Licensing - 1849- 1899

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 28 October 2012.

George Cross -v- Thomas Watts [1862] EngR 1072; (1862) 13 CB NS 239; (1862) 143 ER 96
19 Nov 1862	Licensing
	Link[s] omitted

Washington -v- Scott [1865] EngR 87 (B); (1865) 6 B & S 617
1865	Licensing
	Link[s] omitted

Smith -v- Redding [1866] EngR 148; (1866) 6 B & S 621; (1866) 122 ER 1324
2 May 1866	Licensing
	[ Commonlii ]

Muir -v- Keay (1875) LR 10 QB 594
1875	Licensing
	The defendant ran premises under the name 'The Café. It was discovered to be open through the night, and at the time seventeen women and twenty men were there. They had been sold with cigars, coffee, and ginger beer, and were consuming them. Held: The house was kept open for public refreshment, resort, and entertainment, and required a licence.

Taylor -v- Smetton (1883) 11 QBD 207
1883	Contract, Licensing	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant was accused of running an unlicensed lottery. He sold tea packets. With each tea packet he gave away a ticket allotting a prize to the purchaser. The prizes varied in value, and the purchaser would not know what he would receive until after he made the purchase. Held: The defendant was runing a lottery.

Hotchin -v- Hindmarsh (1891) 2 KB 181
1891 QBD Lord Coleridge CJ, Mathew J	Licensing, Consumer	Casemap 1 Citers
	The appellant was the local foreman of a dairy company, and the milk which he supplied had added water. He was prosecuted and convicted under section 6 of the 1875 Act. The 1875 Act had limited defences in section 6 and a warranty defence in section 25, which the appellant was unable to establish, but it was contended on his behalf that his employers and not he should have been prosecuted. Held: The earlier sections of the Act were directed to physical acts, but in relation to two of those sections, Lord Coleridge CJ said: "If the magistrates find the existence of the intent and the commission of the act . . the person doing the act must be dealt with as a principal, even though he is a servant. It cannot be his duty to break the law and if he knowingly commits the act he is guilty." As to section 6: "In my opinion a person who takes the article in his hand, and performs the physical act of transferring the adulterated thing to the purchaser, is a person who sells within this section." and "If, therefore, any person transgresses against the provisions of section 6, be he principal or agent, he falls within that section." Mathew J said: "It would be an extraordinary interpretation of the Act to hold that even when it was shown that the person who did the act was guilty, his employer alone could be liable to be convicted."
	Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1875 6

Williamson -v- Norris (1899) 1 QB
1899 CA Lord Russell CJ, Wills J	Licensing	Casemap 1 Citers
	A barman sold beer at a bar in House of Commons run by the Kitchen Committee. There was no licence. He was convicted of an offence under section 3 of the which provided "No person shall sell ... any intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed to sell the same, or at any place where he is not authorised by his licence to sell the same. "On reading that section I think it is impossible not to see that, in order to bring the innocent act of a waiter or a barman within the penal clause, it is necessary to put a strong gloss on the words of the section. I am of opinion that the true meaning of the section is that the sale which is prohibited must be a sale by the person who ought to be licensed. Everyone knows that a barman or a waiter is not a person licensed. The sales struck at is a sale by the master or the principal. It is contended for the appellant that section 3 ought to be read as if the words 'without being duly licensed' were ' without being protected by a licence'; but that would be putting a violent gloss upon the words, and to do so is not necessary for the purpose of giving effect to the Act." Wills J "The construction contended for by the appellant requires that 'authorised by his licence' should be read as equivalent to 'acting under the authority of someone else having a licence'. It is a great straining of language."
	Licensing Act 1872 3