cooperation witli Cornell University Libraries, 2007.
You
for
for revenue-generating or
other commercial purposes.
Digitized by Microsoft®
CIRCUIT,
BARBISTER-AT-LAW.
very
many
emendations
in
Editor
by
his
friend,
Mr.
named
.... 244
CHAPTER
VI.
;
(1888),
20
Q.
B.
D.
460
; 57
& A.
65
;
651
36
;
..
;
H.
L
577,
619,
620,
671
Ashby
;
303
V.
Siddon
(1830),
;
;
150
47
L.
T.
213
(1891),
;
205;
12
Jur.
N.
S.
453
3
Scott
11
575
Beal,
Exp.
(1868),
L.
;
;
40
Cox C. C. 158
;
Bence, Be,
Co.
(1878),
3
Ex.
D.
54
400
;
28
; 37
;
;
153
L
686
Bessey
;
97
Birch ?).
Lake
(1674),
;
;
Blain, Ex
p. (1879),
;
;
(1852),
3
Prosecutions
(1916),
84
L.
J.
K.
B.
354,
Bourke i;. Nutt,
18;
;
;
[1891]
2
Q.
129
;
BraU, Be,
377,
568
Bramston
;
84 .. 386
Brandon Hill,
Bray v. Lancashire
54
722
[1896]
2
Q.
B.
463
64
L.
J.
Q.
503
Britton i;. Ward
224
[1899]
R.
668
437
Turnpike
;
991
;
Mutual
Protection
Society
(1889),
; 86 L. T.
17
;
;
;
Ching V. Surrey
;
374;
38
L.
J.
33
L.
;
(1881),
7
A.
C.
125
41
; 2
L.
M.
&P.
;
v:
Gaskarth
(1818),
8
Taunt.
431
694
217
;
;
;
Commissioner for Stamp
Duties v. Byrnes,
91;88L. T.
779 501,502
181
89
V.
Hubbuck
(1862),
:
V. Whittingham
;
Coosaw Mining Co.
;
198 ..
••
Courteen's
Case
(1618),
;
;
;
111,
682
Crooke
v.
De
Vandes
(1803),
;
Cundell v.
311; 72
;
241
;
Daniels v. Trefusis,
Darlaston
Loc.
380
Davis,
^x
^. <1872),
L. R. 8 Ch. 862 n.; 42 L. J. Ch.
673
; 28
;
;
214
;
6
Dingley w. Moor
116 ; 62
73
;
;
;
V.
(1870),
L.
[1891]
1
Q.
B.
330 ;
;
;
Eastern
(1901),
71
L.
J.
;
(1874),
L.
(1876),
1
Q.
;
(1902),
Eslick,
Be
(1877),
4
V. Stevens
;
81
; 9
p.
H.M.S.
Canopus
(1917),
86
89
..
;
;
186,
562
Flannigan
(1902),
164
102
273;
145
Forster
V.
Taylor
(1834),
5
B.
& Ad.
887
;
33
; 36
Fredericks v. Howie
;
;
576;
564
;
;
;
[1906]
;
V. Guillon(1843),
589
V.
Liverpool
Docks
(1858),
3
;
;
;
;
;
82;
;
;
41
Graves'
Case
(1869),
L.
(1880),
5
Ch.
D.
1
838 ;
32
(1883),
11
Q.
120
246
27
W.
Grieves
i;.
Case
(1792),
4
Bro.
C.
C.
67
53
;
600
146
177
;
71
Hampton v. Rickard
Hancocks v. Labache
;
519
152
; 11 L. T.
938
67
w.
Hooker
(1777),
2
526
;
Herron v.
;
(1884),
Hinton v. Dibbin
;
Hood Barrs
;
(1890),
24
Q.
;
;
(1882),
8
Q.
;
;
;
Co.
(1872),
Iveson
,•
;
;
V.
Harris
(1855),
;
126
V.
;
434, 435, 438,
Kearney
;
Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall
V. Bartsch
;
Lancashire v. Stretford
209;
47
[1911]
2
K.
B.
15
; 80
L.
388
Law V.
Law
Society
Lawrence
V. King
;
305 64
;
;
Co.
(1876),
1
Q.
(1866),
L.
R.
Leslie
v.
Richardson
(1848),
6
881 .. 455
;
A. 73
Leverson
;
215
[1892]
2
Q.
Long V.
;
;
.
352,
Sco.
218,
233,
234
V.
Chislett,
[1910]
A.
C.
220
.. 94
MoCalmont
;
27
600
97
417
;
(1819),
Marsh
;
820;
262
532
610
V.
Martin
(1870),
L.
R.
5
Q.
217
I).
Johnson
V.
Child
(1698),
V. Scott
Maurice
v.
Marsden
(1850),
630
Mette
V.
Mette
(1859),
1
Sw.
Micklethwait,
lie
(1855),
(1861),
314
528
Co.
(1857),
1
(1856),
1
C.
512
Morrison
v.
(1876),
1
Q.
 
'.'.
Mountcashel v. O'Neill
222
Mountjoy
;
(1860),
2
322
;
;
388
64
(1874),.
L.
R.
7
;
of
Works
(1859),
;
Paget
Pain
V.
Boughtwood
(1890),
24
Q.
;
..
(1844),
;
568
; 9
L.
T.
694
327,
335,
504
[1898]
;
;
;
767 689
London, &c.
Supply Assoc.
;
V. Piper,
;
;
;
(1550),
Plowd.
35 . . .
. 316,
452
;
(1888),
129
; 30
L.
T.
789
1
Postmaster-General,
Ex
p.
(1879),
;
;
;
Quinton
R.
;
1
Receiver of Police District v. Bell
(1872),
Insurance
Co.
(1915),
84
180
7
501
Adamson
(1875),
1
Q.
;
441,
442
Adlard
1825),
Allendale
(1789),
Ampthill
(1824),
;
Balme
(1777),
27
Q.
B.
D.
480
105; 35L. T.
;
499
Bellamy
(1823),
86
520
;
460
84
.. 110
Bewdley
(1712),
Bishop
(1880),
5
Q.
..
;
133
;
197
Brown
(1800),
2
East
P.
0.
1007
470
574
Buchanan
(1846),
8
Q.
Butler
(1685),
Byrde
(1890),
60
Cambridge JJ.
;
;
87
;
21
22
143
22
(1870),
28
Dyson,
[1894]
2
Q.
124
Erdheim
(1896),
;
172
117
493
;
62
488
;
176
557
Lichfield
(1842),
2
Q.
Linford
(1857),
7
;
146
;
;
65
16
Harrison, 23 W. R. 392
150
Middlesex
(1851),
;
137
592
Mildenhall
(1820),
;
;
153
;
; 44
134
;
110
11
Jur.
487
Owens
(1859),
27
Pembridge
(1842).
3
Q.
B.
901 ;
Pierce
(1814),
65
41;1N. &P.
403 ;
16
Jur.
177
Poynder
(1823),
R.
154
304
Read
(1849),
13
Q.
B.
524
176
(1855),
130
51; 46
(1836),
172
-St. Matthew
St.
St. Peter,
Scott
(1856),
133
; 22
264
Sedgley
(1831),
M.
415
53,
186
18;
79;
10
Jur.
N.
S.
360;
4
B.
170
8W.
14
10
19,
345
Sussex
(1865),
4
69
39
134
Tewkesbury
(1868),
;
0.
45
202
464
ToUey
(1803),
3
East
Townrow
(1830),
J.
471
Webb,
[1896],
1
Q.
B.
487
98 ;
74
..
..
230
Wood
(1855),
20
469
Worcestershire
JJ.
(1839),
54;
1
681
Youle
(1861),
6
H.
& N.
753
144
175;
1
263
Rishton
v.
Whatmore
(1878),
8
99 R.
T.
313
; 13
W.
R.
84 .
113
Rochdale
Building
;
;
40 W.
R. 450;
66 J.
P. 404
[1894]
2
Q.
B.
715
106 R.
R. 623
208
330
800;
[1910]
A.
[1893]
2
Q.
B.
Salford (Mayor) v. Lancashire C.
C.
(1890),
25
Q.
;
of
London,
[1896]
A.
C.
296 ;
65
L.
J.
M.
Soutt V. Freeman
N. S.
series) 745
[1891]
;
;
; 14
Light
Co.,
[1898]
ICh.
209
606
Sheil,
Ex
120
;
576
(1867),
L.
E.
Sims
[1897] Q.
B. 175
71,
595
V.
246
169
V.
Lindo
(1858),
196, 335; 4 Jur.
697
[1902]
1
Smithies v. Bridge,
(1884),
14
Q.
B.D.455
(1868),
468
Commrs.
(1881),
6
Q.
99;
;
Studds
H.
;
;
[1913]
S.
[1893]
1
Q.
68
;
[1892]
A.
C.
298 ;
62
L.
J.
Q.
B.
50
629,705
Talbot
V.
Shrewsbury
(1873),
;
186
40 L. J. C.
;
.. 575
11
;
152
.. 249,
252
127
Thompson,
Re,
[1894]
1
Q.
B.
462
564 ;
39
298
48
4
Trowell v.
699
4 C.
P. D.
149,
263
u.
Gooding
(1827),
376
Vallance
v.
Falle
(1884),
13
Q.
35
;
Q.
B.
449 ;
51
(1817),
4
Price
Ill
[1917]
V. Murdoch
V. Furbor
Waterford Peerage,
227
Ch.
D.
[1900]
1
Q.
[1894]
1
Q.
B.
812
(1885),
10
6 Jur. 487
. . 477
Whistler
v.
Forster
(1868),
14
;
780
305
B. 313
;
0.
V. Pritohard
527
V.
Eoberts
(1852),
;
;
475
26
24
; 17
Worms
;
;
;
30 W.
R. 761 ..
V. Higgon
118
;
in parois
313, 391, 397, 408, 455,
458,
571,
678
86
291
158
50,
536
.. 287,
25,
conveyances
o.
35,
Quakers
573
689
198,587,714
668
248
602
28
.
c.
93,
distress
645
0.
67,
227,
509
1890
518
e.
53,
bankruptcy
700
c.
73,
mortmain
.. .. .. .. .. 215
c.
76,
423, 445,
294,
2
would
determined
: is the
offender indictable
lead
to
absurdity,
or
some
which
case
the
avoid
that
Lord Cranworth
of
down by
probably
the
exclU'ding
reason
appears
it
must
receive
is
acquired
Denman
J. Ex.
362 ; Dennis
are
subsequently
made
unlawful
by
only)
that
Legislature
when
its
intention
if
the
the meaning
strue
of
the
what
the
was
even
fraudulently
con-
made
within
(6).
So,
(a)
Short
v.
on which
person (a).
Even when
he got
; Exp.
Settlement,
In
re,
[1917]
1
Ch.
weU
the omission in
although
it (e).
of,
[1917]
P.
54.
obedience to the letter,
parties
thereto.
As
to
the
Act
31,
rate
book,
and
the
premises
remained
unoccupied
;
the
hearing,
and
such
to
adjudge
putative father,
hearing
(b).
 Where
an
that
tion) even
;
defects, but
Insolvent
provided
that
his
a
debt
which
and the
the
neglect
or
design
and
persons
49,
the
magistracy
was
not
qualified,
as
any
performed,
of the putative
jurisdiction in a case
Act,
See
per
Brett
J.,
B.
liability
insured
(6),
him from
to be sold
containing one-third
imperial measure answering to
merely,
or
the
(e)
and the
recover property
(6)
(d) As
And a like
exists,
(6)
be
satisfied of
the loss,
in
extra-parochial
place,
a
judgment
should
an
who
had
refused
the
offence
involv-
ing
dishonesty
or
inconvenience
be
attested
omission,
however
fatal
to
the
actually
working
a
within any
line,
or
not as
their Act of
i6300,
give the
71
1914,
that
the
resulting
incapable
of
reasonable
meaning,
grounds
(c),
to
give
as
against
the
(o)
Simpson
v.
board
Sec.
I.
and
neither
the
tation
Q.
B.
by 6
will, gene-
sufficiently
ished all who drew blood in the street, the layman
who
wounded
have
fallen
to save
inducing
his foe until
him
to
death
had
taken
by
Lord
ment,
hands,
so
easy
a  person
whicli a person
misunderstand
(a).
in general,
whole Act
circumstances
which
led
to
the
enactment,
of all
other docu-
statutes (c),
Wear Com.
to
case,
see
now
Tithe
Act,
5,
cited
by
Lindley
L.J.,
Bash-
;
the
voyage
is admitted
precise intention of the
be a
therefore
be
(a)
Hudson
v.
Ede,
ancient statutes,
writ-
consider whether
it exactly
where it
J.
the
American
and
English
that
the
crime
colony of
320.
intended to
carry into
the
two
documents
There
;
been
waged
about
negligence
proceedings,
mere filing of
aflSdavits in answer
section,
language
to
what
to
unless for
meaning,
be
(6).
of
Claim,
Ives
v.
Williams,
63
L.
J.
Ch.
521
the
other
hand
M.E.,
Holme
v.
Ouy,
5
Ch.
D.
905
and
B.
(o)
Bristol
Tramways
Go.
v.
Fiat
Motors
(1910),
Chief Justice
Hengham said
because,
he
having
Lord
construe
a
statute
has
employed
(a).
Yet,
ture
(that
is,
consider
the
time
in
particular
clause
was
inserted
entitle
under it,
(6)
Id.
134,
itself (b). Incivile
of
Lord
tenant,
1.
v.
Insoles,
[1912]
dower,
was
held
not
to
held
by
the
testator
in
the
colony,
to limitations or
qualifications of the
Act
empowered
the
to sea
without serious
the
ship
or
would
was pulled down, the
should
(6)
different
&
agent
may
attend
thereof, by
in the
is incorporated
(a) Bead v.
24
Vict,
c.
10,
G.
P.
190.
interest
in
the
Statute
of
Uses,
who
has
the
use
be
in
possession
of
it,
(b).
To
where
 wilful default   was
be  in fault,
rules the
then existing
;
the
Davis
v.
Ckrry
G.
177.
the
an
acknowledg-
(a)
Legislature
16,
s.
131
(c?),
pari
materid,
it
is
fallacious
to
(a)
6
also
conduct
any
be
SECTION v.—THE
on the rolls
made
additions,
omissions,
and
alterations;
but
of
a
bill
15, p.
addition
invariably observed
Lord
P.
522
(c)
C. 189
everything
the purpose
light
L.
J.
of the
(6)
Venour,
12
and
24,
London
as
it
were,
a
key
to
it
usually
of
the
Act
ambles in Acts
Digitized by Microsoft®
true
construc-
the
two
law from holding
State
that
to the
given
by
a
trader
defendant,
should
be
59,
for
existing
law.
was to
that
in
from
loss
; it
was
therefore
held
of
quarter
sessions
made it penal
taking
if
the
preamble
bad
character
and
enacted
attested
(6)
a conviction
(a)
Emmanuel
v.
Constable,
that
but applied
as members
this particular
1,
per
Lord
Westbury.
See
offenders
held
not
to
be
confined
by
the
preamble
of
22
Geo.
III.
c.
75(6),
in England,
III.
p.
337.
Act
amended
by
57
& 58
confined
to
claims
of
this
kind
time
(6).
than the enacting
free from doubt.
 
was not
appearance
of
seeds
of
of
adulterating
seeds
in
fraud
of
the
road in
recited
had
the
terms,
made
of exchange,
preamble
cannot
preambles
to
(a);
that
is,
such light
as its
history may
bear
(6).
(o)
SUBJECT
MATTER.
The
words
of
about
their
a
or in
to
be
attained
(6).
It
is
any
document,
read
in
one
is
to
be
construed,
it
must
be
branch of
the law,
to
a
judgment
being
water
particular
meaning
in
which
in
the
particular
business
in
(6)
applying
to
all
v.
Ghatterton,
5
Ch.
D.
275 ;
Spackman,
Be,
24
Q.
v.
Newcastle,
Duke
See
B.
v.
Man-
chester,
 
 
721
Ormskirk
Union
v.
Lancaster
a
debt
(b) ;
and
Geo.
V.
c.
59
person
of
order. The
not technically
a debt
award;
Lees
v.
Newton
(1866),
35
claimed to be due
bounty
of His
 
(1916),
32
T.
L.
(b).
Where
the
Quarter
Sessions
were
empowered
to
order
(a)
7
lie
or formally, nor
on them.
Even the
should
be
guardians,
was
held
to
apply
to
Ex.
91
commercial
sense
And the same rule has
been
by 56
Light
and
Coke
Co.
v.
Hardy,
17
Q.
its
most
frequent
to
be
construed
as
cluding
or
not
Cas.
857
St.
Leonard's
v.
Franklin,
;
restricted
the
his
board
of
withdrawn
from
the
reach
of
creditors:
consequently,
in
action,
as
execution
(b).
the purpose of
see
Denny,
Trustee
Ch.
288,
and
B.
v.
structure
temporary
is
not
within
the
coming in contact with
14
55;
see
also
appears
to
suit
the Act.
In the
being
of
way
over
person in
houses
in
the
constable (c).
 inhabited
dwelling-house
of an elector. In those cases, a person is an
inhabitant
 
least,
most likely that he
issues;
P.
69
would
meaning
of
when
(6)
Bankruptcy
Courts
(a).
more
;
within
the
corporation is
also
London
Firm
of
Merchants
who
them
of
ment.
Ordinarily,
the
tenant
of
premises
is
the
J. K.
chattels
in
rooms
not
to
apply
to
the church-
all
persons
 piracy
was
confined
jure
gentium
such construction
(6).
Even
language
falls
short
(a)
Ternan,
v.
0. 179.
;
;
s.
78,
services are
to secure
a
respectable
social
position,
would
be
frustrated
(c),
A
soldier
(a)
Antony
v.
Cardenham,
Dogs (c),
to be
of
the
(a) 1 Vict. c.
(repealed 45 &
46 Vict.
affording protec-
in
a
colonial
patent
(6).
of
the
owners
where he had
 
to pay
89
v.
Gold
Beefs
of
West
condition
Act,
1862,
collision between
be
construed
Watson,
who
says
be
provisions ...
are
naturally
susceptible
ss.
2,
318
(repealed
a shelter kept
for a charitable
purpose and not
for gain {a).
any other debts
of
such
estate
for
com-
plied
with,
in
general,
no intention
grantor
for
such
Un.
objection, and
to
he could not so easily do
if
tion, the
cannot
be
ascertained,
2,
a signature
this
indorsement of
259
Hirst
0. P. 162,
P. 162.
poisons by
the
that a
abroad
(a),
was
satisfied
any
to the requisite facts is accepted as a competent de-
ponent,
Hallett
V.
Andrews
(1897),
of the
power which
they formerly
might
from
arbitrator
to
make
thought
confined
to
(a)
or,
enlarge the time, or
after
(6)
Per
Tindal
C.J.,
Lambert
v.
C. P.
secute
same
right
of
was
open
lands
of
copy-
(c).
Except
in
has
fallen
is
generally
ex-
tended
Legisla-
ture
their
it
was
made,
as
1743,
the
accounts
Eliz.
c.
5,
did
not
action,
(a)
Per
p.
124,
p.
186.
(b)
within the
(6)
Norcutt
V.
Dodd
(1841),
13;
I; for an
resulting
Appeal
(d)
that
the
statutory
rule
to
literal
rules
of
grammatical
im-
probable
primary
real
(a)
2,
c.
16,
s.
4;
U.
of
law,
without
clearness (b) ;
(1911),
Sainslury
(1791),
debtor
was
(6).
The
be
made,
R.
1,
v.
directed
the
election
;
13
rising
know
to
he
ineligible,
throw
West-
minster
2,
which
gave
debtor,
did
the writ against the
of
of
the
demand
pending,
P.
25
to a cor-
not
necessarily
evidence
on
a
builder
 
proviso
71,
5 Geo.
V. c.
J. C. P.
that
a
literal
having
jurisdic-
tion
in
the
ground that
from
it
effect
prevent
to
that
intention
(b).
com-
months
would
his
manners,
1889,
enacts
inter
alia
bys.
2
(1)
those
formalities
(b), and
company, within the
person would
respects
as
limited
law,
which
46
other
respects
valid
between
against
an
order
of
the
(a)
repealed by
for
sale,
775.
(6)
B.
V.
Badger,
no protection
15.
(6)
seaman within these sections
actually so employed,
them
held
not
the pew during divine
was vested, and the
soil that
was vested
created
by
vested
in
an
urban
authority.
A
local
authority
has
therefore
no
power
(6)
Bolls
shall
appear
to
such
judge
registration
of
bills
the
enact-
ment
that
the
Act
apphed
only
of
years,
with
sever deal
with them
as distinct
53
shall be applied as
secured and
its
operation
(b).
structure
authorised
by
560,
and
the
cases
cited
there,
175
the
adjoiBing
premises
vessel
dock,
except
charge
of
a
duly
licensed
to
his
liberty,
c.
86,
s.
17)
leave
his
ship
(a).
a
warrant
the
ever
in
its
language,
is
trary
into every
the
accused
is
a
if the demo-
900.
(d)
(a)
B.
V.
Tinkler
(1859),
question,
see
not
the
without
(a)
Per
Stephen
J.,
Cundy
v.
articles
by
the
railway
knowledge was
(b)
Morden
v.
Porter,
For
enacted
case,
which
Exchequer
held
as
misdeed
with
penal
the fish
See also per
Parke B., Bumby
 
destruc-
exposed
for
it belongs,
order
to
is
an
ofifence
under
s.
6,
Sale
his
premises
not
389
sought
to
render
a
be
liable
carried
on
on
the
1887,
within
and done
in that the prose-
based upon
properly be con-
proper license,
out their
who was employed
evidence to
appear
that
the
the
premises,
it
was
though
a
stores is not liable
possession
prohibited.
A
man
who
(a)
35
; Daniel
at liberty
who
persists
in
to
remove
it,
the per-
existed
a
(c).
86,
s.
London
195
legal
the
act inno-
without
evil
intention,
or
the
of
the
Merchandise
tended
to
be
supplied
of
a
possession to
a penalty
for being
incorrect
89
B.
v.
that
there
was
is the
requiring
the
the
foreign
to
to
recover
;
unjust
to
extend
the
beyond
the
scope
of
the
but
only
the
immediate
only
a
protec-
tion
certain
number
of
a
company
v.
Lewis
Merihyr
(o)
8 &
9
rights and liabihties
moter
even
regarding
; now s. 54,
Bankruptcy Act, 1914
636;
(c) JR.
a witness in order
an
of
the
ambassador
who rented
absolutely necessary for
would have been
to cover ground
(1)
which
suggests
—
of
the
Court will make short work of it. But when the
second
  evasion
said that
the
true
of
that
which
goods
v.
Melville,
1
Man.
c. 90—
189
event to seize,
fact
that
it
was
so
given,
then
however
absolute
in
form
the
docu-
ment
may
be,
it
comes
stage,
but
2,
of the
59,
s.
51,
and
Syers
V.
(c) 6 & 7
Act, see Bex
the
The
Acts
s.
54
(6)
their
bills
or
notes,
payable
to
prohibit
a
joint
by
giving
the
express
the
would
in
mort-
main
(b)
the
discharge
of
a
mortgage
to trustees
for certain
charitable purposes,
a large
sum of
money, which
;
with
an
ille-
settled
(c)
of settlement
child
there,
and
the
the
parish
where
he
Bohson,
held
that
the
had not
removed for
the sole
payment
qualification,
the
v.
Allendale,
Massey
v.
Burton,
27
(e)
B.
V.
Bridgnorth
(1839),
;
Hughes
v.
Chatham
(1843),
13
within
the
policy,
of
the
Act;
for
always subject to
evasion in this
to Duty
show
that
of
Eichmond,
being
certain estates
in Scotland,
the
death
of
the
said
a sale for
adjoining
one
its
legacies,
did
not
death,
the
essential
(a)
Deal
v.
SchofieU
(1867),
37
L.
J.
M.
C.
15
by
59 ;
Veitch
v.
Exeter,
27
prevent
a
creditor
though
demised
premises
should
be
Bank. 122. See Abbott,
V.
c.
59,
s.
41.
on
to
set
warrant,
grantor's
arrear(a).
of
personal
chattels
creditors,
be
given
Although
such
an
revenue, and
This
device,
stamped,
effect, if
under
s.
1869,
was
his
vote
for
the
570;
Bussell,
Exp.,
293
As to
1386.
not arbitrary,
his office ought
Wilkes
(1769),
account
then
in
the
their
discretion
(b).
Thus,
it
was
long
fit,
did
not
authorise
proportionate
made
against
of
their
(6)
27,
s.
21.
;
(6).
powej,
thought fit, to give costs in every poor law appeal,
it would
discretion in
each case,
practice,
the
been
held
that
fide
that the Legis-
1.
(6)
contracts,
Scott
v.
applica-
The
142 ; B.
the trustees
and the
right of
effectual for carrying out the latter Act as
if
re-
enacted
therein
it
679;
amount
should,
in
were
so
120,
premises
does
not
incurred by
without a distinct expression of its
intention,
a
this
effect
is
amount, it
compensation was
conferring jurisdiction
in express
triiless he showed,
if he
felt aggrieved
Brierley
have
Admiralty
jnrisdiction,
those Courts, empowered
.classes of cases
any case to the
or in
relation to
AFFECTED
IF
that the
said that
the law
788.
do
so
in
explicit
estate, right, title, or interest, he
shall
Par-
Hament
(6).
Thus,
Mersey
Docks
Go.
Act, 1855
Westminster Vestrij
(c)
Lancashire
V.
Chelmsford
Union,
[1891]
1
Q.
(/)
Q.
B.
323.
{g)
On the
taken
(6),
do
not
apply
pro-
(e)
and
Bankruptcy
595. See
Be Thomas,
delivery
of
the
writ
to
the
bound
the
goods
from
of discharge,
does
not
bind
determiae,
enough
to
include
the
Crown
Car
Theberge
v.
is not excluded
from the operation
of a statute
409
43,
s.
18,
any
certificate under the
foreign
They
apply
also
all
within
its
criminal
flying to England is regarded as a Dutch
subject for the
Indian
Chief,
3
139
; Firebrace
V.
Firebrace,
425,
(c)
felony, burning
the King's
native States in
401
an
intention
subject
matter,
presump-
tion
afterwards
did
to
subjects
person
during
the
life
whether
the
would
be
not
within
after
not to
who left
old,
was
held
so as
British
subjects
for
the
Africa
(c).
A
different
construction
would
and object
It was accord-
Matrimonial
Causes
Act,
1857
(b).
The
If,
therefore,
beheve
the
for most pur-
sovereign,
an
Fisher, 2
country,
and
accredited
admitted
(c)
would
violate
of the repealed
West
African
Settlements
to affect
any right
to offences
v.
give
jurisdiction
Exp.,
not
extend
real
property
dealt in general terms with the real
estate
would
be
construed
as
or in
owner,
given by
the
was
by
agents
34,
imposing
liabihty
Parliament,
unam-
biguously
173;
Blackwood
language
would
otherwise
foreigner the
was construed
620.
of
Parliament
S.
299;
Gibson
v.
actually
Jefferys
v.
Westbury,
Boutledge
v.
L. 119.
case
of
an
unpublished
work,
the
the
personal
representative
a
and
held that the
the
applied
in
Act
had
been
considered
encroach-
p.
95;
The
Wild
Banger,
32
held to
had
foreign
ports
Court jurisdiction
(a)
48,
to
that he
every
stands
(6).
Leges
posterioves
wise
the
grantees;
and
prevail
over
merely
re-enacts
the
provision
read
as
part
of
last Act
of an
Blachwell,
3
one
implies,
on
and
thus
Act empowering
payment
jurisdiction
affect
the
owner
of
reasonable
supposition
of
ment of' costs
in
the
manner
shall
nominate
a
of
it
was
held
the bird had
writing
attested
Act,
See
Mens
Bea,
sup.
p.
177.
and
1888.
1875,
a Divisional Court
1876,
which
353
by
the
keep
their
accounts
and
Act,
126,
was
held
to
the
Cas.
157.
See
Cowley
trade,
repealed
by
on the
intention to
more likely
to be
in consonance
two
statutes
B. v.
v.
language
is
;
penalty
of
to an
individual pauper
{d). It
(a)
Hawkins
v.
Gathercole
(1854),
24
L.
J.
Ch.
338
193.
See
also
& C.
852.
See,
an
individual
pauper
(a).
The
for
members,
has
a
duty on
persons licensed
E.
660.
a
particular
money
secured
by
bond
former.
against land,
they
in
the
earlier
Act,
at more
than per
be void on that
46,
only, without any
offence
it a
ages {d).
lunatic,
and
to
sue
a
lunatic,
so
found
by
without
im-
poses
in
order to inflict heavy costs
and
of
the
several
case
impliedly
repealing
136,
Factory
and
their
office
(e)
C.
37.
months.
regards
fictitious
entry (a).
after
a
month's
notice
gage,
employed
Cumberland
v.
Copeland,
sup.
p.
291.
(a)
Foley
v.
repealed
by
33
is
6d.
163.
order costs to be
held unrepealed
by s.
such
cases,
recovered
less
the
plaintiff
not
to
abridge
lease
being
confirmed
by
mere
implica-
tion
(6).
 ...
merely by
indica-
tion
of
a
ment,
unless
that
intention
the
general
one
the special
Pugh,
action
for
damages
involving
it
apply
for
the
benefit
of
Eliz.
c.
10
(sup.
ecclesi-
astical
;
9.
(6)
Adam
v.
British
and
Foreign
it
conferred by that Act of making a gift
by
concurrence
of
it was
County Courts
such cases, under
been
directed
that
Court in
for
letting
laws,
would
in-
clude
debtors
who
2
Vict.
c.
110,
its
registration
in
the
no judgment
the
pur-
pose,
aU persons who were
App.
Cas.
240
(d).
So,
an
a sub-
and
special
relating
to
(c)
A.-Q.
V.
Exeter
Corporation
(1911),
Where
a
shillings
for
held
that
the
later
provision
38
(against
gaming
houses),
B.
instituted by
123.
553,
sup.
p.
237.
place. Thus,
misconduct
in
a later
one which
empowered them
making
it
felony
to
sentence
an
common law, the
was held to have
Act
(9
in
or harbour
in
breach
of
the
service,
after
portional abatement of wages for the time of
such
from
but
by
indeed,
recited
 
