Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Digitized
by Microsoft
KD 691.M46
On
1920
3 1924 021
Digitized
652 189
by Microsoft
This
book was
cooperation
digitized
witli
by Microsoft Corporation
provide access to
for
it
in
limited quantity
or
Digitized
by Microsoft
ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
BY THE LATE
Sir
^XWELL,
peter BENSON
'*
1, 3.
18
SIXTH EDITION
W. WYATT-PAINB,
OF THB INNEB TEMPLE AND NORTH EASTERN CIRCUIT, BARBISTER-AT-LAW.
ATTTHOK OF
LONDON
SWEET AND MAXWELL, LTD.,
3,
GHANOBEY LANE,
Xaw iPublfsbers
TORONTO
THE CAESWBLL
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
edition
is
an
at't'empt to
make one
of
Digitized
by Microsoft
IV
PEEFACB.
essentials
present day.
Mr.
J.
and Northern
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
III.
...
....
External circumstances
Earlier and later Acts Analogous Acts.
Preamble Marginal notes Schedule
The context
title
3
35
54
72
CHAPTEE
II.
I.
II. Beneficial
to the subject-matter
construction
95
123
CHAPTEE
III.
Presumption against
Consequences to be considered
specific object
.
1*
Digitized
by Microsoft
148
VI
CONTENTS.
OHAPTEE
IV.
OR ABUSE.
Sect.
II.
CHAPTER
PAGE
....
I.
206
226
V.
I.
new, jurisdictions
II.
affected
if
not
CHAPTER
named
....
....
235
244
VI.
I.
Presumption
intending an excess
against
of juris-
255
diction
II.
III.
How far
of international
law
CHAPTER
262
273
VII.
I.
EepugnancyRepeal by
implication
Acts
non derogant
Digitized
in,
or in-
.'..
......
....
.....
.
by Microsoft
280
296
313
329
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER
Vli
VIII.
Sect.
I.
is
inoonveaient
or Tinreasonable
II.
339
III. Construction
2.
1.
As regards procedure
CHAPTEE
356
or per-
own wrong
As regards vested
869
rights
B81
IX.
EXCEPTIONAL CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.
I.
II.
Equitable construction
...
CHAPTER
406
447
X.
STRICT CONSTRUCTION.
Sect.
I.
II.
462
By-laws
501
CHAPTER
XI.
SUBORDINATE PRINCIPLES;
Sect.
I.
II.
Effect of usage
531
III. Construction of
Effect
multiplicity of words
^Of
common
some
particular expressions
by Microsoft
sense
Digitized
of
variation of language
VI. Meaning of
541
553
571
583
603
vm
CONTENTS.
CHAPTEE
XII.
WHEN
I.
BXPEESSES NONE.
Implied enactments
PAGE
Necessary incidents
and conse-
quences
II.
III.
Imperative or directory
IV.
Lex non
juri
cogit ad impossibUia
647
615
623
pro se introducto
CHAPTEE
XIII.
Sect.
I.
II.
III.
INDEX
Kepeal
688
RevivalConamencement
705
727
748
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
. .
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
;.
R. R. 497
..
246
628
&
&
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
108
..
532
263
314
446
663
715
304
41
510
266
126
474
Armour
v.
Walker
L. T. 292
32
53 L. J. Ch. 413
501
244
632
50
W. R. 214
430
Armstrong
674
v.
693
222
V.
V.
507
..
C. 161
..
;
270
201
17
644
Jur. 1157
Digitized
by Microsoft
XU
TABLE OF OASES.
PAGB
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
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
XIV
PAGB
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
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
Xvii
PACE
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
38 L.
J.
36?
XVIU
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Baxendale
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
349
512
151
210
247
511
694
42
81
395
438
Digitized
by Microsoft
627
612
625
668
TABLE OP CASES.
XIX
PAGE
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
3 L. J. C. P. 121
4 M.
&
381
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
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
XXll
PAGE
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.
Woodford
&
&
333
Boydell
v.
98 R. R. 510
Druramond
345
(1809), 11 East 142
2 Campb. 157
R.R.45Q
10
455,512
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
Brooklehurst
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
XXVI
PAGE
Brown
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
. .
C.
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
'J^ABLE
OF CASES,
xxix
I'AGK
'
. .
'
. .
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
XXX
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASKS.
XXXl
PA GE
&
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
v.
189
412
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.
'
C.
414
Clow
Digitized
by Microsoft
538
529
517
540
616
569
TABLE OF
CASES.
xxxiii
PAGE
Cobb,
Ex
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
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 ..
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
Digitized
&
P. 31
5 R. R. 533
by Microsoft
..
..
645
TABLE OF CASES.
XXXV
I'AGK
Cook
Coppen
. .
B.
184, 191
R.
350
448
42
357
215
Digitized
by Microsoft
25
137
XXXVX
TABLE OF CASES.
tko*
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
.:
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.
;
&
&
136
L. J. Q. B. 408; 5
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
u.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
XXXIX
D.
PAGE
&
&
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OP CASES.
xl
PAGE
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
222
. .
. .
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
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
Co.
Mining Appliances
v.
340
Co., [1915]
W. N.
..
593
517
123
523
71.;29W. R.87
v. Neath and Brecon Ry.
Dickson
486
648
455
182
106
481
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
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
&
IG.
.
.
&D.
180
616
99
730
V.
.'.'
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
xliv
PA 01!
Downing
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OP OASES.
_
xlv
I'AGB
Durant
v.
43 L.
P. 113
J. C.
217
B. 330 60 L. J.
J. P. 759
..
;
247
150
371
534
494
186
E.
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
683
Eggington
38
81
25
W. R.
713
v.
Lichfield (1855), 5 E.
&
B. 100
24 L.
J. Q. B.
360
611
K. B. 265
101 L. T.
133
EUiott,
Ee
(1891),
39
W. R. 297
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
[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
102
Asp.
359
M. 0.565
Bonham (1861),
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
xlix
PAGE
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
;
&
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
. .
112
716
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
,
li
Foulgar
PACE
W.
553
194
448
518
422
655
24
455
135
610
90
556
65
457
193
7,
H.
693
&
&
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.
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
&
283
63R. R. 455
Hudson, [1893]
V.
378
Fusilier,
27
W.
41
1 Ch.
335
62 L. J. Ch. 178
R. 358
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
&
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
&
&
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
Sheffield
K. B. 492
L. J.
326
309
C.
Gore
370
693
585
201
Grey
&
13 Jur. 238
43
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
Ivi
PAGE
Grant
Anderson
v.
78 L.
& Co.,
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
Morley (1841), 3 M. & G. 139
SScottN. R. 638; 60R. R. 479
Greathead
v.
Greaves
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
&
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
150
489
5
34
623
42
533
43,H.L
7,11,452,662
71 L. T.
732
380
H.
682
Ch. 541
48 L. T. 250
31
W.
R. 393
..
..
164,238
6 Jur.
523
652
74
Hadden
I).
The
..
621
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
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
Hasluck
V.
<
. .
."
'..
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
Ixii
PAGE
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
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
41,106
J.
London
V.
45 L. J,
M.
C. 153
35 L. T.
306
(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
&
&
&
&
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
,-
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
491
278
69
100
Ede
V.
L. T. 764
V.
..
McRae
W.
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
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.
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.
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
v.
. .
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OP CASES.
Ingram
&
TAGB
Royle
541, C.
Ings
V.
Ixvil
v.
London
C. P. 86
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
;
..
'
683
by Microsoft
349
210
Digitized
151
277
391
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixviii
PAGE
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
;
K.
Kaufman
Kay
44
..
..728
J.
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
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
67 L. T. 688
385
107
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
v.
Lanes.
&
91
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxiii
PAGE
135
585
30
145
397
196
198
92
474
592
194
v.
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
518
..
;
80
504
24 L. J. Q. B. 301
388
2 L. J. Ex. 72
D. P. C.
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
. .
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
. .
TABLE OF OASES.
Ixxvi
PAGE
&
&
.'.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxvii
107
129
195
550
Bank
Mexico
v.
270
630
712
680
461
. .
. .
. .
42
549
60
623
465
77,
0.
75,
524
215
I.S,
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
Ixxviii
PAGE
-y.
(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
!'.
M
Maas
V.
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
61 L. J.
Adm. 81
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
IXXX
PA&E
McLean
120
204
257
MacPhail
u.
McQueen
v.
R. 159, Ir
455
51
590
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.
Maple
131
385
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
K. B. 806
. .
Mayor
t;.
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
;
&
Ex.130
Mercer v. Denhe, [1904] 2 Ch. 534
592
;
37 L. J.
678
;
74 L.
J.
Ch. 723
V.
Digitized
K. B. 128
by Microsoft
..
..
55
172
TABLE OF CASES.
'
Ixxxiii
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.
Colvill (1878),
L. T. 747
40
606, 610
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
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
N.
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
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
&
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
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
. .
&
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
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
467
Pointon
357
595
474
J.P. 260, H.
Digitized
73,92,129,599,600
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
xcvui
PAGE
lMansonl72
384,389,396
Q.
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
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
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.
w.
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
ClU
PAGE
R.
V.
. .
^-
. .
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
CIV
R.
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
&
&
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
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.
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.
..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
&
&
(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
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
CXIV
R.
V.
TABLE OF CASES.
734
683
(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
&
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
489
R. R.
591
738
Newman
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
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.
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.
&
St.
V.
cxvii
E. 391
2 H.
& W.
253
PAGE
322
-St.
135
155
246
392
153
376
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
(1854), 2 EI.
&
1073
18 Jur.
15
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
cxix
PAGE
R.
V.
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
. .
TABLE OF CASES.
CXX
PAGE
R.
V.
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).
&
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.
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
;
Reuss Kostritz,
Digitized
by Microsoft
278
;
37 L. T.
65 L. J.
223
382
5
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxiu
PAGE
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
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OP CASES.
CXXIV
PASE
&
. .
&
Roddam
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
Rogers
v.
W.
. .
.'
'
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXVl
Ruckmaboye
PAGE
409
612
678
249
227
. .
. .
267
726
449
508
249
490
449
91
112
632
S.
. .
St.
St.
St.
Juan Nepomuceno
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
. .
'
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
cxxvii
PAGE
97
478
514
&
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
. .
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
& E.
3 D.
47 L. J. P. C. 98
84; 25
236
38L.T.793
Shardlow
v.
345
D. 90
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
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,
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.
V.
Hodsman
25 L. J. Ex. 6
105 R. R. 386
Sheppard
Digitized
by Microsoft
..
.,
711,
712
320
176
533
CXXX
TABLE OF CASES.
PAGE
. .
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
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
CXXXU
TABLE OP OASES.
VAfili
Smitl;..
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
CXXXUl
PAGE
318
549
186
Q.
B.D.455
..
203
6
504
196
44
202
".
..
'
'
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
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
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
V.
(1887), 18
66
881
241
'
Digitized
644
by Microsoft
118
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXVl
PAGE
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
17 L. T. 22
Suche &
Be (1875),
774 24 W. E. 184
Co.,
15
W.
102
;
86 L.
Ch.
J.
E. 1096
592
391
270
..
138,
202, 210
of
P.
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
;
Sutton
. .
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF CASES.
CXXXVll
PAOB
Sweeney
v.
Jur. N. S. 691
470
138
260
454
726
102
211
364
592
675
T.
Digitized
by Microsoft
CXXXVm
TABLE OF CASES.
PABE
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
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
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.
......
. .
!;.
H. L
Unwin
199
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Webb
621
579
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
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
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
. .
. .
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
.....
;
Wolverhampton Waterworks
456
Wood,
113; 20 W. B. 403
Digitized
669
570
by Microsoft
TABLE OF OASES.
cli
PAGE
Wood
16W.
R. 485
651
. .
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
& S. 758
M.
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
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.
22 L.
York (Dean
.J.
Q. B. 225
(1853),
i_
1 !E1.
cliii
PAGE
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.
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
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
..
"
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,
bigamy
..
257'
422, 428
bMikrupt
conveyance of felons
c. 12, fish
..
..
86
581
544
bankrupt
..
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
2,378,584
..
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.
o. 11,
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,
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
. .
. .
. .
..
..
..
. .
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
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.
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.
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
..
..
..
..
&
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
..
..
..
..
..
..
63,71,590
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
c.
c. 80,
c.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
by Microsoft
..
309,609,656,709
TABLE OF STATUTES.
clxi
PAGE
&2
2 & 3 Vict.
0. 11,
e, 37,
judgments
usury
..
..
..
..
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.
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
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
..
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,
..
.,
..
..
..
..
..
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
..
..
.-
..
..
..
..
..
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
..
..
..
by Microsoft
..
516
827
474
209,481
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
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,
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
60
305
731
management
TABLE OP STATUTES.
clxV
PAGE
32
&.
33 Vict.
c. 62,
debtors
0. 67,
metropolis valuation
..
0. 70,
diseases of animals
..
c. 71,
bankruptcy
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
..
..
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.
290
171
425
vagrants
Digitized
164
261,306,371
494
..
..
kidnapping
c.
0.
395
311,506,667
256,264,408
96. dilapidations
c. 38,'
. .
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
& 36
..
SO
140
373
..
0.
35
146
..
..
..
..
..
Africa
31, trade unions
c. 8,
..
..
0. 29,
c.
..
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.
..
..
392,
126,
army
"362,363,
c. 60,
45
clxvii
14,
301
290
55
505
394
661
393
666
519
740
147
113
c.
TABLK OF STATUTES.
Clxviii
PAGE
50
51
& 51
& 52
3^8
97,700
130, 295, 679
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
..
..
..
428
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
TABLE OF STATUTES.
clxix
PAGE
56
&
57
& 58 Viot.
57 Vict.
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,
..
..
132, 151,
265, 268,
416, 485,
563, 569,
c.
&
58
59 Vict.
c.
c.
37, factory
c. 39,
& 60
59
Thames conservancy
London building
113,
clxxxvii,
c. ocxiii,
and workshop
summary
..
..
..
jurisdiction (married
45,550
410
..
..
..
women)
152, 396,
'73
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
..
..
..
musical copyright
..
42, education
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
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.
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.
..
c.
62 & 63
..
workmen's compensation
c. 37,
359
by Microsoft
TABLE OP STATUTES.
Clxx
FAQK
6 Ed. VII.
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
..
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
..
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.
..
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
0.
o.
&
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
..
c. 58,
arrangement
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
266,267,268
..
388,405
..
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.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
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.
is
that a statute
is
to
statute
in
themselves
biguous no more
precise
unam-
and
is
(b).
The
object
p.
(a)
(6)
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
v.
Bridges (1847), 1 H. L. 0.
Ir.
&
Fordyce
01.
or
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
within
the task
when
is
When
it.
the intention
is
expressed,
question to which
it
some
intention
Legislature regarding
it,
it
legal principles.
comprised in
questions
arise
offender indictable
marily
and,
is
as well
as
is
the
punishable sum-
On
the prohibition.
Act affected by
it ?
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,
must be
Sunday Observance
Digitized
by Microsoft
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
The
(a).
seems thus to
fall
What
What
and
are those
SECTION
The
tion
II.
LITERAL
CONSTRUCTION.
first
is,
From
these presumptions
it
is
not allowable to
(a)
Bradlaugh
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.
is
it
words
of the
is
to be
or
in
which case
may
words
(a)
191, p. 195
506
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
B.
v. Castro (1874),
Clarke (1883), 52 L. J. Q. B.
24 Q. B. D.
63 L.
Bradlaugh
H. L. Gas. 815
505, per
M. & W.
43 L.
McBougal v. Paterson, 21 L. J. 0. P. 27
13 M. & W. 511 67 E. E. 707 per
J.,
v. Smith, (1836),
v.
v.
;
Monarch Bldg.
Soey.,
G. 48.
Digitized
by Microsoft
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
no further "
(a).
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
'
we should launch
departed,
of difficulties
(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
When
(a)
the language
is
Gas., at p. 6,
v. Pearson,
St. John's,
6 H. L. Gas. 106
Eampstead
v.
v.
Cotton
Bhodes
28 L.
Id)
12 East, 293.
Gtmdry v. Pinniger (1852), 1
(e)
21 L.
(/)
J.
Gh. 114.
(c)
J.
De
G. M.
& G. 502;
Gh. 405.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
can
Vattel, to interpret
tion
(a),
the
decisive of
is
(h).
it (c).
mean what
to
no room
is
matters not, in
It
a case,
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
Turner,
Sussex Peerage
395
Cur.,
laid
down by
M.E.
Jessel
[1893] A. C, at
v. Skeen, 28 L. J.
M.
C. 94
p.
477
per Jervis
per
C.J.,
95.
Ex. D. 227
shoM
1 T. E. 96
U. S. v. Hartwell, 6 Wallace,
The Alina,
Alley
(e).
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.
C. 1004
Crawford
v.
Spooner, 6
Digitized
by Microsoft
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
The underlying
meaning
However
braced (c).
wisdom
Ghm/nne
(a)
p.
606
(6)
When
(d).
may
must
once the meaning
be,
it
is plain, it is
its
or incon-
unjust, arbitrary
or its
poHcy
v.
duty
Its
(e).
&
P. 572
not to
is
Coleridge
J.,
at
51 E. E. 43.
&
G. 164.
Pike
V.
Peters, 524
(d)
an American case.
41 L.
(e)
B.
J.
B.
v.
Poor
v.
& E.
& E. 7
6?. W. B.
Law
Commissioners, 6 A.
J.
May
v.
Q. B. 104.
V. Staffordshire,
Lord Mansfield
v.
12 East, 572; B.
B.
v.
Worcestershire, 3 P.
Digitized
by Microsoft
& D.
E. 100, per
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
according
stands,
it
words
expound
reasonable, but to
the
to
it
as
sense of the
real
(a).
common law
tion of an existing
in the absence
of express
later
tion
it
specially
is
not,
effect,
application of that
there
general
are
and
capable of reasonable
subjects
wiU
words to that
create a
words in a
liability
extending them to
dealt
special legislation is
by force of such
Moreover, although
if it
to obliterate it
is
this
qualification that it
Denman
Miller v. Salomons, 21
Attuoater,
v.
&
James, 2 B.
S.
;
61
Exp.
Followed in Payne
M.
G. 33
J.
Ex. 362
See
;
ex. gr.
Dennis v.
447.
Wear Gommissioners
(6)
Miver
(c)
Seward
v.
v.
Adamson
(1877), 2 A. 0. 743.
Digitized
by Microsoft
p. 68.
LITERAL OONSTRUOTION.
But although
spective
statute
that
as
retro-
should
be
construed
so
is
in plain
where
vested
which
were
who have
divested,
lawful
when
made unlawful by
language
expressed
it
seems
and acts
done are
a statute, those
must give
effect
are
And
to it(c).
rights
perfectly
subsequently
when
principle
it
that
general
does
real
it
intention
if
its
it.
(a)
Lemm
400 P. C.
Singer,
v. Mitchell
Comp. Sex
v.
(1916), 86
Exp.
L. J.
B. 66,
0.
A.;
[1917]
1 K. B. 259.
(6)
Tomig
v.
Bourlt v.
Midland B. Co.
(d)
Nixon
v.
V. Phillips (1852),
Digitized
21 L.
J.
Ex. 88.
by Microsoft
10
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Lord Tenterden, in
another
(a),
"may,
in this
Act
but
it is
better to abide
by
this consequence
(b),
effect
Abinger, in another
(c),
we cannot
construe
it
all
contemplated ; but
Stohe
B.
V.
Barham, 8 B. & 0. 99
Damerel, 7 B. &
22 L.
M. & W.
464.
B.
J.,
v.
J.
Q. B. 140.
A.-G. V. Lochwood, 9
(c)
0. 569.
531.
(d)
225,
Per
Cur., Torh
&
v.
Digitized
v. B.,
22 L.
J.
Q. B.
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-
it (a).
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,
make it
o&ce
is
is
Though
it is
obvious,
advisable to illus-
and the
stance,
limits of its
its
s.
general scope
application.
it
so
it is
at
law (before
burn
J.,
51 E. E. 42
33 L.
per
J.
Oh. 372
per Cock-
Wigram, Interp.
C.J.,
v. Burnell,
Palmer
v.
3 Q. B.
Thatcher,
(d)
Per Mathew
J.,
Bothschild
v. Inl.
Bodrigues
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Per Pollock C.
B.,
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
12
of action
or,
the date of accrual, or was even fraudulently concealed from the wrong-doer until the time limited
made within
a certain
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
& B. 73
J.
McCarthy, 22 E. E. 503
Co.,
J.
Smith
Q. B. 138
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
Hunter
Pellew
Fox, 77 E. E, 152
and Thome
J.
v.
v. Mitchell
Guild, 51 L. J. Q. B. 313
52 L.
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.
of
Gibbs
v.
Oh. 690
v.
an
Todd,
alien
[1916] 2 K. B. 707, G. A.
Lowenfeld,
II.
Bellamy, 1 B.
&
C. 500;
Digitized
B.
v. Tolley,
3 East, 467;
by Microsoft
LITERAL CONSTRUCTION.
13
by an
the making
to persons aggrieved
has been held that the time ran from the day
it (6),
in-
justice resulting
struction
statutes,
consequently "whatever
the instrument,
it
and
it is
arguing in
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)
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
compKance
one day
all
probability, intended
but the
been
(d),
(a)
v.
(e).
See also
mud
Bichards
(c)
v.
1 Vict.
(e)
In
In
As
re,
re,
c.
26,
s. 9.
Brown
Ch. 502.
Digitized
J.
M.
0. 15.
26.
e.
v. Shirrow,
[1916]
App. 167.
McBride (1881), 51 L.
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,
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.
be
would
if
would be invalid
provided by
s.
21
(1) of
{b),
the
open to the
and generally
Summary
it is
Jurisdic-
fatal,
it (e).
interpreter, in
Wardrop, in the
estate
[1917] P. 54.
(a)
Tiam,
B.
V. Stohe
2 Bott. 363
B.
v.
See also B.
Margram, 5 T. E. 153
B.
v.
Melling-
v. St. Peter's,
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.
him, from a
An
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
As
Parsons
v.
L. J. Q. B.
59 L.
J.
Brand, 59 L.
Q. B. 189
J.
Comp. Bird
8.
Ch. 73
Sims
v.
New
v.
Davey, 60
Eberhardt
Co.,
Trollope (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. 11
(o)
Henry
v.
M. C. 57.
the power of the
Sec. 20 (2) of 2
& 3 Geo. V.
c.
31, limits
J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
LITERAL OONSTEUOTION.
suit or action
&
45
17
46 Vict.
(a).
20,
c.
ripened
title
s.
(which
altered
the
An enactment
summon
its
months from
maintenance, within 12
its
birth,
its
summons
after
because the
first
served by
(o) 2
&
3 Will. IV.
[1904] A. 0. 179,
c.
71
Levet
(6)
L. J.
Home &
at pp. 189,
Cooper
v.
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
482
Colls v.
Lord Macnaghten
323;
or continued, because
by Microsoft
18
INTEBPEETATION OP STATUTES.
the justice
who had
issued
it
had died
(a).
And
even
tion)
up a case
is
to
&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
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,
So,
(6).
the
appellant was
secure delay by
enabled to
(c).
(a) Pierce
2 & 3 Geo. V.
v.
c.
Hopper (1720),
1-
Sec. 48 (d)
Stra. 249.
who
of
Comp. Wesson
v.
9 Geo.
I.
c.
JR. v.
B.
v. Stafford-
6 Q. B. D. 100, at
p. 107,
-R.
and see B.
Digitized
v.
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.
of Parliament,
it
faith of a
had the
effect of
Roman
Catholics
and
Roman
Catholics,
Protestant
oflBLces,
had the
effect of disqualifying
Where an Act
disqualified
from
employment.
killing
game
all
(h) 1
161
Geo.
2,
c.
13
Miller
v.
Salomons, 21 L.
J.
Ex.
Christian "
to
St.
22 Id. 169
relieved
As
I.
by 21 & 22 Vict.
Digitized
c.
49,
10 Geo. IV.
by Microsoft
LITERAL CONSTRUOTION.
21
magistracy owners
in immediate
remainder or
it
(c).
The
(a) Jones v.
(6)
Per Ashurst
(c)
18 Geo.
J., Id.
II. c.
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
though it was
construction gave a barren
of his
conceded that
this
(a).
A statute which
a Court of Bequests
summon any
to
empowered
its port,
ceeding,
(6).
So,
(a)
Clementson
v.
Mason, 44 L.
J. 0.
P. 171.
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.
summons cannot be
Digitized
It
should be noted
by Microsoft
1830
(a),
23
carrier
from
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
The
provisions of
69,
s.
s. 8,
liquors, sold
by
retail.
in
(c).
be sold
in measures
c.
to produce
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
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
was
affidavit,
(a),
party
(&).
is
Act, by
s.
60 (repld. by 46
empowering a judgment
&
And
the same
47 Vict.
c.
49), in
obtain an
creditor to
when
& 24 Vict.
127,
c.
of a
So,
(c).
s.
28,
charge for
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.
Lotinga,
33 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.
constitutes recovery
J.
Ex. 57.
Foxon
v.
(/) Pinherton
v. Hasten,
Digitized
42 L.
J.
Oh. 878.
by Microsoft
Comp. Moxon
v.
NO ADDITION OR
OMISSION.
25
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
(a).
up to a third party
(6).
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
"we
thing to do "(d);
Act
61
c.
(6)
Edwards
(c)
Seeder Tindal
v. Walters,
Be
J.
v.
Westbury, Exp.
Sepulchre, 33 L. J.
Estate, 31 L. J. Ch.
See also
{d)
(e)
inf.
paid into
Oh. 638.
Marlborough, 53 E; E.
351.
Camp.
Be
Ch. 375
Cherry's
v. Goold,
79 L.
by Microsoft
K. B. 911.
J.
Digitized
Be
J.
K. B.955.
26
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
But where a
Act
section of a public
is
incor-
Act
will
(a).
is
not to
why
it
omission appears consequently to have been unThus, a Divorce Act, which provided
intentional.
made
for
woman might be
who made it, was
it,
in the county,
established
does
not
authorise
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.
Boodle, 16 L. J. C. P. 135
Owen
J.
21,
66 E. E. 658;
exists,
V.
Henshaw
Nind
v. Arthur, 7
(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
at
if
an Act
purpose,
when the
original
is
is
S.
C, r.
is
3,
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).
(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
s.
c.
76
Bavies
v.
Garland, 45 L. J. Q. B. 137.
and Schedule
Vict.
v.
c.
44,
s.
4.
9,
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
bailiff,
up by the
property seized
When
the
(a).
Common Law
on lunatics in confinement
and inaccessible,
made
rateable, without
making any
was held, where
it
(a)
(c).
&52
&
Vict.
W. & M.
43,
c.
s.
50;
which required
20,
c.
Be Loch
c.
much
61) repeals so
of
& 57
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
51 L.
17 Geo.
J,
M.
II. c. 3,
C. 104
and 1
s.
and Ord. 9
Vict.
4 of 45
Digitized
Williamson v.
Common Law
c.
& 46
and cdgnate
(5),
45
B.
Vict.
cases.
by Microsoft
Procedure
E. S. C.
v.
c.
Byott (1882),
NO ADDITION OR
29
OMISSION.
&
3 Vict,
ment
Where an Act
21 Jac.
(b).
I. c.
16,
having pro-
plaintiff
seas,
and
is
16,
(o) Fuller v.
Bedman
remedied by
s.
(6)
Bradley
v.
3 of 23
& 24
this mischief
Vict. c. 38.
111.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
M. C.
30
INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.
0.
Act
There
(a).
thus limiting
ground either
the consequences
sufficient
the Act of
empowered a married
making her
liable to
woman
be sued,
c.
75,
to sue, without
(&).
it
& 46 Vict.
by 34
&
35 Vict.
c.
112),
were given
to
known
Lane
v.
33
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
effect
and
31
it
Although the
the execution of
every
sale should be
"
attested by a solicitor, and that
the attestation
of
bill
planation
that
should
be
given
it
been given
(b).
only
required
had
Again, although the Bankruptcy
that
it
plied
(a)
(6)
Vict.
B.
V.
43,
(c).
s.
10
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
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
until
its
it
liability
424;
Whitechurch
see also
v.
B.
v.
Co.,
L. E. 7 Ex. 248,
M.
113.
(6)
Digitized
v.
Whitechurch, L. E. 7
by Microsoft
H. L.
81.
G.
NO ADDITION OB OMISSION.
33
"any"
of
effect
32
&
51,
c.
power to the
causes to
latter Court
itself,
County Court
was
(a),
s.
any such
of a
526,
to transfer
(6)
(c)
B.
103.
V.
I.
This mistake
is
c.
43,
Schedule.
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
s. 4,
76,
and
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
34
hensive nature
of
on
tlie
remedy
of proceeding in
rem when
his
it left
yet
it
was
it
(o)
(6)
Simpson
J.
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.
&
A. 40.
damage
to goods
(c),
to give the
to them,
was
end
of
Chap. V, Sec.
I.
Digitized
Adm.
I.
by Microsoft
65,
35
assignees of a bankrupt,
given
an
it
efieet
probably, but
in-
(a).
ever, will
chapter
efi'ect
(b).
SECTION
III.
THE
CONTEXT
EXTERNAL
CIRCUMSTANCES.
rule of construction
it is
con-
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 &
O'Keefe (1859), 10
Ir. 0.
Chap. IX.
Digitized
is
v.
This Act
Q. B. 217.
and applied
Vict. c. 66,
by Microsoft
L. E. 393.
mTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
36
But
which
rally,
it
it is
is
will,
gene-
if sufficiently flexible,
more
Language
grammatically,
intention
(6).
is
if
must
less correct
in
is
rarely
ambiguity as to be capable
so
free
from
being used in
of
On
(a)
(6)
See
409
(I.) 6.
Caledonian B. Go.
v.
N. Brit.
Lord Selborne
Co. v. Torbain, 1
576
App. Cas. 68
at pp. 575,
at p. 122, per
Tramways
Mahomed
Eastman Photographic
1 Bl.
Comm.
61
Puff. L. 5,
Digitized
c.
12,
s. 8.
by Microsoft
37
II. 's
On
(a).
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)
same
spirit his
The equivocation
or
L. N. b.
2, s.
273.
(6)
Thucyd.
(c)
3,
vol. 6,
chap. 50.
jure
Suet.
Tiberius,
s.
61,
Lib., V.,
c. 9.
b., b. 2, c. 16, s. 5.
(d)
Digitized
iv.
154.
of Learning, b. 2.
by Microsoft
38
INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
may convey
meaning quite
from what
different
not;
or,
reach
all
intention.
fall
is
no
is
enough
But
it.
falls
within
drawn by
skilled
great
authority,
so
is
construct
as to
difficult
easy as to pull
It is not
(a)
Per Lord
it
St.
to pieces
(a).
Leonards, O'Flaherty
and nothing so
v.
McDowell (1857),
Digitized
enough
by Microsoft
B.
v.
(1878),
Monch
39
it is
neces-
The
hvit
(a).
To
meaning,
it is
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
the remedy.
now
as it
the mischief was for which the old law did not
provide, and the remedy provided by the statute
to
mischief"
cure that
469, at p. 496
(a)
L.
J.
(6)
(c)
J.
meaning
true
p. 115.
Gastioni, Exp.,
[1891] 1 Q. B. 149
60
C. 22.
Gomp. Bradlaugh
52 L.
J.,
The
4 Q. B. D. 104, at
Per Stephen
M.
(c).
v.
Marshahea
Case,
10 Eep. 73a.
et seq.
Q. B. 505.
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
it
object
Every clause of a
(a).
the whole
make a
As regards the
consistent enactment of
or series of
statute
as, so
statutes relating
(b).
ments
is
(c),
viz.,
whose words he
is
interpreting,
v.
L.O.,
Adamson
Eastman
Co. v. Beg.,
[1898] A. C. 741.
(c) It
J. Q.
B. 279.
it
is
s.
all
documents: Per
(1).
Digitized
from
v.
As
safer to abstain
of
by Microsoft
now
EXTERNAL CIBCUMSTANOES.
as to be able to see
41
relate to.
who made
or are mentioned in
it
is
it,
always
of identifying
latently
is
it
Thus,
relates (a).
it
when
Wigram
(a)
wood
In
re
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
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
v. Priestner,
40 E. E. 258
Langdale, 1 Ch. D. 61
Jameson, 77 L.
Wood
Benyon, 12 A.
Co.,
Oh. 817
12 L.
J.
by Microsoft
42
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
presumed
have possessed;
stances
to
of these circum-
and evidence
is
construing
the contract
When
(a).
a vessel
is
is
admitted
In a lease
parties.
keep
it
of a
in tenantable repair,
necessary to
is
it
one, whether
it is
new
which would
for that
(b).
Hudson
(a)
M.E., Smith
also
Behn
v.
v.
V.
Ede, 37 L.
J.
Q. B. 166
Bosario Nitrate
Bumess
Co.,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 178;
(1861), 32 L. J. Q. B. 207,
see
and Bentson
v.
Guiteridge v. Munyard, 1
(6)
B.
Co.,
33 L.
J.
J.
Ch. 622
J.
Q. B. 17, at
Q. B. 46.
Both
London v. G. W.
(c)
L.
70 L.
p.
28
J.,
Burges
Clapham
v.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
K.B.
905.
WickJiam (1863),
Langton (1864), 34
Marine Insurance.
EXTEENAL CIRCUMSTANCES.
43
a guarantee
is
may
time,
was the
the
at
real sense in
(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.
B.
Priestner,
v.
45 L.
Studd
per Coleridge
Tewens
v.
J.
p.
462
H. & C. 431,
Blane, 13 Q. B. 773
see per
at p.
531
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.
by Microsoft
44
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
it
shall be
by the
draftsman's
of law "
(a).
reduced to a nuUity
unskilfulness
or
ignorance
citizens
gerents
5 G-eo. IV.
(b).
c.
belli-
offences
An
territories (d).
Salmon
(a)
Bex
v.
ordinance of
the colony of
Vasey (1905), 75 L.
V.
C. 0. E.
Supplement
(&)
(c)
B.
V.
to the
London
Gazette,
20 Sept. 1872,
& K. 215
p.
4135.
v.
[1903] 2 K. B. 114
73 L.
J.
Digitized
K. B. 320.
by Microsoft
BXTEBNAL CIECUMSTANOES.
45
Hong Kong
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
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
construing
an
was intended to
should be considered, as the two
Extradition Act
it
There
to
is
defects
(6)
(c)
33 & 34 Vict.
by 58 & 59
directed against
are
Pembridge, 12 L.
B.
V.
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
when
statutes passed;
about
negligence
only,
neglect or
of"
default
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
(a).
it
was
to
prevent
4, Arbitration
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.
Woodhouse, 62 L.
J.
Oh. 697
answer to a motion
in the proceedings''
County Theatres,
Digitized
filing of
by Microsoft
v.
Hammond,
EXTEENAL CIKCUMSTANCES.
The
47
may
be thus
when
of not extending it to
what was
It has
reason,
67 L.
J.
e.g.,
is
by
J.
Ch. 521
nor
is
giving notice of
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.
Taking
J. 344.
Parher, Gaines
&
and B.
A.-G.
v. Langriville,
V.
54 L.
J.
v.
50 L.
J.
Ch.
562.
(&)
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
which have
In relation to the
said in a
citation of
intent
ojf
earlier
latter,
modern case
Sale of
The
decisions.
and
object
simply to
goods
is
an express statu-
an argument
And,
(6).
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,
(c).
Tramways
made
to
79 L.
J.
what
K. B.
1109.
(6)
L.
J.
(c)
K. B. 1023.
See, however, cases cited, p. 109, inf.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Pratt (1910), 79
EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANOES.
49
Hengham
it
knew
said that he
Chief Justice
drawn up
that
statute
(b).
Lord Nottingham
know
the
bility that
Judicature Act,
1875,
Lord
if they intended it(e).
has,
on
more
that
he
however
Halsbury states
certain exception
For an exposition
he
is
much
disposed to confuse
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.
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
&
14 Car.
II.
c.
4),
the Privy
Commons, and
to
for the
rejection,
as
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
if
when
himself,
V.
A.
(a)
Hilder
(6)
Hebbert
made by
as
Dexter (1902), 71 L.
v.
J.
v.
Bidsdale
(d)
C,
v.
OUftort,
46 L.
J. P. C. 27.
v.
at p. 652.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Commons,
EXTEENAL OIEOUMSTANOES.
51
Bankruptcy
ture (that
is,
had endeavoured,
time, that he
in forming his
all
had been
if it
Tooth, 47 L. J. Q. B. 18,
Q. B. D.
(c)
649
1,
See
at p. 30.
ex. gr.
per Cur., B.
Bramwell
v.
Hertford College, 47 L.
v. Sillem,
Q. B.
B., 537.
Digitized
J.
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
52
Indeed,
it (a).
Dower
& 4 Will.
Act, 1833, 3
(6).
IV.
0.
106,
it
was
their
for
intention that
Moor, who
43 Eliz.
who
it
Sir Francis
(c).
c. 4,
on
it,
that a gift
intentionally omitted,
fiscated;
its
lest
(a)
Dean of
478
Cameron
v.
Cameron (1834),
Per Tindal
p. 757,
(c)
cate-
57 E. E. 545.
Bonham
v.
Ex. 108.
2 0. B. 749, at
Digitized
Per
Farley-tv.
J.
which
by Microsoft
EXTERNAL OIROUMSTANCES.
was orthodox
53
(b).
wiU
limit
construing
may come
clause
it
to
was inserted
who
may determine
(a)
done under
it,
usage
for
(6) Id.
C. C. 67.
(c)
B.
V.
(d)
to
Davis
& Sons v.
Midland B.
V.
Co.,
L. E. 1 Ch. 282
Manchester Corp., 80 L.
B.
V.
J.
Co.,
;
[1895] A. 0. 542
for
J.
K. B. 263.
527-530.
Digitized
Steele
K. B. 265.
the principles
by Microsoft
inf.
As
pp.
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
54
events
all
amhiguity
SECTION
is
(a).
IV.
THE
CONTEXT
EAELIEB
AND LATER
ANALOGOUS ACTS.
ACTS
is
made
to be
required
that
another
(a)
See
p. 404,
(b)
section
it
should
to inf.,
but
be
I.
Turquand.
Blackburn,
that
B. (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 394, at
Lord
provided
v.
Board of
Per
Trade (1886), 55
L. J. Q. B. 417.
(c)
Dig.
{d)
B. Go.
V.
1, B,
84.
L.J., Lancashire
Colliery Co. v.
Bochdale Canal
Co.,
and Torks.
[1895] A. 0. 564, at
et seq.
Digitized
by Microsoft
p.
571,
THE CONTEXT.
55
c.
&
3 Will. IV.
easements from
is,
But
as those appurtenant.
5,
s.
which, in pro-
from
its
all
which could,
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,
W. & M.
5; Moyle
c.
v. Nightingale,
is
78 L.
(note, p.
V.
B.
M.
v.
0. 1.
providing
maybe
s. 2,
J.
" made,"
v. Jenkins,
70 E. E. 727
it
{Lowe
same
section,
has to be
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.
Ch. 723.
Digitized
by Microsoft
309
;
approved,
[1905] 2 Gh.
INTBKPEETATION OP STATUTES,
56
and
all
and incorwas
corporeal
because
s.
6,
it
number
of similar
of
been
said, to
of the
the construction
which are
apply in their
sense,
full literal
One
is
difiScult to
to
examine
and
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
Where one
qualification (a).
and
section of an Act
of Trade,
when
it
had
ground
if it
owner, though
the
pensate
for belief
when
it
it
had reasonable
trial
that
(6).
(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.
Digitized
by 57 & 58
Farrer (1882), 51 L.
by Microsoft
J.
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
58
the
se,
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,
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
v. Bennett,
Lord Auckland
v.
v. L. G. C, 63 L. J. M. 0. 117
the meaning of " obstruction " or " encroachment " within
41 L.
J.
Ch. 723
Wendon
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
Oh. 601.
G.,
64 L.
by 38 & 39
J.
Vict.
M.
c.
0. 262.
63,
s. 1,
latter
Act
is
Digitized
by Microsoft
COMPAEISON OF SECTIONS.
59
if
was
offence under
it
would constitute an
A provision in
an
adequate
support
(6).
One
section
of
true
(a) (1896), 65 L. J.
(6) Benfieldside
Ex. 491;
M,
0. 144, at p. 147.
Local Board
L. J. Q. B. 207, C. A.;
subsidences,
55 L.
J.
see
v.
v.
Oonsett
Co.
(1894),
64
Oh. 529.
Digitized
Iron Co., 47 L. J.
Conduit Colliery
by Microsoft
v. Mitchell
(1886)
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
60
Clause 21
(a).
which in
express terms requires the presiding officer at each
The words
may be
agent may
a candidate
attend (&),
of
s.
1,
Vron
Be London
In re (1882), 51 L.
Colliery Co.,
British
ss.
In
(c).
(6) Clementson v.
Mason
25 & 26 Vict.
c.
;
used
See also
Salicylates,
140, 142,
(c)
J.
it
See
now
(1875), 44 L. J. C. P. 171.
68,
[1895] A. C. 20.
Digitized
by Microsoft
61
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
tures
earlier
one also
It
(a).
that
distinct
Where
effect (b).
is
introduced
Bead
(a)
Mfg.
Co.,
v.
In
it
Joannon, 59 L.
re,
J.
Q. B. 544
1 Oh. 627, 0. A.
[1891]
L. J. Oh. 292.
Per Turner
(6)
27 L.
J.
Cope
L.J.,
Ch. 600.
As
59 L.
2
Ir.
J.
Q. B. 136, 697
E. 132.
And
see
v.
to incorporation of
B.
inf, p.
v.
v.
earlier
541
et seq.
Digitized
Acts in a
by Microsoft
v.
Smith (1885),
62
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Probably, the rule as to the exposition of one
"
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).
eligible
{b).
Where
a question arose as to
whether
c. 10,
(a)
B.
V.
76 L.
J.
K. B. 169
but in B.
Cotton
it
is
where there
is
an ambiguity."
52 L.
J.
G J.,
v.
6 Bing. N. G. 314
Digitized
&
C. 838
9 L.
by Microsoft
J.,
Adams, 1
J. G.
P. 190.
63
done to persons by
injuries
collision
one reason
person
s.
(a).
So, the
"in
was
for six
same sense
construed in the
of Uses,
it
months
(b),
as in the
Statute
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
"possession" of
it;
(a)
Smith
V.
Brown
(1871), 40 L. J. Q. B.
The
P. D.
& A.
months, see
(c)
J.
214
Seward
v.
The
9, inf. p. 317.
& 8 Geo. V.
c.
64, is six
s. 6.
(1873), 42 L. J. 0. P. 146.
seer's (1883),
53 L.
J.
Q. B. 144.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Eadfield's Case
Broughton Over-
64
INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
same Act,
until
not be in posses-
he had received a
all
down through
all
England,
as having been
it
c.
16, the
Bubble Act
(6 Qeo. I. c. 18)^
Merchant
In
s.
Shipping Act,
to,
where
of
299,
1854,
the
which
to
primd
deemed
facie be
of
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.
P. 155
42 L.
J.
69 E. E.
0. P. 48.
Callis
Clarke v. Powell, 4 B.
J. C.
Smith
P. 196, 335.
Digitized
ed., at p. 305.
by Microsoft
v.
Lindo (1858),
BEFERENOE TO LATER
65
ACTS.
(a),
& 26 Vict.
25
that
shall he
of
which
the
declares
collision
c. 63, s. 29,
(1
&
2 Vict.
c.
110,
(&).
18)
s.
effect
of
for
c.
And now by
{d).
60,
s.
35 L.
J.
C. P. 321
the
v.
P.
Union
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
s.
shall be
Act (a).
presumed that
language in
when
different times
for it is
dealing at
some indication
Thus s. 202 of the
is
(a)
52 & 53 Vict.
Lochwood (1894), L.
(6)
c.
J.
63.
See
P. 0. 74,
Devonpurt Corpn.
v.
Institute
B.
of Patent Agents v.
inf. p. 93.
v.
v.
P.
Principle
0. Steam-
<b
Goldsmid v. Hampton, 27 L.
inf. p.
J. C. P. 286.
479
Digitized
& 5 Geo. V.
s.
by Microsoft
c.
59,
is
now
44 as to preference.
67
" running away, leaving his or her child chargeable to the parish " (a),
woman who
apply to a
left
(6).
Where
Where
(c).
force, still
be taken
an
Act
which
(fortune telling),
[1918]
new
Act{d).
imposed a
it
it is
If,
for
duty
on
K. B. 109;
Hartley
v.
Elinor
Cambridge Union
v.
Parr, 30 L.
J.
M,
4 Q. B. 516.
(d) See sup. pp. 40-48.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
68
and
racehorses, cabhorses,
repealed as
regards
all
racehorses,
remaining
the
it (a).
Where
a statute
imposed a duty on
artificial
all
still
subsisted of
been
was intended
to include
them.
It
has
said,
what the
stead, though
may
would be legitimate
(b).
reason be referred
9 Geo. IV.
c.
to.
may
for a similar
should
be
signed
" by
the
party
chargeable
(a)
Per Bramwell
(6)
v.
354, at p. 380.
Digitized
by Microsoft
ment by
his agent,
69
Vict, c,
of 1867, 30
(a).
& 31
jurisdiction in
131
c.
16,
s.
(c?),
(a)
IV.
Hyde
v.
Johnson (1836), 5 L.
J. G.
For limitations
P. 291.
In
re Gallan (1886),
(6)
Be
55 L.
J.
See
s.
59,
and 1908,
s. 3,
now County
Lemayne
v. Stanley (1681),
of (1891), 60 L.
Hubert
J.
v. Treherne,
P. 56
3 Lev. 1
EnigM
60 E. E. 600
v. Groehford,
5 E. E. 729
E. E. 13.
(d) Kirhpatrich v. Tattersall (1845),
(e)
Lobb
V. Stanley,
li L.
J.
Ex. 209.
J.
as to what
Digitized
by Microsoft
70
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
(a).
little (if
(a)
s.
47,
6 & 7 Vict.
Comp. B.
(6)
c.
18,
V.
17
s.
& 8 Geo. V.
repealed by 7
c.
64,
Dewhurst
v.
Wilde B.
Maule
J.
Eyre
Gerard's Estate,
v. Boherts,
v.
