HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1034 and id is 1 raw text is: THE KING V. CROWTHER
Sir Thomas Davenport, Lee, and Chambre, now shewed cause, and argued upon
the distinction between corporations created by letters patent, and by Act of Parlia-
ment. That the cases cited only tended to shew that no forfeiture could grow by
letters patent; but that this corporation was created by Act of Parliament, which
had given them the power of inflicting such a penalty. For though [124] that par-
ticular part of the Act, which was stated in the 3d plea of justification, did not shew
an express power given to them of seizing the wares in question under the Act, yet
such an authority was clearly founded upon other parts of it, which were set forth
in the two first pleas of justification on this record; by which it appeared that
persons residing within the limits of the corporation were prohibited from making
any knives, &c. unless they put steel into the edges of them, and fixed the proper
marks upon them, upon pain to lose, for every such offence, ten shillings in the one
case, and 40 shillings in the other; and the wares so deceitfully made to be seized and
recovered by the master and wardens of the said company, &c.
That all Acts relative to trade being public Acts, and this being such an one, the
Court were bound to take notice of every part of it, even though it were not verbally
set forth. 4 Co. 76.
But supposing that the Court could not go out of the third plea of justification,
yet there was enough of the statute set forth in that plea to warrant the bye-law,
under which this seizure was made. It appeared from thence that the company of
Hallamshire were empowered to make bye-laws, and to enforce them by fine or
amerciament; and a forfeiture of this kind might be considered in the nature of a
fine, equivalent to the value of the goods. Such a construction was agreeable to the
spirit of the statute, and to the purposes for which it was enacted. And then this
bye-law was not unreasonable; which was a strong circumstance in its favour. 1 Mod.
202. 2 Mod. 56.
The counsel on the other side, Wilson, Wood, and Law, were stopped by the
Court.
Lord Mansfield, Ch.J. A corporation, in the definition of it, is a creature of the
Crown, created by letters patent; and such a corporation, with a power of making
bye-laws, cannot make any such law to incur a forfeiture. Those corporations, which
are created by Act of Parliament, have no other additional powers incident to them,
than those have which are created by charter, unless they be expressly given. No
such extraordinary power of making bye-laws to incur a forfeiture appearing upon
this plea to have been conferred, it is impossible for the Court to say, that this bye-
law can be supported by the Act.
Buller, J. This bye-law is bad, considered in every point of view.
Taking it generally as a bye-law, creating a forfeiture; the Act of Parliament not
having given this corporation a power to make such a bye-law, it is bad on that
ground.
[125] Then, it has been said that this bye-law is supported by the Act: but so
far from it, they have expressly negatived such a power; for the Act prescribes in
what terms bye-laws shall be enforced, namely, by fine or amerciament; therefore the
corporation is precluded by the Act from inflicting any other punishment.
There never was such an idea before, as the counsel against the rule have suggested,
that one plea might be supported by what was contained in another. Each plea must
stand or fall by itself; they are as unconnected as if they were on separate records.
And though it be true that Acts of Parliament relating to trade in general are public
Acts, yet a statute which relates only to a certain trade is a private one. Therefore
the Court cannot now take notice of any other part of this Act of Parliament than
that which is set out in this plea; for it is not a public Act.
Rule, for the plaintiff to have leave to enter up judgment notwithstanding the
last plea, absolute (a).
THE KING against THomAs SPENCER CROWTHER. Wednesday, Feb. 1st, 1786. Con-
viction on 5 Ann. c. 14, quashed, because the witness was not sworn and examined
in the presence of the defendant. It is not sufficient to read over the deposition
(a) Vid. post, 266.
1009
1 T.R. 1M.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1034&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)