Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/468

440 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. rent legal papers and by the legislature, that there was no means of punishing a breach of § 4, that there was a slip in the Act, and a wrong without a remedy. The Shop Hours Act, 1895, was there- fore passed with a view to remedy this defect, and a fine of forty shillings is imposed if the notice is not exhibited. Assuming, as one is almost bound to do, that the general view is correct, and that there was a casus omissus in tbe former Act, the point arises whether there is not a far larger defect in the general law of England, or at all events in that part of it which is administered by courts of summary jurisdiction. A statute orders a definite act to be done, which act concerns a certain part of the public. That act is disobeyed. Stephen's Digest of Criminal Law, Art. 134, states that " Every one commits a misdemeanor who wilfully diso- beys any statute of the realm by doing any act which it forbids, or by omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, and which concerns the public or any part of the public, unless it appears from the statute that it was the intention of the legislature to pro- vide some other penalty for such disobedience." No penalty being provided, the oftender could, it would seem, be indicted for misdemeanor; and, by Art. 23, ** Every person convicted of a mis- demeanor for which no special punishment is provided by law is liable to fine and imprisonment without hard labor (both or either), and to be put under recognizances to keep the peace and be of good behaviour at the discretion of the court." The statute, how- ever, unfortunately relegates the offender to a court of summary jurisdiction. This appears to have the curious effect of enabling it to be disobeyed with impunity. It certainly would be more con- sistent to give a general power to courts of summary jurisdiction to fine and imprison to a definite limited extent for offences which the legislature directs them to try without providing a special punishment. The Army (Annual) Act, 1895 (58 Vict. c. 7), and the Ap- propriation Act, 1895 (5^ & 59 Vict. c. 31), call for no special remark, but students of Dicey on the Law of the (English) Con- stitution may like to glance at Acts by which the Commons are enabled under a veiled threat of not passing them — that consti- tutional SlttXt] fidcTTiyL T7)v "ApTj<; (f)LL — practically to give the conventions of the constitution the force of law. The Documentary Evidence Act, 1895 (58 Vict. c. 9), adds the Board of Agriculture to the Government Departments to which the Documentary Evidence Acts apply. (See Stephen's Digest of