|Thomas v Sorrell|
|Full case name||Edward Thomas v Thomas Sorrell|
|Citation(s)|| EWHC (KB) J85 |
(1673) Vaugh 330
124 ER 1098-1113
|Judge(s) sitting||Vaughan CJ|
|Licence; alcohol licensing; fines and penalties; statutory dispensation (proviso); Vintners' Company; pro bono publico (laws for the public good) defeating letters patent ultra vires (outside the powers of) the royal prerogative|
Thomas v Sorrell  EWHC (KB) J85 is an English law case, concerning licenses. It has been cited in cases in relation to land but has no direct link to land e.g. occupation. It was landmark decision in the law of alcohol licensing (licensing law) and summarizes centuries of law as to licences — it sets out the bold principles of licences of many kinds.
English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.
Thomas Sorrell owned a tavern in the village of Stepney, some 2 miles (3.2 km) east of the City of London. He was prosecuted by Edward Thomas, acting for the Crown, who demanded that Sorrell pay a penalty to the Crown of £450 for selling having sold wine without a licence, contrary to the Taxation Act 1660. Sorrell claimed that he had a licence in his capacity as a member of the "Master, Wardens, Freemen, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London".
Stepney, also known as Stepney Green, is a district in the East End of London in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets that grew out of a merging of both a medieval village around St Dunstan's church and a 15th-century ribbon development of Mile End Road called Stepney Green. The district is not officially defined, and is usually used to refer to a relatively small area, however for much its history the place name applied to a much wider area.
The City of London is a city and local government district that contains the historic centre and the primary central business district (CBD) of London. It constituted most of London from its settlement by the Romans in the 1st century AD to the Middle Ages, but the agglomeration has since grown far beyond the City's borders. The City is now only a tiny part of the metropolis of London, though it remains a notable part of central London. Administratively, it forms one of the 33 local authority districts of Greater London; however, the City of London is not a London borough, a status reserved for the other 32 districts. It is also a separate county of England, being an enclave surrounded by Greater London. It is the smallest county in the United Kingdom.
Wine is an alcoholic drink made from fermented grapes. Yeast consumes the sugar in the grapes and converts it to ethanol, carbon dioxide, and heat. Different varieties of grapes and strains of yeasts produce different styles of wine. These variations result from the complex interactions between the biochemical development of the grape, the reactions involved in fermentation, the terroir, and the production process. Many countries enact legal appellations intended to define styles and qualities of wine. These typically restrict the geographical origin and permitted varieties of grapes, as well as other aspects of wine production. Wines not made from grapes include rice wine and fruit wines such as plum, cherry, pomegranate, currant and elderberry.
The Taxation Act 1660 contained the following provision:
Provided also, that this Act, or any thing therein contained, shall not extend, or be prejudicial to the Master, Wardens, Freemen, and Commonalty of the Mystery of Vintners of the City of London, or to any other city or town corporate, but that they may use and enjoy such liberties and priviledges, as heretofore they have lawfully used and enjoyed.
That as to all the debt, except fifty pounds, the defendant owes nothing. And as to the fifty pounds, they find the statute of 7 E. 6, c. 5, concerning retailing of wines, prout in the statute.
Vaughan CJ said:
A dispensation or licence properly passeth no interest, nor alters or transfers property in any thing, but only makes an action lawful which, without it, had been unlawful. As a licence to go beyond the seas, to hunt in a man's park, to come into his house, are only actions, which without licence, had been unlawful.
So to licence a man to eat my meat, or to fire the wood in my chimney to warm him by, as to the actions of eating, fireing my wood and warming him, they are licences; but it is consequent necessarily to those actions that my property be destroyed in the meat eaten, and in the wood burnt, so as in some cases by consequent and not directly, and as its effect, a dispensation or licence may destroy and alter property.’
Therefore, the conception of the statute was upheld, as was its proviso in favour of the Vintners. It was not illegitimately interfering with settled property rights nor discriminating unfairly against the general public, considering earlier statutes, nor putting the Vintners at an unfair advantage as Parliament had ordained such a licensing system.