repeal seems
be
main
provisions
of
72, 18 &
foreign
in
within
the
121,
inf.
p.
455.
one
person
cannot
reasonableness
same
cause.
Besides,
the
required to
valid
demand
made
purpose
of
preventing
or
detecting
he
has
breach
29
L.
provision
As
to
the
under such
action on a contract
to him,
he shall
of
away
the
appeal
maintainable unless
10.
See
also
compensation
sent
to
the
employer,
and
a conviction,
so
respecting
the agreement should
to it (a).
ceedings
before
injury, or
provided, could
not be
But a milk carrier
the
latter
section
and 're-enacted
See County Courts Act,
to
his
(a)
as
extending
to
the
would
have
opened
(6).
the
of
game,
 such
person
be
imposed
on
all
be
statute
to have
only
by the
party grieved,
and was
In
referring
to
oases
the
killed
it
or
be
killed
more
than
If
tation
ought
not
to
58
Ch.
356 ;
Williams
v.
Bose,
L.
E.
3
Ex.
5,
that
give
amends before he
A
M. C.
well
as
for
his
same act,
indemnify
Beed
v.
Nutt,
59
L.
J.
Q.
B.
311
of the
is to
supply water
under the
64,
(Amendment)
Act,
1888,
see
Sharman
v.
Merritt
(1916),
32
T.
L.
that
the
operation
of
s.
13,
the
conviction,
if
he
in
any
ex-
the
latter
against
a
a burden
year
would suffer; the
s. 150
provided
by
breakage, leakage
con-
struction,
such
injury
;
to ports
(a).
478,
with
(1882),
Perkins,
24
Q.
Q.
B.
297.
I.S.
24
already undergone that
v.
G.
W.
Debtors
Act,
1869,
im-
prisonment
for
disobeying
an
Oweuj
of
the
enactment
his con-
vest,
until
paid
up,
and
that
unjust ajid
a
Thus, the Act
sole,
and
the
corporation
(6).
60a
115.
(b)
for the
by
the
gift,
but
to defeat an execution
trader
with
his
his assignees,
regard to fraudulent
which
declared
intention,
62,
s.
28.
(c)
Morris
v.
Mellin
(1827),
6
B.
& G.
446 ;
Bennett
v.
Daniel,
10
fuU and natural
contained
rent
not
only
tecting themselves, or when it has
some
strict
construction,
leaning against
rule
was
cited
and
approved
or
creates
a
new
s.
35;
Bath
v.
JBerwic^,
[1892]
1
Q.
B.
731
passed
(c)
of
out
of the
committed
which created
West
V.
Owynne,
inf.
p.
committed
subsequently
had
been
executed
(5).
woman
Copyright
Act,
1911.
(h)
so
unjust,
that
equity
So,
a
non-trader
Deeds of
that
the
disclaimer
should
a writ of
sheriff
lose the
impair
an
existing
right
unless
that
doing
violence
to
the
be
construed
after it
apply
to
ratifications
juris-
diction
where
lease had
{d)
Ee-enacted
by
to
give
the
owner or of the
existed
when
the
action
was
of
administration
bond
given
to
held
not
maintainable
retrospective,
and
that
or
(a)
Toung
v.
Adams
(1898),
67
L.
J.
P.
24,
retro-
School
Board,
[1894]
1
Q.
B.
725
bare verdict
of guilty
without penalty
the Act (b).
This decision has
not
was and
held
that
s.
11,
11 &
12
before justices
proceedings
an
intimation
the
period
stance
that no
none
was
expressed,
as
regards
that which, at the
alters
that
mode
of
pro-
a
change
the
only
right
thus
interfered
with
being
that
of
delaying
65,
s.
6,
and
24
& 25
year and a day
by
the
feme
of torts
Common
Law
Procedure
for
(^);
c.
142,
as
Courts
held not to
the judgment was not
of the
Court ought
grammar
; by
giving
D.
13
 
the
treaty
between
colony
would
devolve
according
to
land, the
fore
should
powers
in
 