Be
[1901] 1
Oh. 440.
(c)
HumUe
v.
MitcMl
[1918] A. C.
Parker
W.
(1839), 52 E. E. 318
v.
v. Grisp,
H. L. (B)
under
9 L.
J.
Q. B. 29,
s.
4,
56
[1919] 1 K. B. 481
N. 195.
Digitized
by Microsoft
71
1832(a).
for
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
modifications in 48
& 49
69 E. E. 473; 15 L.
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.
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
(/) A.-G.
886
B.
V.
(g)
Grant
Langston (1899), 69 L.
J. P.
0. 66.
See also
C. 47.
See also
Sim,pson v.
Smith
V.
v.
V.
v. Ellis
(1880), 49 L. J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
J.
K. B. 204, G. A.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
72
It
may
embodied in them,
are in effect private arrangements between the
promoters and particular persons; and are not
special clauses, frequently found
simply introduced at
the request of the parties concerned (a). If the
scheme
it
Such
(6).
SECTION
v.
THE
SCHEDULE
THE
NOTES
TITLE
PREAMBLE
^RULES
MARGINAL
AND ORDERS.
it (c).
(a)
But see
(6)
rolls
Oldham (1877), 46 L.
J.
Oh.
105.
(c)
Per Lord
(1874), L. E. 7
H. L.
89.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Co. v.
Whitechurch
THE
73
TITLE.
answer; and at
made
additions, omissions,
title (a).
when
bills in
The
was
title
first
titles
added
In the
amended at any
(c).
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
(e)
title is
always on the
roll (g).
Legislative Methods, p. 5.
(c)
(d)
May, Parlmy.
(e) Id., p.
Pr.,
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.).
In order to
in 1896,
facilitate
reference,
to
modern
practice the
Ilbert, Legislative
22 Ch. D. 511, at
p. 513.
and according
requires
v. Sutton,
title
in
addition to
Digitized
House
have, for
its
formal long
p. 272.
by Microsoft
of
Lords
facility
of
title,
INTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
74
But
was recog-
it
consideration
construing
in
the
statute
certainly
is
down
(c).
Hunter
(6)
Per
invariably observed
84 E. R. 217.
v. NocJcolda,
11 Eep. 33b
American
case,
(c)
B.
V. Wilcock,
Bl. 95.
J.,
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,
v.
per Lord
v. Williams,
(cZ)
and the
5 Wallace, 110.
C. 104.
See
ex. gr.
B.
v.
Wright, 1 A.
L.
J.
Ch. 284
East
&
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
THE
75
TITLE.
for the
design
discover the
to
naturally seized on
the Legislature,
of
AND
IT IS
may
its
however,
Apparently,
statute
(c),
not limited by
is
Formerly the
bill
was, at one of
(a)
its stages,
on parchment
Bryan
of a
construction
the
v. B.,
en(g)
Per
U. S. v. Palmer,
3 Wheat. 631.
(6)
1 Oh. 3
774
per
per Sutton
Eomer
J.,
Jones
L.J., in
v.
v.
Shervington (1908), 77 L. J. K. B.
Amhler
v.
A.-G.
Margate Pier
Co.,
69 L.
J.
v.
v.
Thorley, [1903] A. C.
Ch. 331
447
Bermondsey Bioscope
Co.,
80
L. J. K. B. 144.
(d) Ilbert
(e) A.-G. V.
(/) Gross
in
the
goods of (1904), 73 L. J. P. 82
76 L.
J.
v.
K B. 218.
(g) 1 Bl.
Digitized
as to
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).
ment
(6).
now appear on
punctuation
nevertheless,
official
it
But
(c).
as
regards marginal notes, the rule as to their rejection for the purposes of interpretation
imperfect
of
interpretation
For
obligation.
marginal
(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.
11 Ch. D. 465
Be
v. Sutton,
22 Oh. D. 513,
and per
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.
and
1005,
In
c.
s.
12
OCIX),
marginal notes in that Act are used as references, and see also
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.),
inasmuch as
assistance,
it
the section."
drift of
to headings prefixed to
see
sections,
inf.
p. 92.
since 1793
No
of Parliaments
Act
is
part of
it
(a).
section
(6).
it (c)
and
as
the enactment
may
it
legitimately be consulted
for the
fixing the
meaning
of
words which
its real
scope,
52 & 53 Vict.
(c)
effect
of the
c.
63,
s. 8.
80 L.
J.
Act
13.
c.
(&)
v.
K. B. 144.
Digitized
by Microsoft
per Lord
Bermondsey Bioscope
78
INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES,
in any
is
Thus
s.
3,
of
26 Geo. III.
who had
person
o.
107
served in
(a).
empowered every
the militia and was
(b),
might under an
earlier enact-
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
Turquand
11 01.
(I.)
Halton
369;
35
Cove,
v.
E. R.
v.
it
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.
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
less
adapted to give
the
(a).
construction,
it
may be
to
A wider
become bankrupt
(b).
set aside
as
other meaning
(a)
Beard
v.
Bowan
case on an American
(6)
Brym
Sec. 18, 12
(c).
v. Child,
&
c.
45,
Ad American
statute.
82 E. E. 710.
13 Vict.
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
(a).
time
of
their
occupation,
the
question
arose
(a)
on
p.
B.
V.
Bateman, 27 L.
J.
M.
C. 95.
The
section quoted
a nvdsance.
Digitized
by Microsoft
EXPLAINS WHAT
was formerly
IS
DOUBTFUL.
81
absolute denial of
character
all
(b).
G-eo. II.
17 Geo.
(a)
II.
e.
38,
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.
c.
& 33
20,
Vict.
M.
41,
e.
must
C. 225.
Gomp.
by 35 & 36
J.
s.
M.
0. 294.
14, 35
JJ.
(1898), 46
W.
E. 606.
LS.
Digitized
16, is
s.
affirmative evidence
v.
s. 3.
Bendeno (1858), 27 L.
J.
Werhurgh
Overseers of St.
32
s.
v.
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
it
reasonably doubtful
(a).
preamble.
a particular mischief
is
recited, the
legislative
The preamble is
some of the incon-
it.
evil recited is
Emmanuel
consistently and
v. Constable,
(h)
Copland
Be
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.
Botherham (1876), 46 L.
(c)
wisely be
(1777),
the
Brett v. Brett, 3
by Microsoft
v.
EXPLAINS WHAT
IS
DOUBtFtL.
^3
is
to be given to
it
notwith-
amble
the
(b).
And generally,
meaning of
words used
in
statute
is
(a)
(6)
660.
(c)
for the
limited term
v. Gallant,
1 P.
Wms.
v. Sutton District
320.
Water
Co. (1908),
99 L. T. 168.
(d)
o.
74,
s.
125.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
31,
s. 1,
which see
84
iNTEEPEETATlON OF STATUTES.
converted
the materials
their
to
their
own
benefit,
5 Geo. IV.
c.
(a).
New
felons
who
every felon
in
37 Geo. III.
c.
which
123,
refers
only to the
men
to sedition
York
V.
&
J.
v.
2 Y.
196.
(6)
Gough
V. Davies,
Smith (1861), 12
Jr.
25 L.
J.
G. L. E. 404.
Digitized
by Microsoft
IS
85
PLAIN.
and that
it
to the metropolis
was not
if
other regula-
suffered to restrict
s.
of
directors
B.
Brodribb (1816), 6 C.
V.
6 E. E. 577
insurance
B. v. Loveless,
s.
&
P.
40 E. E. 825
Moody
571
B.
B.
v.
v. Ball,
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.
damaged buildings
reinstating the
money
in
This con-
(a).
by the
circumstance that the section in question was a
was further
struction, however,
justified
(6),
I.
c.
19(c),
but
3 Jac.
King's
(a)
also
I. c.
10
(e),
charged
were
subjects
Owen
v.
14 Geo. III.
Burnett, 2
c.
78,
conveying
1,
& M.
The
353.
See
application of
s.
Cr.
with
v.
13 A. C. 699.
(6)
As
to the construction of
s.
[1919] 2 K. B. 43, 0. A.
(c)
(d)
(e)
Mace
V.
Cadell (1774),
Eepealed by 4
&
c.
s. 1.
Cowp. 232.
5 Geo. V.
Digitized
16,
c.
58,
s.
by Microsoft
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
(a)
B.
(6)
Commonly
V.
M. &
S. 62.
by 57 & 58
(c)
Vict. c. 17,
s.
Lord
Act amended
Moo. P.
0. 379
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
sively estabhshed
by proof
of
non-payment
for
much
which the
considered.
effect of
payment
in
modern times
Judges
(a),
It
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
(o)
Wigram V.-C,
Tindal
C.J.,
Oresswell,
Patteson, and
Coleridge JJ.
(6)
By Lord
BB.
Cottenham.
Digitized
by Microsoft
JJ.,
Pollock C.B.,
89
flexible
ex-
wMle
the preamble, which one side understood as meaning that the expense and inconvenience of the
(6).
Where
the preamble
is
it is
equally inefficacious
when otherwise
3 W. & M. o. 14,
or
of debtors
Per Lord
Cottenham, Salkeld
18 L.
J.
v.
Johnston
(1849),
Ch. 493.
See Salkeld
v. Johnston,
1 Mac.
c.
47,
s. 3.
Digitized
by Microsoft
90
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
it
other
(a).
seeds so as to give
of
'"
of seeds
another kind,"
could not
be
extended to
as
new
of the
same
species,
by
of
required repression
An^ Act
(b).
repair,
although this
which
(a)
(6)
trust,
Francis
Viet, c 17,
in this case.
(c)
Marhet Earhorough
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
C. 137
91
(a).
It
may
of a
statute
But
{b).
it
would seem
difficult to
(c).
restricted
made
felony to alter a
it
39 L.
M.
J.
bill
v.
of exchange,
would
C. 155.
(a)
(6)
B.
II.
V.
v.
Gallant,
Co.,
6 C. B. N. S. 388.
(c)
See
ex. gr.
v.
Ham
B.
V.
26 L.
J.
M.
C. 65
Hughes
Co.,
Manchester (1857),
&c. Co.
[1902] 1 K. B. 651, G. A.
Digitized
SaJkeld v. Johnston,
v.
by Microsoft
92
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
be
restrained
fraudulent
to
by a
alterations,
it
was desirable
to
bills (a).
V.
Bigg (1717), 3 P.
of
as
(d).
Wms.
For a resume
434, arg.
of
The People
144 U.
S.
550, at p. 563.
(c)
Powell
at p. 185
(d)
See
L. J. Ex.
V.
ex.
Brya/n, v.
gr.
264; Shrewsbury
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,
L. E. 4 H. L. 171
B.
V.
West
Gwynne, 80 L.
J.
per -BuoMey
L.J.,
Gomp. Broadbent
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
A FUNDAMENTAL
93
PKINOIPLE.
number
of days, during
it
a conflict
of these rules
must be
conflict
is
between one
Act,
If there
if
dealt with.
If
reconciliation
is
impossible, the
In a word, then,
it is
to be taken as a funda-
may
is
effect,
59
New Zealand v.
;
(a)
whatever
invariably
As
Lockmod, [1894] A. C,
J. P. C.
at p. 360.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBRPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
94
its
wisdom
or justice.
them
of a statute
(6).
(o) Puff. L.
N.
b. 5, c. 12, s. 2,
note by Barbeyrac
Beigate
639;
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.
SUBJECT MATTER.
The words
of a statute,
when
there
a doubt
is
with
the
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)
Per
B. & P.
Cur.,
b. 2,
s.
JB.
16
v.
Puff L. N.
Digitized
b. 5, c.
12,
by Microsoft
s. 3.
Grot, de
96
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
which
necessary to
it
is
something which
is
read them
in
sense
language as so applied
(a).
different
meanings.
instance,
which forbade
"provisions"
This
ecclesiastics to purchase
Eome would
at
referring to those
is
be construed as
s.
3 of the
(a)
53 L.
(6)
v.
Tucker (1883),
Q. B. 189.
1 Bl.
Comm.
(Ed. 1770) 60
Statutes of Provisors or
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
such
familiar words,
of
Duty
sion
" accept,"
as
97
In the Succes-
Act,
1853,
but
incapacity,
by will
did not, by
tion
the
disposi-
(a).
an
possession of
estate of inheritance
1847,
rent
16
(a)
ss.
is
'
21,
& 17
22
Vict. c. 51,
A.-G.
21,
s.
The Mutiny
(6).
amended by 51 & 52
27 L.
v. Eallett (1857),
J.
whom
Viot.
As
Ex. 89.
2 P. D. 276
v. Clifton,
c.
8,
to a
Exj).
;
Be
Be
Salaman
Warner (1891), 60 L.
v.
L. J. Q. B. 207
(6)
Be
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
J.,
Broim
v.
G.
W. B.
v.
Co.,
Manchester, 8.
As
8f
L. B.
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Co.,
55
98
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
bridge
(a).
pro-
concerned in
meant
ing'(6).
is
tion.
But when
Badcoch
v.
66 L.
Ch. 350
J.
(o)
Ward
(6)
55 Geo.
III.
c.
137,
c.
122,
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. &
E. 9 Q. B. 380.
v.
v. Stevens,
v. Sutton (1844),
Digitized
s.
s.
E. 433, 439.
0. 146.
Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B.
that
Lyons (1897),
v.
I.
(cZ)
repealed in part as to
[d)
Gray (1865), 34 L.
V.
31 & 32 Vict.
See
question
b. 2,
c.
16,
s.
3;
65 E. E. 434
by Microsoft
14 L.
J.
Ch.
99
Doe
is,
v. Jesson,
21 E. E. 1
Abbott V. Middleton, 7
&
A. 120.
275
Q. B. 595
Baifner
Bayner (1903), 73 L.
v.
J.
Cas. 877.
71 L.
V.
Ch. 53, C. A.
J.
v.
Newcastle,
(1858), 6 H. L.
Duke of (1901),
Towns
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
Ormskirk Union
Ormskirk Union
v.
v.
is
"
an " hospital
Digitized
by Microsoft
100
INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
Common
Law
debt
(b)
& 6
(a) 5
Will. IV.
60 L.
c.
50,
s.
of a fence
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
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.
The
following
under rule
of
ment
non-payment
for
Court
B.
v.
Dunne
(1813), 2
M. &
Master's award;
S. 201, attach-
Lees
v.
Newton
Oomp.
Bancroft
43 Eliz.
of
v. Mitchell (1867),
c. 2, s.
Drover
v.
L. E. 2 P.
& D.
189, bankruptcy
Digitized
co-respondent
by Microsoft
Bates v.
101
Words
(a).
Thus, when
meaning.
it
was enacted
&
(5
4 of Debtors
s.
Bawley (1876), 45
by
also Jones v.
Thompson (1858), 27 L.
(1881), 8 Q. B.
Bawley
v.
D. 151.
J.
Q. B. 234
is
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
Craig's Claim,
Sherwood v.
11 Moo. P. C. 324
" instituted "
nail,
66 L.
J.
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
&
other
may have
ships
Moreover, such
reward,
bounty although
if
the combined
of
eff'orts
His
on a
sheriff, is
Women's Property
A. C. 177
(a)
Bex
Bex
Moran
V.
v.
& 57
Vict.
c.
v.
Nunn
v.
V. Pilfield,
63)
Heriof, [1897]
J.
K. B. 555
[1919] 2 K. B. 249.
(6)
(c)
86 L.
J. P. 47.
H.M. Submarine
Vessel
E 14,
Digitized
[1917] P. 85.
by Microsoft
103
into the
(d)
for
the technical
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,
Shaw
v.
s.
Simmons, 12
Q. B. D. 117.
(c) 5 & 6
Bdw. VII. c.
{d)
B.
V.
Will. rv.
15,
s.
()
50,
s.
Pemhridge (1842), 12 L.
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.
by Microsoft
0. 37.
v.
B.
104
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
sum
was under 20
really recovered
(a).
The
Where
to
& 8
Vict. c. 6,
s.
57, repealed
against,
by 32 & 33
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.
Ch. 602.
similarly construed:
525
Viot.
Johnson
P. 40.
was for
though
J.
Ch. 347
Harrop
;
v.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Ch.
WOKDS CONSTRUED
lie
IN
POPULAR SENSE.
105
which
an
it is
affidavit
examination
(6).
17 Geo. Ill,
which,
26(c),
c.
cross-
after
check,
the preamble
as
practice
except
annuities,
states,
the
money by 'the
of raising
is
of
on
charged
annuities
pernicious
sale
life
lands
simple,
is
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.
Co.,
21 Gh. D.
642.
(c)
Eepealed by S. L. E. 1861.
(d) Halsey v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Eccles v.
Cheyne
106
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
(a),
illegitimate
more
consonant
Geo.
II.
legitimate
generally confined to
is
the
to
Thus,
intention.
c.
c.
26
76),
which declared void the marriage of minors without the consent of their parents or guardians,
&
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
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
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.
H. L. 568
to conflict of
Dickinson
Laws and
v.
N. E. B.
33 L.
J.
v.
Dorin,
Ex. 91.
Digitized
In Borin
Co.,
by Microsoft
WORDS CONSTRUED
POPULAR SENSE.
IN
107
sense
(b).
"
known commercial
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
known by
gas
common
illuminating
(d).
Where a statute
(a) Smith, Be, [1896]
Kingdom,
2 Oh. 590.
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
65 L.
J.
Q. B. 486.
The
Knight of
718, London
8f
v. Field,
Digitized
by Microsoft
50 L.
J.
108
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
different
he taken in
its
The words
of
popular sense
(a).
when
it
was
(6).
Will. IV.
should
be brought
against
shipowners
certain
for
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
was not
Macq. 659
Macfarlane
v.
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
called,
v.
Bex
Sharpe
v.
v. Wahefield,
South
Ch. 136.
v.
Hardy,
22 Q. B. D. 242; [1891]
de Walden, 6 T. E. 338
far this
v.
appUes to
new
See also
Digitized
by Microsoft
Howard
& VI. How
St, Cross v.
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
requiring sheriffs'
arrests
being
the
construction
enactment, 32 Geo.
But
II. c.
given
28
the
to
original
(6).
it is
words
restriction
matter.
or
all
that
[1907] P. 137
Committee,
Ofc.
W.
C.
&
Ins. 0. 206
242 H. L. (B.)
Bex
Bradford
v.
Port of
50 & 51
Q. B. D. 183
C. A.
349,
Vict.
c.
55,
Smith, In re
s.
14;
Hands
v.
Mitchell v.
v.
by Microsoft
1,
Baker, [1891] A. C.
[1891] A. C. 144.
Digitized
Simpson, 25
v.
Vagliano,
110
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
more, in their
literal
as particular if the
that
is,
intention be particular
(b)
it.
"
Thus, enactments which related to " persons
(a)
(6)
Stradling
v.
v.
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
Supplement,
tit.
52 & 53
" unless
the
" Person."
Digitized
By
"
future Acts, " person
57;
[1901] 2 K. B. 560, 0. A.
19, in that
43,
by Microsoft
Ill
on
or (the meaning in prize and
(6),
(a),
or in British ships
may
a license
is
made
subject to penalties
but
was
it
sale
who
which
(d).
provided for
In a
the
recovery of wages by " persons belonging to a
(e)
Hob. 270
Low
(b)
Davidson
(c)
Wilson
3 Eob.
c.
V.
{d)
Marryat (1798), 8 T. E. 31
35 & 36 Vict.
Nga Hoong
v. B., 7
Cox, 489
Boyle
[1901] 2 K. B. 606.
v. Hill,
4 Moore P. C. 339, at
31
v.
c.
;
v.
p. 361.
94,
s.
3 (repealed,
s.
Smith, [1906]
1 K. B. 432.
J.
Q. B.
v.
17 & 18 Vict.
c.
84,
repealed by 57
Sched. 22.
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
.58 Vict.
c.
60,
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
112
The 13
(a).
Eliz. c. 6,
1,
(c)
as they were
deemed
to
3 P. D. 8
Bundas
(ft)
53 E. E. 369
v.
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.
to
Sims
v.
V.
and B.
(d)
Bider
Thomas,
Dodd, 54 E. E. 224
v.
Norcutt
J.
J.
Ch.
59,
s.
38
(c).
Digitized by'Microsoft
and
exhibition
113
sale,
which
was
it
surveyor
district
under
s.
erected,
is,
(6).
Damage caused by
who
to persons
(a) 45
& 46
2 Q. B. 755.
Viet. c.
14
London
G. G. v.
v.
Humphreys, [1894]
London
G.
G.,
71
L. J. K. B. 244.
V.
(&)
(c)
31
& 32
Vict.
c.
71,
73 L.
J. P.
s.
J.
32 & 33 Vict.
Q. B. 546
c.
51,
s.
K. B. 717.
4
Bohson
110.
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
P.
114
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
it (a)
and
it,
its
suit
A right
of.
of
way over
of an
Grace
Bank.
1
Bishop, 25 L. J. Ex. 58
v.
Under
19.
4 & 5 Geo. V.
59,
c.
Booker, In
In
& 32
C. 55.
of 31
(c)
& 32
B.
Poland, 35 L.
J.
[1916]
W.
;
Bankruptcy (1916),
N. 293.
See Paine,
re,
(6) 31
M.
Be
v. Trustee in
re,
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.
See also B.
Digitized
by
v.
J.
&
7 Geo. V.
K. B. 121
c.
6 A.
50,
&
s.
48.
E. 165,
l\/licrosoft<^
J.
Sec. 1
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
who had no
rateable
upon
trained
for
who
them (b).
On
the other
is
to
B.
(6)
2 Inst.
Bayley
(c)
V.
702
B.
v.
North,
&
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 "inhabited
dwelling-house " and assessable to inhabited house
duty (6).
is
Williams
v.
Comp.
411.
Jones, Id.
Wethered v
Donne
v.
14 & 15 Vict.
c.
36,
s.
Smith
Damey
v.
(1904), 73 L. J.
K. B. 646.
(c) St.
Mary
v.
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
modern
on
For
Yarmouth Union
v.
v.
decisions
this
point,
see
Gt.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Daventry Union
it is
impossible to define.
117
Sleeping
much
absence from
is
But
it (a).
if
an Act requires
tion, it
stituting
Oxford
(b).
issues;
B.
V. Mitchell,
110; Taylor
v. St.
Ford
V.
V.
10 Bast, 518
Mary
Abbotts,
Wescomb's Case, L. E. i Q. B.
40 L.
Pye, L. E. 9 C. P. 269
and
Ford
J. C. P.
v.
v.
45; Bond
v. St.
McDougal
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
P. 69
Gt.
440.
Digitized
by Microsoft
18
20 Q. B. D. 300
Yarmouth Union v.
118
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
In these cases
"residence."
it
under
bill of sale
(c)
indorsement
for
action
ss.
;
(d).
in the place
meaning
where he
is
on business "
County and
other Courts over persons who dwell or carry on
of Acts giving jurisdiction to
business within
limits
their
(e)
but
the words
Thorp
(c)
45
V.
& 46
Vict.
L. J. Ch. 252.
59
S. J.
75
c.
43
Simmons
Woodward
v.
Hill, Ltd.
v.
(1892), 61
Lamb
(1914),
Bonard,
748.
Etdes of
use his
2
Ir.
(e)
S. G.
Order IV.
r.
Stoy v. Bees, 24 Q. B. D.
place of business, B.
v.
ofl&cial
capacity
may
E. 497.
Graham
v. Lewis,
22 Q. B. D. 1
Digitized
58 L.
by Microsoft
J. Q.
B. 117, 0. A.
of
Courts
business between
119
Bankruptcy
different
(a).
Under the
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
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.
L.
&
N. W. B.
C. P. 39.
(c) Shiels V.
L.
G.
N. W. B. Co. (1863), 32 L.
J.
Brown
v.
Q. B. 318.
Keynsham
v.
v.
58 L,
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
Q. B. 508
See A.-G.
v.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
120
A foreign
this
of jurisdiction (a).
is,
did not
represent
so
upon them
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
23, 41
&
42 Vict.
c.
31),
by
which provided that
[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
24.
Digitized
P. 12
L. E. 1 Q. B. 72
by Microsoft
121
personal chattels should be deemed in the possession of the grantor of a bill of sale so long as they
(a).
may
be carried
still
further to
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.
Fisher
28 L.
As the
an inhabitant.
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.
Alexander, 62 L. J.
;
V.
Bone, 13 Q. B. D. 179.
Eettie, 192,
and as
v.
Duffy (1894), 22
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
Bench went
Judges of
and even
artificial
meaning to a word,
for
the
76
(6),
&
7 Vict.
up to justice
all
crimes
B.
V.
Wethered
v.
Bavie (1837), 6
N. E. 409.
A&
6 L.
J.
B.
v.
B. 374.
52,
s.
(6)
See also
K. B. 121
Digitized
o.
by Microsoft
27.
BENEFICIAL CONSTEUOTION.
is,
123
jure gentium
for as the
latter offence
SECTION
II.
BENEtlCIAL
It is said to be the
CONSTRUCTION.
Even
if
susceptible of
fairly
to the
If there
it.
are
is
may be
given to
33 L.
Ternan, Be,
J.
M.
its
ordinary
it (c).
when
Thus,
passing the
v.
v.
G.
201.
Kwok-a-Sing, L. E. 5 P. 0. 179.
(b)
Hartwell, 6 T. R. 429
C. P. D. 530.
See
per Cockbuxn
ex. gr.
Be
BicTc,
(1904), 73 L. J. P. 82.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.
124
compensation,
to
it
ought to be con-
primary provisions
(s.
54
(4),
&
25
26 Vict
of shipowners
injury done
(a).
c.
among
where,
"by
is
is
that of any
sible,
latter
(c).
is
respon-
it
Where
empowered
construct bridges, and pro-
a cplonial statute
municipal councils to
cost, it
(a) .60
& 61
Vict.
see
s.
(c)
v.
c.
37
Lysons
Loehgelly Iron
v.
&
c.
60.
M.E. See
also
Canada Shipping
Digitized
by Microsoft
Co. v. British
J.
Q. B. 462.
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
125
application
stances
is
A young
(a).
is
partly
some
distance
A driver who
companion (c).
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.
(6)
55 & 56 Vict.
c.
62; Gollman
v. Roberts,
[1896]
il
Q. B.
457.
(c)
35 & 36 Vict.
c.
94,
s.
13
As
v.
Johnson, 57 L. J.
inf. p.
(cf)
c.
24,
s.
Williams (1914), 78 J. P. 90
M.
Scatchard
0. 41.
Le
v.
Gocq,
186.
& 6
Q. B. 768
V.
s.
Will. IV. c.
50
Phythian
v.
Baxendale, [1895] 1
Parker (1914),
"W.
N. 200.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Chatterton
126
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
(b)
for,
woman
living
married
woman
incom-
is
purposes of the Acts, and therefore in the contemplation of the Legislature, as " single " as a
it
as other-
viz., to
secure a
Antony
v.
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
546,
17 L.
v. Lintell,
;
J.
4 Q. B. D. 291
Jones
v.
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.
127
"a
s.
soldier in actual
carried,
26
Hiscock, Be,
Knee, [1902] P. 99
and see
(a)
1 Vict.
c.
612; StaUe, In
re,
[1901] P. 78
(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.
Warwick (1846), 15 L.
2
Kitchen, In re (1919), 35 T. L. E.
Heywood's Estate, In
[1916] P. 49
mine except in
c.
50,
s.
J.
M.
5)
Q. B. 306.
s.
40; B.
s.
v. Slade,
57 L.
0.
120.
(d)
39 & 40 Vict.
Richmond Hill
(e)
c.
80,
65 L.
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,
On
a share in a colonial
is
enactment in
the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Improve-
patent
(6).
ment Act,
1875,
provides that
all
compensated
rights
(c).
pany
to
An Act which
make,
the
for
accommodation
of
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
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,
ment
"
was construed
V. Sutcliffe (1895),
20, repealed
s.
24 Q. B. D.
;
61 L.
J.
s.
J.
Q. B. 729.
Digitized
c.
v.
64 L.
53 & 54 Vict.
Gomp. Hawkins
22,
381.
by Microsoft
And
see Howorth
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
129
"owner"
in an Act of Parliament
has been
construed, with the view of promoting the object
(6),
that an
(a)
Midland By.
v.
Kiitow V. Liskeard, 44 L. J.
Go.,
M.
42 L.
G. 23.
J.
Ex. 49.
As
52 L.
V.
J.
M.
C.
at.
See also
pp. 593
Lambeth Assess-
et seq. ;
affirmed,
1.
(6)
(c)
See Boggett
v.
Gatterms (1864), 34 L.
Fenwick (1874), 43 L.
M.
J.
C.
107
J.
C. P. 46
Bows
Kempton Park
Q. B. 392; Brown v. Patch
;
Powell
v.
46 & 47 Viet.
London
(e)
&
Yorks.
Bank
30 & 31 Vict.
Jones Lloyd
&
61,
c.
Co.,
c.
v.
s.
c.
28)
c.
69)
Belton, 15 Q. B. D. 457.
131,
s.
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
130
who was
sent
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
of Distress
"
(c).
to the repealed
(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
v.
Buena Ventura
v.
like condition is
A appended
to 8
Edw. VII.
Digitized
Syndicate, 65
c.
contained in Article 42 of
69.
by Microsoft
BENEFICIAL CONSTBUCTION.
the bridge
A fishing-boat
(a).
131
used for
sails
going to
sea,
Though
s,
that
it
to
it,
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
(a)
&9
Vict.
c.
20,
s.
46
Lancashire
&
s. 2.
See Maple
&
Go. v. Junior
A.
&
N.
Stores,
Comitti,
52 L.
54 L.
J.
J.
Ch. 67
Ch. 419.
45 & 46 Vict.
c.
22,
B.
v.
Gommissioners, 60 L. J. Q. B. 544.
definition of " vessel," see
57 & 58 Vict.
(6)
For
(c)
v.
60,
s.
742.
Gomp.
Digitized
c.
by Microsoft
INTERPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
132
And perhaps
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
its
several clauses,
and the
bring
susceptible "
{h).
mon
approved, and
registered.
it
The
65,
s.
343) being
(a)
health
safeguarding
tions
17 & 18 Vict.
c.
104, ss.
2,
and preventing
the
v. Morriss,
[1893]
North-Eastern By.
v.
p. 267.
Digitized
by Microsoft
"
BENEFICIAL OONSTEUOTION.
133
better
off
are
it
for a charitable
(repealed
35,
s.
1896),
money
which
or
any
society,"
officer of
the society
entitled
is
it
to be
cannot be traced
(c).
401
16 & 17 Vict.
Logsdon
v.
Talhot, 76 L. J. Oh. 8
(6)
Logsdon
Id.
617.
v.
.
Booth, [1900] 1 Q. B.
See, however,
Parker
v.
K. B. 691.
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
one
Even
(a).
(a)
Halifax, 37 L. J. Ex. 44
v.
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
L. J. Q. B. 165
[1904]
24 L.
v. Ellis,
se
s.
1 (a)
As
See Chap. X.
M.
C. 71
Schofield,
Exp.
'
'
(1891), 60 L.
J.
Pulhrooh, Exp.,
80 L.
J.
M.
61 L.
K. B. 57.
B.
v.
No
J.
M.
C.
see also
1192.
Digitized
by Microsoft
BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.
135
On
this ground, an
purpose
which required
was held
sufficiently
complied with
When
its
(d).
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
imposing
J.
v.
Blackwell,
Mousell Bros.
As to effect
Banh of Bengal
K. B. 82.
liability,
see
Hudson (1893), 62 L.
(6)
Furnivall v.
(c)
(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
them should
file
to be
Act
struction,
it
The
House
by the
stricter con-
satisfied
as
agent.
of the tenant's
affidavit
personally, the
of the cases
which
it
had
(a).
principle
is
&
7 Vict.
c.
18,
personal
signature
(c),
It
was admitted
51 & 52 Vict.
c.
37,
s.
(c)
Toms
31 L.
5 H. L. Gas. 937.
See also
1.
(6)
V.
(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
in the case
se,
The knowledge
delivery.
mere
of the
of the servant
may
be
when making
An Act
authorises justices to
(18
&
19 Vict.
London) which
summon a person by whose
c.
the master
as
if
to
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
it
(b).
s.
3,
which
5,
latter
Act
him
is
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,
2,
6266.
Barnes
v.
Aekroyd, 41 L. J.
De
M.
0. 110.
Digitized
by Microsoft
a case of
INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.
138
made
On the other
Amendment Act,
hand,
Statute of Frauds
the
by an agent
But
(b).
this construction
was based
Limitation
agent
(c).
of
an
notices
& 2
when
(o) 1
as to
Will. IV.
c.
37
is
Hewlett
v. Allen,
[1894] A. C. 383
see also
Summerlea Iron
is
Co. v.
K. B. 543.
(6)
Hyde
v.
L. T. 232
Barwiek
v.
Williams
See also
Mason, 28
v.
(d)
Miles
V.
Brough, 32 B. 845
Digitized
61 E. E. 409
by Microsoft
Inglis v.
BENEFICIAL CONSTKUOTION.
solicitor's
name
is
provision of
139
Eules that he
but the
solicitor's
name
by his
written
(a).
its
of
delivered
the
to
town
clerk
office
should be
by the candidate
(6).
statute
who
is
practices, shall
"by
H. L.
(Sc.)
(c).
qualification
v.
Order VI.
9,
r.
v.
amended
v.
(c)
29
J. 0.
P. 162, distinguished in
The much
c.
84,
c.
51,
v.
Jackson, 46 L. J. C. P. 162.
Digitized
38; B.
in the
Monks
s.
2, s. 7.
46 & 47 Vict,
see also
so held
v.
Mansel Jones, 23 Q. B. D.
by Microsoft
INTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
140
Pharmacy Act,
1868, which by
s.
16 prohibited
shopman
persons, the
who
a manufacturer
who
supplies
it
it
to
directly to the
The
him the
seller within
(h).
to the intention
fied
& 32
31
(a)
Vict.
And
(c).
by 9 Edw. VII.
c.
121,
first
also 8
Bdw. VII.
24 Q. B. D. 683
80 L.
58 L.
J.
J.
c.
55,
s.
15
s.
14.
Vict.
Pharmaceutical Socy.
v.
117,
c.
;
see
Wheeldon,
K. B. 416
Ch. 39
s.
44,
c.
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
its
Thus,
Common Law
60,
s.
Procedure
by the
affidavit of
material
document was
opponent) to order
time
it
was
its
satisfied
when the
by the
solicitor's affidavit,
making an
of
forming a belief
(b),
affidavit,
and
have power
make no
Christophersen
v.
affidavit, or
(1864),
the affidavit
33 L.
Now
Andrews (1897), 42 L.
V.
Kingsford
PatM Frires
J., p.
v.
Cinema, Ltd.
v.
121;
positively
competent de-
68.
[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.
;
ponent, Hallett
should
as a cor-
could formerly
their soHcitor,
Lotinga
and
ex-
The
(c).
all suitors
poration could
now
is
solicitors
in-
perhaps of
or,
power
this
(a),
where the
and consequently
C.J., Id.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
142
of the latter
provision of 3
after depriving
&
4 Will IV.
42, which,
c.
power which
for
make
thought confined to
his award,
was
at first
the arbitrator to
nullity (d).
The
illustrated
(a) Potter v.
(6)
Newman
Per Tindal
C.J.,
J.,
Lambert
Doe
v.
M. &
Gr. 858,
(d)
Be Ward, 32
L. J. Q. B. 121
L. J. Q. B. 53
Knowles
v. Hutchinson,
&
Lord
See also E.
14a.
Digitized
v.
Lee (1868), 37
by Microsoft
S.
Gorporation,
C, Order LXIV.
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
143
were not
restricted.
its
An
operation
of
the latter
if
on
all
occu-
dissatisfied
the appellant to enter into recognisances to prosecute the appeal, presents such a conflict.
it
Either
because a corporation
is
recognisances
or
it
And
ficial
way
The general
them
(a).
in
estate.
The
him a
statute
larger
was passed
(a) Gortis v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
144
o.
36,
But
(b).
lands of whatever
prohibition, the
only consequence
tenure in
its
if
mode
of
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-
II. c.
10;
Be
re,
Adams
(6)
Gomp. Smith
(c)
v.
known and
Walters Contract, In
As
strict construc-
Waterton, 3 B.
&
Digitized
by Microsoft
Aid. 151.
Haigh
v.
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
145
ture
when
it
(a)
Per Bovill
G.J.,
Eaymond, 746
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
1 Inst. 35.
(c)
17 Geo.
1871); B.
V.
II. c.
38
22 Geo. III.
&
[1914] 2 K. B. 691
C.
S.
L. E.,
541; Bennett
v.
6 Bing. 230.
83 (repealed
c.
Great Farringdon, 9 B.
Pearce
v. Bulteel,
10
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
146
INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.
&2
(1
of the
Vict.
they
110),
c.
fell
The Act
Act (b).
of Geo. II.,
which pro-
engraving,
piratically
or
otherwise,
or
may
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.
JR. v.
v.
32 L.
v. Ball,
P. 166
J. 0.
A.-G. V. Lockwood, 9
0. P. 410;
staengl v.
(d).
Act
c.
and note;
46,
Graves v. Ashford, L. E. 2
3 Ch. 109; note also cases cited inf. Chap. X., Sec. I; for an
XXI.
& 25 Vict.
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
Digitized
c.
73
A.-G. v
Postmaster General v.
(/) White, In
repealed
& 4 Geo.
by Microsoft
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.
147
meaning
the words
of
For instance,
(6).
the,
public-houses
certain hours
should be closed at
now remedied by
is
of
Day (c),
the 6th
And
1910.
in like
of the
resulting
Court of Appeal
(d) that
new
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
(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
OE
IN CBIMINAL LAW.
lead to any of
them
therefore to be avoided.
is
It
of the
or grammatical
(a) Grot,
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,
it
expressed
intention
than
in
slovenly manner,
149
that
its
to
its
and to
may
(b)
be in their
give
literal sense,
must, usually, be
Per Trevor
J.,
Arthur
v.
Cory V. France, 80 L.
J.
K. B, 346
and see
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"
or
own
jurisdiction
(b)
or
law
general principle of
(d)
to hear
less
still
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)
Eomilly, Minet
J.
v.
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.
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.
(d)
2 Stra. 1173
B.
v.
Great Charte
v.
Kennington,
;
Lawson
v.
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
camp.
151
An
(a).
The provision
in
26
s.
(8),
legis (6).
all
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.
C.)
s.
LXV,
Ord.
1,
Eailway
28,
&
and
of
32 & 33 Vict.
c.
62
plaintiff's costs
Washer
v. Elliott,
(e),
45 L.
P. 144,
J. G.
58 Vict.
(c)
c.
60,
s.
Beddow
v.
693
s.
Beddow, 9 Oh. D. 89
H. L. 193.
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.
L. J. Oh. 173
W.
v.
G. W. E. Co. (1882),
Digitized
8 Q. B. D. 516
by Microsoft
Mills'
INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
152
s. 7,
Act, 1895,
course be granted
An Act which
by reason of
be,
councillor
eligible
(a).
would
alderman,
or
when he acted
not
as a town
make him
for it
would not
had intended
it,
to repeal
34 Oh. D. 24
Lamhton
v.
Parkinson (1887), 35
W.
E.
545,
(a)
13
58 & 59 Vict.
Dodd
c.
39
V.
& A.
what is
Johnsons. Johnson, 69 L. J. P. D.
As
at p. 199.
to
As
when
making an
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.
Digitized
32 T. L. E. 167.
inf. p.
Q. B. 316
v. Milledge,
to
by Microsoft
Henley, [1892]
153
on a Sunday (a)
the candidate
and
if
who had
he deemed elected,
it
who
whom
they
know
to
(b).
In the same way, a statute requiring a recognisance would not be understood as giving com-
women
may
women
since
it
would seem
of infants is not
case
of
universal application
minster
to bind
But
Women's Property
Acts married
(c).
2,
(d).
(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.
V.
s.
B.
V.
558
B.
V.
(c)
Q. B. 183, discussed in
How, 33 L.
J.
M.
C. 53
B.
Bennett
v.
Watson, 3
M. &
S. 1
see 7
v. St.
J.
Digitized
Beresford-Hope
c.
64,
Matthew, 32 L. T.
Q. B. 219.
& 8 Geo. V.
by Microsoft
154
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
43
Eliz,
in
c. 2,
So,
(a).
mother
of
And now by
estate,
woman
whom
Women's
entitled to
is
renounce or disclaim a
gift
perty notwithstanding
it
a restraint on anticipation
{d).
election of
full
age
time, and provided that words importing the masculine gender should include females for aU pur-
was
held,
(a)
2 Inst. 395.
(6) Gustodes
Bulstr. 345
s.
v. JinJces,
Coleman
v.
Styles,
283
Draper
Birmingham, 50 L.
J.
21,
(c)
Peters
(d)
v.
Cowie, 46 L. J.
Wimperis, In
re,
M.
C. 177.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
v.
Glenfield,
G. 92
but see
women
now removed by
dieability is
(a),
but this
the Eepresentation
An Act which
155
simply
left
vestrymen "present
common law
affect the
demand
at the
a poll
and
the poll
R.
(b).
7,
XXXVII,
Order
E. S.
end
of
C, under
may
to be produced, and
fit
think
trial,
does not
when
tion,
there
is
no
trial or application
(a)
173
L. J. Ch. 143
5
(6)
c.
V.
s.
B.
54 L.
J.
J.
0.
76,
How, 33 L.
L. J. C. P. 1;
(c)
55,
Beresford-Hope
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
M.
J.
54 E. E. 553
Ch. 624.
v.
s.
for carrying
Barrald, 41 L.
pending,
v.
B'Oyly,
Q. B. 219.
Elder
v. Carter,
25 Q.
Digitized
D. 194
O'Shea
by Microsoft
v.
Wood, [1891]
156
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
c.
26,
was construed
as not intend-
and
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,
nor would
poration
(J),
it
P. 237, 286
secus
under 42 Vict.
23 Q. B. D.
(a)
Straher v.
1.
Garland
v.
Mead, 40 L.
J.
Q. B. 179
Bishop
V. Curtis (1852),
88 E. E. 819
2 Inst. 721
(c)
(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.
Havering,
Id.
83
Id. 84.
Digitized
Bveringham
18 Q. B. 878.
(b)
by Microsoft
Christ's Hospital v.
Hen. YIII.
c.
1 (a),
157
The
of
the
new
object
in declaring maps
"
"
provisions,
satisfactory evidence
So,
1836,
evidence on
a question of
between land-
title
Act
(d).
v.
75, see
5 B.
&
(c)
Eccles.
And
c.
12.
as to married
women,
Willoch v. Noble, L. E. 7
Comp.
v.
O'Shanassy
v.
Power, [1891] A. C,
H. L. 580
Boe
v.
Battle,
Aid. 492.
Ward
v.
Com.,
Scott,
47 L.
Camp.
J.
Oh.
c.
71,
284.
129; Forbes
v.
Eccles.
v.
Com., 42
L. J. Ch. 97.
(d)
s.
64
Wilberforce v. HearfieU, 46
L. J. Ch. 584.
Digitized
by Microsoft
158
INTEBPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
England
for a foreigner
(a).
So, a ship
would not be a
and transfer by
bill
Sec.
was understood
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
Common-
who should
(a)
Smith
(6)
Union Bank
V.
v.
J.
Q. B. 154.
Lenanton, 47 L. J. 0. P. 409.
See
s. 1,
32 & 33 Vict.
c.
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
Brown (1878), 3 A. C,
Eepealed S. L. E., 1863.
Breslauer
v.
Digitized
at p. 689.
by Microsoft
(a).
It
is
159
have
beyond the
cases,
intention.
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
jurisdic-
for
Crawley
31 Car.
v. Phillips, 1 Sid.
II. c.
A.-G.
222.
v. Eiook-a-Sing,
42 L.
J. P. 0.
64;
Digitized
by Microsoft
160
by
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
its
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
Act to tenants in
tail,
dis-
and
want of execution
powers of disposition,
of such
Act so
make
as to
parties.
The
it
object of the
an
error, did
Vane
(6) 3
& 4
in
v.
the
Montague, In
Courts
re,
v. Small,
;
Meeking
N. 367.
Digitized
v.
Gh. D. 251.
W.
Ecclesiastical
Will. IV.
(b).
by Microsoft
for
not
Hall Dare, 31
36 Ch. D. 716
v.
Meeking, [1916]
161
laymen
against
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
;
(b).
scope of the
shall
they are
in
48; Barnes
v.
his
c.
18,
now
(6)
s. 4,
with
the
consent
& 35
repealed in part by 34
can
possession
c.
91), a
v.
Burgoyne, 31 E. E. 2
5 B.
&
C. 400.
11
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
the
clergyman
Free
Vict.
By
INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
162
of
But
the owner.
this
proviso
is
confined to
by a mercantile agent
his business qua mer-
way
Act,
Waddington
North Western
(6)
v.
Bank
Lowe, 26 L. J. Q. B. 107.
(c)
Cole v.
c.
53.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See Brocklehurst
v.
163
s.
1 (2),
45
&
were a feme
all
respects
make
ad
litem
The
(c).
tion
members, as members
London Waterworks
v.
Waddle (1868), 37 L.
J. 0.
P.
Digitized
by Microsoft
164
INTBEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
member
as
member (a)
not as
debtor,
it
2 of the Build-
remedy
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).
which
to be "
is
law,
affect
An Act
list (c).
Manx
of the
its
"when
Courts, should,
(a)
20.
c.
66,
Wells, 61 L. J. Q. B.
Fleming
48 L.
J.
46 L.
J.
s.
v.
27
606
0. P. 353
J.
Ex.
Willis v.
v.
v.
Socy.
Kent,
Q. B. 290.
47 & 48 Vict.
Western Suburban
c.
41
J.
Q. B. 382
(c)
J.
Martin (1886), 55 L.
(6)
V.
J.
Morrison v. Glover, 19 L.
v.
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.
165
To
give
it
&
8 Will. III. c. 25, which declares such conveyances "void and of none effect," is void so far as
7
which
is
it is
(c)>
in
(a)
Be Brown
made
an order of the
for enforcing
Marshall
v.
20 L.
J. C.
at p. 427.
