having in his. possession materials used in such manufactures and suspected to be purloined or embezzled, and of not accounting for the possession, although such goods have not been found concealed in his dwelling-house, outhouse, &c., or in the execution of a search-warrant granted under sect. 10; the offence consisting in the possession itself, not accounted for as the statute requires. Stat. 58 G. 3, c. 51, describes by their titles and dates several Acts relating to persons employed in the woollen and other manufactures, which Acts it in part repeals. Among these is an Act stated to have been passed in 13th Geo. 3, but agreeing in title with stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, and with no Act passed in 13 G. 3. Held that this Act might be identified by the title with the Act recited, and that the Legislature must be deemed to have mistaken the date. And, therefore, that the distribution of penalties under stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, s. 14, is now regulated by stat. 58 G. 3, c. 51, s. 3. Stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, s. 10, empowers two justices, on complaint, to causa the party charged to be brought before " two justices," who are not required to be the same two; and enacts that, if such party shall not give a satisfactory account to such justices, he shall be convicted, &c. Held that the conviction in such case must state, as required by the subsequent Act, 3 G. 4, c. 23, s. 2, that the complaint was made to different justices from those who determined it. Although stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, gives a general form of conviction, not requiring any particular statement as to the justices who first heard or who determined the complaint. And a conviction under this Act was quashed for omitting such statement. [S. C. 1 New Sess. Cas. 651 ; 14 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 9 Jur. 729.] The Quarter Sessions, on appeal, quashed a conviction, subject to the opinion of this Court upon a case, which was stated as follows. (a.)1 See, as to judgment on a feigned issue, Luard v. Butcher, 2 Corn. B. 858. (a)2 A writ of error on this judgment has been brought in the House of Lords. (a)3 The Court of Queen's Bench sat in Bane on Thursday the 15th of May. 510 THE QUEEN V. WILCOCK 7Q. B.318. Joshua Taylor has been convicted of a misdemeanor. The conviction was in the words following. "West Riding of Yorkshire, to wit. Be it remembered that, on the 1st day of May, A.D. 1844, at the pariah of Bradford, in the West Riding of the county of York, Joshua Taylor, of," &c., " weaver, was convicted before us, Henry Wickham Wickham, Esq., and John Garnett Horsfall, Esq., two of Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said West Riding of the said county of York, upon the information upon oath of Joseph Wilcock, of," &c., " inspector of worsted yarn, a credible person, the informer in this behalf, and upon evidence on the oaths of certain persons of whom the said informer was not one, to wit of Joseph Field, [318] of," &c., police officer, and Joseph Foster, of," &c., " inspector of worsted yarn, credible witnesses, of a misdemeanor. For that he the said J. Taylor had, on the 20th day of April in the said year of our Lord 1844, in his the said J. Taylor's dwelling house, situate in the township of North Bierley in the parish aforesaid in the West Riding aforesaid (the said township of N. B., then and thence hitherto, and still, being a township having separate overseers of the poor of the said township, and the inhabitants of the said township then and thence hitherto, and still, maintaining the poor of the said township separately and apart from the said parish at large), certain materials used in the woollen and worsted manufactures, to wit two pounds weight of worsted yarn, and two pounds weight of Alpaca yarn, then and there suspected to be purloined or embezzled, and then and there found in the said dwelling house of the said J. Taylor, and in the possession of the said J. Taylor; and, the said materials, so found as aforesaid, and: the said J. Taylor, having been duly brought together before us, the said H. W. W. and J. G. H., so being such justices as aforesaid on the said 1st day of May, A.D. 1844, at the parish aforesaid, in the riding aforesaid, he the said J. Taylor did not then or at any other time give an account to the satisfaction of us, the said H. W. W. and J. G. H., so being such justices as aforesaid, how he came by the said materials, nor did he, the said J. Taylor, then or at any other time produce before us, the said justices, the party or parties, or any person or persons, duly entitled to dispose of the same materials, of or from whom he bought or received the same; but, though then and there required by us the said justices, then and there wholly neglected and refused so to do, [319] contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided: whereby, and by force of the said statute, the said J. Taylor is to be deemed and adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor. Whereupon we, the said H. W. W. and J. G. H., so being such justices as aforesaid, do adjudge the said J. Taylor to be guilty of