be
sup-
posed
 
therefore
lawfully
enacted that if the plaintiff recovered a sum
 
have
54.
(6)
51
& 52
Edw.
Vn.
c.
42,
81,
County
Court
divisible, was
to discharge,
or
justifiable
(b)
cases where
the defendant
making
the
K.
B.
17,
immediate
apprehension,
(b).
A
repealed
Act
(26
witness
before
an
election
inquiry
should
be
B. 377
pilots
shall
be
liable
cease as regards
read
of
his
creditors.
10
Courts,
provided
Court
of
the
the more
ought
unless the
carrier,
where
the
paramount
a
footway,
 
and
of
the
Act
the
true
his
creditors
in a
carriage drawn
been
sometimes
see
Stroud's
Judicial
Dictionary
and
Supp.
occasion (now
road
acts
for
sometimes said,
per-
mission
it
right,
as
 
enter upon
hear
appoint
an
arbitrator,
make
an
appointment
if
applied
debt (e)
on
the
rota
for
the
trial
read
 
not (a).
offence,
it, or if
a
duty,
and
make
it
the
whom
a
definition
is
supplied
by
mean something
a duty
in which
concerned
but their
public officer,
the
word
person on
J.
Q.
B.
upon the
for the purpose of
persons having
rights in
so
authorised
arises,
be
done
whenever
rights
in
any
such
cases
by
of
disentitle
leave
of
the
Court
well
known
on its face,
authority, that
the rated
levy
the
tax
and
means
a
primd
facie
credible
case
is
are
bound
to
power
should
be
exercised
where
(b).
So,
where
suits
accidental, and
;
is
no
longer
good
law.
(6)
Lyde
v.
Barnard,
1
M.
& W.
101^
115.
See
also
United
Alkali
Co.
v.
refused
(c).
amended;
as
where,
for
latter (d).
tion
J,
M,
;
the
language
thus
a
number
of
older
authorities
in
diverse
equity was
Legislature
(d)
construction is
free from
decision
treble damages),
all torts except
or  equitable
best
price
not
lie.
Inst. 302.
which,
UteraUy,
limited
to
such
adjudication,
by
an
equitable
construction,
if
due
order,
was
extended,
on
judges
would
not
be
terms
for
which
harmony with
negative
terms,
the death
of either
com-
«
was
not
made
16;
Haigh
v.
Kaye,
L.
E.
7
Ch.
469 ;
Williams
v.
mischief which
later
period
where
the
later
Jur.
s.
Act was
of George
law,
might
(/)
D.
296,
297.
held
to
be
liable
to
contract
sued
to natural
which
his own case), or
said, jura
naturse sunt
books
own
uttered
for
law,
to
out
down
a
company of gipsies
(b), or for
applied
and
ordain
its
intends
the
infliction
on
natural
liberty
are not
intention
of
a
statute,
its
language
must
authorise
far as
to punish
or of
sufficiently
comprehensive
to
include
80
; U.
S.
v.
Hartwell,
6
a
the
misdemeanour
of
a
v.
Manwaring
(1819),
which
it
was
thought
bodily
injuries,
was
held
not
however
other,
and
recoverable by
not
having
been
followed.
An
enactment
on
the
part
of
a
bankrupt
to
have
that
effect
by
the
bankrupt
himself
59,
s.
154,
which
increases
the
(a).
A
statute
which
agents,
which
is
(6).
correspondent
were
to
banker, it
It
might,
sums allowed
by that
the
Larceny
Act,
1916.
imposes a penalty
a
small
enclosed
the rabbits
55,
s.
29
(2
h)
rea,
see
sup.
p.
also Swan
gather alms
he was
conviction
for
using
to
be
false,
merely
woman
with-
out
being
married
of
59 L. J. M.
followed
in
Firth
V.
McPhail,
74
L.
J.
any person
construed as
defining
on the
that while
in
Q.
K. B.
which,
after
referring,
in
—diverting
116,
6 &
7
Geo.
P.
196,
335.
England,
when
passed
was
passed,
viz.,
licensed
victuallers,
licensed
by
a
magistrate
under
the
Act
of
7,
which
enacted
that
market-
place,
the town
what were
by
steam
to
by
would
have
fallen
;
injury
this decision
reach a clerk who
the words
carry out
construed
been filed
and replaced
intention to
inappli-
father
or
mother,
father (c)
c.
48,
and
re-enacted
167
placed
passing
C. C.
within
the
enactment
to
public
,•
Hardy, Id. 278.
17.
See
Gully
V.
woman, and
To
supply
payment of
promise
of
the
purchase
of
railway
nature as to
under
factory or
Practices
Prevention
Act,
1854,
to
a
person
who
of
the
Public
(c).
Sec.
78,
structure were
felony
provided
for
was
felony
of
stealing
a
guilty of
a misde-
the ticket may
is
interpretation
of
v. Browne,
at least
by clear
implication, and
v.
Charretie,
13
Q.
B.
447
E. 7
of ground immedi-
passage over it, was held
to
apply
right
of
way,
person who
clearly
within
the
enactment;
charges
estimating
a
bank
manager's
for
the
s. 32;
(c)
after
imposing
a
stamp
on
contracts,
exempted
Vict.
c.
36
25,
ss.
2-4.
penal Acts,
are not
Stamp
Act,
1870,
v.
Art
Union
of
London,
[1896]
A.
C.
in-
public wrong,
97
strictness
in
the
interpretation
of
s.
1
(6),
PubUc
act done
authority.
See
Fielden
v.
Morley,
69
L.
J.
Ch.
314
; Harrop
v
of the
(a)
Ash
V.
of
the
contract
may
be
L.J.
Ch.
182;
Jones
v.
Victoria
notes
to
of
parties
necessary, in
it,
of the seller,
(a)
Sale
(c) Commins
v. Scott
it,
of the contract
merely
value of the
such
more than
(E.)
20.
(b)
Co.
Litt.
233a;
sovereignty
or
dominion
con-
clusive
held inoperative
to prevent
of the
that the
jurisdiction of
the Court
Court
judge
 in
its
decisions
(e).
railway
commissioners,
had
no
power
to
hear
it
elsewhere
in
not
0. 70.
(/)
give
the
master
bad
in
toto,
held good (c).
powers,
different
for
their
26.
(6)
Per
Lord
Alverstone
144.
(c)
Per
if
a
by-law
pany
men
authorise a by-law which
J.,
Salt
V.
Scott-Hall,
[1903]
2
mary
Jurisdiction
Acts,
the
justices
been
committed.
See
further,
inf.
pp.
enactment. Any
obtained
on
the
fortius
acci-
by
0. P.
to be
Weston-super-Mare
Local
Board
(1888),
58
received
from
contemporary
authority.
Optima
est
legum
mterpres
consuetudo
is
of
be the
true one,
{d)
as
with
the
sense
of
more
or
402;
Smith
V.
Undo,
to
to show that
of an authoritative and
229. See
it would
precedent
Hebbert
v.
Pwrchas,
L.
force
of
the
if
both
Per
Dean
Stanley
in
called to the
of
the
wording;
Eebhert
v.
Purchas
(1871),
L.
E.
3
first
book,
and
sixty
; it
must
have
and
years,
on
right
will
be
legitimate
to
refer
to
standard
of
weights
and
measures,
the
same
terms
would,
prima
facie,
be
understood
in
the
of
making
the
hands
of
was
by
the
latter
struction
which
the
preamble
of
5
ture is acquainted
statute, is understood
to be done
same words appearing iu
copied
(d).
And
Exp.
Thorne,
3
Oh.
D.
457
session
an
Act
of
(a)
J.,
Bore
the
streets
vested
paths are  lands
earlier Act
and the
person who
occa-
sionally
furnished
an
intention
to
alter
has been
exist-
which
attach-
ment
Queen,
or
going
or
returning
in order to
that it cannot
and
constitution,
and
in
89
; JR.
v.
not an
a
a
certain
only
a judgment in the Lord
Mayor's Court, when
removed to the
could
D. 633.
condition precedent
construed
as
members
not
controlling what
when
precision
is
required,
no
thing
by
the
same
Accordingly,
in
ascertaining
of
an
i.
p.
91.
(d)
Gourtauld
v.
be so
In
murder
or
manslaughter
inflicted
at
include
word
(a)
Per
Jessel
M.E.,
furnishes
a
(a)
24
& 25
is said to have different meanings in different parts of
s. 17
;
regarded
the
freehold,
the
earlier
provision
by
implication
L.
207.
by
action,
Act relating
contains
provisions
which
she
belongs,
was
exempted
under
s.
379,
Act
(59
tenement
rented
by
Q.
B.
8;
Wiley
lished
meaning,
and
withstanding
the
an
agreement
express
provision
ing
one
omitted
(c).
omission
material,
if
M.
in
pari
inaterid
ought
statute
which
would
be
construed
as
including
any.
In
meaning
when
coupled
with
similar
M.
0.
116
companies
(d),
or
to
the
P.
105
12.
(6)
Warden
v.
Bean
of
(e) Freeman v.
income
The
receipt
of
under
to be
profit
d
prendre
which
easements
included
are
business,
but
cases
of
the
contract
  by
&
163. See B. v.
16.
(d)
2
another
with
which
an Act
which disgavelled
to
disgavel
them
as without consideration,
natural
meaning
Day,
has
927, nom.
to
work
the Act, was
to
give
that
privilege
to
Exp. Hughes,
the
concluding
15,
s.
10,
and
3,
JJ.,
[1900]
1
Q.
for rent
 