Digitized
P. 11
referred
v. Hichson, [1906] A.
by Microsoft
C,
166
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
And
Order XXXI,
and
14,
con-
not
(a).
the pro-
E. S.
C,
subject
to
such
plaintiffs
discovery
in
and without
in-
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,
167
mere
injuries,
fine
who demanded
road surveyor
and dismissal a
or wilfully received
demanded a
fee to
(a)
Tayhr
Hudson
Hart,
V.
Spicerv. Barnard, 28 L. J.
72 L.
J.
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
v.
168
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
is,
So,
(a).
seamen,
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
60 L.
38
J.
actually
Co.
-v.
352
East
who
the exception
B.
B.
V. City
B.
calling
is
Lynch (1898), 67 L.
J. Q.
Digitized
by Microsoft
B. 59.
See also
an execution on a judgment
were
An Act,
if
non-payment
169
of rates (a).
pew during
divine service
sit
And where
(6).
in
trustees
whom
had power to
sell
the pews
and a subse-
45 & 46 Vict.
c.
43,
s.
v.
Hinde
v. Chorlton,
L. E. 2 0. P. 104
Wadmore
v.
Dear
Brumfitt
v.
BoherU, 39 L.
J.
C. P. 95.
Brewer
5 C. P. 269.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
M'Gowen, L. E.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
170
&
39 Vict.
Management Act,
c.
65,
and the
&
19 Vict.
1855, 18
and as much
it
in depth as
vested in an urban
local
no
and
(c),
the user of
was
originally constructed
whom
by turnpike trustees
to
A.-G.
V.
Tunbridge Wells
v.
Baird, sup.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See also
makes no
difference
there can be
little
171
(a).
{e.g.
authority
(6).
Sec. 12, 35
&
36 Vict.
c.
86,
to
fit
be tried
to
"
in
more
to be tried in the
fit
(c).
principle appears
to govern
requiring railway or
all
damage
(1903),
Tstradyfodwg
&c.
Sewerage
Bd.
v.
Benstead,
[1906]
1 K. B. 294.
(c)
Banhs
v.
V. Pearson, [1911]
2 K. B. 412
Digitized
80 L.
J.
K. B. 1069.
by Microsoft
BonMn
INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.
172
by
Act
after it is
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
powers are in
all
(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.
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
v.
London,
Tilbury
B.
Brand
(6)
v.
West End
Stockport B. Co., 38 L. J.
Supp.,
Johnson (1860),
Cowper-Essex
77 L.
v.
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,
Poulter
(1887),
57 L.
J.
Q. B. 138
Digitized
by Microsoft
Mercer
v.
173
of Sale
in-
The object
of the enact-
to requiring the
fixtures
12 0. B. N.
Buck
v.
S.
790
c.
Gihbs v. Liverpool
v. Fellowes (1861),
S. 780.
17 & 18 Vict.
Hawtrey
10 G. B. N.
(b)
c.
31,
c.
s.
23).
Vict. c. 35
Exp. Daglish, 42 L.
Bank. 102
J.
Waterfall
v.
Penistone, 26
Me
Trethowan, 46 L.
V. Coles,
58 L.
J.
Q.
J.
Bank. 43
B.
Be
346; Small
Digitized
Eslick, Id.
v.
30
Climpson
by Microsoft
174
INTBEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
(a).
and unsecured
creditors,
operation
the
decisions limiting
of several
scope
of
its
(b).
Act, 1855
which
(c),
to
the
adjoining'
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.
J.
v.
J.
Oh
560,
cited there,
70 L.
J.
Ch. 6
WCausland
re
v. O'Callaghan,
Whitaher
v.
[1904] 1
Be
I.
(1900),
E. 376,
c. ccxiii.
Digitized
by Microsoft
175
damage con-
And,
of a right.
mean
that the
adjoining
premises were
be
to
74,
s.
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,
except
when the
licensed
pilot,
literally,
as
it
made an owner
vessel
is
in charge of a
compulsorily
duly
Construed
taken.
(6), it
his
But
converso
House
of -Lords held,
that the
10
&
11 Vict.
c.
27
Dennis
v. Tovell (1872),
33.
Digitized
by Microsoft
42 L.
J.
M. 0.
DJTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
176
such works;
liability,
On
this
recoverable
(a).
declared
it
piracy to "
make a
revolt in a ship,"
(d),
(o) Biver
(6)
s.
17)
L. J.
(c)
{d)
even
Wear Commissioners
4 Geo. IV.
;
if it
c.
34,
s.
Turner, Be, 15 L. J.
M.
0.
1.
v.
& 39
3 (repealed by 38
M.
0. 140.
Vict.
c.
86,
c.
13
2 Inst. 560.
11
& 12
Will. III.
c.
7, s.
B.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
The
(a).
177
who
is
under
arrests
not indictable
for
As Mens Eea,
some
language,
is
how-
statute,
it
be in
its
it,
offence "
(c).
general
terms
is that,
trary is expressed.
statute,
who
(a)
(d)
Edward V.
TrevelUck, 24 L. J. Q. B. 9
Limland
v.
Stephens
(1899), 68 L. J. Q. B. 34,
{d) 1
Hale, 706
Stat. (I.) 6.
Eyston
v. Studd,
Plowd, 459a
De Gex,
Bac. Ab.
346.
12
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
178
INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES,
for it
porary insanity, is
is
is
a constituent element,
it
may
be
On
(c).
which
if
such
act,
& K.
(o)
B.
(6)
(c)
B.
inf. p.
L. J.
V.
Moore, 3 0.
319.
Comp. West
v. Francis,
290.
See
(d)
Beade
(-e)
V.
v.
ex. gr.
Lee
24 & 25 Vict.
M.
v.
100,
s.
57; B.
v.
0. 97.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Token (1889), 68
179
"whom he
bond, fide
16
(2),
Licensing
(Consolidation)
Act,
1910
s.
78 (16),
(a).
And
legal
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
they
though
(a) Sherras v.
Cundy
(6)
V.
B.
Le
De
& M.
and Mullins
2 Moo. C. C. 252
602.
he forcibly took
V. Phillips,
ford, Car.
If
See B.
v.
S. C.
nom. B.
v.
Lang'
Eaym.
0. & P.
(c)
B.
V.
Burnahy, 2 Lord
900.
(d)
B.
V.
Hall (1828), 3
409.
See also B.
v. Knight,
J.
P. 15.
In B.
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBKPRETATION OP STATUTES.
180
girl
simply in
the
his
of
exercise
right
as
A man who
(a).
assertion
of the
and in ignorance
rivers (6),
or in contestation of
it
claimed by
of
another
On
(c).
principle
this
may
an offence summarily,
right or title is set
(a)
44 L.
B.
J.
P.
&
B.
(d)
V. Stimpson,
But see B.
F. 513.
(6)
Beece
a claim of
(d)
v. Prince,
(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
L. E. 7 Q. B. 353;
Mann
v.
Nurse <1901), 17
Digitized
by Microsoft
MENS REA
IN CRIMINAL LAW.
such cases
iii
is,
181
not to acquit,
But how
fact
is
of these decisions
however, that
is,
is
under
far
know-
Act that
ledge
necessary
it is
how
is
girl
(a).
under
older
The
(6).
object of the
to prevent a scandalous
parental rights,
Legislature being
it
not
If,
(c).
fall
as
it
pursuit of
game on
whom
of the person
(a)
Per Stephen
(h)
B.
J.,
if
Cundy
v.
Le
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
had the
license, but
which was in
person
of a different
(a),
(6),
Council under
it,
it
"with
all
gunpowder
should send
or
similarly
who
dangerous
(a) 1
(b)
&2
Morden v.
s.
30
Porter, 29 L. J.
B.
M.
v.
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.
42 L*
J.
d;
2 K. B. 837.
Digitized
by Microsoft
N. W. B.
Co.,
of
[1917]
183
essential to a conviction,
declaration,
not only in
by
it
had
{a)
(a)
Eearne
v. Garton,
28 L.
J.
M.
C. 216.
& N.
Go.,
[1917]
2 K. B. 837.
(&)
Vict.
Digitized
by Microsoft
184
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
a person
was not
was not
cited,
having adulterated
for
It
(b).
may
vigilance
language, enforcing
construction
literal
of
(a)
44 L.
J.
30 L.
Sleep,
V.
3 Cox, 28i
B.
M. C.
M.
J.
v.
49.
See Aberdare
v.
v. Thirlwall, 9 L. T.
Hammett,
N.
S. 327,
salmon," in contravention of
24 & 25 Yict.
109,
c.
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
N. W. B. (1917), 87 L.
Digitized
J.
K. B. 82.
by Microsoft
251
Commissioners of
;
Mmsell
v.
185
The innocent
which, owing
spirits
natural
to
possession of
causes,
at the
owner
have
bottom
under
liable
which
spirits
is
is
a large body of
mens
rea.
mere
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.
So the
(a).
sale
of
an
article
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.
1872 (repealed,
he
if
though the
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,
case of Williams
(6)
38
& 39
c.
[1894] 1 Q. B. 345
79 L.
J.
v. Allen,
Vict. c. 63
K. B. 1123
[1916] 1
59);
K: B.
o.
425.
D.
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.
Cundy
v.
was
de-
new milk
Le
inf. p.
562.
Cocq, 18 Q. B. D. 207
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
MENS EEA
IN CRIMINAL LAW.
187
premises
But
(a).
a servant,
if
a drunken
sells liquor to
is
guilty of
belief,
they were
that
not
lunatics
(c).
The
honest
belief
is
s.
under
But
who
a license holder
nor concurred at a
sale,
Be
V.
Johmon, sup.
(a) Somerset v.
(6)
113.
(c)
(d)
V.
Wade
Brooks
v.
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.
v.
Orawshaw, 72 L. J. K. B. 389
Jones V. Shervington, 77 L.
C.
J.
Digitized
Macey
v.
MeKenzie, 67 J. P. 251
K. B. 771.
by Microsoft
188
INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
necessary works
penalty
for
(a).
business, subject
its
to
if it
company was
The
is
to be
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.
(a)
Emary
of
As
to
v.
s.
120
(6) Hiplcins v.
(c)
Birmingham Gas
60 & 51 Vict.
c.
55,
s.
29
Go.,
30 L.
Bagge
v.
Digitized
J.
Ex. 60.
by Microsoft
189
it
whom
knowledge of the
&
Act, 16
fact (a).
17 Vict.
c.
no personal
128,
ss.
1, 2,
in order to
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
No
(6).
with which he
is
it, is
(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
v.
Greenhalgh, 24
Greenhalgh, 45 L. J. Q. B.
3,
L. R. 7 Q. B. 474.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
C. A.
But
see
Akroyd (1872),
190
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
liable to
this
a penalty
alum (a);
On
orders.
carrier,
under
78
s.
35
16,
s.
&
36
Licensing (Con-
(lb).
duty
(c),
knowledge
(a)
B.
V.
(b)
B.
V.
-of
Act,
(c)
M.
Foot, 61 L. J.
M. &
S. 11.
J.,
B.
M.
C. 110
M.
0. 67.
See also
v.
Per A. L. Smith
J.,
v.
0. 122.
79, Licensiag
1910),
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
191
rea,
then he
is
to be acquitted
The
(6).
decisions
and other
like cases
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.
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
(a),
of the master,
and
it is
latter
.
the committee of a club cannot properly be convicted of selling liquor without a proper license,
where the
sale
assent (&);
or
to convict
in refusing
suffering
of
Where,
(c).
referring to the
J.,
judgment
of
Stephen
Newman
v. Jones,
in
J.,
17 Q. B. D. 132
35 & 36 Viet.
solidation) Act,
77.
o.
1910
94,
;
s.
v.
17, repealed,
s.
K. B. 119.
79, Licensing
Morris,
63 L.
J.
Digitized
Hvans
Bond
57 L. J. M. G. 105.
by Microsoft
M.
0.
185
(Con
M.
;
C.
and
MENS REA
IN CRIMINAL LAW.
facie
positive proof of
193
amounting
to
such indication
is
made by
{b)
the represen-
tation
make
{d).
is
not
liable to
(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
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.
on land in
of
search,
was entitled
who absented
known
An apprentice
to the law.
belief,
who
cabman
So, a
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
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
apprenticeship to a corporation
Carson, [1891] 1 Q. B.
(c)
M. C. 65; Smith
30 L. J. M.
J.
v.
not to
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).
Foulger
v.
valid
is
& 39
Vict.
c.
86,
31 L. J. M. 0. 138, an
:
v.
,75.
Steadman, 42 L. J. M. C.
Digitized
are
no longer
by Microsoft
3.
Comp. Jones
v.
privileged cabs at
195
On
the other
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
description to
but
it
is
an
sufficient that
article is in-
(a) Sherras v.
Be
Bank of N.
S.
Wales
v.
50 & 51
(1889),
59 L.
EirsherAoim
v.
28
Vict. c.
J.
M.
0. 13
Salmon
&
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
to-
iTest
{b) of
barratry,
it
for being
although
when using
So under
it {d).
s.
its
servants
31 of the repealed
(a)
41 L.
V.
J.
Be Marney, [1907]
v.
1 K. B. 388.
Vallejo v. Wheeler, 1
(6)
Societe
s.
(c)
Earle
(d)
25
also
v. Bowcroft,
G. W. B. Co.
Lane
Payne {No.
v.
2),
c.
v.
s.
Bailie (1864), 34 L. J.
M.
0. 31.
49,
c.
See
[1905] 1 K. B. 410.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
EBSTEICTIONS OF OPERATION.
extent of
.197
applies,
but
word as
the doctrine of Mens Rea
controlled by such a
is
it is,
if it is
the
is
the field of
its
operation
(6).
The
(a)
sum
(&)
is
now
c.
52
B.
v.
For some
& 5 Geo. V.
17
& 18
c.
Vict. c. 36,
s. 2.
Digitized
by Microsoft
59,
s.
The
155.
which immedi-
INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.
198
well as the
bill,
of trust
by
The
the Act
of
by requiring the
of
Sale Act,
bill,
stranger
So,
(c).
the provision in 8
making
c.
(o) Etlls
V.
&
9 Vict,
Bobinson v.
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.
135.
(c)
Tomlinson
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
recover
no
suit shall be
money won on
199
maintained to
a wager or deposited to
it
has
of
language of
(repealed,
s.
299,
s.
419
(3),
which provided
(c).
that,
damage should
if
arise
to
make
Hampden
v.
Walsh, 45 L. J. Q. B. 238
Exchange
(&)
538
v. Strachan,
55 & 56 Vict.
Barclay
v.
c.
65 L.
9
J.
Diggle
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.
Keen
v. Price,
Digitized
by Microsoft
200
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
(a).
it
could not
37
Id.
205
Price
374.
(6)
B.
V.
Manchester, 26 L.
Smith (1869), 38 L.
J.
Ex. 90.
Cox
Digitized
J,
M.
0. 65.
v.
by Microsoft
201
all
the incidents of a
that
it is
on the ground
mode
of
execution (a).
earned by any
him
artificer
shall
be actually paid to
& 53
52
Vict.
Eep. 62
(6)
Garr
Ogden
v.
v.
c.
Handing (1891), 60 L.
J.
Q. B. 110
Sec. 16,
(c).
Darlington
Wagon
Co. v.
Dougherty, 67 L. J. Q. B. 371.
Benas, 43 L.
J. C.
P. 259
Arnold
v.
Cheque
(c)
&
2 Will. rV.
c.
Digitized
37;
Williams
v.
by Microsoft
North's Navigation
202
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
pany,!
if
the
to it
(a).
^So
it
75 L.
Collieries (1906),
Thomson (1913),
Merihyr
(o)
Collieries,
8 & 9 Vict.
J.
S. G. (J.) 34,
79 L.
c.
16
J.
H. L.
But
v.
K. B. 722.
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
company
so
principal the
203
money
so paid
(a).
is,
wide
literally,
made by
a pro-
(a)
Ghwpman
v.
Shepherd, 36 L. J. 0. P. 113
discussed in
32 & 33 Vict.
c.
71
now
59)
Smyth
Hill v. E.
(4
& 5 Geo. V.
842.
87 L.
c.
v.
s.
54,
& 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
Stamp
So, the
Acts,
(b).
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.
and
a poUcy,
(s.
96
(2))
[a)
Tvyycross v.
explained in Macleary
lb) Cornell v.
(c) JR. V.
Ponsford
(d).
Hay
v. Tate,
(1873), 42 L.
HawhswortTi, 1 T. E. 450
\.
missory note
J. 0. P. 136.
;
B.
v.
Walton, L. E. 8 0. P. 167.
may be handed
An unstamped
Digitized
pro-
Co.,
by Microsoft
65 L.
J.
Q. B. 252.
41 L.
J.
Q. B. 190
In the same
spirit,
the
205
operation of 7 Anne,
c.
which, with
the
of the ambassador
who rented
in
non-payment
of a parochial rate.
Upon
the
Insmance
Co.,
Canada
v.
Parsons (1881), 7 A.
its
0.,
at
125.
(a)
(6)
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
'
is
'
above
is
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-
agreeable"
(1)
(b).
As regards the
first of
these senses,
(a)
84.
(6)
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
does not
construction
v. Hall,
Begiatrar of Probates, 69 L. J
it
25 L.
G. P. 56.
J.
Oh.
more than a
207
It is simply fraud
all.
flagitious
attempt to pass
off
no
an exist^it
is
it
really
Words,
is.
may
of course,
illusion,
'
ance
is
in fact,
not,
templated by
the statute,
it
is
in a legal sense
The author
right.
struction
as
any
mischief (a).
of a statute,
object
defeat
(a)
Magdalen
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)
(c).
"
Whenever
it
can be
are adopted
hibited,
substantially that
falls
it
it is
the thing
(e).
Whenever Courts see such
attempts at concealment, " they brush away the
thereby prohibited
They
its
men
Whatever might
{g), and so see through them.
be the form or colour of the transaction, the law
do
(a)
(6) 3 Dig.
(J.)
(E.) 28.
1, 3, 29.
(c)
2 Inst. 48.
{d)
Per Blackburn
J., Jeffries v.
Alexander (1860), 31 L.
J.
Ch.
6 H. L. Oas. 338.
(/) Per Wilmot
(g)
Digitized
by Microsoft
45.
209
(a).
putting forward
description of
it is,
particular transaction
than the statute which is the subject of construction and if it is found to be in reality within the
;
which
its real
by means
character
masked.
is
(c)
Solarte v. Melville, 1
For a
they were
(d)
(e)
list
all
of them, see 17
J.
& 18
Vict. c.
90by
v.
204.
Thomas
which Act
(gr)
Madell
or
repealed.
Davis
612
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.
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
210
or
(a),
And whether
(jd).
Thus,
if
be the
real
Bedo
(a)
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
V.
Simpson, 46 L. J. 0. P. 192
J.
of
(1916), 84 L. J. K. B.
of
M.
G. 9.
As
by Microsoft
to evasion
See Higginson
Digitized
v.
King,
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.
Darling
C.
Thacker
Stoddart, 70 L. J. K. B. 189
77 L.
11
(1857),
Bkcy. 1
348.
5 Moo. 571.
v.
Thomson
A with
to
may be
this
liberty to
211
owner, to B.
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;
apology in
a newspaper for a
with,
full
if
libel,
An
(c).
assignment of lease-
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.
&
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.
Truemm, [1913] W. N.
a.
198.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
212
them from
the mortgagee of
liability to
the cove-
had
dis-
sham
ment
And where
(fc).
an equitable assign-
the grantor of a
bill of sale of
in possession
by
54
(6)
46 & 47 Vict.
(6)
c.
52,
55 (6); see 4
s.
17 & 18 Vict.
c.
36,
and 45 & 46
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.,
however, Allsopp
Woodgate
c.
L. J. 0. P. 408
Be, 59 L. J. Q. B. 394
V.
& 5 Geo. V.
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.
Hichson, 55 L. J. Q. B. 119
Digitized
by Microsoft
See
213
money on
months
than
six
effect of
tenant
who covenanted
would be held
for this
The
(b) Booth y.
86.
Bradshaw (1850), 20 L.
(c)
(d)
Boe V Carter, i E. E.
H. L. Oas, 739.
v.
586.
Ex. 26.
(1858), 6
Digitized
J.
by Microsoft
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES,
214
able
divested
if
covenant
(a).
the
break
to
intent
the
of
The
c.
36(c),
(6).
Charitable
II.
money
charity of land, or
and to take
effect
any reservation
of revocation or
money
Thus, a bequest of
experiments.
the
to
name from
but in
such a transaction
for
differs
34 L.
Q. B. 68
J.
2 Q. B. 325.
(6)
Sharpe
Cas. 672.
v.
46 & 47 Vict.
Griffith,
(c)
66 L.
Eepealed save
J.
s.
Be
rule, see
71,
&
52); repealed 4
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.
The
of it (a).
testator
215
So a legacy to trustees
(c).
of a chapel to be applied
Where
void((/).
is
the
sum
(o)
of
Gas. 349
See,
27 L.
v. St.
Provision of
23
J.
however. Mortmain
and Charitable
Uses
H. L.
221.
inf. p.
1891.
Act,
s.
an elementary school-house
42,
s.
(6)
Comp, Brodie
2 Edw. VII.
(5).
v.
Chandos,
Bro.
0. G. 444 n.
and
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.
wood (1886), 19 L. E.
(d) Gorbyn v.
Ir.,
at p. 65.
Digitized
by Microsoft
44
E. 144, but
v.
East-
216
INTBBPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
might
issue,
indirect
mode
of
making
So, a settlement,
ing a tenement, was not obtained where the renting was colourable or fraudulent
It
{b).
has been
ille-
(c)
Attree v.
Hawe, 47 L.
and per
Cur.,
Oh. 863.
J.
L. J. Oh. 337.
(6)
180
(c)
Woodland, 1 T. E. 261
B.
V.
B.
See B.
v. Astley,
3.
Compare B.
Halifax, 2 B.
B.
v.
Tillinghcm, 1 B.
&
Ad.
4 Doug. 389.
Bott.
v.
Salk. 66
Mattersey,
;
and B.
Tewheshury
4 B.
v.
Twyning, 2
;
B.
v.
Birmingham, 32 E. E.
332.!
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
Where
(a).
woman,
217
after fail-
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,
or
when a writ of
Where the payment
Much Waltliam
532
(6)
B.
(e).
v.
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.
Durant
V.
v.
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
is,
is really
may
though
part,
it
Act may
be, the
An Act
it.
language
is
of Parliament is always
subject to
no obligation
for there is
This
it (a).
strikingly illustrated
is
by
came
in question
By
(b).
s.
27 (South Australia),
with
16
s.
&
17 Vict.
L. J. C. P.
\U
B.
V. S. Kilvington,
13 L. J. M.l C.
(a)
v.
p. 206,
1863,'
c.
Harlock
v.
v.
3.
See
Ashberry
Simms
v. Registrar
645
Payne
Duties
V.
v.
v.
Begem, 71 L. J. P. C. 128
80 L.
Digitized
J.
80 L. J. P. C. 114.
K. B. 913.
by Microsoft
See
219
was rendered
liable to double
Way
of Succession Duty,
duty.
or
made
is
to
impeach
Duke
of
Eichmond, being
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
220
duke
for life
and
after his
No
interest,
duke
amounting
interest
When
to ^88,314.
the duke
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
but
it
if
hamlet
(a) A.-G. V.
H. L.
said
998
Id.
"
B.
V. Little
GoggesJiall,
6 M. & S. 264
T. E. 694.
Digitized
by Microsoft
E.
v. Mursley, 1
own
221
sum
money
of
to the
it
fall
And
(a).
within the
again, where
it
did not
it
fall
(b).
(a)
p.
215
PMlpott
;
Bent
George's Hospital, 6
V. St.
30 Beav. 835.
v. Allcroft,
Tehhs,
25 L.
J.
v.
Badley
32 L.
Heighes (1876), 45 L. J.
M.
Digitized
J.
M.
C. 73.
0. 68.
by Microsoft
v.
222
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
receiving
it (a).
sell liquor
licensee
the premises, by
off
(repealed,
s.
61
(3),
s.
10,
is
not authorised to
chord (c).
a few yards
his goods
the harbour
[d).
An enactment which
made by
revocation
(a)
Deal
v.
SchofieU (1867), 37 L. J.
M.
C. 15
a doubtful
66
(6)
(1),
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
Harvey
v.
Lyme
is
(a).
statute
223
which imposes
but the
he received
notice of the debtor's bankruptcy, should pay them
execution
and,
if
not prevent a
creditor for
for less
Act, 1842, of
all
s.
fall
within the
amount paid
in respect of tithe
J. Oh. 64.
& 45
Vict. c. 7,
11.
(6)
& 5 Geo. V.
c.
59,
Fitton,
90 E. E. 885.
v. Brewster,
277, 421.
Digitized
J.
41.
by Microsoft
Davies V.
48 L. J. Q. B.
224
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
on payment of an annual
the purchase-money with
for a term,
repays
(b).
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
1)
c.
20 (repealed 57 Geo.
(c).
III. c. 99,
of attorney pur-
given for
its
set
54 & 55 Viot.
K. B. 531
(V) TorhsMre
comp.
(c)
WautUer
FligU
o.
8,
s.
1 (1)
Ludlow
v.
Pike, [1904] 1
v.
V. Salter,
85 E. E. 413
Saltmarshe
E. E. 436.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Hewett, 40
annuity should
living, if the
that
fall
225
into arrear(a).
all bills
of sale of
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.
Though
Comp. Doe
8 T. E. 300, and
v. Garter,
38 E. E.
Bamsden
15
I.S.
by Microsoft
v.
v. Elite Theatres,
[1917] 2 K. B. 164, C. A.
Digitized
17,
Jeffries v. Alexander,
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
is
(s.
54,
now
s.
38,
purpose whatever
or
it,
it
make
it
available for
if
any
the
ledge of
it
its
admissibility in evidence
would have
introduced the greatest difficulty in the administration of justice,. involving an interruption of the
trial
by collateral inquiries
as to facts
accompanying
SECTION
II.
OONSTBUCTION TO
PREVENT ABUSE OF
POWEES.
all
by the
Bunyard, 6 B.
&
S.
[1894] 2 Q. B. 715.
687
statute, or
J.,
AusUn
Q. B. D. 170.
Digitized
by refusing
by Microsoft
v.
Roche (1877), 3
227
exercise
(c).
who
(a)
See
jper
L. J. Oh. 411
Turner
;
St.
v.
James'
Vestry
(1880),
16 Oh. D. 449.
(6)
(c)
c.
69,
s.
16.
119
Terrell,
As
powers
re,
Court to approve
(1914), 88 L. J. K. B. 1386.
Digitized
of
by Microsoft
INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.
228
of the creditors,
Malpractice by
it
(a).
fanciful,
to be exercised
(e).
And
it
must be exercised
man com-
(a)
Gohh,
Exp. (1873), 42 L.
Bank. 63
J.
office
ought to
Baum, Be
(c)
Lee
V.
(d)
Blackburn, Doherty
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
dicta
may
that
is,
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).
in such
proportionate to the
So, the
means
Highway Act,
of the contributors
1835, 5
if
&
6 Will. IV.
c.
(c).
50,
(a)
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,
however, B.
(c)
St.
v.
and
it,
v.
See Jones
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
M.
M.
0. 1
C. 145.
and
INTEBPEKTATION OF STATUTES.
230
"make such
order thereon as to
them should
them to allow
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
certifi-
certify,
and to refuse
to
Act(c).
pro-
it
as
refusal,
B.
Barton
v. Piggott,
44 L.
J.
M.
(6)
(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,
it
was held
abuse of
in
JB. v.
Sykes, 1 Q. B. D. 52
by Microsoft
Exj,,
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)
Vn. and
(a) Stockton
Lewis
V.
(d).
Smith, 3 Q. B. D. 374.
10 Edw.'
(c)
1 Geo. V.
By. Go.
v.
24,
c.
Brown
112, Sched.
s.
9 H. L. Cas. 246;
(1860),
See
23.
7.
Stroud
v.
Wandsworth
Tramways
Co.
Gloucestershire
Corp.,
(c)
80 L.
A.-G.
J.
V.
79
(1910),
Water
Co.y
A.-G.
v.
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)
v.
J.
J.
v.
Ch. 578.
v.
Edinburgh (1894), 63
is
said
"
A parliamentary
Digitized
by Microsoft
232
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
an exercise of
it
would
Thus, where an Act
of
(6).
all cases,
if it
thought
it
now
the Act.
repealed
(d),
would not
justify a general
deemed
proper,
resolution to refuse
(e),
or to persons
who
the sale of
(a)
See B.
2 Inst. 298.
v.
(6)
See A.-G.
(c)
B.
V.
spirits, in
v.
Chapman
(1838), 8 0.
&
P. 558.
{d)
M. G. 172.
See 10 Bdw. VII. and
(e)
B.
(1850), 19 L. J.
V.
1 Geo. V.
c.
24,
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
112, Sched,
7.
233
or in consideration of the
sum
money
of
for a
public purpose
that the
apply to another
(c).
any particular
locality,
within the
district, re-
it
The
and
statute required
them
to
exercise of their
bond, fide
by the Act
satisfy
B.
V. Sylvester
discussed in Sharp
v.
(1862), 2 B.
&
S.
322
Wakefield, [1891] A.
C,
(6)
B.
V.
(c)
B.
V.
{d)
Macbeth
v.
by Microsoft
the
31 L. J. M. G. 93
at p. 180.
386.
Digitized
themof
234
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
(o)
(6)
Digitized
Id. 357,
by Microsoft
CHAPTEE
SECTION
I.
PEESUMPTIONS
V.
ESTAB-
OUSTING
AGAINST
It
is,
aga;inst
the subject
(a),
now
exists
may owe
its origin to
although
the pecuniary
interests of the
expression of
its intention.
to a
It
would not be
in-
of a jurisdiction
(a)
See Jacobs
(6)
Oram
v.
v. Brett,
1.
Scott v. Avery, 5
H. L. Gas. 811
So
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.
it
if
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,
commissioners,
it
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
;
43 Geo. III.
Shaftesbury
Canal Co.
(6)
v.
B.
V.
c.
19,
s.
4)
King, 14 Q. B. 122.
Beav. 499
(c)
v.
c.
Smith
v.
Whitmore, 1
6.
See Birley
Hem. & M.
Digitized
by Microsoft
576.
v. Chorlton,
heard and
finally
237
(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
jurisdiction.
Lord Mans-
attributed to
seems
B.
(a)
also
v.
Chadwich
(6)
B.
&
B.
certainly be taken
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.
22 L.
J.
B.
M.
v.
Somersetshire, 5
C. 142
B.
Wood,
v.
& B. 660
7 E.
C.
J. Q. B. 396.
Derbyshire, 2
5 E. & B. 49
v.
v.
away by
B.
v.
B.
V.
see Colonial
Bank
1 Q. B. 467
and
C,
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
238
INTBEPEBTATION OF STATUTES,
implication (a).
if
be lawful to refer
it shall
any
dis-
members
to arbitration, ousts
it
from
useless,
made
if it
it
nature,
its
did not
compulsory,
(<?).
society
Per Ashhurst
(a)
V. Henhest,
20 Bq. 6
Ghadwich
J.,
4 T. E. 116
v. Brett,
Wright
Socy. (1883),
L. E.
See also
(6)
and Shipman
46 L.
J.
52 L.
Oh. 649
J.
Hack
Ch. 541
v.
v.
v.
Monarch Investment
v.
Kent
& 10
Edwards
v.
& 52
Vict. c. 43,
& B. 805.
See Austin
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
239
bringing and defending actions touching the property and rights of the society, and, after enabling
them
to lend
money under
for
certain circumstances,
treasurer to enforce
held
that
remedy
the
(a).
statute
treasurer
But another
(6).
" the
all
powers,
provisions,
exemptions,
(a)
Bundalk By.
Compare
on the
Timms
(1875), L.
225
(c)
V. Williams,
11 L. J. Q. B. 210
10 C. P. 679; Willis
v.
Prentice v. London
Walls,
Albon
V.
Pyhe, 11 L.
J. C.
Digitized
P. 266.
by Microsoft
[1892J 2 Q. B.
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
240
in the
diction of
(a).
no ouster of the
jurisdiction of the
repealed Act
ordinary
Thus, where a
had any.
(6)
gation
it
it
mode
of enforcing
it
owner
lay against an
(a)
B.
(6)
25 Geo. III.
(c)
V. Fell (1830), 1
c.
51, repealed 2
4 T. E. 109; Leigh
1
H.
{d)
WiU. IV.
c.
120,
Compare Shipman
v.
s. 1.
Menhest,
Bl. 546.
18 & 19 Vict.
L. J. C. P. 243.
L. J.
v.
&
M.
c.
120;
St.
Pancras
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
may
so,
(b),
case
intention, a
its
to be avoided; especially
when
it
would have
or of
right,
(a)
(b)
Hertford Union
(c)
Warwick
Eaym.
v.
White,
v.
c.
90,
s.
69.
Eimpton (1865), 25 L.
Bunb. 106
Denman,
B.
v.
J.
M.
0. 41.
Baines, 2
Lord
{d)
M.
V. Cotton, 1
B.
& E.
Per Keating
J.,
James
See B.
203
v. S.
W. B.
Co.,
L. E. 7 Ex. 296.
16
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
242
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
(a).
An
Act, for
sustained damage in
carrying out certain works, enacted that " in case
made
should be
to all
who
it
should be settled
by
arbitration, has
in dispute
However,
(6).
effect
must
of course
Thus, an Act
plain
to
person
triiless
he
is
the
offence,
he
"by
aggrieved
felt
justices,"
was construed
jurisdiction
over the
Per Portesoue
(6)
B.
V.
Metrop.
J.,
adjudication
of
offence
the
him an appeal
(c).
But where
recover expenses in a
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.
ousted except by
way
of appeal
(a).
The 31
&
High Court
as granting
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
power
an appeal, but
to transfer to itself
By
&
33 Vict.
c.
51),
the
(a)
Barradough
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
244^_
INTERPRETATIOK OF STATUTES.
SECTION
II.
IF
NOT NAMED.
It
(c).
(a)
L. E. 5 C. P. 428
Brown
V.
cited.
788.
Everard
v.
Kendall,
(1872), L. E. 5 P. C. 134,
Gaudet
L. J.
London
Court, [1892] 1 Q. B.
(b)
son,
236
273
;
61 L.
J. Q.
(1)
B. v_
B. 337.
v.
Donald-
62 E. E. 540
(c)
(B.) 5
(c);
Digitized
Chit. Prerogative,
by Microsoft
382; Ascough's
Crown
to deprive the
property, unless
it
in explicit terms, or
Where,
of
245
is
divest or take
Hament
&
(60
(6).
61 Vict.
c. 65),
legal estate
not bind
And
the Crown,
Crown
to
property, unless
made
so applicable in
Nor
526
Wright (1834), 1 A.
Muggins
& E. 434
v.
n., p.
437
Perry
v.
B.
V.
Barnes (1891),
60 L. J. Oh. 345.
(a)
(&)
Magdalen
College Case,
Grooke's Case,
Show. 208.
v.
(c)
60 & 61 Vict.
(d)
c.
65
Digitized
& A.
16.
by Microsoft
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
246
of
Crown not
to
in fact, the
itself (6).
(a)
Mersey DocJcs
Burial
Board
v.
the Admiralty
Inland
v.
(d),
Gommissioners
(e),
Paddington
(1884),
53
L. J. Q. B. 224.
(&)
43' Eliz.
V.
2.
c.
v.
Gameron (1864),
Sommers, 2 T. E. 372
JR. V. St.
B.
v.
11.
H. L. Gas. 443
Amherst
Martin's, L. E. 2 Q. B. 493.
L. J.
M.
G. 25.
(e)
B.
V. Stewart,
27 L. J. M. G. 81.
Digitized
by Microsoft
247
by a county court
(cZ),
(e),
Pearson
volunteer
And
(i).
(h),
was held
property in the
v.
drill hall is
but a
Management
Act, 1855
V.
Wixon
V.
Thomas, 80 L.
Lancashire
v. Stretford,
J.
K. B. 104.
27 L.
J.
M.
Gomp. Showers
0. 209.
Hodgson
Justices,
(e)
B.
v.
Carlisle,
8 B.
v.
BerJcs
Manchester, 23 L. J.
M.
0. 48.
But
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.
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;
Ghester-le-Street,
Paul, 21 L. J.
v. St.
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.
liable to
of sewers rate
f ord
The Crown
on which property in
of paving a street
pation abuts
But
(c).
is
occu-
its
if
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.
on the facts
M. & W.
As
160.
where
to cases
Kewney (1867), 36 L.
(c)
v. Perkins,
Donaldson, 10
(6)
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)
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.
249
s.
5,
&
12
13 Vict.
c.
of
45,
Summary
Summary
the
Crown
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.
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
Ch. D. 469.
(1884),
(e)
54 L.
Be Henley
See also
(1878), 9
Gh. 327.
6th point
to bind
Bustomjee
v. B., 1
Lambert
v. Taylor,
Q. B. D. 487
4 B.
&
C. 138,
2 Q. B. D. 69.
c.
59,
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
250
(&).
&
2 WiU. IV.
58,
scheme
of
bind
the Crown."
(a)
Be
(6)
Muggins
(c)
v.
Maugham, 13 L.
J. 0.
Bunb. 39
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.
Digitized
754
& P. 72
Stra.
v.
1066.
Ex. 42.
B. (1874), 44 L.
by Microsoft
J.
J.
v.
Q. B.
B.,
9.
251
(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
s.
4) the justice
and
after authorising
if
make such
deems
order as to
it
fit,
(a)
28 & 29 Vict.
K. B. 164.
s.
c.
83,
s.
Cooper
v.
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.
Court of
of the
costs
when the
Act
is
made
and
of religion
advancement
(c)
"for
religion, justice,
of the crowns
is
is
where neither
its
The
are in question.
Statute de Donis
409
Moses
(a)
Tennant
V.
(c)
0.
v. Pritchard,
43,
s.
18,
and 42 & 43
J.
A. C. 31
Vict.
c.
49,
s.
53
[1903] 1 K. B. 209.
62 L.
the
11 & 12 Vict.
Thomas
(6)
Union
v.
v.
(e)
Maple
&
Co.,
Perry
v.
Fames,
Oh. 963.
Case, 11 Eep.
70b-73a
5 Eep. 14b.
(e)
13 Edw.
I.
JJ. v.
Bac.
5.
Digitized
by Microsoft
11 Eep. 72a.
253
minors
(a)
22 (Marlbridge),
c.
deeds
title
(6)
continuances
(c)
the 13 Eliz.
c.
named
70,
c.
(e),
1 Will. IV.
administra-
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
Act.
this construction
the
20 Hen.
L. E.
(c)
(z).
III.,
1872
Ir.
2 Inst. 89.
Eepealed as to E.
(6)
1872
(I.),
or referred
No
(a)
S.
named
S. L. E., 1863, as
to Ir. S. L. E. (I.)
2 Inst. 142.
2 Inst. 681.
5 Eep. 14a
11 Eep. 68b
B.
v.
Armagh
16.
Be Bode
Per
v. B.,
13 Q. B. 364.
Digitized
by Microsoft
{Archbp.), Stra.
254
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
Crown (b).
The Crown can
and inconsistent
the power of the
officers,
(a)
New
[1896] A. C. 575.
(6)
Gould
V. Stuart,
(e)
B.
V.
K. B. 289;
c.
s.
12,
68, refer-
Digitized
by Microsoft
CHAPTEE
SECTION
I.
^PRESUMPTION
VI.
AGAINST INTENDING AN
EXCESS OF JUBISDIOTION.
is
The general
torial.
rule
is,
The laws
subjects
and to
all
is terri-
its
territories,
to
They apply
also
all
(&),
(a)
Dig.
(&)
flying to
2, 1, 20.
England
poses of extradition
A.-G.
V.
is
:
regarded as a Dutch
B.
v.
in
Holland and
Ocmz, 51 L. J. Q. B. 419.
See also
Bob. C. 12.
Digitized
by Microsoft
256
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
own
country, or the
applies
octAs or
lex loci
contractus,
{a).
it
world
(c)
or capacity
it
is
Teodoro
San Teodoro, 5 P. D. 79
v.
(6),
D.
;
1,
Worms
comp.
v.
De
San
Valdor,
J.
Oh. 261
approving Niboyet
(b)
v. Niboyet, supra.
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.
48 & 49 Vict.
(see
s. 1),
and
c.
69,
s. 2,
subjects in
any part
of the
& 58
Vict.
c.
60)
20,
c.
committed by British
also, offences
to
by them
in or in relation to
193
Story, Confl. L.
s.
114
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
Ey. 237.
257
but, with
from
its
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
woman who
(a).
They
are,
words to that
if
them
in
territorial
Thus, a
(6).
was
life,
James
I.
against bigamy
was
But
(c).
s.
its
prohibition to
s.
100
et seq. ;
pt. 2, c. 2, ss. 6, 7.
(a)
Bose
v.
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.
An
(a).
act of bankruptcy
Crown (c).
(a)
24 & 25 Vict.
(6) Ingliss v.
533.
100
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.
101
B.
v. Lightfoot (1856),
115.
Digitized
by Microsoft
25 L.
J.
M.
C.
summons
259
person to be served,
not to be interpreted as
is
(a).
&
(6).
6 Will. IV.
&
o.
42 Vict.
63
(re-
c.
49,
ss.
palm
and
delivered
on
the
oil,
coast
measured
to be
Africa
of
(c).
different
(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
(6)
B.
(c)
V.
English
carry
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)
by the law
of the place
principle,
in
similarly
effect
jurisdiction of Parliament
to
the
territorial
(6).
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
members
of the
II.
L.
(a)
Per Parke
(&)
ScrimsMre
s.
(c)
B., Bosseter v.
v.
OaMmann,
at p. 363.
221.
01.
&
P. 85.
Knapp, 257.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Story, Gonfl.
c.
64),
261
marriages
all
all
(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).
comihitted
includes crimes
crime,
Crown out
of
England
against
the
(d).
Brook, 27 L.
Story, Confl. L.
s.
86,
and
J.
Ch. 401
also
s.
9 H. L. Cas. 193.
c.
See
47, vali-
P. D.
(c)
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.
I., r.
Digitized
by Microsoft
14
Gonybeare
v.
262
INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.
criminal
statute,
manifestly
its
suppress (a)
also (6)
if
though
was not in
it
express
terms
As the Courts
British Colonies were empowered by Act of
among
Colonies, though
SECTION
II.
it
PRESUMPTION
AGAINST A VIOLATION OF
INTEENATIONAL LAW.
C. P.
R.
317
V. Zulueta, 1
;
Car.
& K. 215
and
Santos v. Illidge, 28 L. J.
(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)
263
any such
must express
its
it
for if
If,
object,
tained
(a).
is
it
enter-
possible,
it
to avoid
it (c).
96,
Boustead (1896), 66 L.
(6)
Per
J.
Charming Betsy,
(d)
Wheat. Blem.
(1879), 4 P. D. 39.
and as
v.
and Murray
Id. 118.
(c)
110
v,
Ch. 75.
The
Constitution
J. P.
(1893), 63 L. J. Q. B. 593.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
264
tacitly
embodying
this
Hence
rule.
whilst the
Limitation
against
his
nomadic races
its territory,
including
its
would be so
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.
16,
s.
19
&
7 Anne,
16
c.
24
c.
25
12,
Repvhlic of
See
Vict. c. 8, offences
de
la
Mer,
i.
By
285.
34 & 35
power, are
made
Settlements.
s.
Sup. 255.
1 0. C. 161
B.
(c)
V.
B.
V.
Lopes, 27 L. J.
M.
B.
C. 48; B.
v.
v.
Fracis Times
Digitized
&
Co.,
v.
L., pt. 2, c. 2,
Anderson, L. E.
Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76
v. Lesley,
B.
J.,
29 L.
B.
v.
J.
M.
Keyn, 2 Ex. D.
[1902] A. 0. 176.
by Microsoft
C. 97.
c.
100),
wMoh
enacted that
265
feloniously injured
who
ship,
which the
of
England
inflicted a
So,
(a).
wound
sufferer
at sea in a foreign
afterwards died in
it
(a)
B.
26 L.
V. Lewis,
J.
M.
C. 104.
See also
JB. v.
Depardo,
B.
v.
Be
Mattos, 7 C.
seem
to
Harris
v.
Franconia, 2 C. P. D. 173.
See also
(6)
610
cited
s.
527
U. S. V.
U. S. V. Klintoch, 5
by Cockburn
C.J.,
Wheat. 144
B.
Digitized
v.
U. S. v. Palmer, 3
Wheat.
by Microsoft
26f5
INTBEPBETATION OP STATUTES.
(a).
Though speaking
in just
human
beings,
name
Its
traffic in
and sound
it
it
(6).
policy,
Ifc
was even
prohibited by
carrying
it
on,
Per Best
J.,
3 B.
(c)
Madrazo
v.
Willes,
&
Aid. 358.
22 E. E. 422.
Blidge, 29 L. J. C. P. 348.
v.
402.
(d)
33 & 34 Vict.
c.
14
Digitized
practically re-enacted
by Microsoft
by 4 & 5
267
within them
c.
See B.
17.
Oommanding
c.
v.
46 & 47 Vict.
59,
s.
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.
Cowp. 402
Service,
Davis
&
111.
v.
BuTkeley
Park, 42 L.
v. Schutz,
O'LogMen,
Oh. 673
J.
Exp.
65.
&4
1 Q. B. 304
Festi,
M. B. E.
40 L.
v.
Bank. 81.
Crispin,
repealed by 4
Norris, 5
Vogeler, [1901] A. G.
V.
L. E. 3 P. 0. 764
Exp.,
K. B. 167.
J.
(a)
(c)
72 L.
v. LyncJi (1903),
E. S.
;
0.,
1891
Western Nat.
Bank
v. Perez,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 92
v.
Grant
v.
1 Q. B. 784; Maclver
St.
Gdbain Co.
v.
v.
by Microsoft
Heinemann
v.
Firbank, [1894]
Digitized
v.
Moyermann's Agency,
[1891]
Dohson
Hale, [1891] 2 Q. B. 83
[1893] 2 Q. B. 96
268
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
of
every
may
description
be
taken,
when the
vessel
(a)
Italiano, Be,
3 P. C. 764.
24 & 25 Vict.
(6)
26;
c.
v.
(c)
182.
544
17
Bulheley v. Schutz, L. E.
(1)
see
re,
re,
& 18
But
(c).
Heddon, 25 Q. B. D. 129.
Simpson, In
s.
29 Ch. D. 219
See Colquhoun
is
Vict.
c.
104,
ss.
458, 476
The
Pacific,
Vict.
c.
60),
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
property
a rule of
it is
is
269
all
it lies,
it
But a
(6).
which imposed a stamp duty on all conveyances of land executed in England would obviously
(c).
Neptune
(d),
4 Eraser, 992.
Co.,
v.
Smith (1883),
See
P. 0. 133.
2 Id. 402
Bq. 23
Hunter
Cocherell v. DicJeens, 3
Sill v.
v. Potts,
2 E. E. 353
Blithman, Be, L. E. 2
Ch. D. 674
Duncan
23 Oh. D. 743
v.
Pepin
Waite
v.
Moo.
Phillips v. Hunter^
Bruyere (1902), 71 L.
J.
v. Bingley,
21
Hawthorne, Be,
Ch. 39
Story,
W.
E. 537.
Comp. International
Be
(c)
Wright,
(d)
See Hart
(e)
Story, Oonfl. L.
v.
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
its
(&).
c.
(a)
(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.
Ex. 465.
Arnold, 39 E. E.
Gl.
& F.
(1898), 67 L.
2 Q. B. 378
J.
v.
approved in Harding
Be
45 L.
Bruce, 2 Or.
Digitized
29 L.
discussed
E. 418, and
J.
of Stamps
Ex. 464;
Campbell, L. E. 5
D. 351
Colquhoun
Commissioner
v. A.-G.,
v.
Jr.
Co. v. Garter,
by Microsoft
H. L.
v.
Brooks,
v. Apthorpe,
[1891]
[1896] A. G. 31.
in
271
Foreigners
(a).
England
Schedule
(b),
&
of 16
17 Vict.
o.
34,
this country.
(c).
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)
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
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
They could
construction upon
power
its
(6).
otherwise give to
would otherwise
merely because
it,
fail
language
(c).
its
among
others,
contract
made
England on a
Per
The Marianna Flora, 11 "Wheat. 40 The ZollSwab. 96 The Johannes, Lush. 182 The Amalia, 32
verein,
Cur.,
109, 115.
in
Kemp
v. Neville (1861),
Savadge, Hob. 87
1 Kent
(e)
Comm.
31 L.
J. C. P. 158.
London {City
of) v.
447.
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
273
formalities required
SECTION
III.
HOW
AFFECT FOREIGNERS.
It
may
less clear.
when
filling
to those
who owe
only
v.
See Williams
recognised by
Lush and
Holland, L. E. 1 0. P.
8,
per Willes J.
and Mostyn
v.
Fabrigas, 1
V. Darnell,
3,
obedience
s.
285
n.,
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;
18
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
274
INXBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.
tect
it is
that
and whose
is,
own
and naturalised
more than
it
has a
In
this view, it
statute, that
and
very clear
On
{b).
it
was
The
&
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
See also
v.
Heddon, 25
(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,
J.
0. 17, at p. 54.
by Microsoft
It is
now provided by
275
s.
35,
extends
(6).
&
10
of action to the
killed
(e).
The
history,
(6)
(a)
(c)
E.
(d)
Davidsson
(e)
B.
V. Eastbourne,
V.
i East, 103.
261.
Digitized
by Microsoft
276
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
as well as the
of the
status
law
(a).
child
is
without their
own
by
fault,
their
servants, to
damage done
(g).
Per Coleridge
(a)
J.,
to protect
Id. 773.
(6)
(c)
V.
(d)
(e)
60,
c.
s.
e.
60,
502
745.
s.
Boyle
V. Services
Ingram
&
Vict. c. 60,
s.
503
Hagg. Adm.
The Oscar
II.,
[1919] P. 171.
(g)
Cope
(1821),
Doherty (1858), 4 K.
Digitized
&
cited,
J. 367.
113;
by Microsoft
277
FORT.
In the
case,
latter
on
(a) or
ment on
lex
fori;
who
resort
to
our Courts
(d).
foreigner, for
y.
Keyn, 46 L.
L. J. P.
M. &
A. 49
J.
;
M. C,
p.
95;
would have
it
J.
Adm.
59.
See
v.
(6)
(c)
{d)
Banh
The
Spittall,
275
Amalia,
of U.
S.
v.
The
sup.;
Donnally,
L. E. 5 C. P. 542
Q. B. D. 521
v.
Vernon,
S. 471.
8 Peters, 361.
Be Haney's
Bob.
W.
Trusts, L. E.
v.
10 Ch.
Digitized
316;
See Jackson
by Microsoft
278
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
and he would
improbability that
intended
to
legislate
in foreign
foreigners
for
ports
(c),
And
the seamen of
(d).
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)
(e)
The Nina, 37 L.
(c)
J.
Adm.
Digitized
17.
For provisions as to
by Microsoft
relief
279
was
pre-
and repatriation
abroad, see 6
(a)
of distressed
Bdw. VII.
o.
Digitized
by Microsoft
left
behind
CHAPTER
SECTION
I.
EEPUGNANCTEEPEAL
ACTS
An
VII.
IN,
BY IMPLICATION
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
possible in
it
The law,
(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,
Per A. L. Smith
Digitized
v.
J.,
Eutner
v. Phillips,
[1891]
by Microsoft
281
(a)
the earlier
confrarias
priores
been
Leges
Ubi
ahrogant.
Act
earlier
duse
nova
(c).
said to exist in
this respect
when
that
but
is
it
said
by Lord Coke
(which reserves something which would be otherwise included in the words of the enacting part
are repugnant
as where
vests in
of A.
manor
a statute vests a
all
persons, or
to be rejected, because
654.
Ham
Wegt
(6)
St.
v.
Leonards.
;
Shop. Touchst. 88
Ves. 100
Morrall
v. Sutton,
Grot. b. 2,
Livy, b. 9,
(d)
A.-G.
(e)
V.
c.
65 E. E. 434
34.
Digitized
16,
s.
Brownv. G. W. B.
e.
made
See O'Flaherty
dictum of Lord
Sims
v.
(e)),
by Microsoft
Co.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
282
in vain
(a).
proposition
Duke
is
of Norfolk's attainder,
the
by an Act of Mary.
and
this provision
But
to save
this resulted, it
not because the saving clause was repugnant to the enacting part, but because the
is
said,
latter in
Duke had
Woods
affirmed 6
(&)
Ir.
v.
Simmons
35,
MaUn, 23 Maine,
(c)
See Yarmouth
Institution v.
370.
Digitized
by Microsoft
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,
over
would,
the
earlier
as
it
unquestionably
it is
to be
is
if it
first,
Where
(6).
(as often
happens) a proviso
who
is
are unreasonably
where there
94; Furnivall
Williams
v.
really
is
no question of
54=4.
v.
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
v.
(a) Morisse
its
B.
& E. 227
v. Bussell,
Allen v. Flicker, 10 A.
See
As
v. Loclewood,
of Patent Agents
& B.
18 L. J. M. C. 106; Dean
p. 93.
Digitized
by Microsoft
284
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
enactment
not to be construed
is
impose a
liability
apprehensive
When
(a).
For instance,
it.
if
is
avoid
difficult to
it is
so
impliedly
is
general Act
months from
begun
after
action,
was
actions
against justices,
three
inconsistent,
clearly
so
(a)
Derby
statute
is
Metropolitan Life
v.
it
(c).
later
Guardians
II.
months, that
six
as regards
the 24 Geo.
with
cause of
the
in
the
Assurance,
[1897] A. C. 647.
(6)
Vict.
Bead
(c)
Vict.
21,
c.
Sched.
v. Storey,
s.
3,
30 L.
J.
M.
6.
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
ment
c.
(a).
74,
s.
found
often
is
to
285
involve
that
it fatal
to dispose
fee,
all
property as
real
if
sole (b).
pain of being
itself
be necessary, and
Act
first
company
railway
An Act empowering
(c).
to
thus
erect
any
on
station
would
Metropolis
s.
75,
the
override
the
of
Management Amendment
provisions
earlier
Act, 1862,
of buildings
See Lord
Brummond
(c)
{d)
Vict.
inf. p.
45 & 46 Vict.
329
c.
75
et seq.
;
25 & 26 Vict.
c.
c.
18,
s.
Be
ccxiii,
s.
c.
102,
s.
215, Sohed. 4
Digitized
1 Bl.
75
;
s.
City
Comm.
89.
75 repealed by 57
&
by Microsoft
& 58
v.
INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
286
(a).
is
The
&
(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),
G.
C, [1891] 2 Q, B. 513
Bd., [1892] 2
Water
(a)
Co.,
Q. B. 606;
London
UchfieU U.
0. C. v.
I>.
C.
London School
Crowhorough
v.
[18991 2 Q- B. 664.
Wandsworth
v.
&
(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
to inhabit
which he comes
and another, after reciting this proit, and enacted that no person
vision, repealed
Quarter Sessions
(c).
(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,
B.
v.
S. 249, dissentiante
c. 2, s.
and 17 Geo.
II. c. 38, s.
i; B.
v.
397.
Digitized
c.
122,
Worcestershire, 17 E. E.
by Microsoft
288
INTBEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
inoperative
if
decide
the
(a),
jurisdiction of justices
when
right
(a)
11
& 12
Vict.
c.
and 9 & 10
123,
s.
3 (repealed
Vict. c. 95,
s.
by 29 & 30
Vict. c. 90,
s.
69),
c.
43,
s.
(6)
Fordham
(c)
Hamlyn
188)
Harden (1852), 22 L.
B.
v.
v.
Akers (1864), 33 L.
J.
Digitized
J.
Q. B. 299.
Q. B. 67.
by Microsoft
v.
KEPEAL BY IMPLICATION.
and that a
289
distress
An
authority
the
of
Judicature
the
High Court
shall
made under
order
Act,
1875,
proceedings
all
in
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
much
fit
se
gesserit,
Where a
statute
made it
Vict.
30 L.
c.
& 12
Vict.
43, 88. 4, 5)
J.
M.
c.
43,
s.
12 & 13 Vict.
N.
c.
45,
s.
Freeman
v.
Bead,
285
Bockett v. Olippingdale,
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.
[1892] 2 Q. B. 220.
19
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
290
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
March
before
for
the protection
valid
in writing, but
if
made
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,
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.
11,
57
s. 2.
by Microsoft
& 58
M.
G. 132.
Vict. c.
24;'
BEPEAL BY IMPLICATION.
291
administer ex
officio
repeal
by implication
is
afforded
by the Judicature
Court.
came
1876, which
Cumberland
v.
Kyle
V. Jeffreys,
Derby
v.
Bury Commissioners,
(6)
Birch
v.
(c)
525
per Jervis
C.J.,
Jefferys v. Boosey, i
Digitized
inf. p.
310.
by Microsoft
292
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
that
but provided
referred to,
1876,
the
when
was passed.
it
it
that
its
s.
Where
(a).
by
argument
earlier Acts,
earlier
Acts
may
be more readily
treated as repealed.
great importance
c.
of one
126,
0.
(a)
36 & 37 Vict.
43,
s.
188
c.
66
38 & 39 Vict.
c.
50,
[1896] P. 40.
Digitized
by Microsoft
s.
10
51 & 52 Vict.
EBPEAL BY IMPLICATION.
293
it,
the
toll
(a)
(&)
V.
JB. V.
Daw
Northleach, 5 B.
V.
& Ad.
978.
See Cortis
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.
[1893] 1 Q. B. 375.
Digitized
473.
by Microsoft
294
INTEBPKBTATION OF STATUTES.
right which
venience
it
for
members
c. 46),
common law
habihties
of
common law
(c).
In other circumstances,
or incongruity of keeping
also,
the inconvenience
two enactments
in force
presumed
Thus the re-
c.
61,
is
&
pro tanto by 18
(a)
See
inf.
19 Vict.
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;
;
Hardy
v.
v. -B.,
Dern, 5
T. E. 538.
(c)
157.
v.
v.
McDowell, 6 H. L. Cas.
Digitized
by Microsoft
REPEAL BY IMPLICATION.
295
it
power
service at one
or at
five p.m.,
(made under
s.
Act, 1888, 61
8,
&
Law
Amendment
of Distress
52 Vict.
21),
c.
have superseded
An
from
may
be gathered
its
of
(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.
v.
Digitized
New
The present
those prescribed by 10 Bdw. VII.
24, Sched. 6.
Walker
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
its
British ships
SECTION
all
(a).
II.
CONSISTENT
APFIEMATIVE ACTS.
is
not favoured
(6).
to be held to be repealed
It
or,
Such an interpretation,
adopted, unless
not to be
therefore, is
be inevitable.
it
Any
reasonable
more
so.
it
is
likely to be in
intention.
It is
statutes
different,
(a)
is
apparent only,
The India
Northleach, 5 B.
(JVo. 2),
33 L.
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.
v.
1.
objects are
B.
v. Inl.
Bev., 21 Q. B.
D. 669
B.
v.
11 Eep. 63a.
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
Gheltenham By.,
297
own
to its
language
is
object
or
When
subject.
their
Thus the Eeal Property Limitation Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will. IV. o. 27), which
without meeting.
(which
is
to affect the
&3
tithes
a chattel
So,
s.
(&).
&
13, 1
2 Vict.
c.
110,
(6)
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
Hordon
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
298
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
property of debtors
is,
of charging
with or repeal
conflict
10,
all
astical
hands
TJie
(a).
mode
of pro-
55 Geo. III.
c.
137,
s.
(6).
of aBlOO, recoverable
action,
profit,
by
77,
s.
fine
&
5 Will. IV.
c.
of 5, recoverable
who
It
Hawkins
Ashhurton (Ld.)
(6)
s.
14
39
& 40
(1));
an
had been decided before
Act (which, indeed, was
v.
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
& 32
J.
M.
C. 193.
c.
43,
See also
41.
Vict.
c.
122,
p. 98.
Digitized
Edw. VII.
by Microsoft
s.
44.
299
individual pauper
in
The
(a).
prohibition contained
Amendment
Act,
1876,
that
member may
earlier one,
of
probate
(b).
making a Will,
The 56 Geo.
III.
c.
or the
expense of
34 & 35 Vict.
c.
31,
s.
4,
and 39 & 40
Vict. o. 22,
c.
67 L. J. Q. B. 466.
Digitized
by Microsoft
a.
10
Crocker v.
300
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
The
c. 50,
s.
1 (a).
law of
So,
distress.
an Act
(h)
which imposed,
(a)
Bidgway
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,
WrigMson, 34 L.
J.
M.
0. 169.
Digitized
by Microsoft
B.
v.
2).
Downes, 3 T. E.
C. 43
Ash
v.
Lynn,
hops,
drugs with
301
or for
it,
diluting
it,
of frauds
on the revenue
also,
Where
c.
It is to be added,
(a).
58,
c.
c.
64.
a general intention
is
is
incompatible with
when
is
con-
Even
in the negative,
it is
is
it.
If,
for instance,
W.
378.
See Palmer
v.
Thatcher, 3 Q. B. D. 346.
(6)
Eepealed, except
(c)
Per Best
ss.
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
first
&
4 Will. IV.
c.
which provided
interest on money
27,
(6)
it)
v.
Brecm, 28 L.
600.
(6)
The Limitation
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
16).
J.
Oh.
303
given
(a).
may
It
has
interest
be observed,
also,
may
be affirmative
Vict.
c.
S7{d), that
"no
"
bill
or note payable at
Himter
v. NocJcolds,
19 L.
J.
and
it
was
v.
Sutton,
Thomas, 12 A.
& E. 536
Htmfrey
v.
Gery, 7 0. B. 567.
L. J.
K. B. 355
Bank. 120
Kirhland
Biehens
v.
Wiggens, 32 L. J.
& 33
M.
Per Maule
(c)
Eepealed by
{d) Id.
(No.
J.,
2),
Glack
0. 144.
Bent
is
v. Sainsbury,
11 G. B. 695.
S. L. E., 1867.
1874.
Digitized
72
Deere, Be, 44 L. J.
See also
v. Peatfield,
Talhot v.
tion of assets,
by Microsoft
Be
304
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
& 4
Will. IV.
Further,
it
is
down
laid
generally, that
when
is
earlier
ages
&
Sec. 4, 7
{d).
303
Exp. Warrington, 22 L.
(5)
(c)
Muir
(d)
V.
Still
J.
those
34
which
Nixon
Bank.
c.
(e),
v. Phillips,
21 L.
J.
33.
Sore (1877), 47 L.
24 & 26 Vict.
(repealed, 48
(e)
between
8 Will. III.
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.
Digitized
Vict.
by Microsoft
provided
that
when
305
11,
cellor
(repealed, 53
& 54
342), which enabled the Lord Chanto make an order for the payment of the
Vict. c. 5,
s.
for
parties
who
or out
lunatic, did
(6)
B.
V. Sanchee, 1
S. L. E., 1887.
Many of
the clergy, in
order to
inflict
sums as
Church
or
5s. in
Walpole
tried
is.
it
would be
vol.
i.
p. 260.
(c)
See
s.
(1889), 22 Q. B. D. 567
v.
Bullock
20
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
306
(6).
local
should be built of such materials as the Corporaapproved, did not affect the provisions of
tion
&
4 Vict.
o.
86,
s. 6), (c)
least
(a)
V. St.
George's,
Southampton, 21 L. J.
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)
which
is itself
{d) Hill V.
(e)
s.
&
0. 838
107
repealed by 18
Bury
Vict.
c.
122,
s.
e.
84,
s.
1,
109.
30 & 31 Vict.
;
& 19
v.
c.
146,
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
16.
30?
Home
not
affect the
to
by a
collector,
several
action
is
(a)
& 8
Vict. e.
15 (repealed
Midland By.
(6)
Peppin
law on the
Co.,
23 L. J. Q. B. 17.
v.
Cooper (1819), 2 B.
&
v.
See Austen
v.
Aid. 431.
Digitized
by Microsoft
08
liJTEBPEE'rATIOJj
OP STATUTES.
thus construed
as
equivalent to
any judge of
when
made
before the
make the
did not
it 3
the
Act{c).
earlier
&
1835,
6 Will. IV.
until 21
s.
1,
24 Geo.
it
was
at
(a)
Owens
v. Jones,
37 L. J. Q. B. 159.
by
s.
(c)
B. V Greenland, 86 L.
(d)
Eepealed.
(56
& 57
(e)
c.
38,
s.
28,
and replaced
24.
J.
M.
C. 37.
Vict. c. 61).
Bix
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
309
of the
to six
months.
by
&
2 Vict,
on the avoidance
c.
106,
both Acts
though
it
(6).
Where
the
that
creditors
should
determine
them by the
Hen. VIII.
c.
(d),
(a)
DaMmv. Seaman
(6)
Per Parke
(c)
Ellerton, Exp.,
on
{d)
J.
Act(c).
Sec.
2,
32
(1842), 9
M. & W.
777.
44 L.
later
s.
As
33 L. J. Bank. 32.
58,
to the present
law
Bank. 97.
Digitized
c.
65,
s.
11.
by Microsoft
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
310
for these
rights of entry,
all
common
by
s. 6,
&
law),
fictitious
9 Vict. c. 106,
which
notice
and to repair
Where an Act (13
simply,
(c).
51 L.
Jenkins
(6)
J.
&
a month's
14 Vict.
c.
97)
Q. B. 438.
(a)
v. Jones,
after
c.
55,
s.
343, as regards
Digitized
by Microsoft
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
of friendly
Copeland, sup.
obsolete),
p. 291.
o.
99,
Ex. 109.
and Schedule.
The
existing
Thames Conservators
v.
Digitized
Hall (1868), 37 L.
by Microsoft
J. C. P. 163.
is
312
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
III. c. 101,
daughter
pregnant
of
member
of a friendly
(a).
be
The 43
Car. II.
c. 9,
who recovered
&
23
plaintiff in
an
and 22
much
c.
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.
&
as
than
less
C. 106
21 L.
J.
M.
by Microsoft
Gay
C.
v.
3.
Matthews, 4
enacted
that
313
plaintiff
any
entitled to
certified that
judge
and
it
this
him (a).
The 5
Vict.
o.
c.
that
it
by 13
common
law,
by the patron
SECTION
III.
(b).
GENERALIA
(a)
Evans
v. Bees,
L. J. Q. B. 85.
Wrightup
(6)
in B.
v. Greenacre,
Green
V.
30 L. J. 0. P. 16
v. Jenkins,
Medway
10 Q. B.
29 L.
J.
v.
Marshall
Griffiths,
v.
8 L.
Martin, 39
J.
Ex. 70
1.
Ch. 505.
Digitized
by Microsoft
St.
INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
314
objects
(a).
general
later
law
does not
(6).
(c)
or,
them
by
dealt with
is
"... that
earlier
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
(a)
(6)
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
(No.
Lime-
v.
Adams, L. E. 6 C. P. 125
v.
v.
See
v.
S. 0.
Q. B. 571.
Seward
at
Do M. &
v.
68
p.
G., at p. 31
Lyn
v.
Digitized
inf. p.
318, per
Hall, L. E. 3 G. P. 421,
1
Ex. D. 75.
by Microsoft
and
315
it is
its
special provision
ment, unless
that
intention
is
manifested
in
language
explicit
it
unlikely that
The general
statute
is
its
operation the
for
by the special
cases
one.
H5a;
Harhert's Case,
272
B.
v.
HutcMns
p. 428.
Digitized
by Microsoft
316
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
And
cases (a).
in
Bills of
by which
agreements
registration of
a charge
a right to
is
or
conferred, although
joint stock
Beeve
Gibson, [1891] 1 Q. B.
v.
(1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 419.
2 K. B.
(6)
25 &
Ir.
652
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
Digitized
43, 8
Be Standard Manufacturing
c.
by Microsoft
a ohaoraoter
(a),
it
it
apply for
317
is
not an
Again, where
et orbi (b).
for 21 years
or
excepted from
operation by 14 Eliz.
its
when, 4 years
and
18 Eliz.
later,
o.
c.
11,
11
after
reciting that
by
a practice
ecclesiastics,
of
24 & 25 Vict.
10
(a)
L. J. P. D. & A.
(6)
Adam
c.
Seward
v.
9.
British
v.
L. J. Q. B. 844.
(c)
4 T. E. 2 and
[d)
Perchard
N. E. By.
Co.,
Borman
(1790),
4.
v.
Digitized
v. Scottish
v.
London
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
318
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
(b).
summary
adjudication of justices,
it
(o)
Per
Sir O.
Bridgman, Lyn
v.
45 & 46 Vict.
c.
75,
s.
SmitTi's Estate,
Be, 35 Oh. D.
589.
(c)
L.
&
N. W. By. (1863), 32 L.
Digitized
J. Q.
B. 318.
by Microsoft
v.
The
319
except where
it is
it,
Superior Courts
the
authorising
after
from
London Procedure
do
Courts,
inferior
s.
Actj
not
repeal
S, Mayor's
Court of
to
imposing
as
1857,
c.
(6).
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.
made by deed."
was not
It
interfere
with the
poKoy
(c)
those Acts which authorised the arrest of bankrupts would be held inapplicable
entitled to the privilege.
Unless
it
to
it
person
expressed a
would be presumed
with
to
interfere
it (d).
persons
in
their
rights,
privileges,
or
(a) Shepherd v.
s.
Hodsman
(6)
B.
(c)
V. Salisbury (1838),
(1852), 21 L. J. Q. B. 263.
8 A.
& E.
716.
4 & 5 Geo. V.
c.
59,
128.
(d) Newcastle v. Morris (1870), L. E. 4
Digitized
H. L.
by Microsoft
661, inf.
p 546.
321
most comprehensive
"
terms, authorises
every tenant in tail " to bar
Will. IV. c. 74), which, in the
the tenant in
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,
its registration in
Common
Pleas,
was held
tration Act,
sex
An
(b).
to sell beer,
who
any person
Per
(a)
Wood
See Abergavenny
V.-C, Fitzgerald
v.
Vict.
1
0.
& 2
26,
inf. p.
6,
Sched.
Blythe, 23 L. J. Q. B. 386.
376
Bnraght
v.
and comp.
Cuckfield
325.
v.
7 Anne,
o.
20,
18
s.
Westbrook v.
Fritz v. Hobson
Leicester v. Burgess, 5 B.
21
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBBPBBTATION OP STATUTES.
322
had
Where
(c).
a railway
company
them,
it
its
153
c.
64,
HutcMns
29
s.
(a) B. V. Pugli,
5 A.
& B. 391
(b)
by
&
See 51
S. L.
R,
B.
M.
C.
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
Moss, 2 B.
v.
Co. v.
Lyndon, 30 L. J. M. 0. 105.
(d)
London
L. J. Oh. 164
&
;
14,
and
Blachwall By.
comp.
Daw
v.
Co.
v.
Limehouse (1856), 26
Metrop. Board, 12 C. B. N. S.
Edw. VII.
c.
39.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Vict,
down
323
water-
from his
estate,
all
it
to
and there
it
maxim
be applicable. The
&
3 Will. IV.
c. 71), for
an enjoyment of twenty years, " notwithstanding any local custom," plainly abolished the
custom of London which authorised the owner
after
new one on
its
(a)
Goldson
(6) Salters'
v.
to
Buck
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
Dower
(a)
By
subsequent
sovereigns,
titled to receive
use of
Lancaster and
Durham were
of
expressly forbidden
gave
Bonham, sup.
sum
p. 52.
(6)
Minet
v.
(c)
A.-Q.
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
1735
The
upwards (a).
325
Geo. II.
c.
36
(b),
entail (rf).
"
Act passed before those Courts were established, and which had made such rates recoverable
local
Brown
(a)
32 & 33 Vict.
v.
c.
83,
of Insolvent Court
by
which
S. L.
E. (No.
2), 1893'.
& 52 Vict
c. 42),
see.
Luckraft
Fridham, 46
v.
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.
(6)
(c)
now
also
per Jessel
Gardner
v. Southey,
v.
36
9, at p. 22.
Cuckfield
Fitzgerald v.
Board (1854), 24 L.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
326
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
(a).
A local
the county
when
its
Where
by
its
a City gas
private
and
quality,
(a) Stewart
summary
see 38
v.
the
Jones (1852), 22 L. J. Q. B.
& 39
Vict.
c.
55,
s.
Bramston
(c)
18 & 19 Vict.
{d)
(e)
1.
As
to the
(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.
Digitized
Vict. c. 76.
Bridge, 24 Q. B. D.
by Microsoft
327
hibition.
The Metropolitan
&
Police
latter
Courts
had not
Act,
1839
3 Vict.
c.
71),
s.
47,
&
18 Vict.
c.
38 (against
magistrate, since he
v.
Oas
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
poor rates,
it
latter
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
distinguished,
of
v. Titterton,
doubted and
by
(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
& G.
Co.,
See
L.J., BirJeenJiead
Bodes
v.
Laird, 4
De
G. M.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v. Abbot, 2
Doug.
IMPLIED REPEAL
^PENAL
Legislature be so manifested.
If
329
ACTS.
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.
recently arisen in
anew with
p.
284
et
seq.)
existing
ojffences
without
has
deal
expressly
The problem
manner
in
make a
own
its
empowered them
(a)
V.
See
ex. gr.
Daw
to
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
p.
293.
See Green
330
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
months
The
(a).
Act was to
Workmen
of justices is
of
s.
12 of the Employers
now
summary jurisdiction
new course
of
common
law,
is
usually regarded as
ing law.
c.
35
offence
(b),
(c).
visits
the offence of
The repealed 2 W.
&
M., Sess.
2, o. 8,
Gray
v.
(6)
(c)
B.
V. Garlile, 3
c.
v.
Toule,
B.
V.
Digitized
160.
Comp. B.
334.
by Microsoft
v.
Brannan
EEPEALPENAL
IMPLIED
So, 3
&
&
4 W.
M.
c.
11,
s.
331
ACTS.
10, in
imposing a
who
to their parish
by an order
of justices,
was held
to
it
law proceeding,
it
common
(a).
examples
cited, the
tention to
it.
Where
the Metro-
(s.
57)
B.
V.
BoUnson
p. 803.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Lord Mansfield,
at
332
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
Where
Thus,
made
as
&
(a)
to
words "
c.
30
(c),
c.
47,
M.
0. 57.
(5)
52
& 53
(c)
L. J.
{d)
Lee
V.
B.
(d).
Vict. c. 63.
V. Davis, 1
Leach, 271.
c.
27,
(repealed by 7
Digitized
c.
27,
s. 1.
s. 1).
by Microsoft
I.
c. ,22
IMPLIED REPEAL
PENAL
333
ACTS.
Again,
is
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
(e).
Indeed,
(a)
236,
and A.-G.
Bobinson
M.
it
v.
G. 125.
v.
Lochwood, 9
v.
(6)
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
Comp. Sims
v.
if
Howard, 429.
by Microsoft
334
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
it,
affixes a different
an appeal where
there was
directing something
more
punishment
no appeal
before,
or something' different,
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
Per
(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
fit
it
was
such undertakers
Matthew
(6)
Parry
So,
(a) Michell v.
St.
(6).
Croydon Gas
Digitized
Co.,
15 0. B. N. S. 568.
by Microsoft
v.
336
INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
5 upon
exceeding ^5 (without
a penalty not
specifying
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
But
(a)
little
(b).
57 Geo. III.
c.
xxix.
s.
72, 18
& 19
Viet.
s.
119
170
Summers
see
Keep
Wyatt
(6)
V.
v.
120,
v. St.
Per
o.
Digitized
by Microsoft
But
and comp.
IMPLIED REPEAL
PENAL
falls
337
ACTS.
is
it
much
higher
made such
officers
liable
to
the parish
goods;
it
States,
It
within
it fell also
43 L. J. M. 0. 121,
inf. p.
455.
22
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
338
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
ofience
was
also
in another.
it
was held
conviction
The general
(b).
(a)
(6)
18 & 19 Vict.
M.
C. 73.
As to
38 & 39 Vict.
c.
c.
121
55
for
London 54 & 55
Digitized
Vict. c. 76.
by Microsoft
CHAPTEE
SECTION
I,
IS
VIII.
meaning
of its language in
is
it
with
convenience,
reason,
justice,
and
legal
may
reasonableness or un-
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
by the death
(a)
80 L.
of
all
bishoprics vacated
v.
France (1911),
K. B. 346.
(b)
Oo.
(c)
Litfc.
97a.'
CooJee v. Vogeler, [1901] A. 0.
Digitized
by Microsoft
for
107
INTERPEETATIOX OF STATUXES.
340
giving
the
right
of
him
whenever
its
Besides, the
Where
(6).
there
is
an appeal from
(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.
J.
c.
e.
50,
B.
s.
v.
105
(s.
London
Jus.,
25 Q. B. D. 357.
& 21
K. B. 677
J. P. 134,
by Microsoft
But
and
[1902] 1 K. B.
Bochdale (1886), 51
Digitized
Vict. c. 43,
Society v.
when
341
(a).
An Act
it
the
non-liability,
if
he
proved
its
If
invalidity.
validity,
of
Sessions
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.
it
for
A
to
constable, authorised
enter
licensed
by statute
at all times
laws,
law
for suspecting a
breach
(b).
An
under
proper
control or
de-
J.
May,
L.
1.
M.
0. 176
161; B.
Id.
v.
B.
M.
Higginson, 31 L. J.
v.
C.
B.
189
Exp.
v. Finnis,
28
J.
by the decision
Act, 1875,
V. Sinnett,
of a local authority
out in
s.
and see
Bristol Corp.
Be, 25 L. J.
M.
0. 49.
See B.
v.
Cowp. 30
37 & 38 Vict.
(h)
(a)
Crohe, 1
1910
is set
Duncan
v.
c.
49,
s.
16, repealed
by
s.
J. P. 182.
Digitized
by Microsoft
B.
v.
Dobbins, 48
343
as
and convenient
less ef&oacious
The 24
it
&
25 Vict.
o.
much
(a).
making
England or
Bank
of
banks
might
be
(a) Pickering v.
meaning
Dogs
(6)
of the
Act, 1906.
B.
V.
Brackenridge, 37 L. J.
c.
27,
M.
0. 86.
Comp. OLogUen,
Digitized
by Microsoft
344
INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.
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
aggrieved by
authorise a party
decision
is
of
and
and
regards
the
statute,
earlier
complied with
if
now extended
held
substantially
(6).
The time
for application is
It has
Summary
been repeatedly
is
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
345
(a).
away
When
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)
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
(c).
As
(a)
to
what
is
" next
M.
see B. v.
See also B.
made
Middlesex
v.
(6)
23 L.
J. C.
Case,
P. 5
E. 4 Q. B. 715
Boyee
L.
Verdin
v.
v.
Eiggins,
Exp. Thoday,
Wray, 2 Q. B. D. 608.
;
Be
J.
M.
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
The House
of
"
Lords has held "the claim for compensation to
causing
'accident
mean
a notice
the
An
of
to the employer,
ceedings
injury."
initiation of pro-
(a).
appealed
the party
against
costs
and
against,
The
{b).
re-
is
(a)
60 & 61
Powell
V.
Vict.
Main
c.
37,
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
B. D. 569
2 (!)
K. B. 539), nor
Eants, 1 B.
B.
s.
Myers (1906), 75 L.
laugh, 2 Q.
[1900] A. C. 366
claim a specific
it
s.
Colliery Co.,
by Microsoft
London
J.
M.
v.
Brad-
0.
Jus., [1895]
347
as
to
it
it (a).
authorised
recovery of
the
ceedings before
whom
months,
hmited to
six
them
in the latter
was held
Courts were
it
J.
Similarly,
(b).
Thompson, Be, 63 L.
sums, while
Q. B. 189, 190.
adverse criticism in
See, however,
Bahe
v.
11
196,
Digitized
by Microsoft
re-enacted by
s.
24, repealed
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
348
would be
it
unreasonable
to
wilfully gathered
a person
uncultivated
fully
it
s.
52 of the
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
who damaged
But
(a).
a milk carrier
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
81.
Tottenham Board
v. Bowell,
K. B. 590.
and note
J. P. 193, C.
now extended
v. Ellis,
28 L.
A.
{a)
Gardner
(b)
Boper
v.
V. Knott,
J.
[1898] 1 Q. B. 868
Digitized
by Microsoft
67 L.
J.
Q. B. 574.
349
tion
it is
exception,
to
save
him from
starving,
of
the
rupt,
of the latter as
right
was
similarly limited
in
effect {d).
And
and
skill
of
Welch (1875), 40
(a)
B.
(6)
The Bankruptcy
V.
Act,
J.
P. 183.
1914
(4
& 5 Geo.
V.), practically
Beckham
v.
Be
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.
Digitized
209
Jackson
v.
Burnham,
c.
59,
see
s.
by Microsoft
Be
38.
Clark, [1894] 2
350
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
trustee
But
(a).
immune
be
moneys should
(6).
It is
what was of no
value
(c).
incon-
for-
bade an innkeeper to
suffer
68 L.
J.
Q. B. 998.
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
disquisition
Patten
v.
BJiymer (1860), 29 L.
J.
M.
0.
189
v.
Corbet v.
West Haiu
Digitized
by Microsoft
351
betting
And
constraotion
yet,
evasion
facilitating
even to the extent of defrauding the revenue, may be justified and required
et seq.),
sion of
trary
all
for to
it,
would
of the cause in
Dames, 1
Id.
(a)
Keep
(6)
Whistler
Gallagher
Bosley
v.
v.
Austin v.
Q. B. 715).
Gomp. Clarke
Digitized
v.
Boche, 47
by Microsoft
J.
Q. B. 147.
52
INTERPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
When
the offence
is
one
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
W. & M.
c.
18,
confirmed by 10 Anne,
if
c.
Act
2),
it
(6).
B.
V.
v. Glark,
(6)
B.
(c)
V.
Huhe, 2 E. E. 669.
existing law,
24 & 25 Vict.
Digitized
c.
c.
95,
100.
by Microsoft
s.
and see as to
And under
several ().
s.
353
30,
c.
32,
every offender
But
it
is liable
to a separate penalty
(b).
and
is
punished by a pecuniary
is
all
if it
visited
is
persons
who
incurred
it.
may be
the number of
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
if
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.
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.
better defended
should pay 5,
it
forfeit to
offence " a
But although
have been
and
the offenders
Viewed
(c).
in this light,
it is
clear
for the
Per Alderson
(a)
rule
against
Merryweather
(6)
B.
v.
v.
Dean, 12 M. &
between
W.
joint
42.
As
to the
tort-feasors,
see
(1777), 2
(c)
B.,
contribution
See
Cowp. 610
discussion on
Gorres
B.
v.
v. Scott
this
case in which
17 L.
it
J.
was
Digitized
by Microsoft
Q. B. 163.
For a
distinguished,
see
355
for
still it
and that
killing
grounds, a
breach
of
the law.
The question
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
who
assisted
in
Commissioners of Customs,
the offence
was
it
although undoubtedly
SECTION
II.
(b).
INJUSTICE OR ABSUEDITY.
may
it
Whenever
(c).
(a) 3
B.
V.
& 4
Will. IV.
Dean, 12 M. &
W.
c.
84,
s.
2)
(6)
Partridge
(c)
v.
c.
39.
L.C.,
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Tyne
INJUSTICE
round,"
who
company,
London
357
Thus, where a
Company
to fine
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
(b).
Q. B. D. 555
Smith
Blackburn, Bothes
v.
v.
845
East
&
Co.,
53 L.
J.
Gh.
per
878
As
6 Bing. N. G. 314
See also
Corbett,
jB. v.
Exp., 14
p. 129.
ss.
1914.
Digitized
and
by Microsoft
358
INTERPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
who had,
or
might
The
provision in
s.
2,
50
&
51 Vict.
c.
it (a).
66, that
it
would produce
action against a
injustice so
public
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.
Williams v. Bose,
per Bramwell B.
BrocMbanh, Be
(1889), 23 Q. B.
D. 461
B. 331.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Jones, In re
s.
26,
As
to
Bank-
359
trates in
costs
injury done by
them
was held
office,
when acting
to
liability
only
{b).
done so
(c)
just as an
penalty for
it
Act
which imposed a
{d)
piloting a ship
down
Thames
the
(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
parties, see
Ch. 197
71
c.
c,
61;
3 Moo. P. C. 28.
c.
85,
s.
17, repealed
by
s.
419
The Englishman, 3 P. D. 18
.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,
5 Geo.
Thames Conservancy
Digitized
by Microsoft
Act.
360
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
all
date
of 25
Sec. 106
(b).
&
20 Vict.
c.
102
(c),
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)
(e)
Flower
v.
Low
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
INJUSTICE
361
if
using
it
(a) 6
& 7
c.
(local
and
personal),
s.
The
Longford, 14 P. D. 34.
(6)
(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.
B.
2 C. P. D. 74.
For other
Q. B. 104
c.
C. 122.
2 Q. B. 33.
Baylis,
v.
M.
v. Petty,
[1897]
Comp. Patten
v.
Kent
Jus.,
by Microsoft
24 Q. B. D. 181.
362
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
released from
all
same
exempting him
if
the party
effects of
the
bailiff
who
carried
the
it
liable
second penalty
for the
applies
of
(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.
32 Geo.
51 Vict.
(c)
Morris (1867), 36 L.
Q. B. 311
s.
repealed) of the
59 L.
Thus
II. c. 28,
55.
See
ss.
s. 1,
Peshall v. Layton,
General Omnibus
Co.,
&
14 and 39.
2 T. E. 712.
See Wright
2 Q. B. D. 271.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
London
INJUSTICE
363
cution
should
paper for
commenced
be
without the
libel
fiat of
Criminal Information
for to
a news-
the Director
of Public Prosecutions,
against
to apply to
hold otherwise
Bench
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
is
not to be construed in
its literal
it
upon the
local authority
44 & 45 Vict.
c.
(h).
by
s.
4 of the
Sharman
(6)
v.
Law
Similarly, a sewer
and as
Libel
of
under the
c.
made
64, ss.
2-4;
(Amendment)
Act, 1888,
see
38 & 39 Vict.
c.
55
Jones
v.
2 Ch. 603.
Digitized
by Microsoft
364
INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
by a landowner
"made
its
own
land, is not
by
for his
own
profit," within
the meaning
of the exception in
s.
so as not to vest in
reduced to a nullity
A repealed Act
(5
(a).
&
6 Vict.
c.
39,
s.
6) (b)
which
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
38 & 39 Vict.
2 Q. B. 135
c.
55
Hallas Land
(6)
v.
Co., [1893]
SyTces v.
Ferrand
v.
iMttrell,
J.
Croys-
Ch. 585.
Vict. c.
Act, 1889).
Digitized
by Microsoft
45 (The Factors
INJUSTICE
365
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
v.
2 H. L. Gas. 108
Johnson, 21 L. J.
M.
B.
v.
C. 102
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
Q. B.
J.
32 L.
;
Maulden, 32 E. E. 344
Waddington
Stretfield,
B.
Co. v.
(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,
B.
v.
L. E. 3
See also
Digitized
by Microsoft
Vict. c. 55,
s.
343,
366
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
them
similarly subject to
An Act
{a).
make them
means only
it (b).
Where
a sewer
inhabitants at large)
satisfaction,
to
require
the frontagers
to
it,
it
(a)
(6)
(c)
38 & 39 Vict.
20 Q. B. D. 63
62 L.
J.
c.
55
Ferrand
Bonella
v.
Hallas
v.
But a
local authority
Digitized
by Microsoft
Q. B. 479.
under
s.
Co. (1893),
105 of the
INJUSTICE
Carriers
0.
68),
for
which exempts
&
Geo. IV.
carriers
367
WiU. IV.
from responsibiKty
enacts that
and
this proviso
was
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
new
street
v.
Fulham
Giles,
Camberwell
what
constitutes a
v.
Vestry, [1900]
new
street, see
120), can
became a new
2 Q. B. 188.
Hunt (1887), 56 L.
c.
Simmonds
Vict.
So
(6).
M.
J.
street;
See also
St.
C. 65, but as to
Wandsworth
v.
Golds (1910), 80
L. J. K. B. 126.
(a)
Baxendale
v. G.
As
W.
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
Digitized
v. J.
v.
under
this
Gen. Steam
INTEKPKETATION OF STATUTES.
368
the clause in a
bill of
or on the coasts
and Ireland,
stantially
for
to ports in
(a).
The argument
one to listen to
law
{d)
Nav.
Co.,
India
L. E. 3 C. P. 14
jper
v.
J.
Bank
Q. B. 230.
of
See
Glynn
(a)
Granada
" in
y. Margetson,
(b)
Dig.
Per
(d)
Brand
1. 9.
Cur.,
Comm.
Akhar
v.
words
v. Anglo
Gas. 219.
v. Butt,
.T.
8 E.
& B.
754.
Hammersmith B.
Graham, 33 L.
to the use of
3-10.
Munro
Per Eolfe
v.
As
(c)
1.
Co.,
Q. B. 71.
Digitized
M. & W. 116
Adams v.
L. E. 2 Q. B. 241
by Microsoft
369
(a).
to be influenced or governed
hardship
by any notions
of
(6).
and
if,
is
not inconsistent,
with
hardship
case
or injustice
it
may
some
in
is
not
operate
particular
(d).
SECTION UI.
CONSTEUCTION
OWN WRONG.
On
'
(a)
V. Mill,
V.
20 L.
ex. gr.,
J. C. P.
Perry
16
Be
471, with B,
Phillips (1866),
35 L.
J.
M.
C,
v.
Smethurst, 4
M. & W. 63
Perkins, 24 Q. B. D. 618.
See Co.
(d)
21 L.
v.
v. Shiles,
217.
(b)
M. & W.
Skinner, 2
v.
and B.
J.
Litt. 97b,
v.
152b
Blackburn, Toung
v.
v.
Ex. 628
Salomons,
per Lord
J.
Q. B. 297.
24
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
370
INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
it)
to
interest,
a self-
Act
which
an
an
discharge
apprentice
Act,
it
The
absence.
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,
for
"upon
if
literal construction,
(a)
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
by Microsoft
sup. p. 15.
371
parent to defeat
object
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-
for disobeying
(o)
V.
AtUm
(1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 373
[1892] A. C. 326.
B.
v. Justices
Gomp. Barnardo
v.
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
v.
by 39 & 40
Vict. c. 79,
32 & 33 Vict.
L. E. 6 Gh. 152.
c.
62,
s.
s.
See Lewes
s. 1,
of
1870
is
avoided, in certain
10.
;
v.
Middleton
v. Chichester (1871),
The
Digitized
Wright, 12
The obliga-
by Microsoft
s.
4 of the earlier
372
INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.
same "
shall
have accrued
to
it,
accordingly
(a).
money
void,
lost at play,
and of none
and purpose,"
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
() 37
105.
p.
225
Investment
63 L.
[1894] 3 Ch.,
Ch. 749.
J.
(&)
Amended by
(c)
Bowyer
(d)
Edwards
v.
re,
&6
Will. IV.
c.
41, ss. 1
Dick, 23 E. E. 255.
Digitized
by Microsoft
and
3.
and
this
still
373
{b)
(a).
provided that
if
the pur-
when
this
seller
thus
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
(a)
v.
paid up one-fifth
Ayling (1851), 20 L.
J.
Q. B. 171,
(6)
(c)
Malim
p. 174.
v.
stipulation in
be void,
The
is
literal
covenant in
Bob
v.
it.
Gomj^. Richard v.
Graham, 79 L.
Bede
v.
v.
Knotts, 4
Act, 1845.
Digitized
J.
Oh. 378
Farr, 18 E. E. 329
by Microsoft
and
Companies Clauses
374
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
considered as limited in
application to the
its
To construe
them, was
as apply-
it
liability to
pay up
or, in
is
is
it
(c).
McBwen
655.
V.
E. 3 Ex. 15
v.
Comjp.,
however, B.
v. Staffordshire,
8 E. E. 668
Mcllraith
Parbury, 30 L.
(6)
& 8
C. P. 129
J.
Ch. 513.
Will. III.
Hoyland
v.
c.
25,
s.
Marshall
Bremner, 15 L.
Digitized
v.
Bowen, 14 L.
(1850), 20 L. J. 0. P. 11.
by Microsoft
J.
Though
13 Bliz.
and of none
purposes,"
10,
o.
constructions and
all
leases
by
375
ecclesiastical persons
and
when
by reason of a
(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
(d)
it
An Act which
required
that indentures
for
Was
nevertheless,
held,
to
Boberts
v.
Davey, 38 E. E. 348
v. B.,
3 App. Cas.
v. Knotts,
4 App. Gas.,
Davenport
115.
