View report page

173
purchased was in such a condition as to he liable to be seized and
condemned under this section, the person who sold the same shall
be liable to the fine and imprisonment mentioned, unless he proves
that at the time he sold the articles he did not know, and had.no
reason to believe, that it was in such condition."
The question of liability of a limited company under the section,
in view of the alternative penalty of imprisonment, was raised, but
defendant's counsel was told that unless he elected a trial by jury the case
would be proceeded with. He elected trial by jury (under protest).
A true bill was found by the Grand Jury at the Central Criminal Court,
but on the question of liability of a limited company being again raised
the case was removed under a writ of certiorari to the High Court.
The case was ultimately heard in the High Court before Mr. Justice
Rowlatt and a Common Jury. It was contended on behalf of the defendants
that a Corporation was not indictable under the section. The
Interpretation Act, 1889, enacts that " person includes a Corporation
unless the contrary appears," and such contrary intention was urged
inasmuch as the penalty provided for imprisonment. The Judge,
however, over-ruled this contention on the ground that imprisonment
in this case was only an alternative to a fine.
It was then contented that the goods had never in fact been " seized "
nor "found in possession" within the meaning of the Section, having been
voluntarily taken by the purchaser to the Sanitary Inspector ; that they
were not " liable to be seized " because at the time the Inspector took
possession of them they were not intended by the local dealer for the food
of man, nor had they been sold, exposed or deposited for sale or preparation
for sale by the purchaser.
The defendants also relied upon a notice alleged to have been put
up in a conspicuous position at the warehouse to the effect that goods
were sold subject to the condition that the buyers sort the contents and
destroy the unsound portion before offering to the public, and that no
allowance would be made for the destroyed portion. It was contended
on behalf of the prosecution that such notice was not seen by the purchaser
or the Council's Inspector.
On cases cited the Judge expressed the view that he was bound by
the decision of the Divisional Court interpreting a decision of the High
Court, although from his decision an Appeal might go to a Court not bound
by that interpretation.