specified
by
the
earher
terms
(d).
all
of
ment, without license,
boiler, bone
horses, or animals of any description,
soap
boiler,
the
dwelling-
house,
money
then
the
in
authorise a subscription to
^usdem
generis
with
keeping any
house or
word
booth,
consisting
of
two
waggons
favour of
to less
B.
v.
Midland
Hotel
of
to
the
enactment, in
Act passed
ejusdem
generis
of
the
that
genera.
enumeration of
nation to the
the
whole
enact-
the
public,
enclosure,
the
House
enclosure
standing
not
as
what is lower in
 
is of
in
question
would
be
rejected,
a
Act
terms
something
were
included
forfeiture
was
the
point
from
 
two
days
C.
123.
Oh. 207.
been
it
lonless
137.
Comp.
act
than
license
day,
the
time,
except
when
48
Edwards,
sup.
(d)
Campbell
v.
and they
P.
235
of
83.
(6)
1
Hawk.
the
law
ture
entitled to
among others,
so
that
(a)
1
Hale,
632,
704 ;
the statute.
required
that
verdict were
a
Company
beyond
ratified
even
the shareholders,
(a) Carruthers
190;
Comp.
The
China,
7
3
Geo.
V.
0.
31.
the
Corporation
it was
vision
empower them to
entitled to a smaller sum (c).
The Tithe
no
shareholder in
respect of
pal
them
jurisdic-
tion
to
inquire
into
execution
defray
such
costs
out
of
privileges,
or
in
a
grant
by
a
private
grant
or
76
L.
J.
of Acts,
of
the
Surface
are
L.
171;
by
their
place
trench
the convenience
the
passage
of
waggons,
proceedings
be impliedly
an
Act
of
rather
public
may
or
to
substitute
one
; the
burden
county
880.
(c)
B.
V.
Kent,
12
open (a).
147
150;
Lancashire
(a)
E.
1
Q.
the
approval
of
the
not
expressly
provide,
the
before
its
exercise,
(a)
Perring
v.
Trail
(1874),
43
L.
J.
Ch.
775
by
railway
public
works,
treasurer
of
the
company
pay
the
had
rate or
same
principle,
to
of
being
heard
in
support
to
pay
it
either
in
one
sum
or
by
instalments,
implying
facts, might order the
{d) B. V.
Cambridgeshire, 4 A.
to
invalidate
proceedings.
The
reports
are
full
essential
to
the
and
object
of
may
performed
in
a
time, or
immunity,
the
regulations,
forms,
the
names
of
the
Geo.
V.
c.
46,
s.
36,
Sched.
2).
v.
Potter,
and
consequently
a
declaration
against
a
where the
53,
s.
8.
(6)
34
The following are decisions under the Law
of
notice,
not
to
the
address
certain
par-
ticulars,
and
although
is
now
cases
Q.
B.
148.
Comp.
Shuttleworih,
Be,
16
L.
contracts
(e) Cope
308
; Frend
v.
Bennett,
27
L.
J.
0.
P.
be given, with
(a)
Harhen
v.
of
the
day
to
the
registry
(b).
The
County
Court
rule,
which
required
should
be
days at least before
before that
so that
to the
the latter should
Capiendo
shall
Bench,
and
be
there
the
judges,
the
in the
proceedings
subsequently
taken
till after
to
London,
32
held
obviously
statute
relate
to
the
government of
those on
day,
under
(repealed, 45 &
46 Vict.
33 ;
was
October, instead of
left
a
different
Norwich,
1
B.
& Ad.
310
confirmed
till
date
in it shall
Such
required
men
who
16,
s.
5
(2),
qualifications)
declaration
at
the
foot
the
form,
Q.
in
requiring
that
rates
made
under
it
void (d).
(a) B.
34
Viet.
c.
99)
others.
Thus,
the
provision
that
the
register
should
be
sealed,
though
54 & 55
Vict. e.
the
inspection
of
affect
the
validity
of
unregistered
been
satisfied
and,
being
it
was
was
not
then
all
that
being
of the Legislature
by
the
renting
of
a
out of
appeal,
or
technical
notice of appeal, in
such
a
(6)
Per
jurisdiction)
where
the
of
Admiralty
the
same
its
proceeds
jurisdiction
of
the pro-
ceeds of
the
shipowner
could
benefit
enact uniform
of any
Court
Judge
should
of due
necessary
(a)
Moore
v.
Gamgee
(1890),
25
Q.
y.
Wells,
25
Q.
waived ;
for
it
is
such
proceeding
should
take
place
a
local
authority,
which
doubt
or
chance
party.
Consent
v.
that
the
days
to
the
Court
went to
of
the
from
to
land
was
let
or,
alter-
not contemplated by
assign.
impute
to
the
Legislature
itself,
prevented
by statute.
s.
215,
Sched.
4
which
but
merely
made
con-
or
omitting
(c)
Act
declared
the
apprentice-
ship
master (c). Sec. 24 of the
repealed 7 & 8 Vict.
therefore
void
(d).
So,
on commencing
Sec.
50,
Merchant
only
in
also
invalid.
for current expenses,
the
make
void
is void only
Ch.
159.
persons carrying
deck;
a
voyage
in
on the
beer,
contrary
to
the
Act,
not
affect
the
purchaser
England,
but
nected
penalties for non-compliance, whether
any
prevent
all
im-
perfectly
merely
subjected
certain
fees
for
brokers),
was
held
in that capacity
Act is
license,
of
the
neglected
to
comply
with
them.