(b)
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
or at
all
under
it
events to leave
it
sufficed to gain a
(a).
makes aU
B.
5 Eliz.
V. St.
c.
i (repealed |by 38
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,
Gregory, 2 A.
& B. 107
s.
17)
Gray
v.
Oahes
v.
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.
377
is
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
A literal
construction
who took
(a)
Tming
in
v. Billiter,
6 B. & B,
8 H. L.
1,
Gas. 682.
(6)
46 & 47 Vict.
e.
52
Oh. 408.
As
Carter,
(d)
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
27.
59.
350.
378
Act,
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
1869, that
made by consent
judgment
the
order
if
not
The
filed.
difference
own
to defeat his
act
(c).
32 & 33 Vict.
Orawshaw
(6)
c.
66.
(c)
v.
c.
62
Gowan
18 Q. B. D. 201
3 Geo. rV.
c.
39,
s. 4.
v. Wright,
1677, has
v.
10 B. & C. 500.
62,
Mellin (1827), 6 B.
&
s.
&
7 Vict,
28.
G. 446
Bennett
v.
Daniel,
See Bavis
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
379
made on Sunday
other
of
classes
the
invalidity affects
when
but those
who
dealt with
it
unless
made
it
in
toto,
and not
it
Bhxsome
v. Williams,
of
the
27 E. E. 337.
it
for the
principal
and
v.
See
ex. gr.,
Richards
v.
James, 36 L.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
Q. B. 116.
Comp.
380
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
make the
(c).
it, it is
(d).
statement as to consideration
58 L.
(6)
J.
B.
it
s. 9.
[1915] 1 K. B. 250;
Bward, In
v.
Lane
re (1916),
K. B. 393.
V.
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.
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
who
that
when
it
but
tecting themselves, or
when
it
SECTION
IV.
word receives
RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION.
2.
is
giving
statutes
(a)
full
1.
AS RE-
AS REGARDS PROCEDURE.
natural
(b).
Upon
its
certain
(c).
But
Nova
retrospective
constitutio futuris
this distinction
opera-
formam imponere
to apply
its
Supp.,
(c)
2 Inst. 292.
Digitizpd
by Microsoft
INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTES.
382
debet,
non
They
prseteritis.
come
into
(6)
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
applicable
is
maxim ought
whenever the
mind
to be borne in
line is
as
reached at which
{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.,
v.
Pye, 10 C. B. N. S.
191
Taylor, 4 E.
& B. 910
Tomg
v.
(c)
Per Lindley
L.J.,
Lauri
(d)
Per Bowen
L.J.,
Beid
Main
V. Starle,
v.
15 A. C. 388
Beynolds
v.
[1896] A. C. 240.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See also
383
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-
it
may
is
governed by the section, even though his settlement, for the purposes of his own removal, is not
affected
by
it (a).
It is chiefly
judicially
affect
vested rights,
or
the
legality
been
said,
(b),
to be intended
(c).
ThuSj
JBerwic^,
[1892] 1
(a)
39 & 40 Vict.
Q. B. 731
and see
c.
61,
s.
35; Bath
v.
[1915] 2 K. B. 644.
(6)
v.
602, etc.
(c)
Per Story
J.,
Digitized
by Microsoft
Wheeler, 2
384
intbrpkbtAtion of statutes.
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
it
Gallison, 139.
390, cited
(a)
Gilmore
v. Shuter,
3 Swanst. 664.
v.
Page, 13 L.
J.
Ash
v.
Q. B. 153
Abdy,
Doe
Bold, 11 Q. B. 127.
V.
(6)
9 Geo. II.
c.
Vict. c. 42,
s.
13).
A.-G.
V.
(c)
Ashburnham
s.
5 by 51 & 52
v.
Bradshaw, 2
Atk. 36.
(d)
29
Brownrigg
v.
Pihe (1882), 51 L.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.
P.
385
knew
it
passed
(c)
the
Gaming
made
after the
Act was
sums paid
for bets,
to prevent
such
which made
it
(e).
Where one
of the
offence
(a)
Ch.
(b)
(c)
West
Bridger, [1894] 1
Owynne,
inf. p.
393
Pettamberdass
v.
Thackoorseydass, 7
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
(a).
made void
make the
bills of sale
which
The enactments
Trade Marks Acts,
afi'ect
ment
(c).
any patent granted before the commenceAct (d) and it has been decided that
of the
B.
53
& 54 Vict.
V. Griffiths,
e.
71,
s.
26 (repealed by 4
As
[1891] 2 Q. B. 145.
Hkhson
(c)
B.
V.
v.
1886,
& 5 Geo. V. c.
to offences
59)
under the
of the Act.
St. Sepulchre,
28 L.
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,
46 & 47 Vict.
See also 7
c.
Bdw. VII.
57
Brandon,
Be
c. 29.
Digitized
by Microsoft
acquired
previous
The
legislation (a).
Nor
(6).
did
it
operate upon
woman
Act
had acquired a
separate estate
title before, so as to
Even
(c).
to
which she
make
it
her
already subject to
(a)
402.
49 & 50 Vict.
c.
s.
33,
and Sched.
I.
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.
This sub-section
is
to cases of
repealed by 56
402.
Digitized
& 57
Vict.
by Microsoft
388
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
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
(c).
(4
As
2 Gallison, 204.
& 5 Geo. V.
c.
47)
12 & 13 Vict.
Ill; Marsh
5
H.
c.
106
v. Higgins,
Waugh,
19 L.
J. 0.
K. B. 382.
;
v.
v.
J. C.
Middleton, 22 L. J. Ex.
P. 297; Larpent
P. 131.
Digitized
v.
Bibby,
32 L.
of
Deeds
by Microsoft
v.
Be
Wiggins,
RETROSPECTIVii; OPERATION AS
REGARDS RIGHTS.
389
made non-traders
The provisions of
first
and
liable
ss.
32
1,
&
disqualify
after
(&).
6 Will.
IV.
83
c.
which
(c),
of
the
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
by
relation
(a)
(b)
Williams
46
& 47
v.
Harding, L. E. 1 H. L.
Vict.
[1894] 1 Q. B. 725
(c)
But
(e).
o.
;
52
9.
Thompson, In re (1919), 88 L.
c.
J.
K. B. 646.
For meaning
of
Patent,
In re (1898), 79 L. T. 458.
(e)
Perry
v. Skinner,
6 L.
J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.,
INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
390
Common
by the
Pleas,
{a).
Sec. 1, Mercantile
(repealed by
s.
Law Amendment
60, Sale of
provided that no
jfi.
Act, 1856
tion creditor
if
retrospective,
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.
&
Sons,
In
re,
Digitized
[1916] 2 K, B. 497.
by Microsoft
s.
41.
Law Amendment
391
Act, 1856,
debtor's
payment
of interest,
(a).
the
different
creditor
decision
The
debtors.
provision in
10 of the Judica-
s.
bankruptcy rules
as
shall
passed
(b).
And
operation
is
more
that a retrospective
ment
is
If the
it
is
enactfairly
ought to be
&
(6)
Be
(c)
AtUumney, In
Suche
27 L. J. Q. B. 448.
D. 48.
[1898] 2 Q. B.
"Wright
552.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J., at
pp. 651,
392
INTERPKKTATION OF STATUTES.
Nor
is
its
(a).
Law Amendment
Sec. 5, Mercantile
which
entitles a surety
principal,
it
who pays
Act, 1856,
of a surety
came
had paid
into operation
(6).
it
brought on a
ratification,
made during
made
of 22
&
23 Vict.
c.
35
infancy,
(d), to relieve
in respect of
new juris-
(a)
Mary, Whitechapel, 12 Q. B.
See B. v. Portaea, 7 Q. B. D.
v. St.
127
B.
384
V. Christchurch, Id.
149.
(h)
Be Wolfv.
(c)
{d)
Ee-enacted by
Lindsell, 37 L. J.
s.
14,
Ch. 293.
Vict. c. 41).
(e)
Page
v.
Bennett (1855), 29 L.
Digitized
.J.
Ch. 398.
by Microsoft
And
393
Law
veyancing and
Con-
s. 3,
to "all leases,"
commencement
the
So,
(a).
of
Act
the
and,
after
in
the
absence
of
engrafts,
express
provision
"to
the
contrary,
no
or
fine,
sum
of
money
that
such consent
(b).
So,
8,
laying
s.
of the
Women's Property
Married
44 & 45 Vict.
(&)
West
(c)
Batt
V.
V.
c.
41,
sAi
Mist V. Metropolitan
Water
Board
(1915),
2041.
Digitized
by Microsoft
84 L.
J.
K. B.
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES
394
Act
the
rights
is
it
{a).
altered pending an
parties
the
of
as well as to
existed
decided
are
when the
action
&
22 Vict.
c. 90,
32 of
s,
which, as
1859,
"
unless
recover any charge for medical treatment
person
shall,
aftet
the
1st
he
it
An
(ft).
administration bond
&
22 Vict.
95,
c.
maintainable after
it
came
into operation
(c).
(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.
395
construed as
if
as
it
must be
and
beneficiaries,
is
(33
&
is
34 Vict.
c.
29,
s.
14) {d)
and that
44 & 45 Vict.
(a)
V.
if
c. 12, s. 38,
52 & 53 Vict.
gentatives,
[1896]
24 Eettie 462.
c. 7, s.
out, or
11; A.-G.
v. Craig's
retail,
v.
Bepre-
Adams
(1898), 67 L. J. P. C. 75.
(&)
(c)
See
ex. gr.
See ex.
gr.
v. Carey,
14 L. J. C. P. 177
Bell v.
Sched.
7,
and re-enacted by
Digitized
s.
35 of same Act.
by Microsoft
c. 24, s.
112,
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
396
man who
after
it
and had
before,
the
"
Although the expression " convicted of felony
might have been limited to persons who should
be
thereafter
convicted,
as
yet,
the object of
men
to the enactment
(Married
{inter
alia)
husband
The Summary
(a).
Women)
of
Jurisdiction
that
have
(a) Hitchcock v.
195, diss.
Lush
Way, 45 E. E. 653 B.
;
J.,
v. Tine,
L. E. 10 Q. B.
[1894] 1 Q. B. 725
Chappell
v.
Purday, 13 L.
J.
Ex.
7.
B.
V.
of
[1898] 24
M.
C. 133.
disqualification, see
B. D. 561.
Digitized
by Microsoft
As to the effect
(a).
Amendment
Frauds
397
c. 14),
till
Act
(b).
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
come
months
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)
58 & 59 Vict.
c.
39
Lane
v.
65
L. J. P. 63.
(h)
Hilliard v. Lenard,
Towler
v.
Ohatterton,
31 E. E. 411.
(c)
Per CresBwell
J.,
(d)
Per Park
J.,
6 Bing. 264.
Digitized
by Microsoft
But
398
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
till
who
to
liable
contracted a
It
he contracted
it (a).
On
held that
11, 11
&
s.
was
which
43(5),
12 Vict.
o.
it
summary proceedings
months from the time when
intention to give
(a)
it
a retrospective operation
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)
&
13 Vict.
c.
s. 9.
B.
V.
Leeds By.
another point in B.
v.
Co.,
21 L. J.
M.
Edwards, 53 L.
& S.
Digitized
W. By.
J.
0. 193 (overruled
M.
Co.,
by Microsoft
C. 149).
on
See per
L. E. 4 C. P. 19.
399
how-
as the period
it
In the
same way
Amendment
Act, 1856
{a).
10,
s.
(6),
Law
Mercantile
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)
(b)
19 & 20 Vict.
(c)
Cornill V.
c.
v.
Leeds By.
Co.,
18 Q. B. 346.
97.
Hudson (1857), 27 L.
J. Q. B.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Pardo
v.
Bing-
400
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
(a),
propriety, be
made
procedure
(c).
He has
or defence in the
by
an Act
(b)
manner prescribed
being,
if
for the
which he sues
mode
mode
(d).
time
;
and
of pro-
proceed
The remedy
it
takes
remedy.
or
new powers
(a)
Wright
of
were shortened,
it
would
Hale (1860), 30 L.
(6)
(c)
Per Mellish
P. 236; A.-G.
See
ex. gr.
(d)
v.
v.
69.
and
of
Digitized
by Microsoft
a right
little
worthy
of respect (a).
The general
principle, indeed,
seems to be that
Where,
it (b).
an
provided
(e).
Law
(a)
Van
(c)
See
Warne
(d) 3
&4
c.
v.
65,
s.
Dash
v.
6 L. J. Ex. 192.
6,
and 24 & 25
Ironsides,
4 Cowen, 392.
Lucas, 3 App. Cas.
Draper, L. E. 3 Q. B. 160.
v.
v. Beresford,
Vict.
Common
v. Tibbetts,
and Kimbray
128,
22 L. J. Q. B. 142
The People
s.
(&)
603,
W.
See The
288.
31 L. J. P. M. & A. 129.
0.
76
(s.
128
is
repealed by 46
& 47
0, 49, s. 3).
26
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Vict.
402
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
could not
been
a married
the
and
woman by
the
(a)
1882, of suing
in all respects as
to enable
of
(6
&
7 Vict.
taxable, for
Sec.
(5).
37,
Act,
Solicitors
1843
the Act
On
(a)
(6)
(d).
this principle, it
Boodle
v.
Lowe
V.
&
s.
81, 3
v.
Winslow, 13
45 & 46 Vict.
Q. B. D. 784.
c.
75,
s.
1 (2)
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
Hey, 13 L. J. Q. B. 28
Scadding
v. Eyles, Id.
Digitized
858.
by Microsoft
Broois
c.
79,
s. 2.
v. BocJeett,
42
0.
(a),
was applicable
for costs,
the Act
dale J.
to
of the decision,
it
Law
Common
So, the
(e).
&
24 Vict.
c.
126,
s.
34) (/),
47 Vict.
(6)
C.
c.
49,
s.
Freeman
& M. 405
v.
& 43 Vict.
c.
46 &
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.
(g)
(7i)
Wright
v.
Kimbray
J.
Ex. 43
pqr
Q. B. 80.
Digitized
by Microsoft
J,
404
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
when
the
(a).
For
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,
(c),
Common Law
Pro-
not to affect
it
it.
In considering
o whether a statute was intended
Watlon
(a)
v. Wattaii,
35 L.
J. P.
& M.
95.
(6)
(c)
(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.
by Microsoft
v.
Growan,
day of
rules
their
189
,"
53 & 64 Vict.
Geo. V.
c.
47,
(a).
o. 71, s.
and replaced by
13 of that Act
[1893] 2 Q. B. 369.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Norman, Be,
CHAPTEE
SECTION
I.
IX.
^MODIFICATION OP
THE INTENTION.
Where
its
ordinary
to
or to
some inconvenience or
tended, a construction
modifies the
meaning
may be
put upon
it which
and even the
This may be done
of the words,
(a).
fluence,
no doubt, of an
M. & W. 398,
7 Ex. 475 per Lord Denman, Juhh v.
and Miller
v.
Hull Dock
Co.,
16 Q. B. 503
Salomons,
9 Q. B. 443
;
v.
Lockwood, 9
v. Smith,
v. Snaith,
M. & W.
195,
v.
Williams, 1
Cory
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
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,
grammar
common
The
(a).
rules of
effect
to
the
treaty
all civilised
nations
and
as not includ-
69
(6)
A.-0.
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
408
INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
not understand
selves
all
punish,
to
Where
(a).
indeed, whether
it
did
it
or,
viz.,
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
concluded with
if
the
lex situs
and the
it
thus
had gone
before,
and there-
powers
(&).
When
it
was
applied to India
for
(o)
c. 8,
settled
I. c. 16),
(c), it
in the 34
and
(6)
Salmon
(c)
v.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
& 35
Vict.
same
meaning out
of the territories
409
(a).
The
abroad
"after they returned," was construed as giving
that extended time to the executor of a person
who never
provision of
(6).
In the
to a single arbitrator,
it
that
is,
Tomisend
v.
Beacon, 18 L.
J.
Mod. P.
0.
Ex. 298.
4.
v.
52 & 53 Vict.
c.
49
Digitized
by Microsoft
410
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
enacted that
if
exceeding"
the
,5
meaning
literal
was
it
it
exactly
(a) 2
" (c).
Geo. III.
c.
19, 39
England by 1 & 2
as to
Geo. III.
Will. IV.
c.
c.
34
32,
s.
c.
57
{d),
Simpson
v. Untoin,
37 E. E. 359.
58 & 59 Vict.
(6)
s.
101
(1),
c.
37,
s.
27
(3),
Garby
(d)
Eepealed
v.
L. E., 1873.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Schwerzerhof
v.
411
mencement
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
^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
(a)
Becke
(6)
51 & 52 Vict.
v. Smith,
c.
6 L. J. Ex. 54.
43
Curtis v. Stovin,
Edw. Vn.
c.
By
County Court
s.
is
by Microsoft
actions.
3 of 3
extended
two or more
Digitized
See
22 Q. B. D. 513.
divided
See
s.
81,
412
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
among
divisible
his creditors,
and providing
also
close,
ruptcy
it
acquired either
bankruptcy or the
rupt
bank-
(b).
had not
numerous
justice
not
or
mean what
(a)
As
to
what
will disentitle
a.
See as to
(c)
32
& 33
15 and 48 repealed.
Ebbs
V.
As
to similar
Digitized
Oh. 319, C. A.
by Microsoft
413
fore needs
a great
number
(c),
what
of,
com-
is
(d)
that
is,
Per
Our.,
The PabUo
61),
Hughes
v.
commenced
BucUand
of the existence of
are, "
Where
& 57
Vict,
any Act
of
of
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.
Newton
v.
Mis,
24 L. J. Q. B. 337.
(d)
its
per Buckley
Fulham
Myers
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
J.,
National
Sharpington
Bradford Corpora-
414
INTBRPEETATION OP STATUTES.
the Act
Thus,
arrest of a person
who
if
&
(24
25 Vict.
96,
c.
51),
s.
commit a felony
(a) See,
T. E. 653
20 L.
among many
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.
V.
Burling
Chamberlain
J. P.
Downing
Hart, L. E. 3 C. P. 322
Selmes
v. Olive,
v. Evershed, 16 L. J. Q. B.
St.
Aird, 51 L. J. Q. B. 244
Cree
&
Baker, 23 L. J. C. P. 21
271
London
257
K. B. 41
A.-G.
v.
Hart
J.
v.
K. B. 306
Fry
Myers
v.
Cheltenham
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
J.
Gh. 40
li.
415
arrest
or
if,
unreasonableness of belief
immaterial,
is
if
the
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),
answered
all
such criminating
missioners "
for it
equally intended
(e).
It is
2 L.
J.
C P. D. 194
Morgan v. Palmer,
Molyneux, 3 Q. B. D. 237.
(6)
See Clark
(c)
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.
"
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,
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.
strict
letter
(a).
(which
would include a dog) intrusted to them for carriage, with the proviso that no greater damage
s.
(o)
599
(4) of
certificate
."
now
provided by
its
As
pilotage
It is
date,
of
to
s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
31).
417
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
only with " any of the following of such animals " (a).
"Where a railway company was made liable to make
(a) Harrison v.
Co.,
29 L.
J.
Q. B.
v.
Whitechureh (1874), 43 L. J.
27
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
C.
418
INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.
Under 1 & 2
Vict.
o.
110
(a),
upon the
or
10
&
of
petition
11 Vict.
c.
102
{b),
any of his
creditors.
and transferring
the Insolvent
mention
creditor.
of cases
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
creditor's
(c).
must be given
27 L.
no
B.
V.
J.
Q. B. 28.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Exj).,
419
was held
where the
him, wh-ether
Brett
it
was delivered
(c).
v.
Barnard, 1 M. &
W.
115
per
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
22 Q. B. D. 513
Digitized
by Microsoft
86.
and
420
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
An Act
&
(25
26 Vict.
c.
whom
they sus-
a constable to
summon
a footway, with a
gun
up a
rabbit
(a)
them
Hall
V.
" brought
for the
Knox
who should be
(1863), 33 L. J.
M.
C. 1
Lloyd
v. Lloyd,
14
statute
33 & 34 Vict.
c.
52,
s.
Digitized
8; B.
v. Weil,
by Microsoft
53 L. J. M. C. 74.
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
;
must be added
This
with amplifications,
interpretation,
corporated in
s.
26
(2),
is
(b).
in-
To
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.
S. L. R., 1871.
(6)
50 & 51
(c)
Eepealed by
(d)
Vict.
c.
66,
s.
S. L. E.,
Be
1863.
Digitized
by Microsoft
by
INTEEPKETATION OF STATUTES.
422
The
1 Jac. I.
o.
15
(a),
whioli
made
it
an act
of
if
construed
literally,
would
home was an
when coupled
(b).
in a Turnpike Act
toll
It
required that this " and " should be read as " or,"
(b)
Fowler
v.
c.
16,
s. 1.
4 E. E. 511.
See
Waterhouse
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Amendment
423
that
(&).
2 Hen. V.
action
c. 3,
when
(a)
25 & 26 Vict.
Sched.,
c.
102,
London Building
s.
98
section repealed
Act, 1894.
s.
215, 4th
; 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
For a
full collection of
Digitized
tit..
by Microsoft
Ok read
as And,
424
INTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
The Court
of Queen's Bench,
the
(6
to
when it appeared
" nearer or more commodious to the public," was
order the diversion of a highway,
limited to cases where
the
(6)
exercisable
or the other
(c).
or, as it is
sometimes
said, for
when
conferring the
authority in terms simply enabling and not mandaIn enacting that they " may," or " shall, if
tory.
mission
but
it
mere per-
cases,
such
B.
V. PTiillips
(1866), 35 L. J.
32 L. J. M. C. 204.
326
Oldfield v.
notice "
Berhy
of
JJ.,
M.
See Harrington
As
to
C. 217
v.
WrigU
what
by Microsoft
Frant
J.
Ex.
[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
com-
to be modified
is
the
it
it
optional
it
make
to
it,
whenever
if
they
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.
Digitized
B.
by Microsoft
v.
INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
426
examination
(a),
inspector "
may
cases
all
Though
(c).
s.
9,
may
11
&
" issue a
12 Vict.
summons
on an information
tions,
laid before
or that
"power and
(a) JJ. V.
it
obligatory to hold
Cambridge, 8 Dowl. 89
&
when
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.
II. of
{d)
it
s.
9 of that
K. B. 177.
(1875), 1 Q. B. D. 201
B.
v.
Fawcett, 11
Digitized
by Microsoft
Again,
(a).
427
s. 7,
&
or, if unfair, to
it,
confirm
it
nevertheless,
and
at liberty to
throw
it
policy of
tithe
viz.,
(6).
held,
his
(a)
B.
V.
imperatively
creditors,
its
Id.
of
"may"
Havering-atte-Bower, 5 B.
in 2
required
was in
D. &E. 176
B.
n.,
effect
v. Hastings,
and
D. & E.
148.
(6)
B.
V.
And
49 L.
see Julius v.
J. Q.
B. 577
Digitized
by Microsoft
428
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
Under
(a).
&
13, 13
s.
14 Vict.
c.
61(6),
"may"
he lived
if
s.
5,
may
to appoint,
and
if
an
arbitrator, it
notice, appoint
obligatory on the
is
Court to
13 EUz.
(6)
(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.
20 L.
J.
Ex. 166.
(d)
52 & 53 Vict.
c.
49,
s.
[1892] 1 Q. B. 136.
(e)
11 & 12 Vict.
c.
(1849), 13 Q. B. 664.
45,
s.
73,
now
repealed.
Marson
V.
Lmid
s.
Digitized
140.
by Microsoft
429
s.
56, Corrupt
and
(a).
Illegal
equivalent to
as
" must,"
be read
arose
when the
case
(c).
On
" it
issue commissions to
it
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
430
INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES.
disproportion to any
its possible
it)
that
it
86, is imperative
part of the
(c).
if
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
431
(a).
whom
on the
it,
or if
was held
further proceedings,
to leave
it
discre-
Having regard to
of the law and the character
it was considered that it was
duty,
his
before
issuing
commission,
the
to
and the
(a)
53 Geo. HI.
Barler
1 B.
status, solvency,
&
v.
o.
141,
s.
C. 61.
Digitized
by Microsoft
& 18
Vict.
c.
90
Girdlestone v. Allan,
432
INTEBPRKTATION OF STATUTES.
the Church
(a).
much
discussion in B.
issue
the commission
where a
complaint had
(b),
but the
who were
practically
unanimous in
their
view.
But
themselves, do more.
there
may
be some-
it is
to be
it
(o)
c.
& 4
525
B.
v.
{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.),
C, 5 App.
by 55 & 56
Vict,
Oxford (Bp.), 4 Q. B. D.
by Microsoft
2 E.
London
& E.
209.
433
is
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
whom
is
Lord
(a).
Penzance said that the words " it shall be lawful
are distinctly words of permission only, and the
true question
different,
is,
mean something
circumstances
to
person
the
enabled,
all
the
to
the
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
28
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
434
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
it
general
the
it is
particular
provisions,
or
(6).
(b)
Id., p.
Digitized
235.
by Microsoft
435
is
conferred
is for
the purpose of
may
that right,
there
when
who have
Where
s.
of Appeal, in consider-
126
Bankruptcy Act,
(4),
commenced
for
L. J.
(6)
KB.
see B.
y.
153, at p. 157.
5 App. Cas.,
p. 245.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Mitchell (1913), 82
436
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
is
shown
to be
insolvent,
"
nature of the English language the word " may
can never mean " must," that it is only potential,
If not, the
exercise is discretionary.
whom
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-
(6),
"may"
may
con" sue
(a)
46 & 47 Vict.
c.
52
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.
See also
NicMl
Q. B. 283.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Q. B. 225
J.
v.
L.
B.
& N. W. By.
v. Allen,
31 L. J.
437
as
Chancellor "
may "
recover them,
acts,
So,
when-
it is
imperative on those so
and
when the
case
by a
make the
(a)
BroManh
v.
(6)
McDougal
v. Paterson,
Whitehaven By.
Co.,
31 L. J. Ex. 349.
11 C. B. 755.
Digitized
it
by Microsoft
s.
&
32,
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
438
whom
it is
to impose a
is,
incontestable that
Whether the
way
or
The Supreme
it down
empowered to do for
he was
if
(a).
done
Solicitors Act,
solicitor
" shall
(6
& 7
73),
Vict.
and may be
c.
offences, does not give the Court a discretion to impose any less
punishment.
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.
V.
JR.
v.
&
South
Weald,
0. 266.
See,
Kelly, Be, 64 L. J. Q.
B.
Welch, 7 B.
Cumberland, 4 A.
Digitized
& E.
v.
695,
by Microsoft
the power
439
his,
and
is
In
all
is
the
test,
is,
not to grant
Nor
(a).
made
the power
is
less imperative in
any
The duty
summons (6),
of issuing a
(c),
due
diligence to obtain satisfaction of his debt from
the company, it was held by the Common Pleas
vidual shareholder of
if
it,
he
4 Wallace, 446.
& 53 Vict. c.
63),
after
failed
See
s.
which provides
32, Interpreta-
that, in future,
when an Act
confers a
B.
V.
Adamson, sup.
is
p. 426.
See also B.
54 J. P. 471.
(c)
B.
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Evans (1890),
440
IlfTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
this
had
creditor
him
to disentitle
to
although
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."
known
Another
It is well
on
its face,
V.
69)
& 8 Vict.
c.
Morisse
v.
London
Shrimpton
8 &
&
v.
County
Insur.
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.
Digitized
L. E. 3 C. P. 80, decided on
62
89.
by Microsoft
441
In
occasion for
it
has arisen.
In America, where
it
it
"
(c),
M.
B.
V. Finnis,
C. 101.
28 L. J. M. C. 201
See also B.
v.
B.
v. Boteler,
p. 426.
(b)
S 4 Wallace, 446.
Amy, 5 Wallace, 705.
Supervisorg v. U.
(c)
Galena
(d)
Adverting to B.
v.
v.
Digitized
33 L. J.
by Microsoft
442
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
they think
fit,
issue a
may
summons according
is
so far
is
shown
for it
but
its
primd
facie
exercise
they are
is
bound
to form an opinion,
and
if
such a case
it is
is
shown,
on extraneous grounds,
such as that the prosecution is unadvisable (6).
to refuse to exercise in
An
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
(6)
B.
(c)
Per Lopes
L.J.,
B.
v.
v. Fawcett,
sup. p. 426.
v. St.
Pancras, 24 Q. B. D. 375.
Digitized
arose, the
by Microsoft
and
OMISSIONS
MAY BE
443
SUPPLIED.
nor,
his
if
own
for it
had
arisen,
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
Without
of felony, in the
(a)
L.J.,
(b)
first
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.
titles in
Digitized
Lawful,"
Lawfully May,"
and Supp.
by Microsoft
" May,'"
see those
444
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
of an original limit,
it
him must be
inferred
So,
(b).
where
a statute enacted that suits " against" an association should be brought in the district
was
where
it
(a)
Be
and
Wilson
v.
Wilson, 5
v.
H. L. Cas. 40
D. 954
Be Bedfem,
6 Ch. D. 133.
(6)
38 & 39 Vict.
c.
55,
s.
Act
for the
(9)
As
appointment of an
Corp., [1915] 2
Teadm
180
by the
K. B. 511.
Digitized
by Microsoft
OMISSIONS
MAY BE
Amendment
445
SUPPLIED.
c.
14), furnishes
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
The
clearly imperfect.
be deemed
length as
is
(a)
Kennedy
v.
Lablaehe, 3 G. P. D. 197.
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.
121.
Digitized
by Microsoft
446
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
much
SO
much
party wall
section
The
is
(a).
reference in
s.
6,
being obviously a
slip in drafting,
(6).
Clerical errors
may
be read as amended;
as
to another by
be
and
(c).
so,
date,
London
Dairy
dec.
that
is,
when
it
takes
(e).
Co. v. Morley
Lanceley (1911), 80
L. J. K. B. 908.
(6)
s.
579.
(c)
See Underhill
v.
Longridge,
29
L. J.
M.
0.
65,
inf.
482.
p.
(d)
M,
0.
(e)
2 Inst. 290
104
Boothroyd, Be, 15 L. J.
Per Willes
J.,
Motteram
v.
M.
B.
v. Wilcoeh,
14 L.
J,
C. 57,
E. C. B. Co., 7 0. B. N. S. 58
Digitized
by Microsoft
EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.
447
mean what
modification
did not
it
its
and a
is
beforehand, as
it
But the
view.
may
when
the
on solid grounds
satisfied,
context
from
(a),
the
inconvenience,
injustice,
or
would
it
absurdity
of
does.
EQUITABLE CONSTEUCTION.
SECTION U.
greater lengths.
still
It
365
Boon
(a)
J.'s dictum,
if
so that
Abel v. Lee, L. E. 6 C. P.
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.
The extremely
it provided {a).
wide construction given to the expression " charit-
43
of
of subjects
diverse
senses.
(stat.
(a)
2)
(I.)
Com. Dig.
Parlia-
ment, B. 13.
(b)
(c)
[1891] A. 0. 542.
Williams, 1
(d)
B.
(e)
Corbet's Case, 1
V.
W.
Bl. 93.
Eep. 88.
Digitized
by Microsoft
1863.
EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.
449
now
The 4 Edw.
construction.
c.
5 (which
life,
one year
for
and even
"by equity"
for
half
a tenant
a year,
was
1 Leon. 193
Mutland
v.
Rutland, Cro.
Bliz., 377.
It
L. E. 10 0. P. 189
Co.,
599.
40,
and Pulling
v. Gt.
v. Grant,
4 C. P. D.
p. 112.
29
i.s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
450
INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.
that
it is
(a).
when
So,
it
empowers a landlord to
W. & M.
sell for
c.
5 (which
an action
lies
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
'
'
'
'
statute "(/).
&
(o)
(6)
Wallace
Aid. 208
(c)
other senses.
in.
v.
2 Inst. 302.
Earper
v. Taswell,
6 0.
& P.
Burr. 785
B.
v.
v.
Shew, 4 B.
166.
See B.
v. Cox,
Toimger, 5 T. E. 449.
(d)
Com. Dig.
(e)
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
cases
same
was
similarly held
Common
applicable, not
Pleas,
only to the
(a)
2 Inst. 167
5 Bep. 107.
{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
large, until
The Statute
Edw.
I.),
0.
of Gloucester
11, in
all cities
and
The
(6).
statute, or writ
De
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
;
2 Inst. 322.
(c) Id.
487.
(d)
(e)
2 Inst. 401
V. Burnell,
v. Salomons,
10 Eep. 30b
6 Bing. N. G. 561.
Digitized
21 L. J. Ex. 197.
by Microsoft
EQUITABLE CONSTRUCTION.
lax
method
prevalent
453
contemporaneously
of interpretation
(a).
between the
imperfectly understood
(6).
the petitions of
the King
(c)
may
their interpretation.
Chief Justice
s.
3,
21 Jac.
c.
16,
enacted tbat
and not
after,"
V.
(a)
(6)
v.
(d)
Sup.
p. 49.
Digitized
by Microsoft
454
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
administration
The
(a).
which
made
namely, to
was
to be considered
(o)
Hodsden
v.
Wms.
Harridge, 2
Mornington, 26 L. J. Q. B. 181
Q. B. 613.
v.
Saund.
64;a
Gmiewis
v.
Swindell v. Bulkeley, 56 L. J.
Bush, 4 A.
& E. 912
Atkinson
v.
154.
(6)
(c)
v.
Wright, 4
Williams
v.
De
G.
&
J.
Be Buhe of Marlborough,
V. Ungley,
5 Ch. D. 887
133.
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
The general
statute
(b).
Common Law
(d),
where
than
it
it
(e).
Webster
v. Webster,
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
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.
(d)
See ex.
Hughes
(e)
15 L.
gr.
v. Morris,
21 L. J. Ch. 761.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Gocking\v.
Ward,
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
456
them were
registered.
It was
On
(c).
it
Le Neve
v.
also
Per Sir
Boe
v.
W.
v.
v.
Strathmore (1809),
Grant, Wyatt
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See
457
EQUITABLE CONSTEUOTION.
might be disposed
being held that,
of
by an unattested Will
it
if
by Construction (&).
It was condemned, indeed, by Lord Bacon, who delared
Legislation
that non
literd (c)
est interpretatio,
;
pronounced
dangerous
it
(e)
and
it
and
it {d),
may now
be
For
had
(g).
when
notice,
(a) Bipley v.
his
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)
Digitized
L.J., 2
by Microsoft
E.
458
INTBRPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
bill of sale
to another person
(a).
construction,
construction
that
is
3,
21 Jac.
simple contract
16, respecting
c.
suit in 1831, in
(e).
may not
(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)
c.
57,
s. 1.
572
and see as
Digitized
by Microsoft
when
Bank v.
to
459
the expression " the Equity of a Statute " is sometimes used as meaning the principle or ground
which
furnished)
it
to the introduction
I.,
by the
of the practice of
(6).
they are
leges
legum
and
(6)
Knight
v.
Famdby, 2
c.
c.
69.
Salk.
670
Day
Graft
v. Boite,
1 Saund.
24.
Mod. 687
v. Sa/vadge,
Hob. 87
City of
;
London
v.
Wood, 12
639
3 Inst. 111.
1235.
Digitized
by Microsoft
460
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
justice.
'
It
says
is,'
Sir
W.
Blackstone,
When
it is
the
kingdom
'
said in the
is
mean
They
presume,
But if
it
should happen
is
The
land,
(a)
J.,
Lee
v.
Bude B.
Go. (1871), L.
582.
Digitized
by Microsoft
E. 6 C. P.
of the King's
Bench, to declare,
mon Law
461
Com-
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
in his
own
case,
was void
make
and induced
when he
there were
many dangerous
conceits of his
own
1 Kent,
Digitized
Oomm.
447.
by Microsoft
CHAPTEE
SECTION
I.
CONSTEUCTION
X.
OF PENAL LAWS.
The
rule
rigorously applied
number
of
when
down
was
for a
it
capital
in
former
offences
times,
when the
(a)
death to out
month
in the
soldier or sailor
company
of gipsies
(b),
or for a
pass.
paramount duty
(a) "
Book
is
George
11.,
4 Bl.
Comm.
4.
Digitized
by Microsoft
463
and
contention
that
adulteration)
because
impose
Acts
these
in the
(against
therefore
penalties,
their
I think
strict.
expectation that,
infliction
of
when
suffering,
an encroachment on
not leave
its
and
privileges, it will
it
in " cloudy
The
it
and
with
is
Per Day
J.,
Newhf
v.
U. S. V. Wiltberger, 5
Wheat.
95.
4 Inst. 332.
Digitized
by Microsoft
464
INTEBPRBTATION OP STATUTES.
applications
or
(a),
magistrates'
of
convictions,
(6).
both within
its
would be
This
language.
promote, the
object
to
defeat,
the Legislature
of
(d).
tions
falls
Court
its
not
to
(c)
to
its
pur-
is
for
(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,
M.
17 L. J. M. C. 25
C. 49.
(c)
Bac.
(d)
Per Martin
Bramwell
(e)
is
& B. 684
12 A.
Note B.
v.
amendment
not material.
H. & N.
and
781.
(/) 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
by Microsoft
v. U.
S 2
465
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
within
it
who
is
To determine
not within
that a case
it
is
of a statute
express language
which
is
its
provisions, so
because
far
as
statute,
atrocity or of a kindred
of equal
is
it
(6).
within
is
but
is
its
it,
brought
is
(c).
its
Peters, 367
U. S. v. Hartwell,
U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Peters,
WaUace, 395.
348
B,. v.
Freem. K. B. 175
Scott v. Pacquet,
M'Gormich, L. E. 4 Q. B. 271
Per Best
(a)
Case, 1 Salk.
80
prohibition
36 L.
580
Dawes
J. P. C.
Braey's
v. Painter,
65
Ellis v.
C.J.,
B.
v.
South Shields
Per Wright
J.,
London
C. G.
v.
Q. B. 106.
(c)
U. S. V. Wiltberger,
5 Wheat. 96.
30
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
466
all
fall
tended to be prevented,
a Court to extend them
it
not competent to
is
It is immaterial, for
{a).
this
for the
or civil
(b).
The degree
struction
of
the con-
strictness applied to
of a penal statute
depended in great
was
fatally bad,
because
"
while a
similar
common
assault
Aid. 145
v.
Edward
statute of
v.
(c).
VI.,
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
467
the doubt
number
when
A strict
(e).
2 Hale, 365,
B.
Euss. &
V.
is
defrauded.
B.
v. Stevens,
B.
V. Jeans,
& P. 504
;
(e)
Comp. B.
416.
v.
Wetland,
(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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
7 G.
& P.
v. Shadbolt,
5 G.
v. Harris,
Waltham, 3 Gox G. 0.
468
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
case shall
fall
not comprise
the
stitute
the
all
offence
as
by the
defined
&
statute.
23
31), which made capital the inflicwith malice aforethought "and by lying in
9 Geo. IV.
tion,
c.
a promise to pay a
sum
for her
piracy would be
taking
(c).
c.
5, s. 1, which makes it felony for rioters to
remain assembled for more than an hour after
1 East, P. C. 398
B.
v. Child,
&
4 C.
P. 442.
Comp. sup.
p. 364.
(6)
So
P. C. 400
heldjjej;
duhit.
J. in
B.
v.
Cohe,l East,
See also R.
v.
Williams,
Id. 424.
(c)
MoUoy,
64,
s.
v.
18.
For a
Kwok-a-Sing, 42 L. J. P. C. 64.
Digitized
by Microsoft
made,
made
469
and accurately
words, "
as
if,
for
was not
example, the
God
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
coal
shall be
found deficient
prescribes
that,
the
in
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
it
entitled to
vote "
when she
wife,
maintain his
{d).
Whiteley v. GhappeU, 38 L. J.
s.
3,
As
M.
C. 51.
See also B.
v.
s.
24,
which
Beeve
v.
Teates (1862), 31 L. J.
Spooner (1863), 32 L. J.
L. J.
{d)
Pape
M.
M.
C. 82.
M.
C. 241
Sweeney v.
v.
Heape, 26
C. 49.
Flannigan
v.
Bishopwearmoutli, 27 L. J.
M.
C. 46.
See
Pape, 20 Q. B. D. 76.
Digitized
by Microsoft
471
them
sion of
An Act which
(6).
is
(c)
nor by obtaining
which
is
Bead
(1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131
a.
(6)
23 & 24 Vict.
V.
c.
127,
26
s.
(1)
not a chattel
(a)
is
47 L.
J.
M.
0. 50.
Stephenson v. Higginaon
67 L.
J.
Q. B. 41.
(d) B. V. Bohinaon, 28 L. J.
choses in
Bobinson
B.
V.
dog
"
M.
0. 58.
But
a joint-stock company,
and a dog may be " goods,"
v. Jenkins,
24 Q. B. D. 275
Slade, 21 Q. B. D. 433.
stealing is
made a
By
24 & 25
criminal offence.
Vict.
c.
96,
s.
18,
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
472
An
money to
invest on mort-
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).
sum
of
money on
whom
the drawer
banker by
money from
the,
If the correspondent
false pretences.
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
473
as
mens
an offence there
such
constitute
should be
rea,
not in
itself
(c).
when
provision
a footway
{d).
if
(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
B.
V.
Mennah
(1877), 13
Cox
0. 547.
Comp. B. v.
30 & 31 Vict.
c.
134,
9.
Q.B. 790.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
474
however,
it
Probably,
(a).
templated by 1
&
2 Geo. V.
Again,
c. 27.
not guilty of
is
has
it
"fre-
commit a felony,
evidence that he had been there
in the absence of
Also
it
194,
c.
20,
s.
s.
6,
As to "domestic
E. 9 Q. B. 380.
(cZ).
animal
65 L.
"
J.
M.
G. 31,
Parsons, 32 L. J.
M.
0. 95
cited.
Sanders, 50 L. J.
M.
G. 67
Filburn
1.
E. 705
but
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
Vict. c. 112,
v.
Walker, AQ
s.
14 Q. B. D. 92
Sc. L. E.
V. Sill,
c.
v. B.,
s.
3 of
same
Act.
See also
50 & 51 Viet.
c.
29, modified
Edw. VII.
Digitized
c.
21
by 62 & 63
;
Grane
by Microsoft
v.
Vict.
s.
27,
and
Lawrence (1890),
475
fall
for
being found
(b).
of existing nuisances,
it
creation of nuisances
Where
(c).
v. Terrett,
60 L. J. M. C. 104, followed in
See further, Hobhs
is
"
not " exposing for sale
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)
M.
C.
9.
Digitized
7.
(6)
v. Tell,
v.
by Microsoft
J.
M.
C. 120.
INTEEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
476
should not be
"used"
feet in front of
it,
without
by another, a penalty
"made
provisions
construe
offences
if
of
the
the
the former,
in
refused
including
as
section
latter
prohibited
the Court
Act;
to
the
though the
strict
(6).
(a)
Pearson
v.
And
Eull (1865), 35 L.
v.
construction which
J.
M.
it
Majendie (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B.
429.
(6) 32
& 33
Vict.
c.
62; Scott
v.
Morley, 20 Q. B. D. 120.
Digitized
But see as
by Microsoft
to
who
is
477
construed as strictly as
if
person
who commits
it (a).
struction, it
laws
may
strict con-
(6),
in esse at the
penal laws
may
c. 12 (repealed by 7 & 8
which took away the benefit
Geo. IV.
c.
27,
s.
1),
extend to accessories
12 Q. B. D. 511
Be, 57 L. J. Q. B. 258
(b) 2 Inst.
175.
35
Lester, Exp.,
62 L.
by Microsoft
Henderson,
Q. B. 372.
v. Painter,
Digitized
J.
Ereeman K. B.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
478
(a).
common law
at
or under that
Act
who
and a sub-
stole partnership
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;
it
men from
diverting
all
31 & 32 Vict.
c.
116,
s.
V. Streeter, [1900]
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
C.
722.
479
But
as extreme.
It
may
be regarded
a century after
until
it
was
or that
it
pistol,
1831 (1
&
2 Will. IV.
c.
Bxp.,
inf. p.
Price, 11 L.
J.
C. P. 292.
494.
(6)
(c)
Digitized
c.
15.
c.
51,
s.
M. & W.
10.
378.
by Microsoft
who
is
Comp. Gopeland,
480
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
under
33)
C.
s.
1,
(a).
any
if
sort of prohibited
59 L.
J.
M.
C. 63.
With regard
of
license to sell
game, see B.
v.
20 L.
J.
(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.
See
Faversham, 10 B.
v.
-B. v. Cottle,
&
548
n.
of Copyright, see 1
& 2 Geo. V.
c.
46,
Chap. XXI.
Digitized
S.
by Microsoft
481
or otherwise, or
vented
passed
till
after the
(a).
**
Highway
Act was
carriages
"
Act, 1835,
imposed a penalty
(c).
than
(a)
v.
Ball,
0. B. N. S. 306, sup.
(1898), 78 L. T. 613;
woolwork, Dicks
Exp.,
inf. p.
lists of
Gollis v. Cater
Ch. 812.
Gomp. Beal,
491.
M.
0. 47.
M.
C.
v.
v.
d.,
Taylor
(c)
;
Aliter a
Brooks, 49 L.
(6)
104
v.
146
p.
Catalogues and
(d).
B.
V.
Wood, L. E.
50 L.
J.
Q. B. 559.
4.
Parkyns
Q. B. 648.
31
L8.
Digitized
J.
by Microsoft
482
INTBRPKETATION OF STATUTES.
The general
is
now under
principle
consideration
manner in
make the
defendant Kable to a conviction, the obvious omission in the latter branch of the sentence,
and held
loss of life,
had occurred
was
idle
{a).
28, 6
&
Will. IV.
Co. V.
justices
see also V. V.
Bread
74 L. T. 704.
(a)
Underhill v.
Williams
v.
Evans,
Longridge,
inf. p.
29
L.
J.
497.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
C.
65.
Comp.
483
is
after
justices to appoint
office
it
should not
any alderman or
councillor,
who
reach a clerk
by the
justices, if
;
and
But
of prosecuting.
if
disqualified,
tion, it
penal enactment
(c)
though
(a)
Thomas v. Stephenson, 22 L.
(b)
(c)
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,
under
the
Vaccination
it
offence
The
when-
is
to
(a)
272.
Per Coleridge
J.