The special alternate verdicts put to the jury were:
A) Si pro quer. quoad 50l. pro quer. (If for the claimant, £50 for the claimant). As stated above this was the verdict. The Taxation Act of 1660 did contain a free liberty, a dispensation for the Vintners to sell without having to pay the usual penalty for no express specific licence to sell on a particular premises. The £50 arose from the defeat of the dispensatory (royal) letters patent of 2 February the 9th Year of James I (1612) to the Vintners, incapable of modifying the taxation provisions of 7 E. 6, c. 5. (the Wines Act 1553) as purportedly made by James I against a law (the 1553 statute) which was for the public good.
So as now it is only insisted on, that the patent of 9 Jac. was void in its creation, for two reasons.
- For that the law of 7 E. 6 was such a law, pro bono publico, as the King could not dispence against it, more than with some other penal laws, pro bono publico....
- If he could to particular persons, he could not to the Corporation of Vintners, and their successors, whose number or persons the King could never know; and that it stood not with the trust reposed in him by the law, to dispense so generally without any prospect of number or persons. - Vaughan CJ
I must say as my brother Atkins observed before, that in this case the plaintiffs council argue against the Kings prerogative, for the extent of his prerogative is the extent of his power, and the extent of his power is to do what he hath will to do, according to that, ut summm potestatis Regis est posse quantum velit sic magnitudinis est velle quantum potest; if therefore the King have a will to dispense with a corporation, as it seems K.[King] James had in this case, when the patent was granted, but by law cannot, his power, and consequently his prerogative, is less than if he could.
James VI and I was King of Scotland as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the Scottish and English crowns on 24 March 1603 until his death in 1625. The kingdoms of Scotland and England were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciaries, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.
B) Si pro def. pro def. 1s. (If for the defendant, 1⁄20th of £1 (a shilling) for the defendant). The jury did not reach this verdict. As directed, King James had exceeded his prorogative in his royal letters patent so the statute of Edward VI on wine taxation stood.
Edward VI was the King of England and Ireland from 28 January 1547 until his death. He was crowned on 20 February at the age of nine. Edward was the son of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour, and England's first monarch to be raised as a Protestant. During his reign, the realm was governed by a regency council because he never reached maturity. The council was first led by his uncle Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset (1547–1549), and then by John Dudley, 1st Earl of Warwick (1550–1553), who from 1551 was Duke of Northumberland.
In common law jurisdictions, an acquittal certifies that the accused is free from the charge of an offense, as far as the criminal law is concerned. This is so even where the prosecution is simply abandoned by the prosecution. The finality of an acquittal is dependent on the jurisdiction. In some countries, such as the United States, an acquittal operates to bar the retrial of the accused for the same offense, even if new evidence surfaces that further implicates the accused. The effect of an acquittal on criminal proceedings is the same whether it results from a jury verdict or results from the operation of some other rule that discharges the accused. In other countries, the prosecuting authority may appeal an acquittal similar to how a defendant may appeal a conviction.
The Lord Chamberlain or Lord Chamberlain of the Household is the most senior officer of the Royal Household of the United Kingdom, supervising the departments which support and provide advice to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom while also acting as the main channel of communication between the Sovereign and the House of Lords. The office organises all ceremonial activity such as garden parties, state visits, royal weddings, and the State Opening of Parliament. They also handle the Royal Mews and Royal Travel, as well as the ceremony around the awarding of honours.
The Statute of Monopolies was an Act of the Parliament of England notable as the first statutory expression of English patent law. Patents evolved from letters patent, issued by the monarch to grant monopolies over particular industries to skilled individuals with new techniques. Originally intended to strengthen England's economy by making it self-sufficient and promoting new industries, the system gradually became seen as a way to raise money without having to incur the public unpopularity of a tax. Elizabeth I particularly used the system extensively, issuing patents for common commodities such as starch and salt. Unrest eventually persuaded her to turn the administration of patents over to the common law courts, but her successor, James I, used it even more. Despite a committee established to investigate grievances and excesses, Parliament made several efforts to further curtail the monarch's power. The result was the Statute of Monopolies, passed on 29 May 1624.
In common law, a writ of qui tam is a writ through which private individuals who assist a prosecution can receive for themselves all or part of the damages or financial penalties recovered by the government as a result of the prosecution. Its name is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, meaning "[he] who sues in this matter for the king as well as for himself."
False arrest is a common law tort, where a plaintiff alleges they were held in custody without probable cause, or without an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Although it is possible to sue law enforcement officials for false arrest, the usual defendants in such cases are private security firms.
Entick v Carrington  EWHC KB J98 is a leading case in English law and UK constitutional law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is famous for the dictum of Lord Camden: "If it is law, it will be found in our books. If it not to be found there, it is not law."
Privilege in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church is the legal concept whereby someone is exempt from the ordinary operation of the law over time for some specific purpose.
The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that required and established a set procedure for the indefinite detention of mentally ill offenders. It was passed through the House of Commons in direct reaction to the trial of James Hadfield, who attempted to assassinate King George III.
Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), is a Supreme Court case in which the justices unanimously recognized the entrapment defense. However, while the majority opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes located the key to entrapment in the defendant's predisposition or lack thereof to commit the crime, Owen Josephus Roberts' concurring opinion proposed instead that it be rooted in an analysis of the conduct of the law enforcement agents making the arrest. Although the Court has stuck with predisposition, the dispute has hung over entrapment jurisprudence ever since.
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." The four essential protections included are prohibitions against, for the same offense:
Crown copyright is a form of copyright claim used by the governments of a number of Commonwealth realms. It provides special copyright rules for the Crown, i.e. government departments and (generally) state entities. Each single Commonwealth realm has its own distinct Crown copyright regulations. There are therefore no common regulations that applies to all or a number of those countries. There are some considerations being made in Canada, U.K., Australia and New Zealand regarding the "reuse of Crown-copyrighted material, through new licenses".
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch, recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and prerogative the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.
This collection of lists of law topics collects the names of topics related to law. Everything related to law, even quite remotely, should be included on the alphabetical list, and on the appropriate topic lists. All links on topical lists should also appear in the main alphabetical listing. The process of creating lists is ongoing – these lists are neither complete nor up-to-date – if you see an article that should be listed but is not, please update the lists accordingly. You may also want to include Wikiproject Law talk page banners on the relevant pages.
Edict of government is a technical term associated with the United States Copyright Office's guidelines and practices that comprehensively includes laws, which advises that such submissions will not be accepted nor processed for copyright registration. It is based on the principle of public policy that citizens must have unrestrained access to the laws that govern them. Similar provisions occur in most, but not all, systems of copyright law; the main exceptions are in those copyright laws which have developed from English law, under which the copyright in laws rests with the Crown or the government.
The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity, recognized in common law and, sometimes, in civil law jurisdictions possessing a monarchy, as belonging to the sovereign and which have become widely vested in the government. It is the means by which some of the executive powers of government, possessed by and vested in a monarch with regard to the process of governance of the state, are carried out.
Freemen-on-the-land are a loose group of individuals who believe that they are bound by statute laws only if they consent to those laws. They believe that they can therefore declare themselves independent of the government and the rule of law, holding that the only "true" law is their own interpretation of "common law". This belief has been described as a conspiracy theory. Freemen are active in English-speaking countries: the United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.
The Taney Court heard thirty criminal law cases, approximately one per year. Notable cases include Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), United States v. Rogers (1846), Ableman v. Booth (1858), Ex parte Vallandigham (1861), and United States v. Jackalow (1862).
Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454 (1818), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a patent disclosing an improved method of manufacture by means of several different improved machines should be construed to claim both the method and the improvements to the machines, but not to include the machines apart from the inventor's improvements.