held that the
of a sale
Bailey
v.
advance
of
the
Legislature
by
would
be
but
See
also
Baker
v.
Hedgecoch
(1888),
39
Ch.
Div.
520,
per
there
cited;
which
created
such
a
held
valid
as
regards
the
were severable
friendly
society
or
corporate
body
by
reason
partly
an
association
partnership
nor
of
such
property,
for
such
agents
(b).
Bayley
J.,
Clark
v.
Denton,
1
B
151 ; B.
v. Oxley,
Dispute,
and
penalty
is
imposed
nothing
being
enacted
to
the
Crown,
and
public
(e)
2
Euro's
J.
Office
11,
0.
12,
the
word
under
that aU persons
by the
plague should
a
did not
the
obligation,
whether
the
same
not
recoverable
no
person
should
keep
an
ale-house,
(a) 6
& 7 Vict. c. 18 (repealed, 7 & 8 Geo. V. o. 64,
s.
47,
Sched.
8)
lay (a).
It is,
however, a
unless
some
other
specific
may arise whether
master
liable
on
the
ground
that
within
58.
(6)
Partially
I. c.
to sue
the
parties
or notice,
declares that
be
deemed
fraudulent
in
ignorance
of
the
common
law;
that
he
strictly
limited
to
those
The
tagious
Diseases
(Animals)
Act,
1869
(32
& 33
Vict.
c.
70,
s.
57),
animals
an
Act
12
ship to
the suit
Seamen's Hospital, it
was liable also to
to supply
Ex.
for
breaches
of
of a
company.
a
unless
for the
is
indictable
only
; but
A.
(6).
;
damage
from
their
to which
The
duties
thus
to
his
parish,
not
to
or
in
as it was
not a corporate
furnished no
tion
feasance
(e).
Canterbury,
L.
E.
6
Q.
B.
214 ;
Taylor
v.
Greenhalgh,
L.
E.
9
Q.
B.
487 ;
Gibson
so
imported
should
be
a
Where an
v.
Tatton,
[1918]
W.
N.
291,
the
11th
of
not
in
ought
the
207
43
Bliz.
c.
6,
until
the
following
month,
by
which
time
24
v.
Biley,
L.
E.
3
335;
Levi
v.
Sanderson
(1869),
;
repealing
those
sued
in
or
punishment
is after-
parties
to
a
sub-
sequent
one,
or
an
expired
Act
be
certain
provisions
as
to
appeals
to
Quarter
G-eo.
IV.,
it
was
prisoner
was
detained
in
such a
the
justices
should
order
make
the
order
impliedly
preserved
(c).
distinction
were
usually
reached
and half brown
233
(/)
cattle without
put
into
force
Consolidation
Act,
1876,
has
been
good
interpreter
weakening,
or
even
or
if
they
be
present
use,
repealed, as regards London,
 
of
the
day
(c)
only from the date
the Temple of
(&)
early in
an Act
was passed,
day
(a),
all
who
had
liable
to
(«)
till the
any
person
the
passing
Every statute passed since 1850 is a public
Act
ABJURATION
OATH,
construction
service,
from,
meaning
ABSOLUTA
8ENTENTIA
741
knowledge
of,
presumption
limitations
on
statutory
creation of, 240,
rule of law
146,
481
of,
350
147,
501-503
preference
 
mens rea in
379, 886,
BONA FIDE,
BOOTH, not
CLERICAL
ERROR,
COIN, payment in, meaning of, 201
COKE (LORD), rules for interpretation of,
89,
485
COMMENCEMENT
OP
COMPULSOEY
POWERS.
to
be
considered,
of,
564-571 .
CONTEACT,
forms
and
solemnities,
Act
CO-PAKTNEESHIP, meaning of, 114
certain
654
jurisdiction of,
statutory provisions
as to,
614
of,
134
n.
ESSE VIDENTUB, SINE QUIBV8
CUSTOM,
DEFENDANT,
249
DEFINITE
AND
of,
508,
509
DELIVERY,
of&oe,
meaning of, 580
ELECTION,
candidate's
EXCEPTION,
493
FATAL
GAMING, suffering
to go
464,
583-603
QENEBALIA
of,
GRAMMAR, construction according
HACKNEY
HEARD
HELD,
of
439-441
IGNOEANCE,
236, 240,
623, 638,
623-646
created,
705-727
VERBIS
LEGIS,
IN
PARI
of
meaning of, generally,
n.
INSTRUMENT,
gaming,
of,
564-571
consequences
165, 484, 571
words, of,
of
Statutes.
INTOXICATING
503
strict
construction
virill
of
557,
558
MASCULINE,
permissible,
406-443
of, 212,
MULTIPLICITY
encourage,
630
NEGATIVE
ACTS,
statute
involving,
285
order, 518
meaning of, 46
of
penalties
in
case
of,
351-356
OFFENSIVE
PARTNERSHIP,
Companies
implied
PERUSE,
418
PLUBAL, singular
and, 604
494
POWEE,
shall
46
creation
of
new
jurisdiction,
against,
241-244
51,
529
repeal
by,
effect
also
Public
Ebmbdies
QUANDO
ALIQUID
PBOHIBETUB,
PBOHIBETUB
ET
OMNE
of, 417
248
194
REGULATIONS,
penal or
remedial, 560
private Act
of, 26
meaning of, generally,
foreigners when included in,
SECTION, heading of,
105
SHOOT, CUT, STAB, OB WOUND, meaning
of,
582
SHOP,
meaning
72,
313-329
SPECIFIC
WORDS,
preceded
by
allowable, 83
foreigners, applicability
retrospective operation
25
564-571
vested
rights,
affecting,
9
whole,
525
computation
SUNDAY
OBSERVANCE
420
SWEAR,
 
appeal, for, how
where period
fixed, 11-14,
TWO OR MORE,
SEMPER
ANTI-
QUE
navigation, in, meaning
4,
13
108
collocation
of,
464,
583-603
generic,
following
more
specific,
583-603
grammatical