See also B.
v.
Davis, L. E. 1 C. C. E.
(6)
(c)
Be
(d)
Per
(e) Id.
Etcp.,
396.
Digitized
by Microsoft
p. 31.
485
is
or, to
use Lord
damage a
to or
ship or vessel
it
(b)
felony to set
fire
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
includes
any ship or
boat, or
any
57 & 58 Vict.
742.
60,
s.
(c)
J.,
B.
v.
Bowyer, 4 0.
J. Q.
& P.
B. 105
559.
sup.
p. 131.
(d) B. V.
(e)
B.
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
486
INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
(Protection)
1884(a).
Act,
wife
position to
meaning
of
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
for the
& 48
Vict.
and re-enacted by
to
s.
c.
76,
65
(c),
repealed by 8
of that Act.
As
Edw. VII. c.
48,
see 3
(h)
y.
whom
v.
v. Gill, [1896]
M.
J.
is illegitimate, is
C. 120,
2 Q. B. 310.
s.
(c)
his wife
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.
487
same enactment,
made with
(a).
is
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
or raising a latch
much
for that is as
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
Gowp. B.
Kipps, 4
v.
M.
C.
C. 45.
1 Hale, 556.
L. E. 15 Bq. 159
(c)
1 0.
V. Bobins,
V. Biswell,
4 C.
&
B. D. 379.
R.
v. Bussell, 1
Moo. C. 0.
P. 231.
38,
s.
& P.
432.
4; B. v. Brice, Euss.
Digitized
by Microsoft
& Ey.
450.
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
488
by raising an alarm
of fire (6).
"sent" when
it
is
whom
it
is
threatening
letter
is
is
sent by A. that
or
is
none
of these cases
although
(g)
would the paper be popularly
said to
person
who
writes
2 East, P. G. 485.
(c)
B.
1122
V. Jepson,
B.
and B.
V. Wagstaff,
B.
V.
B.
V. Williams,
V.
(d)
(e)
(/) B.
v.
Cox
C. C. 16.
See also B.
C. C. 226.
{g)
B.
V.
Adams, 22 Q. B. D.
Digitized
66.
by Microsoft
v. Jones,
Cox
489
guilty
is
encouraging a person
of
To make
not addressed to
article is
to
(a).
{d),
as is also
(e).
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.
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.
Digitized
4.
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
it till
Monday
(6).
it
And
to
man
"knowing
if
it
he so
(a)
it,
& 36
36
Vict. c. 94,
See Bond
v.
17, repealed
s.
Bedgate
Evans, 21 Q. B. D. 249
Massey
(6)
v.
Hart,
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.
V. Harris, 1
(c)
v.
by
Haynes, 1 Q. B. D. 89.
v.
M. C. 145.
35 & 36 Vict.
0. 18
B.
v.
p. 473.
M.
C. 60.
Gomp. B.
v. Fretwell,
31 L. J.
(e)
c.
94,
s.
13, repealed
s.
and Badford
(1914), 78 J. P. 90.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
See
Williams
491
A
or
servant receives
on account
or in the
name
against
of his
own name
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
it
(a)
dis-
Beal, Exp., L. E. 3 Q.
387.
Comp. Oamhart
v.
Ball,
sup. p. 481.
B.
V.
c.
50.
(d)
cases
Eoyle
on
v.
Eitchman, 4 Q. B. D. 233.
this phrase,
sub
"
Prejudice
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
492
game
the
removed
snared,
is
(c).
game
is
complete when
though neither
killed
nor
(d),
and
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.
;
Harrison
Anne
(6) 6
and see
s.
(c)
(d)
c.
14,
s.
c.
B.
Will. IV.
c.
32,
s. 1,
14 Peters, 464.
c.
27
B.
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,
See also U. S.
20
v.
516
M.
C. 58.
Langrisli v. Archer,
See Golding
Mile
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
10 Q. B. D. 44.
1,
clause
493
it is
the amount
If,
(a).
it,
and
payment
of
that the
the note
is a.
the delivery of
(c).
parcel of
sales
(e).
transporta-
by
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.
(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
request, in
his
in
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,
breach of the
Where an Act
(7
&
8 Vict.
c.
if
a.m.
it
(a)
M.
B.
V.
C. 65.
Beason, 23 L. J.
Gomp. Martin
v.
&
M.
C. 11
B.
44 L.
v. Foulhes,
J.
C. 586.
Transportation
is
abolished,
Hewitt
V. Price,
Comp.
sup. p. 479.
(c)
Dyhe
[d]
v. Elliott (1872),
Digitized
L. E. 4 P. C. 184
c.
16,
s.
107.
by Microsoft
41 L.
J.
Adm. 65
was
accidents, whether
district
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
of the Act,
(a).
Prevention Act, 1854, which declared that whoever, " directly or indirectly,"
person to induce
"
makes a
gift to a
him
the return
a gift
made
of
An
(6).
officer
con-
Lakeman
(6) Britt V.
v. Stephenson,
L. E. 3 Q. B. 192.
c.
Digitized
56
note
ss. 1,
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
496
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
and
Highway Act,
any person
(1) riding
meaning
liable to the
(c).
if
25 L.
(6)
Greenhow
J.
v.
Parker, 31 L. J. Ex. 4.
(c)
Bavies
v.
38 & 39 Vict.
739; Nutton
v.
L. J.
v.
Kay,
c.
Stanley v. Dodd, 1 D.
& E.
v.
55,
s.
Wilson, 22
[1900] 1 Q. B. 279.
735
See Woolley
Ex. 351.
Gomp. Proctor
397.
193
Todd
v.
BoUnson, 14 Q. B. D.
Barnacle v. Clark,
Q. B. D. 744;
v. Glark,
M.
0. 164
Gox
V.
B.
14 Q. B. D.
v. Whiteley,
Ambrose, 60 L. J. Q. B. 114.
Digitized
by Microsoft
58
Gomp.
497
of a carriage
was
to
owner
was
liable
(a).
it
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
;
Act,
if
But
it {d).
if
all
substantial
Nor would
(e).
it
(a)
Comp. UnderMll
339.
(6)
v.
v.
c.
B.
V.
L. J.
M.
C. 113
{d)
B.
5 C. &
(e)
& 25
Vict.
Howell (1839), 9 C.
(c)
V.
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.
Digitized
95).
Pilcher v. Stafford, 33
Barnes, 45 L. J.
c.
97, s 11.
&
c.
498
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
of the Act,
if
fire;
for
although arson
by a
Some
different
is
enactment
(a).
To
but when
it
had
chattel of
regarded as in possession
and B.
(for
& M.
B.
(6)
& Ey. 12
Harris,
B.
v. Poioell,
v. Simpson,
21 L.
J.
M.
0.
C. 78.
0. 50, s. 7.
Digitized
may be
(a)
V.
ticket
by Microsoft
B.
661, 669.
v.
Pooley, Euss.
pawnor
499
is
And
(a).
ticket,
The
ticket
and contrary to
faith,
ferred, pledged, or in
his
own
"
use " any chattel or valuable security
him
for collection
it is
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
which
is
now
Tatloch, 2 Q.
repealed by 6
B. D. 167
&
Geo. V.
c.
50,
which
see.
c.
10,
B.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
500
INTEEPJBETATION OF STATUTES.
more
rational regard to
formerly.
mind
judicial
(a)
of
all
liberty
by the
for it is required
the
spirit
interpretation
and
tendency
this
is
still
evinced in a
meaning
of an obscure passage
(c).
The
by
effect of
summed up
word
or
doubt of
yields to the
(a)
(6)
(c)
(d)
v. Fields,
v.
28 L.
J.
v.
31 L. J. Ex. 233.
Sherborne, 2
M. & W.
239.
Gall. 117.
Browne, 36 E. E. 459
But
per Pollock
B., Foley v.
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
Co.,
[1905] 2 K. B. 507.
Digitized
by Microsoft
501
to be
manifest intention
SECTION
II.
{h).
OE
IMPOSING BUEDENS.
whether
It is a recognised
if
rule
possible, so as
(c).
It is presumed, where
the objects of the Act do not obviously imply such
that
if
such be
intention,
its
it
will manifest
(6)
sup. p. 500.
See
ex. gr.
Walton, 3 0. P. D. 109
(c)
Per Bowen
L.J.,
May
B.
v.
Hough
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.
Digitized
It
(d).
F. 143.
v. Charretie, 13 Q. B.
Archer
&
(a)
it
by clear
by Microsoft
v.
Co.,
Logan,
502
is
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
obHged
local
so to construe it
(a).
said haven,
adjoining the
within 10 feet
it,
right,
[1903] A. C. 355.
L. E. 6 Gh. 467
London
Co.,
&
Be,
v.
Sheil, Exp., 4
Gh. D. 789
per
Bowen
v. B.,
L.J.,
v. Blair, 45 Gh. D.
Devonshire v.
of
v.
Bendall
Cockburn
G.J.,
Sowerhy
v.
(a)
(6)
Harrod
v.
Smith, L. E. 9 0. P. 524.
v.
Horner, 14 Q. B. D. 257.
London
&
M.
G. 165, diss.
Wightman
J.
Yarmouth
v.
Worship, 30 L. J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
503
The Partnerwhen
of the
the trader
trade,
if
became bankrupt,
"recover" until
the claims of the other creditors were satisfied,
did not deprive the creditor of any rights acquired
On
this
Limitation
ground,
are
it
be
to
The
demand is
strictly.
same
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,
by 7
46 L.
J.
Bank.
s. 3.
clear
ss.
and
(d), 3,
Applied to
s. 7.
62.
(c)
De
G. &
J. 1.
Digitized
39,
charges
all
by Microsoft
in
Boddam
v.
Morley,
504
INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.
subject
is
not
to be taxed unless
clearly imposes the
obligation
(6).
construc-
tion, for
making
The
(a).
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
(a)
Doe
relief
V. Snaith,
is
J.,
100, applied
Bev.,
80 L.
240, C. A.
J.
by Hamilton
J. in
Northumberland (Duke')
Oriental
Bank
Angus, 23 Q. B. D. 579
v.
;
per Hamilton
v. Inl.
J.
Ird.
K. B.
Bev. v.
Lanston Monotype
J.,
Gas
Co.,
(c)
11 G. B. N.
Carr
v.
S.
Co. v.
v. Fields,
579
sup. p. 500
Parry
v.
Croydon
15 Id. 568.
L.J., Thorley,
Canal
Co.,
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Monmouthshire
505
3.
32,
1881, that if
it
affidavit
amount
of excess duty
paid in the
first
instance,"
to their
own use,
not render
free
it liable,
which
it
India By.
V.
Columbia
(fc)
v.
44 & 45 Vict.
L. J. Q. B. 288;
c.
Nmn's
12,
s.
32; A.-6.
Estate, In
Digitized
re,
v.
Smith (1892), 62
by Microsoft
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
506
deposited
(6).
sum being
by
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,
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.
The stamp
and called " pro-
III. c. 184,
and was
&
7 Will. IV.
c.
76, repealed
Digitized
by Microsoft
507
published
it
of
payment
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,
Per Blackburn
J.,
tage v. Wilkinson, 3
(/)
Amended by 59 & 60
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Eden-
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
508
all
(c).
It is to
be
(o)
(Overseers) v. Art
Union of
v. Ellis (1895),
64
L. J. Q. B. 813.
(6)
St.
George, Bloomsbury, 23 L. J.
M.
(c)
Warrington
(d)
v. Furhor, sup. p.
C. 65.
507.
Inl.
Gas. 334.
(e)
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
A.-G.
definite
509
settled,"
is
amount
was
eJBfectuate
definite
For
They
are
as in-
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.
[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.
Cliquot's
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
little
On
payment
of costs
brought or defended
(b).
L. E. 1 Q. B. 351.
Wales By.
Co.,
in the interpretation of
and
& 57
s.
client, to
(6),
Vict. c. 61),
which gives
between
costs, as
See Fielden
authority.
v. Morley,
Chamberlain
v.
v.
Toms
69 L.
Ch. 314
J.
London
67 L. J.
Co. Co.,
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,
Hutchinson v. Greenwood, 24 L. J. Q. B. 2
denhrande, 33 L. J. Q. B. 177.
N.
S.
391
Comp: Evans
7 L. J. Ex. 256.
See also B.
Digitized
v.
Mohhs
v. Bees,
Van-
Hayioardv. Giffard,
by Microsoft
v.
9 C.
511
common
law, that
is,
unknown
restrictions
common
to the
law, ought
this spirit.
unquestionably
is
it
matter
subject
the parties
s.
(a)
Ash
Now, the
the
and
{d),
it
is
not
V.
Sale of
4,
consideration
it
(e),
(6)
the
(c),
such as
writing,
in
Goods
Colliery v. Furness,
& 57
Vict.
c. 71),
45 L. J. Oh. 276
Marshall
v.
Berridge, 19
Frost,
In re (1898),
Ch. D. 238.
{d)
Wain
V.
67 L. J. Ch. 691.
(e)
Williams v. Lake, 29 L. J. Q. B. 1
Moo. P. C. N.
V.
S.
154
Williams
s. 7,
30 Vict.
c.
Co.,
v.
Williams
L. E. 20 Eq. 412.
Digitized
Byrnes, 1
v.
by Microsoft
c.
39,
and
Beer
See under
practically
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
512
by a number of
is satisfied, also,
The
(&).
statute
letters or other
if all
may
An
a
to the
letter relating
re-enacted by
s.
10 Gh. 542.
Comp. Edwards
rSo) Gray
v.
93
of this Act)
v.
L. J. Oh. 153,
Dock
V. Eastings,
Kenworthy
(c)
10 E. E. 450; Dolell
v. Powell,
Gommins
7 Ch. D. 60
way
V.
Ex. 81
v.
Bishton v.
26 E. E. 600.
40 E. E. 258
v. Hutchinson,
Crane
v.
Welford
7 Q. B. D. 125.
v. Schofield,
Shenton,
v. Victoria
17;
527, pi.
Bill v. Bament, 11 L. J.
70
v.
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
8 Ch. D.
v. Johnson,
S.).
See Bidg-
Co., sup.;
Bellamy
v.
Bristol Aerated
Bread
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Home-
Co. v. Maggs, 44
name
the
memorandum
party to the
of
A letter from
writing (a).
513
in
and
which
one from
(6),
seller,
the
setting
after
purchaser
forth
the
to
terms
its
re-
memoranda
gone very
parties
It
(c).
far in
together,
constitute
to
memorandum
becomes
what the
was, in order to determine whether
(c?).
Indeed, as
it
necessary,
contract really
it
may
against which
the statute
So although
to the
it
is
let in
is
(e).
admit of their
to
aimed
is
it
not
Gibsm
14th ed.
v.
Hollmd, L. E. 1 C. P.
Sugd. V.
1.
&
P. 139,
Hollmd, In
re
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.
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.
of sale signed
(a)
suffice (6)
who
for a
the seUer,
sells is
is
in view of
But
this proposition is
The
testator
who
it
(a) Sale v.
5 Ch. D. 660
also
Hood
V.
(b)
jper
Kay
J., Jarrett v.
Commins
(c)
v. Scott (1875;,
44 L. J. Oh. 563
Filby v. Homsell,
26
29 Car.
Lemayne
II. c. 3, s. 5, repealed, 7
v.
Stanley, 3 Lev. 1.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
end
at the
of
" subscribed"
letter,
was deemed
it,
it,
have
to
515
sufficiently
&
(a).
Co., Gentle-
them
in the letter
An
(6).
Frauds,
of
goods
(5)
of,
[1891] P. 172
Evans
v.
(d)
Bock
V.
Co.,
Streatley, in the
46 L. J. Q. B. 219; Daniels v.
24 L. J. Q. B. 171
60 L. J. P. 56.
Trefusis,
See
ex. gr.
E.
v.
Anglo-American
Hull Dock
Co., 3
Co.,
B. & G. 516
Watson, L. E. 3 Q. B. 418.
(/) Eepealed
Digitized
c.
27,
3 E.
s. 1.
by Microsoft
& B. 899;
Brunskill
516
INTBKPBETATION OP STATUTES.
authorised a parker to
kill
whom he
trespassers
(a)
^that is,
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
3 Dyer, 326b
Com. Dig.
53 Geo. III.
c.
159,
s.
1 (repealed 17
As
Digitized
of liability, see
by Microsoft
s.
633, Merchant
NEW
from
517
JDEISDICTIONS.
liability for
where the
pilot
pilot, are
was the
sole
The same
(a).
to enactments
jurisdictions, or
(b).
legis-
of the
India, an
clusive
(c).
general Order
Geo. V.
c.
and sea
& 3
31).
W. 45
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.
AUrich, 2 Q. B. D. 179.
Damodhar
v.
Beoram,
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Lloyd, 6 Ch. D.
518
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
tlie
all suits, it
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
power of enforcing
it
he
if
to a
new
trial," is exercisable
as
(a) See E. S.
C, Order
jurisdiction.
Lanman
v.
De
Martin, 5 Ch. D. 1
(c)
Eepealed
(d)
Drummond
v.
See also
v.
L. E., 1890.
S.
23 L. J. Oh. 682.
Fowler
v.
Drummond, L. E. 2 Oh. 32
Mope
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Hope,
And under
trial (a).
a power
519
to regulate the
of
if
it is
the registrar
the Court
22
(6).
&
absent at the
is
23 Vict.
c.
21,
s.
26
(c),
(d).
effect,
jurisdiction on
632 How
;
& 52
V.
Vict. c. 43,
L.
&
s.
93
Murtagh
v.
Barry, 24 Q. B. D.
new
trial
Gomp. Johnson
Pole v.
v.
Johnson,
sup. p. 152.
(6) WetheriieU v. Nelson (1869), 38 L. J. 0. P. 220.
Eepealed 44 & 45
Vict.
c.
Longmany.
59,
s. 3,
Bast, 3 0. P.
H. L. Gas. 704.
Digitized
to
and Sched.
Be, 18 Q. B. D. 393.
(e)
As
D. 142.
by Microsoft
Gomp. Hann,
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
520
ment
of a penalty, they
may
order, in default of
its
its
procedure,
3 Id. 145.
burn
Mellor J.
dubit.
C.J.,
See
London, Gh.
&
Warwick Ganal
550
West
S. E.
Ham
D. By.
Go. v.
By. Go.
v.
Go. (1877),
Toomer
v.
Birmingham Ganal
Go. (1879),
48 L. J. Ex.
Digitized
by Microsoft
521
reject it
same Sessions
lature
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.
(6)
B.
V.
B.
V.
(c)
B.
713
A.
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
291.
v. Staffordshire,
842.
(d)
39 E. E.
& B.
c.
76.
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
522
which empowered
(c),
name
the
of the
Where
trustees,
(d).
who were
authorised to borrow
v.
13 East, 143.
(6)
B.
V. Goueins,
Comp. Preece
33 L. J.
v. Pulley,
M.
0. 87
B.
v. Clifton,
2 East, 168.
s.
32,
135
(c)
E. 13 Eq. 333
See
s.
&
3 Geo.
5), for
grant
and mates.
Digitized
by Microsoft
2 L.
J.
K. B. 61.
corporate body,
523
it
to that
(&).
(a)
Payne
(6)
v.
33 L. J. Q. B. 268
Co.,
See HacUng
69 L. J. Gh.
29 L. J. Q. B. 204
v. Lee,
express
Davis, Exp., L. E.
641
Mantle
v.
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.
[1900] 1 Ch. 10
Sutlers,
Walker
v.
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,
(1902) 85 L. T. 682.
Walker, 12 Times
Nash
75 L. J.
v.
Finlay
INTERPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
524
words
it
the making
it
is
for
that Authority to
when
it
jected as bad,
whUe
the rest
may
may be
be held good
re-
(c).
own
profit,
v. Virgo,
[1896] A. 0. 88
mondsey Bioscope
(c)
A.-G.
the
Co.,
Per Lindley L.
80 L.
J.,
J.
K. B. 144.
Digitized
by Microsoft
525
them with an
reasonable manner
intention to do so in a
(a).
if
unreasonable,
it is
to be invalid
it
local
pany
to
that which
is
(b).
make by-laws
for
men
carrying merchandise on
it,
of
any boat on
Where
(c).
a charter,
72 L.
J.
K. B. 627,
mary
J.,
who
Sum-
under
s.
16 of the
Summary
s.
Jurisdiction
(1),
Act, 1879
(now
been committed.
See further,
inf.
note to p. 530.
(&)
[1904] 1 K. B.
621.
(c)
Digitized
by Microsoft
526
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
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
(a)
V.
of
Lord Hatherley
B.
V. Cuthush,
Ex. 89
16 L.
J.
iJose,
24 L. J.
J.
Ch. 325
268
M.
Dean
v.
2204
JSTorton v.
Shillito v.
&
London
See also
Croydon By.
Co.,
WUliams
v. G.
0. 130
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
Co. v. G.
& N. W.
Co.,
13 Id.
Comp. Bonner
v.
case
unless
it
527
(a).
tion from a
persons or
persons
more
or bodies
strictly,
is
Any
who
interfere shall
(a) Slattery
Patent Agents
v.
See
v.
Institute
of
JDevonport Corp. v.
they are
as
v.
Dorin (1912),
81 L. J. Ch. 225.
(6)
Ex.
gr.
2 E. E. 4
53 E. E. 128
[1901]
v.
Bathmines Improvement
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES,
528
in
whom
or those
good
of the public
Their language
(b).
they represent,
on behalf
lature
persons,
effect,
and
them
treated
therefore
is
who asked
arises
that language,
the
as to
the
maxim
construction of
them,
is
is
who uses
justly applied.
to be given to
On
Mayor of
v.
this
(c)
741; Blahemore
V.
By. Co.
448
authorities,
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.
Digitized
Browne,
v.
Cumberworth, 4 A.
v.
48 E. E. 28
P. 590
Cowp. 26
v. Croie,l
v.
Mid-Sussex By.
B.
B.
Glamorganshire Canal
Manchester By.
V. Barrett,
J.,
by Microsoft
Fenwick
529
it has been
would seem justifiable to prevent them from
having that effect (a).
said,
Even
if
light of contracts
As the
the grantee,
subject to
against
it.
(c)
so
the Legislature,
Co.,
L. E. 20 Eq. 544
Birminriham Gas
V.
By.
Co.,
Co.,
v.
granting
6 H. & N. 250
Miphins
in
v.
Furness
Co.,
L. E. 4
A.-O.
N. London By.
Gh. 522;
Altrinckam
v. Cheshire
N. Midland By.
(&)
See B.
(c)
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,
ject,
construction.
The
principle
of
strict
construction
applicable
are
is
conferred
less
on
purposes
(a)
(a).
Board (1888), 58 L.
9 C. B. 774
See Lewis
v.
Co. v. Metrop.
London (Mayor), L. E.
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.
Digitized
Bd. of Works
Weston-super-Mare Local
J. Ch. 39.
Galloway
v.
by Microsoft
CHAPTEE
SECTION
XI.
I.
EFFECT
OP USAGE.
It
is
Contemporanea expositio
optima
lege{b).
et
fortissima in
Where
this
has
is
further, the
meaning
(c).
est
it
But,
is
presumed to
or near the
at
time
when
it
Dig.
(6)
2 Inst. 11.
i.
3, 37.
See
ex. gr.
Mornington, 26 L. J. Q. B. 181.
{d)
Sup. p. 108.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
532
upon
enactment by
its
of it
It often
(b).
being of more or
this
(c).
usage
E. 380
7 East, 53
per Best,
V.
Forster,
Smith
V.
604
A.-G.
J. 0. P.
v. Jones,
v.
Bartsch,
JB. v.
374; Newcastle
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.
JB. v.
Wallis, 5 T.
;
v.
and B.
A.-G.
and
if it
Hawk.
Mashiter, 6 A.
v. A.-G.,
196, 335
per
12
01.
B.
v.
33 L. J. Ex. 249
&
& E.
P. 402;
Herford, 29
;
Marshall
v.
401.
(6)
Seeder James
(c)
B.
V.
L.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
laid it
down
rule,
in a case of a breach
if
the enjoyment
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.
c. 10, for
instance,
most
legal
Dunbar
v.
1 E. E. 375
1
H. & N. 53
are not
Lord Brougham,
per Grose
who
J.,
B.
v.
Hardmcke
Urban
Council
and see Esher
v. Marks
v.
(1856),
(1902),
71 L. J. K. B. 309.
(6)
Digitized
v. Bristol, 2 Jac.
by Microsoft
& W.
Hogg,
321,
INTEEPEKTATION OF STATUTES.
534
if
and
to one year,
Queen
when brought
was
silent as to actions
it
(e).
Though 15
Eich.
II.
enacted that
made
contracts
(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)
(e)
Dyer
v.
(/) Smith
c.
V. Tilly, 1
48,
s.
36.
Keb. 712.
As
to relief
and repatriation
of distressed
c.
43,
Digitized
by Microsoft
USAGE.
Common Law
said
is
easier
Courts
535
on the ground,
{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
Lord Campbell
being clear,
we should not be
justified in differing
by oontemThere would
it
if it
could be
uniform
Act
interpretation
affecting property
of
(c).
If
we
find a
statute materially
The
principle
of construction
(d).
would seem to
Edward VI.
(1549)
(a)
(6)
In B.
(c)
Gorham
Hebbert
{d)
v.
V. Essex,
v.
4 T. E. 594.
v. JExeter (Bp.),
15 Q. B. 73.
Pwrchas, L. E. 3 P. 0. 650.
v.
Grawshay, L. E. 5 H. L.
304, 320.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
536
&
Edw. VI.
and substituted
c.
1,
surplices.
These
last dresses
were
Book
&
14 Car.
II. c.
(which
continued
alone
centuries.
When
to
be
(a)
worn
for
nearly
two
wording; Eebhert
at p. 64:3
(6)
other
See sup.
Bidsdale
members
v.
v.
p. 50.
Glifton,
2 P. D. 276
See
letter to
Digitized
by Microsoft
Lord
537
USAGE.
upon
'
Will IV.
c.
was construed
or Middlesex,
judge to try;
other
of
practice
to authorise a single
,
superior
criminal
of
Clifton, 2 P.
v.
Purchas
s.
(6)
8 Anne,
60,
(c)
Cox
V.
c.
14,
s.
1, restricted
c. 37, s.
18
by 51 & 52
(2).
Digitized
by Microsoft
Viot.
c.
43,
538
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
When
the question
(a).
arose
whether a person
25, 11
&
12 Vict.
c.
convicting justice, in
second offence
first),
analogous enactment in 7
&
G-eo.
IV.
c.
on the
28, but
(6).
(c),
have 'been
Glow
V.
v.
4 Q. B. 394.
B., L. E.
B.
(Duke)
V.
V.
v.
Gutbush, L. E. 2 Q. B. 379.
distinguished in Becker v.
iV. British.
&
In B.
V.
Bewdley, 1 P.
Digitized
Wms.
considered and
(1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 1813.
(c)
Gomp., however,
223.
by Microsoft
USAGE.
539
was held
is,
which was
their use
(b).
contract by the
Crown
(c).
538
of
may
R.
e.g.
v.
modern Act, and I adopt Lord Watson's statement in Clyde Navigation v. Laird {d), as the
a
396
per
was
said
this,
v.
v.
'
L.J.,
Ford and
Hill,
Be
When
Oldinow, 3
James
Wyatt
CI.
&
(e).
there
M. &
S.
F. 173
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.
are
may
to
be legitimate to refer
its
own
controversy,
which
taken
terms,
and
not
interested
'
"
when
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
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)
786, at p. 800.
gation
(6)
61 L.
(c)
J.
B.
v.
Q. B. 265.
V. Saltren, Cald. 444.
Digitized
by Microsoft
541
SECTION
When
II.
CONSTRUCTION
(a).
IMPOSED BY STATUTES.
Thus, as
s.
securities given
to creditors, as a
c. 16,
by a bankrupt
&
6 WiU. IV.
41, to have
c.
had the
effect
,Q. B. 35.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEBPEETATION OP STATDTES,
542
0.
mean
cart
by 43 Geo.
"Where
III. o.
(6).
is
it
161
would
meaning
(c).
may
It
ture
its
is
Therefore,
law(rf).
when
the words
made
part
new
of,
of
an old
by reference
interpretation
the Courts
(e).
Hampton
(a) Ooldsmid v.
(1858), 27 L. J. C. P. 286.
For
in
4 & 5 Geo. V.
26
(3) ().
(h)
c.
59,
s.
M.
Smith, 28 L. J.
G. 150.
J. G. P.
&
0. 454,
113.
(c)
B.
V.
Smith, 4 T. E. 419
Morris v. Mellin, 6 B.
sup. p. 378.
{d)
Kent
Per James
Oreaves
v.
G.
Tofield,
14 Gh. D. 571
As
Leamington (Mayor"), 8
Wallond, 52 L. J Q. B. 322
189.
v.
Jay
per
B. D. 453, and in
Mathew
v. Johnstone,
Digitized
by Microsoft
J.,
Clarh
v.
[1893] 1 Q. B. 25
543
had been
put on them
judicially
and unless
new
statute
was (a).
that
to be construed as the
is
One
reason,
instance,
for
old
one
holding
for
s,
grounds. Order
r.
11
(c),
XXXI.
On similar
(b).
copied
And
it
by
s.
Mersey Docks
Go.,
L. E. 5 Oh. 706
per Blackburn
Jones v.
v.
Bank
J., St.
v.
v.
Teal, 15
Losky
v. Green,
9 C. B. N. S.
(6)
Per Turner
(c)
Now
E. S. C, Ord.
XXXI.
r.
14,
which
see.
J.,
Awry
L.J., Colonial
See also
C. 4
M.
11 H. L. Gas. 480
Anderson
was
liability afforded
370.
it
(d).
Bank
See also
Digitized
by Microsoft
544
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
may
But an Act
c.
(b).
is
I.
c.
12,
opinion
which
The Oscar
5 & 6 Vict.
c.
35,
Pemsel, 61 L. J. Q. B. 265
(c)
See ex.
gr.
61
s.
;
Inl.
per Ashurst
Bev.
J.,
v. Scott,
Bore
v.
v.
68 L. J. Q. B. 432.
Gray, 1 R. R. 494
Pitman
v.
Maddox, 2
Salk.
690.
Ghray, sup.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See also
Bore
v.
A STATUTE.
IN
545
it (6).
M.
An Act which
in the
&
provided
should be paid
(c).
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)
(c)
o.
(e).
Earlier bankrupt
& 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
Wandsworth Bd. of
Vict. c. 21,
Bolls v. St.
35
1.8.
Digitized
by Microsoft
546
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
Acts, in
privilege of
Parliament
liable
to
be
from arrest
but
enacted that
all
when
ruptcy, without
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
manor had
the manor
whom
it
in the tenants,
among
they allotted
[1896] A. C. 434
District Council,
L. E. 4 H. L. 661.
(1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 290.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Sowerby
v.
^mitl
547
The 7
&
8 Vict.
c.
29,
(a).
9 G-eo. IV.
lawfully seeking
game (b).
was already and more widely the law, have occasionally furnished ground for the contention that
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.
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,
alterius.
cases.
draw from
such
provisions
superfluous
(which
meet unfounded
was
it
of excessive caution
and
if
it
to be, the
it
has been
said,
ence
and any
its
exist-
founded on such
legislation
ment
Per
Digitized
by Microsoft
B. N. S.
1.
to
the question
adversely to corporations
in
(a).
cases
other
all
549
Act which,
the maintenance of
expressly exempted
local
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).
it
that
is limit,
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
Bank
v.
London (Mayor), 1 0. P. D. 17
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
Digitized
s.
0. 81.
Westover v. Perkins, 28 L. J.
E. E. 358.
J.
c.
Bank
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
550
latter,
the restrictive
i.e.
mode
true
of
regarding
such purposes
(a).
mere
recital in
unless, indeed,
it
be
as
(b),
recited.
If,
for
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
is
615
" by English
&
India Docks,
Brovm, [1897] A. 0.
v.
66 L. J. Q. B. 672.
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.
if
offender," be understood as
551
making
so important
In
all
and to make
effect,
it
as it
was alleged
to be.
A different
it
is
is
When
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)
(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.
Christian,"
the
of
abjuration
oath were
when
them
ex
officio (a).
courts, as
if
district
jurisdiction.
plainly
it,
this effect
circuit
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)
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.
said,
is
The
(b).
provision that
when
goods
e.g.
B.
v.
381b
(d).
Hulme
;
(1870), L. E. 5 Q. B. 377.
2 Inst. 590.
(d) 51
c.
34,
s.
& 52
18
(2),
Vict. c. 43,
s.
D. 633.
Gomp. Beard
Sughes
v. Knight,
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
27 L.
Smallwood, 25
J.
Q. B. 359
554
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
any
loss incurred in
him by the
rules,
ment
of rates
as
with
dispensed
Eepresentation
under
of
the
the
provisions
People
all
Act,
the
of
1918.
parliamentary
is
may
tax,
which
it
would be
engage
A statutory authority to abate nuisances would not justify an order to abate one
to pay(c).
when
it
a trespass
{d).
(a) Cullerne v.
(6)
B.
Bruyeres
V.
v.
Windsor (Mayor), 13 L.
v.
J.
Q. B. 525.
Q. B. 337.
See also
Board
J.
Harrmv Gas
11 Bast, 165.
Co.,
L. E. 10 Q. B. 92
& B. 28.
(d) PubHc Health
Owen
v.
Body,
5 A.
(Mayor)
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
WOEDS CONSTRUED
BONAM PAETEM.
IN
555
orders
his duties,"
>of
like the
is,
bound
(a),
to
his
the board
act, if
h|,d
no
jurisdiction to
(repealed,
ss.
Sec. 199,
267, 268,
1908),
Com-
providing for
members not
may
be lawfully formed
unless
registered
But
(c).
money
properly
is
(d).
are
each
used,
may
Parier
v. Inge,
v. Sliepherd,
[1901] 2 K. B. 274.
(a) Long
(6) Mill
v.
V. HawJcer,
11 C. B. 434.
(c)
Padstow
dec.
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
mon
no
required,
is
always to
call
safer rule
(b).
when
precision
name (c).
(a) See
ex.
gr.
the
distinction
between
c.
33), s.
Act, 1911)
Moul
v. Groenings,
v.
(6)
v.
gaming
between
contract,
Beeve, 62
Mayer, 70 L. J. K. B. 145.
Brighton Guardians
Copyright
II.,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 443
and
Windus, 12 Q. B. D.
v.
229.
(c)
and Eeas. in
Polit., vol.
i.
p. 91.
Poor
Law
Gommrs., 6 A.
Be
B.
v.
Kirkstall
and
of
Digitized
by Microsoft
Baggallay L.J. in
TAUTOLOGOUS EXPRESSIONS.
557
meaning
if
possible
if
rule, a
looked at to
there used
fix
is
(a).
is
not of
much
weight.
(b).
v.
Ch. D. 142.
(6)
See U.
S. v.
Digitized
See also B.
cited, sup. p.
by Microsoft
v.
262
Lewis
et seq.
INTEEPRBTATION OP STATUTES.
558
is
in respect of
by him
1899
So, the
(c).
The
case of Forth v.
Chapnan
{d)
furnishes a
(a)
L. J.
said to
(31
& 32
Vict. c.
So " otherwise"
121).
Women's Property
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.
;
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-
by Microsoft
VAEIATION OP INTBRPEETATION.
559
which
appHed
it
was
illustra-
ratione probatur,
Common Law
by the
when
value besides,
if
Wm.
and gave an
recover them, and treble
E. E. 675.
c.
26,
s.
29
3 Oh. 242.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Wingfield, 9
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
560
might
in the latter
it
be construed strictly
interpreter
is
{a).
ground
words on the
of
supposed
general
{h).
while
fore
is
as
a general rule
(c)
the
and as
later
by implication
A.
{d).
Where
W.
{a)
Bones
(fe)
& B.
(c)
v. Booth,
Bl. 1226.
v.
v.
Great Bolton, 8 B.
56, at p. 68.
a limited interpretation
H. L. 207.
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
C. 74
VARIA.TION OF INTERPRETATION.
561
is
common
And
(6).
it
up
(c).
c.
74
(cZ),
Clarke, 8
App.
Where one
section of 35
29 & 30 Vict.
36 Vict.
[1893] 1 Q. B. 77.
&
c.
19,
s.
c.
63,
s.
Bradlaugh,
v.
Gas. 354.
(c)
53
& 54
Vict.
15
repealed 8
Bdw. VII.
c.
59,
Share Auction
(d)
&
c.
63,
s. 1,
which
see.
36
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
562
who was
ignorant
of
adulteration;
the
since,
all
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
p..
See
v. Egertvn,
287.
VAEIATION OF INTERPRETATION.
person
for
563
upon
(a)
would be construed as
land,
limiting,
by
land,
if
(a)
it
Baker
v. Berkeley,
2 Marsh. 582.
(&)
see
B.
Bead
(c)
V.
v.
3 0.
Edwards, 84 L.
J. 0.
Co.,
38 L.
J.
Dimmock
M.
Steam Nav.
Getil.
v. Allenby, cited
But
P. 31.
Steam Nav.
p. 492.
Pratt (1855), 24 L. J.
{d)
& P. 32
for a year,
v.
Maisey,
Co. v. Brit.
Colon.
Ex. 97.
e.
57)
s.
1,
which section
Digitized
by Microsoft
is
itself
INTEEPRETATION OF STATUTES.
564
by the Legislature
(b).
much
seems entitled to
less
(a)
B.
B. & 0. 578; B.
v.
Great Bolton,
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
[1891] 2 Q. B. 705.
Digitized
As
to
565
VARIATION OF LANGUAGE.
may have been the promany minds and that this may better
consideration that
duction of
it
which
is
Even where
intention.
different
dicative of a change
is
change
the
statutes,
of intention.
no difference
"river" in
ss.
often
is
between
27, 28, 24
&
not in-
Thus there
and
25:,Vict. c. 109(a);
1839 (2
&
3 Vict.
c.
Eudston
V.
Midland By.
discussed in Macrow
(c)
9 Geo. IV.
Licensing
c.
v.
61
Co. ClSeg), 38 L. J. Q. B.
213
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
&
definition in 6
carriage,
7 Vict.
c.
86,
hackney
of a
2,
s.
"any
public place,"
is
&
earlier Act, 1
identical in
2 Will. IV.
it
tion of language
(c).
An Act which
shall
it
and may
of the
& 6
Will. IV.
c.
IV.
of 3 G-eo.
50
(s.
74 of which
M.
c.
is
e.
(e).
So,
made
39,
s.
25).
See
C. 179.
Usher, L. E. 7 Q. B. 423.
v.
See ex.
gr.
B.
v.
M. C. 192
Jarman,
25 Geo. III.
which Act
is
c.
Montague
v.
See
120,
s. 1,
Haldane
v.
Smith, 21 L. J. Q. B.
Digitized
c.
ex. gr.
by Microsoft
VARIATION OF LANGUAGE,
567
if
but
Sec. 137,
Bankrupt
Law
(ft),
who
though
all
the other
AU
of them,
subject.
B. &
C. 500, diss.
L.
M. & P.
B.
V. Tone, 1
437.
Parke
and Eolfe
(b)
Eepealed 32 & 33
Bryan
v.
B.,
v. Veitch,
Bryan
v. Ghild,
L. E. 4 Q. B. 649
1
;
(e)
Gowan
J.
v.
Vict. c. 83,
Child (1850), 1 L.
s.
20.
M. &
P. 429
Digitized
by Microsoft
discussed in
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
568
Where under
Bankruptcy
Act, 1883, that such settlements should be "void"
as against the trustee was construed as also merely
voidable only, the enactment in
s.
47,
and the
were unnecessary.
manner
means
of death
it
(6)),
did ex vi
and a sub-
it
unnecessary
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
So, the
Merchant
an
which
declared
that
a transfer
not registered
&
9 Vict.
c.
Borough Bank
(6) Liverpool
also Ballhyany v.
Merchant Shipping
(c)
Bond
V.
J. Q. B. 421,
and
S. 298.
ss.
See
24-26,
Act, 1894.
C.B.N.
30 L. J. Ch. 379.
v. Turner,
Bouch (1881), 50 L.
per Byles
J.,
Parher
v.
Tidey v. Mollett, 16
v. Johnson,
Digitized
55 L.
J.
by Microsoft
Q. B. 220.
570
INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.
although
the
if
the commissioners
who had
contemptuously
It has, indeed,
(ffl)
78.
See also
Cojpeland, Exp.,
similar omission in
(6)
B.
C. P. 137
V.
(b).
V.
;
s.
1 of
See Earn
22 L.
J.
v. Ion,
Bank. 17
4 B.
& Ad.
and note a
See Duncan
De
v.
22 L.
by Microsoft
J.
McCalmont
sup. p. 445.
Digitized
v. Tindal,
Q. M. & G. 349
See
571
struction, notwithstanding
(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
WOEDS UNDEESTOOD
IN
COMMON SENSE.
When
I. Go.,
24 E. E. 325, referring to
(c)
2 Hale, 365
(d)
sup. p. 467.
v.
McLaeUan, L. E. 4 P.
Digitized
by Microsoft
C. 543.
572
INTEBPKETATTON OF STATUTES.
its
buildings standing
upon
it,
is
evidently used as
(a)
B.
V.
2 East, P. C. 616
Cook,
B.
v.
Loom, 1 Moo.
C. C. 160.
(6)
See
ex. gr.
Bewhurst
v. Feilden,
Blackburn
(c)
B.
V.
J. in
B.
v.
66 E. E. 696
Peio
v.
Midland By.
[1897] 1 Q. B. 650.
(c^)
Lead Smelting
Sedgley, 2 B.
V.
& Ad. 65
B.
v.
Thursby
Water Co.
v.
Hampton Urban
Digitized
1341
Comj>.
B.
v.
Morgan
v. Briercliffe,
Smithwark dc.
by Microsoft
mention
of one kind of
573
per-
that
is,
corporations
(a),
c.
II. c. 36(c).
misapplied
argument
in
maxim, occasionally
expressio
(d),
unius
est
1241
3 0. P. D. 377
St.
Leonards
As
1 Q. B. D. 404
v.
(6)
(c)
Eepealed except
s.
5 (in part) 51
Provincial
to foreign corporations,
Scott v. Boyal Wax
Braham, 2 App. Gas. 381.
v. Franklin,
&
& 52
Vict. c. 42, s. 13
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,
to a sense analogous
expression,
to the
instance,
for
restricted
is
The
less general.
of
resort,"
would have
it
27
c.
if
(a).
(b))
something contribut-
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
An
(c).
44
v. Usher,
41
M. &
P.
2 L.
Eippins, Exp., 66
L. J. Q. B. 95.
(&) Sec.
(c)
L. J.
15
Muir
M.
V.
G. 252
Howes
v. Ird. Bev.,
45 L. J.
M.
197
c.
Terry
v.
gr.
See B.
v.
Oram, 31
C. 86
by Microsoft
46 Id.
Tucker, 46 L. J.
Digitized
v.
M.
0. 173
M.
;
0.
Beid
575
(6).
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.
(a) 37
(6)
(c)
s.' 4,
0.
Now
sup. p. 511,
Act, 1889, 52
& 53
c.
71,
Vict.
45.
C. P. 18
Siggers,
(e)
Humble
v.-
Mitchell,
9 L. J. Q. B. 29
Heseltine v.
18 L. J. Ex. 166.
Freeman
v.
See, however,
Digitized
by Microsoft
fore-
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
576
transfer "
'
not
include
custody
an act
delivery
of
to
bailee
for
safe
(c).
mean income
latter word
was held
of
salary,
to
of the nature
(d),
or the
much
so
(e)
or earnings of ^
(a) Eepealed 32
(6) Gomp. 4
(c) Cotton V.
Isitt V.
James (1830), 35 R. E.
(d) 32
& 33
Vict. c. 71,
244;;
s.
Re Graydon, [1896]
51
s.
90
(2))
(as
to
existing
Law, see
B.
Shine, Exp., 61 L. J. Q.
1 Q. B. 417.
56 L. T. 498.
8 L. J. K. B. 345
579.
Digitized
by Microsoft
577
professional
however,
which
&
(5
disqualifies
Wm.
IV.
c.
for
76,
the
s,
municipal
9), is
franchise
confined to other
associated
(d).
1 Q. B. 425.
In
(6) Boberts,
(1899), 69 L.
(c)
B.
re,
J. Q.
V. Lichfield,
C. P. D. 26,
and
273,
B. 19.
2 Q. B. 693.
117
Garter, 2
v.
collected therein.
10 Q. B. D. 432.
See Harrison
See Johnson
4 T. E. 783.
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
this should
common
"
right of
common and
profit
d prendre which
Bank
W.By.
v. Wilson, 3
Co., Id.
(a) 20
& 21
121
and
benefit,
Ex. D. 108
is,
Woodward
v.
London
&
N.
Viet. c. cxlvii.
(1859), 28 L. J. 0. P. 285
s.
53
Kearns
v.
discussed in Lyon
Gordwainers
v.
Co.,
Fishmongers Co.
42)
&
3 Will. IV.
Shuttleworth v.
c.
Le Fleming, 34 L.
Digitized
J. C. P. 309.
by Microsoft
c.
579
recreation,
made
it
is,
And
(c).
that
a statutory
same
is
not
solid
(a)
v.
0. B. N. S. 268
which
v. Bird,
10
13 Id. 841.
V.
IV.
c.
Scmders (1839), 9 C.
Slate Go., 56 L. J.
s.
See Webb
c.
95,
see).
B.
(e)
& 8 Geo.
(6)
(h).
& 2
(e)
5,
and
c.
M.
Vict. c.
77,
s.
&
23
P. 79.
(2)
0. 21.
110 (as to
s.
14, see
57 & 58 Vict.
c. 16,
Sched.).
s.
(A)
51
Be
(2).
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
agent
it
Sec.
(a).
owner
is
port, for
On
(b).
spawn
of fish
Minor
Shields v.
M. B. E.
(fc)
v.
indicates
London
&
that
N. W. By.
Bait, 18 L. J. G. P. 120.
Go.,
26 L. J. G. P. 39
Oomp.
111.
Digitized
by Microsoft
is
Be
Norris,
581
is
in an Act which
And
kill
"
fish
anything suspected of
away
upon a
3 Jao.
(o)
rock,
I.
12 (repealed
c.
& 25
off
Viet. e. 109,
in
39)
s.
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.
c.
32,
s.
