.
Agency.
218 Sect.
8.
Criminal Liability of Principal.
thereof (A;), unless the principal himself takes part in, authorises, or connives at, the commission of such act or default (Z).
460. This
rule is, however, subject to two exceptions. In the first on an indictment for a public nuisance (m), committed by the principal through the instrumentality of his agent, the principal is liable to be convicted, although the nuisance was committed without his knowledge and against his express instructions {n). place,
Nuisance.
Under Acts'.
may impose a criminal liability in respect of the acts or defaults of his agent by
461. Secondly, a particular statute
special
upon the principal
express terms or by implication (o). Where the statute prohibits the doing of something without reference to the state of mind of the party doing it, the principal may be responsible, having regard to the object of the statute, if the agent disobeys the prohibition, the principal's knowledge being immaterial (^j). When the statute makes knowledge an essential ingredient of the offence, the prin-
its
cipal, in spite of his absence of knowledge, and notwithstanding any prohibition given by him to the agent ((/), is responsible for the agent's act (?•), if he has delegated to such agent his authority in respect of the matter in connection with which the act is done, so as to make the act of the agent from its very nature obviously the act of the principal (s) Where, however, there has been no delegation of authority, so that the act done by the agent is outside the scope of the agent's employment, the principal is not responsible without proof of knowledge or connivance (t). {k) TVoodf/ate v. KnatcJihuU {1181), 2 Term Eep. 148; B. v. Stephens (1866), L. E. 1 Q. JB. 702, j9er Blackburn, J., at p. 710; Hardcastle v. Bielhy, [1892] 1 Q. B. 709, per Collins, J., at p. 712. Roberts v. Woodward (1890), 25 (/) Chisholmy. DouUon (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 736 Q. B. D. 412 Masseij v. Morriss, [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 Emarij v. Nollotlu [1903] 2 K. B. 264. [m) Such proceedings, though criminal in form, being civil in substance [R. V. Stephens, supra, per Melloe,, J., at p. 708). {n) R. V. Stephens, supra ; but see on this case Chisholm v. Boulton, supra, per Field, J., at p. 740. Compare Barnes v. Akroyd (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 474. (o) Hardcastle v. Bielhy, supra, per Collins, J., at p. 712. But this rule does not apply to crimes, only to acts prohibited by a penalty enforceable by imprisonment in default of distress {Newman v. Jones (1886), 17 Q,. B. D. 132, per A. L.
Smith, (
J., at p. 136).
p) Chisholm v. Boulton, supra, per Cave,
J.,
at p. 742;
Emary v.
Nolloth, supra,
per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 269. Por examples see CoppenY. Moore, [1898] 2 Q. B. 306, decided on the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Yict. c. 28), Broiun v. Foot (1892), 66 L. T. 649, decided on Sale of Food and Drugs s. 2 (!) Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Yict. c. 63), s. 6 CollmanY. Mills, [1897] 1 Q. B. 396, where the act was in contravention of a bye-law Dunning v. Owen, [1907] 2 K. B. 237 (sale of intoxicating liquor by licensed agent for unlicensed principal). {q) Commissioners of Police v. Cartman, [1896] 1 Q. B. 655. For (r) Emary v. Nolloth, supra, per Lord Alverstone, C.J., at p. 269. examples see Bond v. Evans (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 249; Redgate v. Haynes (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 89; Bosley v. Davies (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 84 Mullins v. Co^Zms (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 292 (all cases on the Licensing Acts) A.-G. v. Siddons (1830), 1 C. & J. 220 (on the Smuggling Act, 1817 (57 Geo. 3, c. 87), s. 13). See contra, Newman v. Jones, supra (which, however, stands on its own circumstances, see Bond V. Evans, supra, per Stephen, J., at p. 257). (s) Roberts v. Woodward (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 412, per Pollock, B., at p. 415. B. {t) Somerset v. Hart (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 360; Boyle v. Smith, [1906] 1 432; Emary Y. Nolloth, supra ; Roberts . Woodward, supra.
- -
K