the said misdemeanor, and that he hath forfeited for his said offence, being his first offence, the sum of 201. of lawful money of Great Britain, to be paid, applied and distributed as the law directs, and according to the form and directions of the statute in such case made and provided ; and, if the same be not paid, and if no sufficient distress shall be found whereon to levy the said penalty and forfeiture of 201., then we, the said justices, do adjudge that the said J. Taylor be committed to the house of correction at Wakefield, in and for the said West Riding, without bail or mainprise, for the space of one month, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Given under our hands and seals the day and year first above written." On appeal to the Quarter Sessions for the West Riding of Yorkshire, held at Bradford on the 3d day of July 1844, the conviction was quashed, subject to the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench on the following case. The parish of Bradford is divided into townships, each maintaining separately its own poor; the parish having churchwardens and no overseers; the townships having each their respective overseers and no churchwardens. The counsel for the appellants objected : [320] Firstly, that the adjudication for the distribution of the penalty was not correct. Secondly, that, on the information being put in as part of the respondents' case, it appeared to have been before Joshua Pollard and Thomas Paley, Esqrs., justices of the peace in and for the West Riding, while the conviction itself was before Henry Wickham Wickham and John Garnett Horsfall, Esqrs., two other justices in and for the said West Riding; and that this did not appear upon the face of the conviction. Thirdly, that the conviction does not state that the said materials used in the woollen and worsted manufactures, so found in the dwelling house of the appellant, 7Q. B.S. THE QUEEN V. WILCOCK 511 were concealed in the said dwelling houae, nor that they were found under a warrant under the bands and seals of two justices of the peace of the said West Riding. If the Court of Queen's Bench should be of opinion that the conviction was bad upon all, or any, or either, of these points, the order of the sessions was to be confirmed. If the Court should be of opinion that the conviction was good on the said points, then the order of sessions to be quashed, and the conviction confirmed. The speeial ease was argued in last Hilary term and vacation (a). R. Hall and Overend, in support of the order of sessions. This is a conviction under stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, ss. 10, 14(6): and it is defective, in the first place, [321] (a) January 25th and February 1st. Before Lord Denman C.J., Patteson, Cole ridge and Wightman Js. (b) Stat. 17 G. 3, c. 56, is entitled "An Act for Amending and Rendering more Effectual the several Laws now in Being, for the more Effectual Preventing of Frauds and Abuses by Persons employed in the Manufacture of Hats, and in the Woollen, Linen, Fustian, Cotton, Iron, Leather, Fur, Hemp, Flax, Mohair, and Silk Manufactures; and also for making Provisions to Prevent Frauds by Journeymen Dyers." Sect. 10. " And whereas it frequently happens that materials used in the manufactures before mentioned, are found, or known to be concealed in the possession of persons who have received the same, knowing them to be purloined or embezzled, or of persons known not to be entitled to dispose of the same ; and whereas the discovery and conviction of the purloiners and embezzlers, buyers and receivers, of such materials, is full of difficulty, from the close and clandestine manner in which the offence is committed; and there is still greater difficulty in proving whose property such materials are; and it would tend to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State (Murphy) v Johnston
...at the trial of the prosecutor and had been supplied by the certificate of the Bureau. Cases mentioned in this report:— 1 R. v. Wilcock (1845) 7 Q.B. 317. 2 In re Boothroyd (1846) 15 M.& W. 1. Appeal from the High Court. On the 21st January, 1979, the prosecutor, Norbert Murphy, was convict......
-
Wacb v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
...also Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, 12th ed (1969) at 228; Craies on Statute Law, 7th ed (1971) at 520–521. In R v Wilcock (1845) 7 QB 317 [ 115 ER 509] the Payment of Workmen's Wages Act 1818 (UK) (58 Geo III c 51) repealed several Acts described by their titles and dates, incl......
-
Interpretation Of Statutes
...desires to do so, this Court can, and ought to, correct obvious slips in drafting. See: Re Twiggs Estate (1892) 1 Ch. 579; R v. Wilcock (1845) 7 Q.B. 317. In all such cases it is permissible for the Court to depart from strict literal construction in order to give effect to the legislator’s......
-
Cases referred to in 1989 Part II
...473 R. v. Walter Graham Rowland (1947) 32 C A R 29 ...................................................... 265 R. v. Wilcock (1845) 7 Q.B. 317. 103 R. v. Zekeri Abudu (1985) 1 N.W.L.R. (Pt.l) 55 473 Rabiu v. Kano State (1980) 8-11 S.C. 130; (1982) 2 N.C.L.R. 117 ...................................