1)
&
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
s.
v. Bethell (1883),
this section is
and
139,
c.
v. Strugnell (1865),
Hadley
v.
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
582
This rule
was applied
Act, 1 Vict.
(a).
c.
85,
which made
it
wound "
in the
to
consideration
(a)
without pecuniary
{e).
De Londo's Case
2 B.
&
C. 875
Digitized
by Microsoft
v. Attersoll,
SECTION V.
GENERIC
583
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
illustration
{b).
liberty to
for
Per
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
584
its
Thus
s.
mentioned
and
different description.
workman,
labourer, or other
shaU
or
do
person whatsoever,
exercise
or
to
followers
(a)
(6)
of callings
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.
v. Dickin,
4 L. J. Ex. 28.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
Silvester,
33
585
vants in husbandry,
handicraftsmen,"
artificers,
(b),
man employed
or a
in the
abstract they
may
(c)
to take
though
for
Kitchen
v.
L. J. M. C. 138
V.
& 39
Vict. c. 86,
s.
17.
Dmies
v. Berwick,
Co.,
30 L.
J.
13 Q. B. D. 842.
M.
C. 84
v.
Morgan,
Lawrence,
18 Q. B. D. 683.
(c)
Branwell
v.
Pennech, 7 B.
(d) iow<Aerv.i?ador,
8, East,
&
C. 536.
v. Greaves,
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
586
it
surveyor
that
having an
is,
duty
official
An
{a).
is
riding,
division,"
And
(i).
75,
s.
own
him for
is
As
31 Oh. D. 638.
to the existmg
57 & 58 Vict.
coxiii.
c.
and Sched. As
10,
B.
24 & 25 Vict.
(c)
and see
c.
10
517
B.
B.
V.
V.
216 of
So much of
s. 9.
by 8 Edw. VII. c. 15,
83,
s. 3,
Costs in Criminal
v.
c.
96,
s.
s.
Portugal, 16 Q. B. D. 487
Kane, 70 L.
J.
v.
Waterloo
as to continuance of provisions in
(6)
v.
preceding
(c).
Comp. Newton
(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.
587
on unqualified
lighter, or other
include,
under the
last
The Distress
19), which by
for
II.
0.
land,
are of
(a)
L. J.
(d).
17 Vict.
c.
s.
Be
& B.
788.
J. Q.
B. 137.
(c)
Willis V.
Thorp, 44 L.
(d)
Clark
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
62 of
137 (partly
StoeJe-
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
588
vegetable
fruit, or
An Act which
(a).
last general
money (&).
under the
to include,
latter words,
any obstruction
(c).
establish-
horses, or animals of
boiler, or other
offensive business,
or
trade,
boiler,
noxious or
manufacture," was
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.
0. 50, rectified by 36
15 Cox C. C.
3.
24 L. T. 608.
(c)
B.
V.
Dickenson, 26 L. J.
Digitized
M.
0. 204.
by Microsoft
v.
& 37
Comp.
Thomas,
589
reacli
A fishing
mesh
(6).
not
is
strokehall, snatch,
gaff,
or
salmon
"(c).
A bill of sale,
house, of
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
& 12
Vict.
c.
63,
s.
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
L. J. Ch. 393.
24 & 25 Vict.
18
by 38 & 39
C. 135.
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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Discussed in
590
And
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
the rules of an industrial society, established
profits
for educational
capital, reserve
(a).
the
in
term,
latter
tioned, are of
contribute
the beneficial
to
v. Phillips,
(a)
817.
Warhurton
As
Ir. E., at p.
159
Bridgeman
v.
v.
9.
to obligatory Eules
Vict. c. 39,
c.
The words
(c).
Fitzgerald,
1008.
[1904] 1
50 L. J. Oh.
and
occupation of the
utility,
10,
s.
(6)
&
64,
s.
47,
(c)
Powell
and Sched.
3 Will. rV.
c.
45,
II.
s.
27, repealed
by 7 & 8 Geo. V.
see.
Chapman
v.
Digitized
Chapman, 4
See also
Gomp. Hodgson
Id. 800.
by Microsoft
v. Jex,
591
common,
[1893] A. G. 416; B.
&
v. Neville,
15 L. J. M. G. 33.
46.
(6)
(c)
3 Vict.
c.
Simpson (1865), 34
47,
s.
L. J.
M.
Digitized
M.
by Microsoft
G. 249
Bay
v.
592
INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.
company passes a
the
or its
or
(6).
(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
V.
&
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.
L. J. Ch. 564
B.
v.
B. 958.
Steam
Gomp. B.
Ch. 662
;
Stephens
Symington,
Digitized
47 L.
by Microsoft
J.
Ch. 735.
593
show that
ideas
to
be
to
must be given
construed
generally,
effect
Upon
this
the object of
s.
(repealed,
s.
and Trade
which
it
restricted to threats
by measures ejusdem
generis
absolutely to
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,
Go.,
proceedings, see
[1915]
W. N.
340.
38
LS.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.
594
Health Act,
a
penalty
which
imposed
for
making
1848(6),
any " sewer, drain, privy, 'cesspool, ashpit, buildsequent passage
{a).
houses
And where
(c).
a special
Act passed
in
cabash,
chair,
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.
&
39 Vict.
c.
55,
Kingston (1865), 35
s.
L. J.
Harris, 35 L. J. 0. P. 101.
Digitized
by Microsoft
M.
0.
36.
3.
See
595
(a).
prepare a standard
or valuations, to
make
official,
(b).
Carman
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
Where they
article
any manner
or thing
facilitate
(a).
the
last general
fore, as referring to
The general
other genera.
17 Geo. III.
meaning by
c.
56,
stolen materials
s.
its
word
shall not be
predecessors.
Thus,
used
in
certain
manufactures
was in consequence
difficult,
proceeded
B.
V.
Payne, 35 L.
J.
M.
C. 170.
Thompson, 1 Q. B. D. 12.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
597
warehouse would probably not be usually considered as ejusdem generis with a " dwelling-house,"
coupled with
it
&
Wm.
IV.
c.
6 E.
V.
& B.
363.
See Lowiher
Digitized
v.
v.
Spratley,
by Microsoft
598
INTBRPRETATION OP STATUTES.
instructive examples of
above-mentioned
the application of
rules, as to
the
of
them
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.
and
any deposit made
The Exchequer
man who
habitually resorted
there
made
bets,
34 L.
J. C. P. 159.
Digitized
by Microsoft
See also
599
public,
went
"wer.e
held,
most of
whom
enclosure, the
enclosure so
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
and in another
case, a man who carried on the same business,
standing on a stool sheltered under a large um(b)
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
Digitized
by Microsoft
in
See similar
INTEEPEETATION OF STATUTES,
600
within
s.
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
to
if
Thus,
s.
3,
13 Eliz.
Kempton Bacecourse
L. J.
M.
Co.,
72 L.
Humphreys, 67 L. J. Q. B. 534
892
M.
sup. p. 599
Brown
v.
K. B. 21
B.
Tromans
0. 47
(a)
Taylor v. Smetten, 52 L. J.
Lennox
v.
be noted that
repealed by
s.
See
M.
M.
v.
v.
the
Gaming
Act, 1892.
Stoddart.
Digitized
v.
Eodhinson,
Archer, 52 L. J.
C. 101.
1 of
B.
also, in con-
Patch, [1899] 1 Q. B.
by Microsoft
is
It should
not impliedly
See Lennox
v.
WORDS OP RANK
IN DESCENDING ORDER.
any
spiritual
or ecclesiastical living,"
include bishops
601
does not
{a).
III.,
because,
among
sumed
than
(b).
It
may
is
of a
be pre-
the
generic
To avoid
would
its
the general
precious metals
(d).
The 22 & 23
the lords
Car. II.
"
manors
of
c.
(b)
(c)
2 Inst. 137.
{d) Casher v.
(e)
2 Eep. 46b.
Eepealed by 1 & 2
Digitized
s. 1.
by Microsoft
J.
v.
INTBEPRBTATION OF 'STATUTES.
602
whether the
rivers specified
of descending importance.
which punished
cruelty to
It was, indeed,
to include a bull
(c).
II.
"
6(c?),
much
viz,,
Doug. 28.
v.
2 Inst. 478.
(c)
3 Geo. rv.
Car.
&
(d)
c.
P. 225.
Digitized
c.
27,
s.
1.
by Microsoft
WORDS OP RANK
IN DESCENDING ORDER.
may be,
603
perhaps,
42
(c),
which authorises
But 11
(&).
&
12 Vict.
of a
County
SECTION
(d).
VI.
may
(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)
Digitized
by Microsoft
and
2.
604
INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
Unless
contrary
the
appears,
intention
in
tenements, and hereditaments, houses, and buildings of any tenure the words " oath," " swear,"
;
affirming
days
(d).
mean
(unless
is
it
(a) Mouselly. L.
&
otherwise
N. W. By.
See Morgan
Co.,
&
52
specifically stated)
53 Vict.
34 L.
Barlow
J.
Oh. 165
v. Teal,
54 L.
e.
Davies, 3 C. P. D. 260.
v.
See, however,
Sogers
v.
Hull Dock
63, ss. 1, 3, 4.
Q. B. 400.
6 Eep. 61b
Digitized
by Microsoft
COMPUTATION OF TIME.
605
and justice.
The general
anciently, seems to have been that both terms
tions of convenience
rule,
was involved
but
when
a penalty or
in non-compliance with
(c).
distinction
was
ran,
when he was
notice of action,
it
or received
as
arrested,
but not
(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.
c.
and
(d)
Parke
Per
B.,
Sir
W.
Young
v.
387
Digitized
M. & W. 53 Newman
;
by Microsoft
v.
per
HardwicJce,
INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.
606
of
laid
down
that
when
to a person is included
.to
bring
it
has
is
The
it
3 Nev.
months
&
Staffordshire
Tramways
Co. v.
The
applied Migotti
v.
Gohill (1878), 48 L. J.
M.
C. 48.
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.
Digitized
M.
J.
B.
233
C. 123.
v. Price, 8
Moo. P.
v.
C. 203
by Microsoft
COMPUTATION OP TIME.
the Royal
company power
after
on August
assent
607
gave a
1899,
9,
to take lands,
1902
9,
it
was held
being
it
now
within which an
act
is
is
to be
(6),
or so
excluded (a).
when
Again,
many
so
many
(c)
day
is
In other
((^).
to exclude the
In order to
(e).
cases,
first
satisfy
would seem,
it
the provision of
last
s.
1,
B.
Herefordshire Jus., 3 B.
V.
See Walker
6 Jur. 537.
11
ffHara
(c)
&
Aid. 681
Crystal Palace
Liffin v. Pitcher,
Gas
60
Co.,
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.
Oh. D. 204
K. B. 606
(e)
Emmerson
[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
Digitized
Bobinson
43 Sc. L. E. 291.
25th
p. 66,
61 L.
v. JaeHson,
by Microsoft
in
computation
INTERPRETATION OF STATnTBS.
608
it is
When
An
it (b):
time,
(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,
Comp. Exp.
C. 533
Fox, 16 Q. B.
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
v.
But see E.
(c).
Be
(a)
B.
was over,
tit.
"
Sillence,
Tennant
47
v. Bell,
D. 667.
See
Immediately."
(c)
Digitized' by
Microsoft
COMPUTATION OF TIME.
If the
statute
periodically
some
require
and
609
act
be done
to
once in a certain
recurrently
down
It used to be laid
for
the uncertainty,
which
always the
is
(c)
such as a judgment,
v.
and in
is
at the first
Gomp. B.
v.
Berks, 4 Q. B. D. 469.
Virginia
(a)
& Maryland
St.
Nav. Co.
bell's
43 Geo.
(6)
III.
c.
84,
repealed
restrictions as to non-residence
Cathcart v.
(c)
v. V. S.,
and re-enacted
by 1 & 2
Vict.
c.
106,
S. 534.
39
i.s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
with
s.
32
610
IJTTBEPBBTATION OF STATUTES.
moment
day
of the
But
(a).
though in form
which,
parties, the
ever
it is
happened
first
(b).
goods
sheriff seized
(c).
declaration, or the
delivered
or
bill,
person
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,
23 L. J. Ex. 42
(c)
limited
Eep. 93b
(e).
B. 264.
Edwards (1853),
M.
Clarice v.
G. 48
J. G. P.
281
Tomlinson
v.
Bradlaugh, 8 Q. B. D. 63.
p. 739, inf.
Campbell
v.
and per
Strangeways, 3 C. P. D. 107.
Giles V.
v.
James (1874), 43 L.
(1878), 48 L. J.
D. 230
Strangeways, 8 G. P. D. 107
per Gut., B.
v.
is less
Per Grove
title of
223.
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).
Monday were
could
not be entered
Sundays
includes
into
too
last day,
and they
then
" Daily
(b).
(c).
expressly excludes
for
continuing
act,
ment, dates, in
allowed
the computation of
bringing
for
it,
(&)
its
C, Ord. LXIV.,
(a) R. S.
an
action
time
the
respect
in
termination
(e).
of
So,
2.
r.
M.
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
C.
Ghaytor, 32
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
every day
(a).
and this is
and most usual road or way (b)
undoubtedly the popular manner of measuring
;
them
But
(c).
it
of
be a carriage-way,
or a bridle-path, or a footpath ?
mode
if
distance
way were
If the
in a straight line
on a horizontal plane
(e)
indeed,
Welsh
(a)
V.
(d)
V.
28 L.
Hawk.
Comp. 23 L.
54.
8 Q. B. D. 603
J. C. P.
144 n.
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.
Stokes v.
Saffron Walden, 15 L. J.
Troke, 1 Q. B. D.
(e)
v. Schmidt,
Per Coleridge
Grissell,
B.
Ham
(6) 1
(c)
West
Bumball
c.
63,
Butler,
As
v. Oole,
s.
34.
5 E.
to the general
42 L. J. Ex.
Digitized
8.
by Microsoft
DISTANCESPARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS.
618
(a),
and the
summary
conviction
(6).
construed
including
as
references
to
printing,
lithography, photography,
An
offence
made
(d).
ment
(o)
but
member,"
when
the judg-
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
K. B. 82.
s.
(1).
1 Hawk. 305.
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
614
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
at the
and goods,
the offence
is
punishment,
(a).
When
the subject of
distinct
a misdemeanour only
it is
is
viction of a
((Z),
wrongful detention
or
dispossession;
in
which
wronged
(y).
391
3 Inst. 145.
80 L.
;
J.
K. B. 809.
comp. 11
& 12
Vict. c. 43,
Digitized
by Microsoft
s.
25.
CHAPTEE XIL
SECTION
I.
IMPLIED
ENACTMENTS
NECESSAEY
what intentions
the Legislature, where it
are to be attributed to
has expressed none, on questions necessarily arising
out of
its
enactments.
(p. 148),
the Legis-
all
maintain works,
it
(a).
[1894]
A. C, 243.
(&)
9 Geo.
Geo. IV.
c.
27,
I.
s.
c.
1.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
616
and
it
would make
it
it
inferior
Court
subject
tries it
as a
to
it
See also B.
(b)
v.
v.
p.
2075.
524.
(c)
20 Hen. III.
(d)
Boe
V. Jones,
d.
Bidden
24 L.
J.
Shaw
v.
v. Gwinnell,
10 L.
J. Q.
Ch. 123.
Digitized
by Microsoft
B. 212
Powdrell
made
a corporation
When
(a).
a local authority
of
although
to
designa-
its collective
The right
"inspect" and "peruse" a
not incorporated
shareholders
it
to
(6).
it
made
affairs,
relative to his
346
Comp. Williams
v.
&
Ash, 10 B.
v.
(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.
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
[1908]
mode
is
of
obtaining
See also
E. 27 (18)
Ord. LXV., E.
S.
Digitized
C, 1883.
by Microsoft
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
618
quently admissible
.in
in criminal proceedings.
have been, in
effect, to
tion, of suspending,
regards
as
statements
the
pro
tanto,
self-prejudicing
of
admissibility
[a).
(31
&
32
b. 45),
if
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.
Co.,
J. Q.
Digitized
B. 73.
Principle
by Microsoft
619
An Act which
impliedly gives
one,
it
among which
Company
by its Memorandum of Assocontract entered into by a Company
(c).
W.
95
27te Agricola,
2 Eob.
W.
10
Lucey
v.
Geo. V.
(b)
v.
0.
As
to General
Law
Ingram, 9 L. J.
Pilotage, see 2
of
&
31.
v.
MicM, 44 L.
J.
;
Ex. 185
Shears
Broughton
v. Jacob,
L. E.
Waddle, L. E. 3 C. P. 463
(c) Id.
268
4 Id. 617.
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
A.-G.
v.
Digitized
by Microsoft
A.-G. v.
INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
620
for this
Parliament prohibits
of
(a).
"The
difference
can do
generally,
it;
subject
are
If,
(6).
that
it,
should be paid
(a)
672
J.
&c. Go. v.
and N. E. By., 58 L.
(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
J.
(1911), 245.
by Microsoft
Go. v.
Ch. 65
Digitized
Q. B.
Tynemouth Corp.
Be
EicM, L. E. 7 H. L.
Ex. 197.
W. N.
not to
them
621
employed by
(a).
private
Act which,
annexing a rectory
after
his
But
{b).
this extention of
an enactment
is
confined
sequences.
it
implies no pro-
it
shall be re-
(a)
Wyatt
v.
W.
N. (1889),
96, C. A.
(6)
(e)
605
292.
Wright
V.
v.
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
was expressly
Money received by
the treasurer of
conferred
(a).
is
members as
owners, because the club was formed
less
none the
beneficial
in contra-
vention of
s,
co-partnership
association, or
company
Where
(6).
a gas
is
sum
annual
at a fixed
consume not
hour, there
less
is
sum (c).
Act, 1869
(a)
B.
(6)
25 & 26 Vict.
V.
Vandeleer, 1 Stra. 69
solidation) Act,
1908
B.
v.
(d)
c.
As
21 E. E. 569
East
Bickmond
71,
s.
80
1 Brod.
v. Pell,
s.
8 L.
(1846), 2 Car.
& Bing.
& K.
13.
Digitized
M.
C. 33.
Dawes
Andrew
37.
As
v.
v.
to
Thomas, [1892]
Handcock (1819),
when payable by
Lunn
J.
Companies (Con-
1,
v.
(c)
1 Q. B. 414.
89, repealed
c.
(e)
by Microsoft
Manning
32 & 33 Vict.
c.
v.
19.
623
miuing company to bring an' action against a shareholder for unpaid calls, in the name of their purser,
does not consequently authorise
the
purser to
own name on
behalf of the
respect of
action (a).
1888,
is
purely
pal or
common
Where
it,
SECTION
II.
IMPLIED
is
incurred
(c).
a jurisdiction,
it
impliedly
sary to
its
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
Digitized
ea
Frankland, L. E. 8 Q. B. 18.
L. J. Oh. 268.
(c)
v.
est,
by Microsoft
624
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
quoque concessa
Thus,
which
Act
an
explicari
non
empowers
potuit{a).
an
empowers
them
fail
to
to attend
them
before
for
who
unlawfully
those purposes
So,
(5).
forced
And
(c).
statute
it
is
laid
empowers a justice
him
or to cause
to do something,
Bane
A.
Oath before
& B.
Justices,
Methuen,
v.
See also
430.
12 Eep. 131
27 E. E. 546.
Eawe
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)
(d)
c.
s.
Twyford, 5
Hawk.
13,
c.
v.
16,
s.
2.
Digitized
by Microsoft
625
pecuniary penalty for their infringement, recoverable (in the absence of other provision) by action
or distress
(a).
The enactment
impliedly authorised the appointment of a returning ofl&cer (6). An Act which, after empowering
the parishioners to elect an assistant overseer,
would
So
s.
(6)
Vict.
(c)
Kyi
Eep. 63a; 2
Q. B. 152
63,
it
{a) 5
(d).
B.
v.
Corp. 156
Hall
v.
Nixon, L. E. 10
Sankey, 3 Q. B. D. 379.
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.
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
liability
of
it (a).
privileges, or
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
U Q. B.
D. 358.
See A.-G.
v.
Jenkins
&
L. J. E. B. 109.
company
(h)
V.
K. B. 601
Leith
Brooks,
(1901), 71
Hinds
v. White,
J.,
Mansel
v.
Shep. Touchst. 89
Cohham,
Co.,
76 L.
74 L. J. Oh.
J.
Oh. 17.
Digitized
by Microsoft
327
627
is
Where
make and
work
{a).
statute,
must be
taken to mean that the right of support shall
but
contains provisions
if it
if
England By.
Co.,
12 L. J.
Q. B. 145.
(6)
L.
&
N. W. By.
v.
Co. v. Evans,
v. (?.
W.
1,
62 L. J. Ch.
approved in
As
Bell
v.
Earl
to,
a severance of the
50 L.
JDavis V. Treharne,
J. Q. B. 667, cited
Gas. 833
Bank
by Lord Selborne
Dixon
v.
Wlite, 8 App.
Sharlston Collieries
v.
v.
Ch. 541.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Socy.,
Neio
Butter-
75 L. J.
628
INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.
of a
of
la
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
shown,
is
(5
the
see
oflScial
make
hill,
or to
if
(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
v.
Co.,
Lord Blackburn
Stretton's
Co.,
25 L.
L. E. 8 Q. B.
v.
Co.,
J.
42
L. E. 4 0. P. 629; Geddis
431
v.
J.
Fall, 5 Q. B.
186
18
(1887),
B.
(6)
Thomas
Q. B. D., at p. 694.
v.
Bann
Derhy Brewery
Digitized
Co. v.
v.
Cracknell v. Thetford,
Co., 3
v.
by Microsoft
629
But
to do (a).
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
it is
such
and
firemen
preserve
to
order during a
to
premises as
it
may
be necessary to exclude, so as
which would
(a)
0. B.
(6)
Per Williams
N.
S., at p.
J.,
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,
v. Gibhs (1866),
L. E. 1 H. L. 93
53 L.
by Microsoft
J.
Southampton
Q. B. 41
J. P. 0.
Digitized
10
(1861),
432.
Selby
v.
arise
P. 305.
Amalgamated
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
(5),
as to be a
common
nuisance
(c).
with
it
(a) Carter v.
(6)
Jones
E. E. 591
v.
Clothier v. Webster, 31 L. J. C. P.
Chadwick, 43 E. E. 659
293
V.
Collins v.
Bann
the
let
Lawrence
316
Trower
But
2 Oh.
v.
G. N. By. Co., 20 L. J. Q. B.
v.
Co. (1878), 3
43
Geddis
v.
603
30
Vict. c. 6,
s.
5 (extended 39
v.
v.
& 40
Vict.
c.
Hill (1881), 50 L. J.
Parke, 68 L.
Q.
B.
353
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
fish,
631
An
if
the
it
it
was
An Act
(6).
of Parliament
them
which is
new
(c).
may be
employed.
it
as
There-
liable to
an action
for
on Law, 63
Gearns
v.
Baker, L. E. 10
Ch. 355.
(6) Metrop.
Boderick
(c)
v.
Board
v.
Metrop. By.
Co.,
38 L.
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).
is
for this
So,
(b).
it
has
it
functions
its
But a power
contempt of
its
authority
purpose, and so
is
is
(c).
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.,
Id.
Keilley v. Carson, 4
347
Brown, Be, 33 L.
1 P. C. 328
Barton v
App.
Cas., at p. 203.
717
(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,
Digitized
by Microsoft
11
9 E. E.
v.
633
is
not a
of
land;
So, where
it is
from bathing machines, which the local authorities were empowered to license, that power did
not entitle a licensed person to place a bathing
The concession
carries with
it
of privileges or
implied obligations.
of the
powers often
For instance,
(c).
Ayr Harbour
(1903), 1 L. G. E. 683.
(a)
Tramways
Co.,
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.
J.
B. 446
Groves
v.
B. 862.
Digitized
Bower
v.
Peate
by Microsoft
INTBEPEETATION OF STATUTES.
634
If
imposed a
it
work
repair a
liability
possession of another,
in the
it
A public
liable (a).
body, authorised to
bound to keep
make
a bridge or
impliedly
it
it
work
to use
it
whom
they invite
it,
authority
statutory
If
own
given
is
persons,
to
may
(c).
also be
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
J.
affd.
79
K. B. 670
K. B. 880.
Digitized
by Microsoft
impliedly imposed on
would be that
635
from any
highway by
damage
carriages, without
them (b).
And this implied
obligation
would
not
to
be
B.
V. Kerrison,
223
49
14 E. E. 491
HertfardsMre C. C.
v.
B.
New
Leech
V.
v.
Lancashire
(a)
v.
&
Manley
Ely (1850), 19 L.
J.
M.
G.
29 L.
Co.,
J.
M.
M.
0. 147
C. 150;
See
L. E. 7 H. L. 12.
Digitized
v.
iV.
0.
by Microsoft
W. By. (1865), 34
INTEEPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
636
by implication,
when
it
of a house with-
of one diity
Thus, when
another.
it
was
consumed on the
more
grounds, the obligation was
of
specified
(c?).
L. J. Q. B. 204
[1900] 2
Ir.
distinguished in
Lunt
(6)
Thompson
(c)
57 & 68 Vict.
(d)
32 & 33 Vict.
52
c.
Gorman
which imposes,
v.
(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.
Digitized
M.
Syhes (1875), 1 Q. B. D.
C. 104.
by Microsoft
B.
v.
637
on the
those
officers,
official
{a).
may
also cast
his opinion
ment Act,
(b).
1855(6-),
Amend-
it shall. not
The grant
may
(a) Pickering v.
in Ackets v.
c.
was made
(6)
Per
(c)
18
136,
considered
&
19 Vict.
c.
124,
s.
29 (repealed in part, 23
&
24 Vict.
s. i;.
Digitized
by Microsoft
45 L.
J. Cli. 80.
INTERPBETATION OP STATUTES.
638
person.
by
or purchase,
will, gift,
But power
company power
and to
deposited
power to
sell
it (c).
when
it
is
does not
is
to be exercised in accordance
its
(a) Perring
V.
the
exercise,
v.
which requires
person
sought
that,
to
be
comp. NetJiersole
Mogg
v.
(1887), 36 Ch. D.
(c)
B.
V. S.
9.
Wales By.
Co.,
Digitized
19 L.
J. Q.
B. 272.
by Microsoft
639
On
this ground,
ment Act,
1834, 4
which authorises
Law Amend-
&
Wm.
pauper who
infirm
order could be
is
whom
by railway
works, to
company
services,
make an
which order,
allowed by a Secretary of
if
on the company
without
giving
657
Emerson
21 L.
v.
J. Q. B.
company
the
Eep. 99
JB.
notice,
v. Univ.
238
v.
ferentes,
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.
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.
it
C. 148.
640
INTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.
it {a).
So an
whom
(6).
Again, where a
if it
Governor to
was proved
to the
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.
[1903] 1 K. B. 275.
(c)
Smith
V.
Digitized
by Microsoft
c.
36
Francis, Exp.,
641
to issue
it
" on proof of
it
directed
them
would nevertheless be
construed
impliedly
as
and
he
if
(a) 18
Cooper
failed to
& 19
V.
Vict.
c.
120,
s.
Clerhenwell
Vestry v.
Feary,
24 Q. B. D. 703
c.
C. P.
J.
;
A.-G.
102)
185;
HopJcins
v.
v.
Hooper,
See Harper
(6)
425
Painter
v.
v.
Carr, 4 E. E.
Liverpool
Gas
440
B.
v.
Hughes, 3 A.
41
i.s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
&
B.
642
INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.
himself to
make
stipend
fix
the
power;
and,
therefore,
as
heard
(a).
A power
to
his oflSce or
of course, be different
able
arbitrarily
assigned
and
if
without
(c).
It is obvious that
new jurisdiction,
(a) Capel v.
1 L. J. Ex. 205,
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.
Bayly, [1898] 2
863.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Ir.
E. 335, 347;
643
which
is
empowered
sion, as to it shall
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
As the language
of the
Act
B.
V.
(c).
Davenport
Eepealed 51 & 52
v. B.,
Vict. c. 43,
s.
188.
Digitized
See other
Fremington School,
Kinning
by Microsoft
v.
Buchanan,
INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES.
644
So,
where an Act
the
make an
parish sought to be
Alley
v.
Dale, 10 C. B. 62.
Atherton, L. E. 9 Q. B. 4
711.
Gomp. Stonor
v.
Lovering
v.
(c).
And
Fowle (1887), 57 L.
J. Q.
B. 387;
Arnold
(i)
v.
Dimsdale, 22 L. J.
{c)MonUeigh, Exp., 5
M.
C. 161.
D. & L. 404.
Digitized
v.
Dawson, L. E. 10 G. P.
by Microsoft
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).
all
performance, whether to
its
be personally present
c.
15,
10
s.
(1),
c.
59,
168, Sohed. 6.
(6)
(c)
Tamar By.
But
&
Mining
Duck
see
v.
Co.
Co.,
Tower
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.
J.,
J.
319
M.
White
Digitized
B.
38; B.
v. Forrest, Id.
Loveland, 5 E. E. 533
578
4 A. & E. 111.
v.
Hamstall Bidware,
v.
v.
Winwich,
Grindley
;
B.
0. 46
v.
B.
v.
8.
T. E.
Barker, 4 E. E.
Aldborough, 18
Feast (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B.
by Microsoft
INTEEPEBTATION OF STATUTES
646
When
is ministerial, it is
it
statute
be construed as
When
Court to
and a
it (a).
It
is
(6).
when
power
of public concern
and
obligation to exercise
when
it,
arises (c).
making
it
imperative
but
it
usually said
is
when
permissive, by
an
it
seems
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
Digitized
367.
54 L.
D. 376.
by Microsoft
(1876), 35 L. T.
J.
Explained in
Q. B. 474.
IMPEEATIVE OE DIKEOTOEY,
SECTION
When
lU.IMPEEATIVB OE
647
DIEEOTORT.
what intention
to
is
to be attributed
the Legislature
it
in
1855
(a),
The enactment,
of buildings should be
performance of the
rites
Book
and ceremonies
ing
all
(a) 18
c. ccxiii., s.
Vict.
c.
(c)
Westerton
v.
s.
Again, where
12 (repealed, 57
&
58 Vict,
Martin
122,
(c).
v.
29 L.
J. C. P. 1.
MaconocMe (1868), L. R. 2 P.
C. 365
187.
Digitized
by Microsoft
38 L. J. Ecc.
648
INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES.
compliance
is
plied
(b)
the
neglect
the
of
statutory
proceedings.
The
reports
are
full
indications of intention
in
without
cases
of
some
of
any
been held
by
it,
and
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
(a) 3
s.
7)
(6)
&4
32
&
Dickinson,
(c)
Will. IV.
c.
Jolly v. Hancock,
33 Vict.
Be
c.
74,
s.
22 L.
86 (repealed, 45
J.
71 (repealed, 46
& 47
Gomp. sup.
p.
424
et seq.
Digitized
& 46
Vict. c. 39,
Ex. 38.
by Microsoft
Viot.
c.
52,
s.
169)
IMPERATIVE OK DIEECrORY.
649
manner has
(a)
but
it is justifiable
numerous
by
authorities.
It has
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
(c),
result
injustice
is
Per Martin
on Interp.
(6)
De
B.,
Bowman v.
Blyth, 7 E.
&
B. 47
G. P.
&
J.
507
v.
P. D. 211.
(c)
Sedgwick
of Stats., p. 375.
J.,
B.
v. Ingall,
Digitized
2 Q. B. D. 208.
by Microsoft
v.
Turner, 2
Bodington, 2
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
650
compUed
with,
it
them
essential to
shall
it
be performed in a
may
when
who have no
in cases
duty would
essential
result
if
requirements were
and imperative.
when a
such
statute
class of cases, it
cohfers
right,
seems that
privilege,
or
them
is fatal.
them
for 14
Denman
J.,
Digitized
Caldow
v. Pixel!,,
by Microsoft
name
2 C. P. D. 562.
of
IMPERATIVE OE DIEBOTOBY.
651
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
limited,
is
&
notice as required by 26
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.
&
it
Brooks
Goioie,
v.
7-
& 2 Geo. V.
v.
See also
2).
c.
So
(c).
13, repealed 1
c.
Newton
E. E. 348
II.
he posts up a
if
in
if
46,
s.
36,
Gock, 42
46,
s.
36,
46,
s.
Act, 1911,
717
Wood
v.
Boosey, L. E.
L. E. 7 Bq. 270
(c) Spice'v.
Henderson
Bacon
2.
Q. B. 340
v.
(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
and consequently a
the time of levying one dis-
made
declaration
would
tress
at
not
protect
{b).
make
a fresh
made
which omitted
the street and number of the house where the
examination took place, was held insufficient to
imperative
so that a certificate
(6)
34 & 35 Vict.
Q. B. 734
Amendment
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.,
Act, 1908
Sogers, Eungllut
it
74
Law
&
Co. v.
Martin (1910), 26
As to goods com-
Brand &
16 & 17 Vict.
c.
96.
Digitized
by Microsoft
of lunatics
653
IMPEEATIVE OE DIRECTORY.
addressed
to'
is
now
deficiency, see 3
148.
Gage
v.
C. P. 38
(6)
M'Daid, [1898]
;
43 L. J. C. P. 27.
See Gifford
Hinhs
W.
N. 104)
Smith
v.
Huggett, 31 L. J.
4 Ch. D. 607.
L. J. Ch. 379.
Comp. Ward
v.
Beck,
32 L.
(1878), 3 P. D. 182
Chasteauneuf
Digitized
v.
J.
v. Turner,
30
C. P. 113;
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
654
panies
Consolidation Act,
Clauses
but in another
it
altogether the creature of statute law, the prescriptions for its acts
essential
(a)
Comp. Le Feuvre
mortgages
c.
their validity
to
Miller,
v.
(e).
If
articles of
its
26 L. J. M. 0. 175
s.
52, 6
&
as to
Bdw. VII.
v.
L. J. Oh. 764.
(c)
(d)
V.
Wilson
p.
V.
464
et seq.
West Hartlepool
Co.,
34 L.
See Green
J. Gh. 241.
V.
See sup.
Cope
London
V.
&
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.
v.
Digitized
Frend
30 L. J.
Gas. 517
by Microsoft
655
IMPERATIVE OE DIRECTORY.
(a).
company
(6).
If, for
(c).
direc-
V.
Harhen
La
(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,
Chambers
v.
Co.,
As
to
Be
Go.,
33 L.
J.
Q. B. 268.
an implied
See
right to borrow,
however,
inf. p.
672
et seq.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
656
c.
(a),
summons should be
it
would have no
(c).
V.
Queen, 27 L. J. C. P. 224
205
to in
Simpkin, Exp., 29 L. J.
(a) Eepealed, 1
Qx)
&
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
in 1883 so as to
Brown
C.
s. 1.
;
Barker
The
M.
C. 23.
(c)
v.
y.
Swansea Canal
Digitized
Co., L.
R. 3 Ex. 158.
by Microsoft
IMPERATIVE OE DIRECTORY.
657
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
The 5
Bliz. c. 23,
Be Contumace
Capiendo
Bench, and be
L.
it
J.
& 39
Vict. c. 55,
Q. B. 181.
As
to repeal
v.
s.
180
Gifford
to jurisdiction of
withdrawn
an
arbitrator
when one
by necessary implication
of the
Act of Elizabeth.
42
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATION OP STATUTES.
658
its
duty of sealing
was held
it,
was
it
damages to
This was hard on
liable in
it (a).
So, the
of
the
representation of the
acts
illegal
essen-i
tial to
(b).
after the
till
If commissioners, authorised
were required by
forth
(a)
Viet.
c.
B.
WorTcsop Board, 34 L. J.
M.
Smith
(la)
(c)
V.
Howard
B.
V.
v.
& 12
pt. III.)
V.
in
C.
220
discussed
L. J. Q. B. 26.
Digitized
by Microsoft
B.
v.
Arkwrigkt, 18
IMPERATIVE OE DIEECTOEY.
certain form,
it
is
The
ment Committee Act, 1862
directory
provision of the
(a).
London, 32
&
659
33 Yict.
c.
Union Assess-
(repealed in part as to
would have
tions,
On
left
(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
tions
seem
to be
such prescrip-
those on
whom
the duty
may
be penal
(6),
is
imposed,
or, in
The neglect
indeed, but
it
of
other
them
when
was to be done, that the Act was directory only, and might be complied with after the
it
B.
Q. B. D. 199.
(b)
See
Digitized
22 L.
J.
by Microsoft
Ex. 67.
v. Ingall,
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
660
prescribed time
(a).
only to
neglect
an
them
render
(b).
officer to
To hold
liable
to
penalty for
list
of voters,
(c).
(tZ),
in
more guardians
Board
for
each parish
make the
constitu-
(a)
Per Littledale
(6)
E.
(c)
B.
V.
V.
Smith
c.
Morgan
Bremner, 30 L.
V. ingall,
(d)
(e)
B.
&
V.
v. Jones,
1 B.
& Ad.
334.
Rochester (1851), 7 B.
Ex. 222
B.
J.,
B. 910; Hunt
Parry, 25 L.
v.
J. C.
&
P. 33
B.
v.
J.
0. P.
o.
76
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
sum
required to
tions
5 Geo. IV.
(&).
when any
c.
84,
to
not
one
of
ifc
the
officers
(c).
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
Brenan's
abolished.
Case,
See sup.
(d) Eepealed as to
16 L.
J.
Q.
B.
285.
Transportation
p. 262.
England by
Digitized
S.
by Microsoft
s. 2.
INTEBPEBTA.T10N OF STATUTES.
662
Epiphany,
Michaelmas,
after
translation of St.
Easter,
and
week
the
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
left
lature.
Though 43
they
may lawfully be
the year
(e).
Per Parke
B.,
Owynne
(d) B. V. Leicester, 7 B.
(e)
p.
V.
&
v.
Burnell, 2 Bing.
C. 6.
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,
Bench
(6).
was
or
paper
is,
B.
B.
V.
B.
V.
Sneyd, 61 E. E. 843.
(6)
B.
V.
v.
of the ballot
(e).
Oorfe Mullen, 1 B.
B.
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.
The 26 Geo.
justices
II. c.
14
(a),
before the
it
at
the next
it
at
them
to do
might
in 1763.
It
compelled
to
it
be
The usual
was
perform
named
in
it
shall be capable
which they
and in this
a duty
s.
e.
58,
6 and Sched.
1,
s.
he
44, Sched. 4.
shall
have
As to existing
Bowman
Swansea Nav.,
(c)
Lewis
V.
v.
Blyth, 26 L. J.
It.
E. 3 Ex. 158.
M.
C. 57.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
IMPBBATIVE OR DIRECTORY.
665
an unqualified
If his acts
justice.
it
who
all
persons
and
c.
Pier Go.
v.
several years
for
&
19 Vict.
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
The
provision in
55, of the
s.
Act relating to
Army
Mutiny, 13
&
Act, 1881,
14 Vict.
c.
5 (repealed,
s.
80,
them
enlistment
(b)
for
who
received enlisting
enlisted soldier.
1836
(6
&
7 Will. IV.
c.
be of no force "
affect
(c)
it
Corfe Mullen, 1 B.
&
32
&
This provision
33 Vict.
e.
67,
s.
when
the other
v. Slight,
21 L.
J.
v.
Q. B. 74.
Lorant,
See B.
Ad. 211.
20 L.
is
J.
Q. B. 73.
77.
Digitized
by Microsoft
by
IMPERATIVE OR DIRECTORY.
667
requisites
(c).
of a bill
was produced
if
the
bill
was
if
the deed
L.
J. C.
(6)
11
&
12 Vict.
;
c.
63 (repealed, 38
Le Femre
24
B. 73.
See Gole
v.
Greene, 13
P. 30.
&
bo
& 25
& 39
v. Miller,
Viet, c, 55,
26 L.
J.
M.
s.
343,
G. 175.
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,
So, an
which empowered
II. c, 29)
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).
mere
some purposes,
others.
Thus, the
is
immaterial as regards
that
provision
the
is
register
its
being
immaterial as regards
& 55
v. Saull,
Vict.
e.
(a) Eepealed,
68.
S.
s.
J.
B.
As
Q. B. 366.
41.
L. E., 1783
Reid
Wriglit V.
(6)
32 L.
39,
v. Croft,
&
2 Viet.
5 Bing. N. C.
c.
110,
s.
47),
Digitized
by Microsoft
2 L.
J.
K. B. 33.
IMPEBATIVE OB DIEBCTORY,
669
inspection
of
all
creditors,
(b).
it
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
Cur., Henderson v.
v.
J.
the
Q. B.
HawJesford (1859), 31
Wright
V. British
&
Mansions
Co.,
v.
American Shoe
Go. (1902),
71 L.
&
4 Vict
G.
61,
Bandall, Ltd.
Oh. 683
Marine
Woodford, 13 L. J. Q. B. 93.
(c)
J.
s. 1.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
INTERPEETATION OP STATUTES.
670
besides,
though
it
it
35,
c.
s. 2,
by reason
that he
is
of the premises."
convictions
Again, a provision
sporting
for
without
(6)
that
certificate
register
conviction
it
(c).
1848, in empowering
all
con-
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
"every contract
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
if
it
&
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.
c.
Eunt
85, repealed
and re-enacted
174
Frend
H. L. 653
Eaton
v.
in sub-
Bennett,
J. C.
Torquay, 71 L. J. K, B. 109
D. a, [1895]
L, J. C. P. 30; Melliss
Q.
P.
Basker, 7
v.
U.
v.
v.
Biche, L. E. 7
Young
s.
B,
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
"wliich
on
board
the
the penalty of
reimbursement
(b).
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
division
section.
section
may
class of
be imperative as regards
its
The provision,
to.
provision cannot be
therefore, of
s.
42 (IS)
&
Per
By.
v.
Co.,
v.
Worcester,
E. G. By., 21 L. J. C. P. 23
22
Turquand, 24 L.
139
Bonar
v.
Ex. 302.
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
1st,
but so that
all
appeals shall
power
its
as to
all
them
are not to
all
enactments
not
SECTION
IV.
(a).
when
are,
maxim
inutilia.
They
what
is
impossible
prescribed,
is idle
or
{b).
32 & 33 Vict.
(a)
when performance
o.
67
iJ. v.
C. G.,
[1893] 2 Q. B. 476.
As
(h)
to performance,
43
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
674
it
&
20
(a).
21 Vict.
43,
c.
2,
s.
by
a condition precedent to
it,
when
with,
days
{b),
was impossible
since compliance
(c).
by superior
Paradine
v.
Wright, 29 L. J. Q. B. 43.
L. J. Q. B. 164
Boast
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.
Qifford
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.
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
Harding, L. E. 2 Q. B. 410.
;
B.
See also B.
v.
v.
See B.
v.
Allan, 33
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
accepted
out of the
If the
(a).
way
required by the
statute
pensed with
So,
to
appeal,
(b).
subject
if
the
to
condition
of
giving
would
if he
to
when
v. Grofton,
[1914] 3 K. B. 803.
A technical
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.
AmptMll, 2 B.
v.
&
M.
0. 273.
Digitized
0. 847.
by Microsoft
v.
INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES,
676
will
(b).
is
pensable foundation of
Thus, the
its jurisdiction.
order
"if the
mother's
evidence 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.
;
Digitized
by Microsoft
p. 370.
M.
C.
OBSERVANCE EXCUSED.
although the mother be dead
677
So, under the
(a).
(repealed)
of Admiralty the
or
its
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
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.
419
10,
s.
13.
Lennard's Carrying
v. Services
Co.,
ss.
502-509.
[1914] 1 K. B.
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
the
may,
The
(c).
demising the
in
lessee
benefit
of an
carry so
he does
with
(a)
James
him to
him and
entitles
of luggage with
(e).
condition that
W. By.
v. S.
17 L.
J.
M.
Go. (1872) L. E. 7
C. 70
B.
v.
Ex. 287.
(6)
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.
Marhham
(e)
Bumsey
L. J. C. P. 244
V.
v.
Stanford, 14 C. B. N. S. 376.
v. A".
;
N.
S.
641
Digitized
37 L.
by Microsoft
J.
Ex. 130.
32
Bank
passenger himself
company
maximum
is,
it (a).
679
obviously, tbe
and no consideration
policy is involved in
a trading
WAIVED.
of public
statute authorising
toUs from
persons alike
all
When
tolls to particular
(6).
it
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
(a) Mercantile
(6)
v. Gladstone, sup. p.
L. J. Q. B. 25
v.
v.
per Willes
J.
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
Digitized
it
by
52 Vict.
c.
21,
v.
Kilhy,
appraisement
by Microsoft
INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.
680
of
an appeal to
referred
should be so
(a).
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
and
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
;
(i
B. By.
v. S.
(6)
(c)
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
Go.,
law raised
is
Bimmoch, [1914]
W.
N. 449.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
being given,
a defendant,
justices
even
the
if
summons,
of leave (a)
criminal
and
before
case
subject
may
jurisdiction,
in
681
WAIVED.
so in
(6),
summons
but by appearing
and
mere preliminary
irregularity
So where
(c).
make known
to a
505.
And
(6)
B.
L. J.
M.
y. Wells,
(c)
B.
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.
B.
the observance
M.
B.
v. Stone,
v.
1 East, 639
B.
v.
Berry
B.
v.
Widdop, L. E. 2 G. G. E. 8
Bolton
(d) B. V. Torkshire, 3
M. &
S.
493
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).
either to
selves,
cient
cannot
it
insuffi-
for the
common
welfare;
WiUs(5).
maxim
that the
volenti
non
not to be
fit injuria is
same
authority,
which
is
authorised to
On
(rf).
principle
of
benefit
as
make
the
a local
by-laws,
(e).
It is said to
be a general understanding
227
366.
(c)
Per Wilson
Croker
See
v.
J.,
New York
Taylor
Habergham
v.
Moore
P. C. 339,
v. Phillips,
6 E. E. 575.
Thomas
v.
Quartermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685.
(e) Mcintosh, Be,
61 L.
J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
By.
683
nothing ; at
least, in
trial (a).
In
law requires
Where, upon a
(6).
new
trial,
some
The object of a
was observed, was the adminis-
irregularity
trial,
it
(c).
and there-
Ford, 80
v.
L. J. Ch. 234.
(a)
Per
(b)
Per M. Smith
Cur.,
B.
v.
L. E. 5 G. P. 639.
(c)
528
651.
