View report page

4
if the owner or occupier of any such house or building neglect or
refuse, within 14 days after such notice to remove such projection
or obstruction or to alter the same in the manner directed by the
Vestry or Board, he shall forfeit any sum not exceeding five
pounds, and a further sum not exceeding forty sliillings for every
day during which such projection or obstruction continues after
the expiration of such 14 days from the time when ho may bo
convicted of any offence contrary to the provisions hereof." Now
it cannot be denied that both these sections cover the offence with
which the Applicant was charged, but the latter statute differs
from the earlier, both as to the amount of penalties which may bo
imposed, and as to the conditions under which it may bo recovered
In the 57 George the Third the penalty is to be not less than forty
shillings or more than five pounds. In the 18 and 19 Victoria no
minimum is fixed, and the Magistrate may, if ho thinks fit, inflict
a merely nominal fine. On the other hand ho has power to impose
a penalty in addition to that originally imposed, for delay in
obeying the requirements of the Vestry. Again in the earlier Act
the offender is to remove the projection or obstruction complained
of forthwith on receipt of the notice ; in the later ho has 14 days'
grace given to him. It appears to us, under the circumstances, to
be clear that the applicant can only bo dealt with under the later
statute. It is true that section 72 of the earlier Act is not
expressly repealed, but it is a well recognised principle that an
Act describing the quality of the offence or prescribing a particular
punishment for it is impliedly repealed by a later Act altering the
quality of the offence or prescribing another punishment for it.
Thus in Davis' case, 1 Loach, 4th edition, page 271, it was
decided by all the Judges that the "Black Act" of George the
First, chapter 22, which made killing deer in an enclosed ground
a capital felony, was repealed by a subsequent statute altering the
offence into a misdemeanour and inflicting a milder punishment,
So again in Michaell v. Brown, 1 Ellis, page 267, a statute
which imposed a penalty for the offence of throwing ballast into a
navigable river was held to be impliedly repealed by a later