« PreviousContinue »
1862. such licence; but the houses and premises of the remainThe Queex ing nine appellants are not so rated, and they are not SYLVESTER. able to obtain any such ncence.
able to obtain any such licence.
The question for the opinion of the Court was, Whether the justices at the annual licensing meeting acted illegally in refusing to renew the appellants' licences on the sole ground that they declined to take out an excise licence for the sale of spirits in addition to the licence for the sale of beer. If this Court should decide in the affirmative, then the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions was to be reversed, the appeals were to be allowed, and the licence of each of the appellants was to be renewed. If in the negative, then the decision of the Court of Quarter Sessions was to be affirmed, and the appeals were to stand dismissed.
F. Lawrence, in support of the order of sessions.—By stat. 9 G.4.c. 61. s. l., a general annual licensing meeting shall be held by justices of the peace in every town corporate, and it shall be lawful for them to grant licences “ to such persons as they the said justices shall, in the execution of the powers herein contained, and in the exercise of their discretion, deem fit and proper.” The justices have a discretion under this section, and this Court will not interfere with it unless it has been illegally exercised. [Wightman J. The question put to us by the sessions is, “whether the justices at the annual licensing meeting acted illegally in refusing to renew the appellants' licences on the sole ground that they de. clined to take out an excise licence for the sale of spirits." They must mean to ask us whether it is sufficient legal ground of objection to granting an ale house licence that the person applying for it had not taken out an excise
licence for the sale of spirits.] They may in their dis- 1862. cretion apply that test. If persons applying for a licence The QUEEN under stat. 9 G. 4. c. 61. do not take out a spirit licence Sylv the revenue will lose considerably.
Sawyer and J. O. Griffits, for the appellants. In this case the licensing justices did not exercise a discretion as to the persons to whom licences should be granted. When the appellants attended at the licensing meeting in pursuance of the notice required by sect. 2 of stat. 9 G. 4. c. 61. to be given to “every person keeping an inn, or who shall have given notice of his intention to keep an inn, and to apply for a licence to sell exciseable liquors by retail, to be drunk or consumed on the premises,” they were met with a resolution of the justices not to grant a licence unless a condition which the justices could not legally impose was complied with. In The Queen v. Athay (a), which was an information against a justice of the peace for refusing to grant a licence, and the only reason for the refusal was alleged to be, that the applicant declined paying a sum of 5l. which was claimed from him upon a distinct account, and which he denied to be due, the Court were of opinion that the allegation was false, but “declared explicitly that justices of the peace have no sort of authority to annex any such conditions to the grants of these licences.” In The Queen v. The Justices of Walsall (6), where the justices of the borough refused to hear an application for a licence on the ground that they had come to a resolution not to hear any applications for new licences, this Court made a rule absolute for a mandamus to them to hear the application.
1862. Per CURIAM. (Wightman and CROMPTON JJ.). We The QUEEN do not interfere with the discretion of the justices in SYLVESTER.
this matter. But if we are asked by them as to the exercise of their discretion, we think they were wrong. The refusal to take out an excise licence for the sale of spirits is not a sufficient legal ground for refusing a licence under stat. 9 G. 4. c. 61.
Judgment for the appellants.
The London and North WESTERN Railway Com
pany, appellants, RICHARDS, respondent.
Stat. 5 4 6 W. 4. c. 63. 8. 28. Conviction. Incorrect weighing machine.
Upon the conviction of a railway Company under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 63. s. 28., for having in their possession a weighing machine which upon examination thereof, duly made by the inspector of weights and measures, was found to be incorrect : held, that a machine which, from its construction, was liable to variation from atmospheric and other causes, and required to be adjusted before it was used, was not incorrect upon examination, within the meaning of the statute, if examined by the inspector before it had been adjusted.
THIS was an appeal against a conviction, by two jus
tices of the county of Stafford, of The London and North Western Railway Company, for unlawfully having in their possession on the 16th July, 1860, at the Lichfield Station of the said railway, a weighing machine used for the weighing of goods for conveyance on the railway, which was, upon examination thereof duly made by the inspector of weights and measures, found to be incorrect, to wit, 21 lbs. weight out of balance with the imperial standard weight, contrary to the form of the statute in that case made and provided; stat. 5 & 6 W. 4. c. 63. s. 28. The sessions confirmed the conviction subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case.
The appellants, The London and North Western Railway Company, use the machine in question (called a weigh bridge) for the purpose of weighing the railway trucks into or from which goods conveyed along their line of railway are laden or unladen at their station at Lichfield. [A model of the weighing machine was to be produced, which it was agreed by both parties might be referred to as part of the case.] Machines of the same construction are employed on many railways in the kingdom. The parts of the machine to which it is necessary to draw attention are, the steel-yard which is under cover in a small office, and the platform which is outside, and which works in a frame, and rests upon levers connected with and acting upon the steel-yard. Upon this platform are rails upon which the truck to be weighed is stopped. As these rails form part of the siding leading from the main line into the Company's warehouse, all trucks going into or coming out of that warehouse must necessarily pass over the platform. The weight of the plate of iron and rails which form the platform is 16 cwt., and its size is feet by feet. Being in the open air, it is exposed to any atmospheric influence, and a deposit of wet or dirt renders it considerably heavier, a shower of rain causing an increase of its weight of 11 or 12 lbs. ; it is also liable to be thrown out of poise by the waggons which pass over it from the main line to the warehouse, causing the platform to jamb on one side of the frame, and thus effecting a variation in its weight and bearing. This weigh bridge is calculated to weigh up to 16 tons. The average weight of an empty truck (being the lightest article that is weighed upon the machine) is about 3 tons; the arm of the steel-yard is graduated so as to indicate variations of 4 lbs. An ap
and NORTH WESTERN Railway Company
proximation within half a hundred weight is, however,
“ London and North Western Railway.
“ Instructions to Persons in Charge.
“II. The steel-yard and poise are to be kept bright, so that the letters and figures may be legible.
“III. Once every month the machine is to be taken to pieces, all the knife edges and working parts cleaned and slightly oiled. This applies also to weigh bridges, except as respects their being taken to pieces.
“IV. First thing every morning every machine is to be accurately balanced, ready for work. Special care must be taken that every machine has its own weights, and no others.
“V. Every machine which has a break, lever, or other ủngearing apparatus is to be carefully kept out of gear