B.
V.
Bertrand, sup.
See also B.
v.
Bloxham, 6 Q. B.
v.
Thornhill, 8 C.
&
P. 575;
v. Inglehy, 1
B.
Lawrence
Dowl. N.
S.
v.
Ex.
Moneon
Lawrence
v. Wilcock,
566
v.
11 A.
&
B. 941
Exp. Bohertson, 44 L.
J.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Lismore
v.
Bank. 99
Beadle,
Jackson
INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.
684
Summary
which empowers
the determination of an infor-
made
who heard
to all
it,
application should be
them cannot
be waived, because
it
&
21 Vict,
c,
48,
s.
2,
(a)
which
it
went to the
jurisdic-
a provision that a
So,
(b).
jurisdiction,
(a)
42
&
43 Vict.
c.
49
Westmore
summons
(c).
Paine, [1891] 1 Q. B.
v.
482.
justices
on a matter within
s.
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,
(c)
0. 108
Wells, 25 Q.
Digitized
B. D. 249.
by Microsoft
Bennett
v.
v.
Athins,
685
may
be added here, that a person is sometimes estopped by his own conduct from availing
It
For
benefit.
who
warrant of attorney,
profession,
could not
attest a
afterwards be allowed to
whom
grant,
the duty
is
Where an Act
it (6).
of a private contract,
the contract
is
impliedly
of the
(c).
The
interyention
Legislature,
of
the contracting parties, is analogous to a convulsion of nature, against which they, no doubt,
may
provide; but
if
y.
it
Cannon, 4 Bing.
N. C. 453.
(6)
Molton
V.
15 L. J. 0. P. 223.
grove,
(c)
Turner
v.
Browne,
JITms-
Per
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
INTEEPRBTATION OF STATUTES.
686
is
the contract
(a).
for
compulsion
And
stress
(b).
man
If a
(c).
of the covenant,
and an
it
imperative, to do it;
(a)
(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.
Digitized
by Microsoft
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,
it
sale,
either lessor
entered into
and
so,
when the
was
contract
It
(a) Baily v.
also
V.
Wadham
v.
Be
Postmaster-General, 40 L. J. Q. B. 310
48 L.
Co. V.
J.
Ch. 226.
Newington
v.
See
Brown
Cotttngham,
Digitized
J.
K. B. 837.
by Microsoft
CHAPTER
SECTION
I.
XIII.
is,
of law that
c.
122
(c),
55 Geo. III.
unqualified
c.
them
(d).
As s. 14
persons,
contract
252
per
by
made between
Bowen
L. J., Melliss
v.
SUrley, 16 Q. B. D. 453.
(6)
(c)
which Act
c.
v.
Hughes, 1
ccxiii., s.
M. &
S. 593.
215, Sched. 4
see.
v.
29 L.
J.
C. P. 1.
p. 248.
Digitized
Eecognised
by Microsoft
689
such a person and a duly qualified medical practitioner, that the latter should assist the
in carrying
on a medical
And
would be void
manner although
practice,
in like
s.
former
it
It
if
this
(6).
would not be so
local statute
from taking
When
an
a penalty
is
imposed
omission
(a) Davies v.
(d).
Makuna
for
is
doing or omitting
thereby prohibited
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.
c.
Ixxv.,
240.
44
LS.
Digitized
K. B. 767.
repealed 7
& Ad.
J.
by Microsoft
s.
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
690
that
it
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
&
the
8 Vict.
c.
stock
its
company concerned
behalf before
its
in
making contracts on
(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.
B.
(c)
28 Geo. III.
V. Gravfisend, sup. p.
8 B.
well,
(d)
&
Bull
c.
Vinor, sup,
.p.
688
per Lord
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.
to restrictions
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
on commencing
s.
87
on
its
business
if
691
not
registered (a).
The Act which imposes a
penalty on certain classes of persons for exercising
their ordinary callings
tracted
concerned
Highway
Act, 1835 (5
surveyor
he conare
it
illegal,
&
6 Will. IV.
(b).
Sec. 46,
c.
whom
JIO on a road
Jennings
of
v.
(6)
(1827), 29 B. E. 514
Bloxsome
v.
&
C. 406
Smith
337.
(c)
Barton
v.
Digitized
v.
Sparrow
Williams (1824), 27 E. E.
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
692
it,
who
refused to give
it
impliedly prohibited
its
if
illegal
an election, except
the expense agent, to make any payments on
behalf of a candidate, even for current expenses,
a sub-agent
amount from
principal
are,
So, a contract to
(c).
&
by 8
9 Vict.
be enforced
(c?).
contracts.
But
c.
could
make
his
bets (which
It is a contract
make
to
void
,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.
&
47
54 L.
Digitized
J.
Q. B. 464.
by Microsoft
See, however,
693
it
name
the
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,
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
v.
L. J. Q. B. 30, Levy
a ship
v.
Beeve, 62
v.
(a) Repealed
names
pawnbroker
Vict.
c.
93,
which by
s.
13
on the business
place of business.
(6) Armstrong v. Lewis (1834), 41 E. R.
Warner
01.
&
v.
Armstrong, 3
F. 237
Fraser
v. Hill,
18 L.
Macq. H. L.
J. C.
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
K. B. 254.
by Microsoft
Smith
v.
White, 35
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
694
the
sailed,
master
officer's certificate
should obtain
the clearing
would be
visions
illegal,
Where
(a).
(b).
L. J. Q. B. 616.
(b)
24 L.
See Holman
J. 0. P.
Hodgson
v.
v.
158
Cowp. 341
Johnson, 1
Langton
23 L.
J.
Q. B. 276
Bay, 17 C. B. N.
Beeston
V.
S.
Geere
188
v.
Beeston, 1 Ex. D. 13
v.
;
Mare, 83 L.
Hobbs
J.
Ex. 50
aay
v.
Henning, 34 L. J. C. P. 117
Brooher
1052.
Digitized
Abbott v. Sogers,
by Microsoft
v.
Wood, 5 B.
4;
Ad.
695
to
smuggle them
into
{a).
when an Act
frequently arisen,
more
circumstances,
nected with
or
immediately con-
less
either with
contracts,
or
without
is
thereby
Act
is
the
invalidated.
Thus,
required,
for sale
it
should be
dimensions
{b)
of
at
or that
least
persons
all
bricks
made
certain specified
who
corn,
sold
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)
under a penalty,
should,
deliver,
makers' names
(c)
prohibited
all
made
made them
contracts
subjected
remained
to
The same
while
penalty,
liable to
the
purchasers
be sued.
9 B.
& Yo.
&
119.
0. 192
Oundell
v.
Dawson, 17
L. J. C. P. 311.
(c) Forster v. Taylor,
39 E. E. 698.
BoUnson, 2 C.
&
J. 209.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
697
So, a local
(a).
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
4:4:
Geo. III.
98,
c.
s.
14;
a director of
if
any
in
Taylor
contract
v.
6 Anne,
57 Geo.
c.
16,
s.
v.
Shirley Local
Board (1885), 55
L. J. Q. B. 143.
(c)
Smith
Henley, 1 0.
V.
&
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
it
object of the
Act
is sufficiently
an
and where
effect,
pendent
it is
understood
Thus
it
s.
43,
mortgages,
or
Oomp. Barton
v.
Co.,
17 Barbour,
(d).
J. C. P. 99.
New York
E.
397.
(fc)
(c)
Murray
v.
v. Blaikie (1854), 1
Macq. H.
0. 461.
at p. 109.
(d)
25 & 26 Vict.
c.
89,
s.
;
Digitized
43, repealed,
Wright
v.
s.
100
(2),
Oompanies
by Microsoft
699
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
licensed
it
spirits
affect
the sale,
so
as
which im-
who
On
it
of the penalty
{b).
Brown
Temple,
v.
14 E.
Duncan
(1829), 6
738; Johnson
Wetherell v. Jones, 3 B.
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
(1),
&
39
40 Geo.
693), affords
(p.
cases.
(a).
III. c. 99
(b),
already referred to
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
so, for
contract
contract
into
entered
and
(c),
contravention
in
is
(a)
is
of
express
c.
8,
repealed, 54
[1894] 1 Q. B. 114.
(3),
generally
Eor
& 55
52-53
Vict.
c.
Learoyd
39,
v.
s.
123,
Bracken,
s.
77
(6)
j^c)
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.
IS VOID.
(a).
(ft).
is
701
the
of affording
a penalty for
The
object of the
common
law,
was
valid
while
a statute being,
common law
the
common
reason
tyrant making
(c)
all
or
void
it
was
according
divided
to
invalid
part
is
void,
Damon
Taylor (1834), 3 B.
(6)
D'Allax
(c)
Norton
V.
v.
&
Adol. 887.
(d) Maleverer V.
Bedshaw, 1 Mod. 35
1 Ventr. 237.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Mosdel
v.
Middleton,
INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.
702
the whole
void
is
but
if it
common
(a).
rules of a Trade
Union may be
yet
it
illegal
and
void,
are unenforceable
If a
(6).
part
consideration,
was
v^hich
of
the
illegal,
tion
(a)
C.
in
is
250;
P.
Pickering
Turner
]per
G. M. & G. 275
J.,
L.J.,
v.
Ufracomhe By.
Biddell v. Leeder, 1 B.
J.,
v.
&
C. 327
E. 3
De
Browning,
Co., L.
S. E. By.,
Jortin v.
57 L.
J. Q. B.
&
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.
by Micfosoft
Gwynne, 51
and the
illegal,
illegality did
rest.
was invalidated by a
chargings
void
703
IS VOID.
which declared
statute,
with
benefices
of
pensions
all
utterly
pay
a charge, to
enforced
it,
Where
(a).
it
the
form
statutory
But
(b).
was
it
valid
as
portions
of
severable
(c).
valid
and binding
So, a tenant
[d).
may
(a)
Mouys
borough
(&)
116
45
v.
8 East, 234.
& 46
Vict.
Brandon Hill
c.
43,
v.
s.
Lamh
Cochrane
v. Entwistle,
59
(1914),
S. J.
25 Q. B. D.
75
Lester v.
Mumford
v.
Collier,
25 Q. B. D. 279
L. J. Q. B. 191.
(d) Kerrison v. Cole,
8 East, 234.
Digitized
2i63.
See also
by Microsoft
INTBRPEETATION OF STATUTES.
704
his wages,
of
out notice
body
of
is
rules
its
so illegal
On
And
(b).
being
in
restraint
trade
of
and
(c).
(a)
See
GasJcell v.
15 Bast, 440
London
(Bp.),
C. B. 774
(b)
Beadshaw
v.
5 Taunt. 727
c.
58
Kearney
[1893] 1 Q. B. 700.
v.
Synge,
Greenwood
v.
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.
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
and
authorities,
award
the
of
705
are
arbitrators
SECTION
When
makes
II.
a statute creates a
new
obligation,
or
corresponding right
is
and sometimes
Again, if the Legislature gives to an
to both.
association of individuals (e.g. a Trade Union)
H. &
(a)
(b).
J.,
Clark
B.
V.
v.
M.
& Ad. 95
6 Q. B. 256; B.
L. J.
Denton, 1
C. 168
Brown
v.
Holyhead,
C. 601.
v.
M.
C. 151
B.
v.
Oxley,
Goddard, Be, 19 L.
J. Q.
B. 305.
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)
which
and interferences
if
45
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEBPEBTATION OP STATUTES.
706
Where
by
whom
the provisions
Act
of the
shall
If
statute
grievance
(c),
or
prohibits
matter
of
commands a matter
public
of public
given;
of redress is impliedly
that
is,
the pro-
require the
also
and be of good
EHz. c. 2, in
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.
Sainshury, 2 E. E. 433.
Hawk.
c.
25,
s.
B.
v. Price,
11 A. & B. 727.
J. Office 11,
Digitized
by Microsoft
in
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
empowering
707
pay
relation of a pauper to
the
(a).
refusal
So,
(6).
or neglect
by
births,
when
an indictable
was enacted under
20, is
s.
it
cern.
persons,
or
to
particular
B.
v.
Balme, 2
Cowp
648
(b)
B.
V.
(c)
B.
V. Price,
11 A.
&
B.,727.
PubHc Health
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
ments
repair
because
road,
the
who
it,
means
or procedure
(c).
Hawk.
(a) 2
(h)
B.
V.
25,
c.
s.
all
4.
Bichards, 5 E. E. 489.
See also B.
v. Storr,
3 Burr.
U.
Per
Stirling J.,
C, 67 L.
J.
Hampton
Co. v.
Denman, B.
A.-G.
V.
v.
V.
Bridges, 1 B.
&
Ad. 859
Wake
v. Sheffield
See per
per Lord
Lamplmgh
v.
Norton,
(Mayor), 12 Q. B. D. 145
Cooper
J.
Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667;
22 Q. B. D. 457
B.
v.
Eve
remedy by Injunction.
This does
See
ex. gr.
Digitized
by Microsoft
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
709
same way
as the rent,
it
(a).
&
6 Bdw. VI.
25
c.
(b),
breach of
by two
sessions, or
justices,
no indictment will
lie
(e).
against an over-
names
or for
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'
Go. V.
Bhymney Iron
Go.,
(b)
(c)
B. V. Harriot, 4
{d) Eepealed, 1
(e)
&
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.
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.
all
others
(a).
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.
parochial
officers
to
authorised the
2,
4,
s.
by
levy
empowered
distress
the
arrears
(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.
Discussed in Danhy
o.
[1891] 1 Q. B. 747.
where high-
Similarly,
by Microsoft
J.
Denison
M. C,
J.
at p. 181.
IMPLIED EEMBDIES.
way
711
rates
tive
or
Where
of
action.
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
&
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.
Selhy By.
Co.,
Digitized
13 L.
J.
Q. B. 257.
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
712
end
started to the
&
9 Vict.
and by s. 145,
forfeitures imposed
of his journey,
penalties for
c. 20,
first
Where an
and
is
injunction of a statute
,is
(c).
general,
such breach
may
be subject to the
common
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
Say. 133
V.
;
B.
C.J.,
B.
v.
Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 883,
Digitized
by Microsoft
JB. v.
Davis,
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
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,
who was
attorney or solicitor
common
nuisance;
and,
in
another section,
it
The underlying
stated
principle
being
{d).
as
already
time,
first
if
(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.
[d)
L.
C. 58.
and
see
26.
s.
a criminal, Osborne
to use his
M.
J.
But a
Eede, 59 L. J. Q. B. 376.
& Ad.
Digitized
offender
555.
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
714
II. c.
19),
s.
1)
when
tenants,
and
fraudulently
clandestinely
him
or
assisted
or clandestine removal
(c).
Where churchwardens
refuse
to
allow an in-
mandamus
refuse a
that duty,
if
advisable,
was imposed
for the
refusal (d).
(a)
B.
V.
Bromley
546
v.
v.
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
V. Clear,
Newcastle By.
50 L.
V.
Boss
by 47 & 48
Eolden, 31 E. D. 727
Stark, 169.
V.
v.
v.
Thomas,
ed.
See also
by Microsoft
Liclifield v.
Simpson,
715
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
When
directly
if
whom
duty
is
him contrary
to the statute
(a),
the
done to
unless, of course,
a different intention
Act.
the refusal
decided
Although in a
(6).
was
duty by a
later case it
corporation to
remove
street
from
refuse
the
damage by
reason of
such breach
(c).
J.
Gt
v.
Edgehill
27
Westmr. 13 Edw.
in Bobertson v.
68, at p. 72
I. c.
v. Steel
60
1 Inst. 56a
Anon., 6
(1854), 23 L. J. Q. B. 121
questioned Atkinson
v.
Co. (1881),
Newcastle
&
Mod.
approved
51 L. J. Q. B.
Gateshead Water-
Leonard, 2 Q. B. D. 145.
(6)
Bolborn Union
(c)
v. St.
Digitized
oris, [1894] 1
by Microsoft
Q. B. 64.
INTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES.
716
oflScer's
merely ministerial
An
{a).
tainable
to his
s.
35
&
0. P. 489.
(6)
Bowning
8 Edw. VII.
(c)
36 Vict.
c.
33
c.
Beckford
v.
v.
Goodchild, 2
48, ss. 53
and 57
and a
Torts, Chap.
(d)
Bl. 906.
For
(/).
Hood, 4 E. E. 527.
v.
Ludlow, 21 L. J. 0. P. 169.
Act, 1911,
W.
and Lindsell on
XXI,
Chamherlaine
v.
Digitized
v.
by Microsoft
717
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
See. 38, Companies Act, 1867 (repealed
s.
80,
as regards those
it,
who
who knowingly
take shares on
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.
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
Calthorpe v.
Trenchman (1904), 75
L. J. Oh. 92.
(6)
Per
Cur.,
Digitized
by Microsoft
See Partridge
v.
INTEEPRETATION OP STATUTES.
718
if
recoverable
a penalty,
forfeit
summarily before
whom
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
done
But
(6).
may
it
suggested distinction
is
If,
for the
B.
M.
Hamlin, 25 Q. B. D. 221.
C.
94
Anderson
v.
v. Hicks,
17 L. J. Q. B. 163.
(6)
(c)
v. Steel, sup. p.
Digitized
715.
Co., sup. p.
by Microsoft
716.
24 L.
J.
IMPLIED EEMEDIES.
and
injured;
719
as
its
The
where
right of action,
limited to those
who
exists, is strictly
it
and immediately
The Conthe enactment.
are directly
c.
70,
s.
57), for
with infectious
33
example, in imposing a
penalty on those
&
diseases,
may
give
to
market
right
of
but
it
who
of
action to the
may
(a).
company
So,
to fence
if
his cattle
(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
v.
Waters (1913), L. G. E.
289.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
720
(a).
The general
this proposition
(a)
L. J.
v.
B. 258.
by im-
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.
c.
48,
s.
34.
303.
Digitized
by Microsoft
For Medical
& 58
Viet.
c.
60,
721
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
plication
Act
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
for
extinguishing
fires,
without
compensation;
by any ratepayer
it
sented to undertake, not only the duty of supplying gratuitously water for extinguishing
fires,
but,
See Atkinson
v.
O.J.,
Johnston
46
i.s.
Digitized
by Microsoft
v.
INTEBPRETATION OF STATUTES.
722
is
it
that
the
intended
Legislature
that
the
only
The
true principle
775
is,
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,
33.
c.
104,
s.
172
Yallance v. Falle, 18 Q. B. D.
Discussed in Sharp
v. Bettie (1884),
Digitized
by Microsoft
11 Ot. of
723
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
no right of action
is
indictable
but
it is
not actionable,
its
common
(6).
if
access
V. Bristol
Bock
who
plaintiff,
B.
Go.,
15
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.
145; Pasmore
thereby prevented to
is
v.
U.
Llanrwst U. C, 80 L. J. Oh.
B. C, [1898] A. 0. 387.
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
on a municipal corporation,
individual whose house
in consequence
of the
the infringement
(d).
Bose
Market
v. Groves,
12 L. J. C. P. 251
Marshall
per Blackburn J.
N. C. 281
Wilkes
Lyon
v.
Hungerford
v.
Fishmongers' Co.,
L. E. 7 Q. B. 171,
v. Ulleswater Co.,
82, at p. 96.
(5) Bicket's
(c)
Lyme Begis
sup. p. 173.
v.
Henley, 37 E. E. 125
v. St.
Buck
Ch. D. 503.
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.,
4 Id. 350;
7 Id. 247.
IMPLIED REMEDIES.
.725
by the owners of cattle which are washed overboard, owing solely to the neglect to provide those
appliances
for
(a).
any neglect
Highway
is
Act, 1835,
become
an action at the
liable to
who has
suit of a private
suffered special
new
to create a
liability either in
the parish or in
32 & 33 Vict.
discussed in Groves
(6)
Toung
McKinnon
v.
v.
c.
v.
70
The duty
(&).
Penson (1853),
Digitized
B., at p. 407.
Bavig (1862), 7
by Microsoft
INTBKPEETATION OP STATUTES.
726
as
regards the
ground
furnished no
their
above
an action (6) for
to
liable
officer
logical
circum-
for
stances,
this
(a),
The
(c).
is
sive (d).
And
it
as settled
law that a
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
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
{d)
Cowley
v.
v.
Greenhalgh, 1 Q. B. D. 36.
Newmarlcet
V.
Thompson
Loc.
v.
[1893] A. C. 524
Q. B. D. 462
332
v.
Bd.,
[1892]
C.
A.
Moore
v.
Lambeth W. W.
60 L.
J. Q. B.
256
Digitized
354;
Pictou
Co.,
17
End
B. D. 451.
Pendlebury
V. Geldert,
Mile
v.
v.
by Microsoft
Saunders
REPEAL.
Where
a person
3 Edw. IV.
c.
(a),
727
he was not
to
whom
liable to
been intended
whom
But
SECTION
III.
besides, the
too remote
(b).
Where an Act
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
Eepealed as to England,
(6)
judgment
(c)
4 Inst. 325
Phillips V. Hopwood, 10 B.
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.
Waddingham
Digitized
by Microsoft
and see
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
728
now
first
formerly regarded, in
& 53
(a)
52
(6)
Mount
Viet.
V.
c.
63,
11.
s.
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,
L. J. Ex. 338
Comp. B.
v. Ellison,
See also
5 Bing. 177.
Morgan
Simpson
v.
Steavenson v. Oliver, 10
Beady, 11 M. &
W.
Digitized
by Microsoft
346, per
Parke B.
729
REPEAL.
force
while
after
it
it
was
committed against
offence
in force,
still
Thus 10
&
23,
c.
it,
ceased to be in force.
Will. III.
shillings
An
(a).
still
11
five
September
it
was not in
In an action
trial (6).
than forty
less
shillings, the
to
(c).
trial,
the
authorised
the laying of
(a) 1
M.
V.
rails
London
1456
Jus., 3 Burr.
Miller's Case, 1
W.
Bl. 451
Charrington v. Meatheringham,
2 M.
6 Cranch, 203.
McKenzie, Euss.
(b)
B.
(c)
Warne
(d)
B.
V.
v.
&
E. 429.
V. Morris, 1
B.
&
Ad. 441.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEKPEETATION OF STATUTES.
730
in June, 1840,
and
tlie
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
&
14 Vict.
61,
c.
or
by a judge's
order, to
under 15
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
Under
(a)
earlier
Morgan
v.
friendly
(b).
Acts,
societies
Thorn (1841), 10 L.
J.
Ex. 125
claims
Butcher
v.
Butcher
from Hestall
Morgan
v.
v.
v.
London
&
Thorn, sup.,
L. E. 3 C. P.
Henderson^
22
Gamp. Doe
v.
Boe, 22 L. J. Ex, 17
Id. 175.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Hobson
v.
v.
Neale,
731
REPEAL.
The 25 & 26
and provided also that all legal proceedings then pending against an officer on account
of a society might be prosecuted by or against
societies,
the society in
its registered
new
(6),
corporate capacity
(c),
itself,
could be sued
&
53 Vict.
c. 63),
any repeal
effect; or
{b)
(o)
by 56
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)
{d)
Dean
v.
repealed
39.
Digitized
by Microsoft
1.
INTERPKETATION OF STATUTES.
732
ment
pealed; or
(c)
affect
any
privilege,
right,
obligation, or
acquired, accrued,
liability
or incurred
any penalty,
(d) affect
ment incurred
forfeiture, or
or
punish-
any offence
committed against any enactment so repealed
(e)
(b)
in respect of
or
affect
privilege,
obligation,
liability,
penalty,
punishment as aforesaid
forfeiture, or
it
Lewis
(6)
See as to
[1918]
(c)
870.
v.
W. N.
See Gicynne
And
v.
Tatton,
292.
v. Drewitt,
see Traill
v.
63 L. J. Oh.
Digitized
by Microsoft
733
REPEAL.
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).
;
after
some provision
latter
provision
substituted
the
come
into
or
provisions
provision
is
rule
When
(c).
This
common law
to be
construed as
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
52 & 53 Vict.
c.
63,
s.
Digitized
38
(1).
by Microsoft
INTEKPBETATION OF STATUTES.
734
tained in
it
are breaches of
Where
it
(a).
and the
earlier
as they form
Thus,
when 32 & 33
provisions
certain
Vict. c. 27
as
enacted that
(c),
appeals
to
&
of
32
&
36
61, should
c.
effect
certificates
Vict.' c.
94,
it
full force,
33 Vict.
Quarter
to
have
(b).
c.
27
so far as
(d).
c.
40,
(a)
109
B.
V.
Dinghy
v.
Shipman
v. Henbest,
i T. E.
8 A. & E. 405; B.
(6)
B.
(c)
V. Stoch,
v. Merionethshire,
c.
6 Q. B. 334.
24,
s.
112,
Sched. VII.
{d)
B.
V.
Adcooh (1878), 47 L.
J.
M.
Digitized
0. 123.
by Microsoft
Comp. Bird
v.
735
OBSOLETE STATUTES.
as
Secretary of
maintenance
pro-
also
Sec.
7,
& 4 Vict.
c.
54
much
section, repealed so
(a), after
of it as related to the
Act
of Geo.
Five years
the
later,
It
was
&
preserved (c).
(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.
4 Dowl. 562
L. J. P. M.
650.
v.
v.
Kent,
2),
33
Purchas (1871), L. E. 3 P. C.
Eebbert
v.
Bead
v.
Bp.
[1889] 16
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.
736
God might be
the law of
(a),
practically superseded
in force in 1819
it for
The
(b).
by grand
Henry II., had
though the
trial
centuries,
was
stiU
fire
reached
stiU part
were
rank
them
(d).
strangled
before
the
of
1870.
UntU
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.
& 8
c.
Vict. c. 24.
18.
4 Ex. 729.
(d) 3 Inst.
(e)
6&1
Willi IV.
c.
56,
Digitized
s.
18.
by Microsoft
OBSOLETE STATUTES.
listen
737
of a
tales,
are
to fine (a)
still liable
subject (after
still
and mischievous
slanderous
;
for
offence
It is
(c).
still
Almighty,
or,
if
in,
or
the divine
(d).
An Act
truth,
Scriptures
which
imposes
persons
who
authority of the
of 1786| is
penalty
the
Hawk.
upon
in force
still
flogging
of
Holy
c.
10,
c.
75,
58,
s.
4 Bl.
Suffragan
(e).
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
Statute
35,
c.
Law
amended by 53 Geo.
(e)
Oomm.
s. 4.
III.
c.
160, as
Sec. 8, 26 Geo.
III.
c.
71,
47
I.S.
Digitized
by Microsoft
INTEEPEETATIOK OF STATUTES.
738
bishops are
c.
But as usage
pp. 631
is
et seq.),
Act open
to
Down
to the reign of
Henry
(c).
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
requiring
sessions
repealed, as regards
London, by
14,
&
62 Vict.
(b)
(c)
s.
55 Vict.
c.
76.
26 Hen. VIII.
and explained by 61
(a)
&
c. 11.
Digitized
T. E. 364.
by Microsoft
Vict.
c.
56,
COMMENCEMENT OP OPERATIONS.
to their operation
73&
(a).
for the
made
statute takes
from the
effect
(b).
first
moment
of
the
By
a fiction of law,
held on
day
its
first ^day,
fixed for
the
if
beginning of
its
operation,
took
ComuUum had no
Livy, 39,
4.
force
till
its
Edw.
(&)
Per Thorpe
(c)
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
it
valid.
Digitized
of Louisville.
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
first
made
a previously
who
(a), all
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.
the authorities
cited
in
70, note
by Christian; A.-G. v.
660 and
Latless v. Holmes, 4 T. E.
Plowd. 79a.
1 Gallison, 62.
(c) 1 Bl.
Comm., 70
n.
required printers to
1881, yet
it
make
Digitized
till
by Microsoft
COMMENCEMENT OF OPEEATIONS.
When
741
is
to
(6).
e.
106.
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
service, from,
summons on
of,
ABSURDITY,
construction to avoid, 4, 406, 446
presumption against, 356, 362-369
ABUSE OF POWERS,
ACCOUNT,
477, 616
ACKNOWLEDGMENT,
meaning
ACT OF GOD,
ACT OF PARLIAMENT,
of,
471, 491
exception on account
of,
138
175
ACTING OR P RACTISING,
Digitized
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
412, 413
of
meaning
clerical omission,
when not
of
supply
of, 25,
444
permissible, 25
of,
389
illegal oath,
ADMIRALTY, jurisdiction
ADULTERATION,
meaning of, 90, 186
mens rea in case of,
58,
195
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
AFFIRMATIVE STATUTE,
AGAINST, meaning
of,
444, 470
AGENT,
or other, meaning of, 586
principal, as representing, 134-140, 162, 471, 493, 494
AGGRIEVED PERSON,
meaning
Digitized
by Microsoft
345, 854
745
INDEX.
AGREEMENT,
violation of statute, in, effect
writing, in, meaning of, 347
ALL, meaning
of,
of,
686-705
393
ALMSHOUSE,
577
of,
meaning
of,
99 n.
ALTERATION,
erroneous expression in statute does not
effect,
544
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
of,
542.
ANCIENT STATUTES,
AND, equivalent to
ANIMAL, meaning
or,
become
when, 421-424
417, 474 n.
of, 416,
ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY
ANY
'
of,
avoid, 346
of,
Digitized
150
by Microsoft
of,
158
68,
INDEX.
746
publication
of,
474
APPEAL,
meaning
104, 165
of,
reasonable, 19
time for, bow fixed, 13
notice
of,
APPEARANCE,
meaning
APPOINT, meaning
of,
of,
370
409
for,
ARISING,
164
question,
meaning
of, 163,
are, 686,
of,
construction
of,
366
213, 456
687
Digitized
by Microsoft
142
INDEX.
747
BALLOT ACT^
1872, construction
of, 60,
636
BANKINa,
Acts, construction of, 294
operations, limitation of, 212, 213
BANKRUPTCY,
adjudged bankruptcy, meaning
of,
389
BANKRUPTCY
of,
421
ACTS,
bankrupt's rights and powers imder, 349, 411, 412, 567, 568, 570,
576
construction
576
BARRATRY, meaning
BASTARDY,
of,
196, 200
180
erroneous, effect
of,
497
178
of,
133
BENEFIT,
Digitized
by Microsoft
INDEX.
.748
BETTING,
BEYOND THE
BICYCLE,
BIGAMY,
SEAS, meaning
BILL,
409
of,
257
PAELIAMENTAEY,
741
it,
197,
of,
131 n.
BONA FIDE,
'
BONAM PARTEM,
IN, construction
in,
553-556
583
tenement, 591
BOEEOW,
borrow, owe, or take up money, meaning
power to, 522, 626 n., 655
of,
213
158
of,
420, 421
BUILDING,
erection
meaning
of,
powers as to,
57,
113
Digitized
558, 591
by Microsoft
367
INDEX.
749
BURGLAEY,
to,
to,
510-515
503
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
118, 580
CASE,
(instance), meaning of, 358-360
(receptacle), meaning of, 127, 579
CASH
IN, meaning
of,
129
of,
29
602
of conviction to
371
High Court
by, 18
appHcation
of, 81,
Digitized
by Microsoft
565
82
750
INDEX.
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
of,
593
CLAIM,
compensation,
for,
meaning
of,
345
178
of,
70
473
of,
CODIFYINa ACT,
construction
of,
47
COIN, payment
in,
COKE
(LORD),
meaning
of,
201
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
97
generally, 604
special oases, in, 11, 12, 344, 659-663, 680
See also Time.
CONDITION,
meaning
of,
140
CONDUCT,
647, 648
of,
CONFERRING RIGHTS,
273-279
statute,
how
far
affecting
foreigners,
CONJECTURAL CONSTRUCTION,
501
admissibility of 21, 35
,
CONSEQUENCES
of construction,
how
far to
be considered,
6, 35,
296-313
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-
CONTEXT,
earlier Act, reference to, 61, 64, 542,
examination
of, 35,
544
54-65
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.
CONTKOL,
possession or 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
how made,
of,
587
141
meaning
is,
24
COSTS,
Crown, against, 249, 252
executor, against, 403
if
thought
fit,
meaning
of,
232
may
of,
151, 289
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
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
meaning
of,
134 n.
CEOWN,
exclusion
inclusion
of,
of,
when, 251-253
254
to,
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
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
DEATH,
order made by deceased magistrate, discharge
penalty of, infliction of, 736, 737
DEBENTURE,
26
DECLARATORY
DEFAULT,
DEFECT,
of,
ACT,
wilful,
476
restrospeotive operation
meaning
of, 64,
of,
394, 3^5
199
meaning
508, 509
DELIVERY,
delivery or transfer, meaning
of&oe, at the, meaning of, 419
gift,
of,
576
meaning
of,
n.
151
meaning
of,
441-443
Digitized
by Microsoft
673-687
of,
756
INDEX.
DISTRESS, meaning
DOCKETING,
162
of, 151,
abolition of, 29
DOWER
ACT,
DRAFTSMAN,
of,
of,
474 n.
268, 275
DRIVER, meaning
DRUNKENNESS.
DUEINa, meaning
DUTY,
of,
496
See
of,
Mens Eba.
392, 411
to,
laws
571-608
meaning
of,
125
489
Digitized
by Microsoft
580
made with a
368
of,
INDEX.
757
256 n.
EQUITY,
equitable construction of statute, 447-461
statute contrary to, effect of, 459-461
of,
meaning
of,
201
36-39
to be considered in statutory
offence, 181
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
EXCLUSION,
EXECUTION OF OFFICE,
EXEMPTION,
255
meaning
of,
164, 165
of,
EXPIEED ACT,
in pari materid, consideration
operation of, 727-738
66
of,
548, 573
Digitized
by Microsoft
applica-
758
INDEX.
129
275, 316
FINE,
imposition by implication
meaning
of,
of,
706
614
1862, construction
of,
60
FIT,
think, meaning of, 424, 439-441
to be tried, meaning of, 171
of, 58,
186
statute
how
408
observance
of.
by reference
to,
614
65
510
See Formalities.
of, 66,
FOEMALITIES,
Digitized
by Microsoft
75&
INDEX.
meaning
of,
521
522
FRACTION OP A DAY,
FRAME RENT,
deduction
notice
for,
of,
609
construction
of,
587
152
meaning
of,
FRUSTRATE,
FURIOUS,
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
315, 464,
583-603
application
301, 313-329
a,-piilioa.tion oi,
588
of,
107 n.
GIVEN,
notice, sufficiency of, 54
ordered to be, application of, 495
relief
Digitized
by Microsoft
760
INDEX.
475
GRAMMAR,
GROSS,
589
107 n.
common, 578
GUILTY MIND.
See
Mens Rba.
GUNPOWDE R,
492
carriage
by railway
of,
182
566
7,
10,
11,
356-369,
395-401
HAVING,
or conveying, meaning of, 581
or keeping, meaning of, 581
HEADING,
of section, importance
of,
92
of a house,
meaning
HEREDITAMENT,
HIGHWAY,
of,
meaning
563
of,
591
HIMSELF, meaning
of, 139,
HISTORY, of statute, to
HOG, meaning of, 467
140
be considered, 38-47
572
chambers as a, 71
inhabited, meaning of, 71, 597
place, as a, 574, 597
unlicensed theatre, as a, 591
HOVERING
ACTS,
Digitized
by Microsoft
of,
237
761
INDEX.
IDIOT,
IF
non-responsibility
THEY THINK
IGNOEANCE, of
ILLEGALITY,
of,
177
FIT, meaning
of,
IMMEDIATELY,
IMMOEAL
meaning
of,
608
ACT, meaning
of,
489
to
avoid,
369-381,
685-687
IMPEEATIVE STATUTES,
IMPLIED DUTIES,
construction
of,
647-673
644-646
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
IMPLIED
ENACTMENTS,
deemed mcidental
JUEISDICTION, when
to statute, 615-623
705-727
IMPOSING BUEDENS,
IMPOSSIBILITY,
statute,
how
construed, 501-510
IMPRISONMENT,
meaning
of,
Digitized
673-678
553-555
IN FAVOREM
of,
614
by Microsoft
of,
762
INDEX.
LEGIS,
application
of,
208
IN PARI MATERIA,
125
is,
62, 458,
571
INCIDENTS,
127
347
of,
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
meaning
of,
of,
196
27
in,
generally, 569
INDIRECTLY, meaning
INDORSEMENT,
of,
meaning
495
of,
138, 189
INELIGIBILITY,
INFANT,
of, 153,
capacity
INFERIOR COURT,
156, 166
INFORMATION,
indictment not included
meaning
of,
in,
27
INHABITANT, meaning
of,
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
102 n.
n.,
INSTRUMENT,
gaming,
INSTRUMENTS,
of,
589
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
7, 9,
10, 20,
of,
148
496
against violation
of,
273, 407
INTERPLEADER
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,
of, 1,
1,
3-8, 13
11
Digitized
by Microsoft
of,
542
262-
INDEX.
764,
INTEEPEETATION ACT,
See 52
& 53
Vict.
o.
1889.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR,
IS
sale of, 23
ISSUE, meaning
of,
meaning
of,
563
97
SHALL BE LAWFUL,
JEWISH DISABILITY,
of,
559
construction
construction
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
of, 49,
289, 319
623-646
See
aho Jurisdiction.
JURISDICTION,
alteration of, effect of, 235-244
condition, precedent to, observance of, 673-687j
of,
150
of,
Digitized
645
by Microsoft
765
INDEX.
of debtor,
meaning
of 133
,
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.
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
LATER ACTS,
LAWFUL,
meaning
of,
259
of,
of,
64
in,
553-556
of,
applica-
255
of,
281
of,
of,
410, 607
596
threatening, sending
LEVEL CEOSSING,
of,
488
keeping
Digitized
of,
636
by Microsoft
766
INDEX.
LIABILITY,
of,
559
implication
of,
705-727
of,
613
LOAN,
meaning
of,
parochial
224
relief, of,
496
enactments as
621-623
LOP,
trees,
LOEDS,
meaning
exemption
LUGGAGE,
LUNACY,
of,
of,
100
145
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
767
INDEX.
145
>
76
built after passing of, 480
meaning
557
of,
MARRIED WOMAN,
action by and against, 80, 126, 163
capacity of, 154, 163
meaning
of,
126, 257
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,
of,
of,
259
130
130
MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT,
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
meaning
of,
494
MINISTERIAL TDUTIES,
645, 715
MISAPPREHENSION,
legislature, by, of
law or
544
MISCHIEF,
meaniag of, 450, 466, 478
statutory powers to be exercised so as to avoid, 630
MISDEMEANOUR,
what breaches
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
MONTH,
meaning
606
MULTIPLY VOICES,
MUST, may
as,
conveyance
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.
NEW
285
JURISDICTION,
NEW
NEW
NEW
in
477-484
to order, 518
NEWSPAPER,
meaning
of,
506
NEXT,
appointed, meaning
sessions,
meaning
of,
of,
14
344, 664
NOSCUNTUB A
SOCIIS,
meaning
of,
607
NOTICE,
meaning
of,
54
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
of,
46
121, 563
116, 120, 121, 128, 129, 246, 598
852
OFFENSIVE BUSINESS,
ETC., interpretation
of,
351-356
588
OFFICER,
presumed to appointment of, 62
special powers conceded to, 164
eligibility
OMISSION,
accidental,
in.
482
552
meaning
of,
609
OPEN,
court, meaning of, 16
inspection, for, meaning of, 164
Digitized
by Microsoft
771
INDEX.
of,
531
meaning
of,
565
586
OTHERS,
having any spiritual, etc., liviiig, meaning of, 60
having power to take indictments, meaning of, 603
OWN
OWN WRONG,
PROFIT, meaning
364
of,
liability for,
367
Digitized
OF, meaning
by Microsoft
of,
603
INDEX.
772
PAPIST, taking
PABI MATEBIA,
20
construction of statute
m,
62, 458,
571
PAELIAMENT,
biU
in,
clerk
history
of,
739
of,
PAEOCHIAL RELIEF,
meaning
of,
577
PART,
meaning
of,
350
specific
454, 654
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,
PENAL
of,
to,
Operation.
711
ACT,
PENAL LIABILITY,
Digitized
by Microsoft
257
performance
INDEX.
773
PENALTY,
construction
of,
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,
101
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,
meaning
of,
generally, 105, 110, 111, 164, 217, 321, 379, 471, 557,
604
other,
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,
483, 496
construction
of,
169
of,
qualification for, 18
PIRACY, meaning
PLACE,
of, 96,
meaning
public,
meaning
of,
492, 574
Digitized
by Microsoft
774
INDEX.
PLANT, meaning
PLEADING,
PLUBAL,
588
of,
form
construction
of,
of,
55
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,
POSSESSION,
land, of,
meaning
meaning
of,
of,
POST OFFICE,
POWEE, shall
POWEES,
63
486
have, meaning
of,
of,
493, 494
426
PRACTICABLE SPEED,
PEACTICE.
meaning
of,
182
See Procedueb.
of,
meaning
of,
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
515-517, 626-646
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
statute, effect
738
480
on contract
PBOMULGATION OP STATUTE,
685
of,
PBOPEETY,
grant by statute
meaning
626
PEOPEIETOB,
agent
of,
meaning
514
of,
PBOSECUTION INSTITUTED,
meaning
statute, 413
PBOVISO,
construction
of,
of,
101 n.
281, 283
PUBLIC ACT,
incorporated in private Act, effect
what is, 741
PUBLIC BENEFIT,
of,
26
statute,
of,
659
of,
706
construction of,
681, 706
PUBLIC PURPOSES,
of,
powers
for,
527
Digitized
739
by Microsoft
construction
777
INDEX.
PURSUANCE
412
of,
QUARTER
SESSIONS,
of,
502
SE,
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,
of,
417
power as
443-446, 482
power
over, 268-271
REASON,
reason to believe, meaning of, 57
statute contrary to, effect of, 459
REASONABLE,
REASONABLE NOTIQE,
RECITAL,
of appeal,
what
is,
19
RECORD, COURT
OF, meaning
Digitized
of,
614
by Microsoft
to, 26,
29-31, 407,
778
INDEX.
charging
at,
621
574
REGULATIONS,
fiscal, effect of,
699-701
21
when penal
or remedial, 560
REMUNERATION,
is,
25
509
of,
REPEAL,
effect of, generally, 8,
727-735
REPUGNANCY,
avoidance of, 4
generaUy, 280-296
modification in case
REQUIRED, meanmg
RESIDENCE,
of,
of,
406-447
664
meaning
of,
of,
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
RETURN,
from abroad, meaning of, 409
procure the return to Parliament, meaning
returning to work, meaning of, 494, 495
BEVENUE LAWS,
construction
of,
495
336.
of,
as to, 727-732
foreigners
when
RIVER, meaning
of,
565
by reference
to,
65
of,
power
to
make,
RUNNING AWAY,
SAFE CUSTODY,
SAILOR,
meaning
meaning
of,
472
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
481
of, 48,
70
offence,
SCHEDULE,
repugnant, construction
283
of,
SCHOOL,
attendance, meaning of, 371
Charitable Trusts Act, 1853, in, 587 n,
SCOPE OF ACT,
SEAL, requirement
SEAMAN,
meaning
desertion
of,
of,
168 n.
meaning
of,
177
of,
of,
importance
614
of,
92
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,
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
SHIP,
British,
casting away,
damage done
582
SIGNATUEE,
meaning
of,
514
of,
138
sufficiency of, 69
of
Acts
for, 44,
SOLDIEB,
in actual service, meaning of, 127
sick and tnaimed, meaning of, 421
SOVEIIEIGN,
Digitized
by criminal
by Microsoft
law, 263
256
n.,
266
782
INDKX.
of,
72,
313-329
of,
583-603
107 n.
OR WOUND,
STAMP ACTS,
STAB, CUT,
meaning
of,
467
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
of,
501-530
words
in.
See Intekprbtation
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
STATUTE OF FEAUDS,
construction
of, 49,
70,250,272,454, 511-
515, 575
Digitized
by Microsoft
631
INDEX.
784
STOCK JOBBING,
STREAM, meaning
565
of,
566, 597
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,
according
of,
to,
95-123
489, 565
SUFFICIENT,
evidence, meaning of, 397
signature, what is, 515
SUIT, meaning
of,
518
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
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE
applicsible, 2,
ACT,
379
SUPERFLUOUS ENACTMENTS,
effect of,
548-550
SWEAR,
meaning
of,
604
TAKING,
fish,
meaning
of,
580, 581
Digitized
of,
486
by Microsoft
of,
420
whom
785
INDEX.
construction
against, 370
TAUTOLOGY,
TAX, Act
construction in case
abolishing, construction
TAXED CART,
meaning
of,
of,
556
387
542
of,
TEMPORARY
TENANT,
ACT,
effect of
continuance
of,
146
734
of,
105
prohibition
of,
593
TIME,
abjuration oath, for taking, 14
appeal, for, how fixed, 13, 346, 659
application of, meaning of, 344
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.
TRADE UNION,
100
TRADER, meaning
567
to,
584
45
VBI
QUE ABBOGAT
NOVA,
UNDER,
authority, meaning of, 412
distinguished from " in respect "
of,
556 n.
of,
meanings
of,
construction
of,
509
Digitized
by Microsoft
in different
INDEX.
UNJUST WEIGHT,
UNLAWFUL,
act,
meaning
meaning
167, 196
of, 166.
purpose, meaning
of,
475
of,
787
648
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
of,
application of,
419
VAGABOND,
of,
372
meaning
of,
96
of, 471,
499
VALUE,
clear yearly, meaning of, 70
ship, of, naeaning of, 516
VARIATION,
interpretation, of, 559
language,
564
of,
170
Digitized
by Microsoft
INDEX.
788
VESTED EIGHT,
no one has, in a course
of procedure,
400
VOCATION, money
VOID, meaning
of, 66,
of,
555
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
WATER
of,
on, 34, 35
RATE,
cases on, 97 n.
examination
light
159
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
559
113
WORDS,
absurdity, interpretation in case
analogous, interpretation of, 555
of,
406
to,
when, 123
meaning imposed by
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
WORK,
meaning
of,
584
Digitized
by Microsoft
124, 345
790
INDEX.
WOUND,
meaning
WEIT, lost,
WRITING,
of,
467, 682
procedure in case
of,
27
YEAR,
and a quarter
meaning of, 609
half a,
YOUNG OF SALMON,
of a, 604
meaning
of,
184 m.
THE END.
Digitized
by Microsoft
Digitized
by Microsoft
Digitized
by Microsoft
Digitized
by Microsoft