the offender,
and dismissed
the summons, on the ground of the work having been commenced prior to the 16th of April 1856, the date of the Ordinance, which they do not read retrospectively: That is to say, the Section Eleven of the Ordinance in the plain and obvious sense of the words (and according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the like cases of The Queen v. Mitchell and The Queen v. May) but in the non-natural sense of the adjudications arrived at by the defendants in those two cases, and which drew down the severe censure of the Chief Justice, when they brought under his notice by myself in the late proceedings by Mandamus.
That Section which justices do not read retrospectively is as follows:-
Every work whatsoever hereafter to be commenced, resumed, prosecuted, or finished in contravention
4
the offender,
and dismissed
the summons, on the ground. of the work having [been]
" commenced prior to the 16th
"
" of April 1856, the date of the "Ordinance, which they do " not read retrospectively : That
is to say, the if not read section
Eleven of the Ordinance in the plain and obvious sense of the words ( and according to the interpretation of
the Supreme Court in the lake cases of The Queen & Mitchell and The Queen & Mitchell
سلام
And May) but in the
0
Non-natural sense of the
385
adjudications arrived at by
the defendants in those two
cases, and which drew down
the severe censure
of the Chief
of
were
Justive, when they brought
under his notice by myself in the late proceedings by
Mandamus.
the
That Section which
ہوگی
• justices do not read retrospectively is as follows: -
Every
very work.
wh whatsoever,
" hereafter to be Commenced,
" resumed, prosecuted, or " finished in contravention
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.