Toppin, Appellant; Marcus, Respondent

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeK. B. Div.
Judgment Date27 April 1908
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Date27 April 1908
Toppin
Appellant
and
Marcus
Respondent (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1908.

General Dealers (Ireland) Act, 1903 (3 Edw. 7, c. 44), sect. 2, sub-sect. 2 (b) — Entry of name and place of abode of person from whom article purchased — False name and place of abode given by seller — Liability of general dealer — Mens rea.

A general dealer is bound to enter the true name and place of abode of the person from whom he purchases an article, otherwise he is guilty of an offence under section 2 of the General Dealers (Ireland) Act, 1903, and it is no answer that he entered the name and place of abode given by the seller, and had no reason to believe they were not the true name and abode.

Case stated under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, from which the following facts are taken:—

At a Petty Sessions held for the Petty Sessions district of Queenstown, in the county of Cork, the respondent was charged on summons on the complaint of the appellant, a District Inspector of the Royal Irish Constabulary, for that he being a licensed general dealer at No. 3, Harbour Terrace, Queenstown, did on the 14th November, 1907, fail to enter in his book the name and place of abode of the person from whom he purchased about 35 lb. of copper, in contravention of the provisions of section 2 of the General Dealers (Ireland) Act, 1903.

On the hearing of the complaint evidence was given on the part of the complainant that an assistant of the respondent stated to a constable that he had bought the copper from a man who gave his name as John Mulcahy, and his residence as 10, The Beach. On the constable examining the general dealer's book, he found such entry was made, viz.:— John Mulcahy, 10, The Beach. Evidence was given that no person of that name lived at such address.

It was proved on the part of the defendant that on the date in question, the 14th November, 1907, the 35 lb. of copper were bought by Solomon Marcus, the son of, and assistant to, the

respondent, from a respectable-looking man who gave his name as John Mulcahy, and his address as 10, The Beach. That he paid him the current price for it. That he had no reason to think otherwise than that the man was telling the truth, and in all good faith entered the name and address, as given, in the book required to be kept in accordance with the General Dealers Act, 1903. That since proceedings were taken he endeavoured in every way to trace the man who sold him the copper in the name of John Mulcahy, 10, The Beach, and afforded the police every facility to discover him, and gave them his full description.

The Justices were of opinion upon the facts that the evidence did not bring the case within the operation of this statute, as it was proved to their satisfaction that the respondent complied with section 2 of the General Dealers (Ireland) Act; that he made the entries according to the information he received, and acted bonâ fide in entering the name and address given to him by the person from whom he purchased and received the copper; that he attached the weight and price paid, and labelled the copper accordingly; and it was admitted by the police that they got every assistance from the general dealer to trace the person who sold the copper...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Maguire v Shannon Regional Fisheries Board
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 19 Mayo 1994
    ...(WATER POLLUTION) ACT 1977 S3(3) LOCAL GOVT (WATER POLLUTION) (AMDT) ACT 1990 S3(1)(b) SHERRAS V DE RUTZEN 1895 1 QBD 918 TOPPIN V MARCUS 1908 2 IR 423 RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) ACT 1951 S2(1)(a) UK FISHERIES (CONSOLIDATION) ACT 1959 S171(1) LOCAL GOVT (WATER POLLUTION) ACT 1977 S3(1......
  • Reilly v Judge Michael Pattwell
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 Octubre 2008
    ...2ED 2004 PARA 6.12 A v GOVERNOR OF ARBOUR HILL PRISON 2006 4 IR 88 CRIMINAL LAW AMDT ACT 1935 S1(1) CONSTITUTION ART 40.3 TOPPIN v MARCUS 1908 2 IR 423 GENERAL DEALERS (IRELAND) ACT 1903 S2 (UK) MCADAM v DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS CO LTD 1929 IR 327 DUBLIN CARRIAGE ACT 1853 S50 (UK) SHERRAS v D......
  • Kean v Robinson
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 20 Abril 1910
    ... ... Appellant ... Robinson ... Respondent ( 1 ) ... K. B. Div ... CASES ... Paine ( 2 ), Barker v. Hodgson ( 3 ), and Toppin v. Marcus ( 4 ). [He also referred to Morgan v. Edwards ( 5 ); The ... ...
  • M'Adam v Dublin United Tramways Company Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court (Irish Free State)
    • 14 Mayo 1929
    ...O'Byrne JJ. (1) 1 Salk. 285; Sm. L. C., 10th edit., 310. (1) [1891] 2 Q. B. 588. (2) [1924] 1 K. B. 102. (1) [1895] 1 Q. B. 918. (2) [1908] 2 I. R. 423. (3) [1902] 2 K. B. (4) [1891] 2 Q. B. 588. (1) [1895] 1 Q. B. 918. (1) L. R. 9 Q. B. 433. (2) [1908] 2 I. R. 423. (1) 13 Q. B. D., 207, at......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT