Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/795

 614

THE GREEN BAG

hands it passed would endeavor to make his profit of it.1 So the bare ingrossing of a whole commodity, with an intent to sell it at an unreasonable price, was an offense at the common law; for, if such practices were allowed, a rich man might ingross into his hands a whole commodity, and then sell it at what price he should think fit.2 It is said that the common law offenses of ingrossing and regrating extended only to the necessaries of life.3 The attempt by false reports to enhance or abate the price of native commodities was punishable by fine and ransom at common law.4 And when certain persons came to Coteswald, and said, in deceit of the people, that there were such wars beyond the seas that wool could not pass or be carried beyond sea, whereby the price of wools was abated; and presentment thereof being made, the defen dants, having appeared, were, upon their confession, put to fine and ransom.5 In one reported case* the defendant was charged, in two counts of a criminal infor mation, with spreading rumors, with intent to enhance the price of hops, in the hearing of hop planters, dealers and others, that the present stock of hops was nearly exhausted and would be exhausted before the present crop could be brought into market; and that there would soon be a scarcity of hops; with 1 3 Inst., 196; Bac. Abr. tit. Forestalling (A); I Hawk. P. C., c. 80, s. 3. But it was held that anymerchant, whether subject or foreigner, bringing victuals or any other merchandise into the realm, may sell it in gross. 3 Inst., 196. ' I Hawk. P. C., c. 80, s. 3; 3 Inst., 196. See, also, 4 Bl. Com., 158; R. v. Davies, I Rol. II; R. v. Waddington, infra; R. v. Webb (1811), 14 East, 406; Pratt v. Hutchinson (1812), 15 East, 511; R. i.'. Rusby (1800), Peake Addl. Cas., 18g. Accord ing to a note in Peake, the case last named is the same case which Chitty mentions under the name of Rex v. Rushby, 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 536, where the form of the indictment appears. 3 Pettamberdass v. Thackoorseydass (1850), 7 Moore P. C., 239, 262. 4 3 Inst. 196, referring to 23 Edw. 3, c. 6; 13 Rich. 2, c. 8, Inter leges Ethelstani, c. 12. • Rex v. Waddington (1800), i East, 142.
 * 43 Ass. pi. 38, 3 Inst., 196.

intent to induce dealers not to bring their hops to market for sale for a long time, and thereby greatly enhance the price. . There were other counts charging an intent to enhance the price by unlawfully ingrossing (i.e., monopolizing) large quantities of hops so as to resell the same for an unreasonable profit, and by various other means. All the offenses are charged as offenses at common law. The rumors mentioned in the first two counts are not described as "false" rumors, nor does the court appear to have given, nor to have been required to give, an express opinion upon the indictable quality of the offense set forth in those counts. The judgment proceeds upon the other charges, which were deemed sufficient, the defendant being adjudged to pay a fine of £500. and to be imprisoned for one month.1 The case was decided by Kenyon, C. J., and Lord Campbell, who did not admire Kenyon, com ments upon it very disparagingly in his Lives of the Chief Justices (vol. 4, p. 84, of Am. Ed.). But he cites no authorities contra. and he admits that the doctrines enunciated were at the time highly popular, and con tributed to enhance Kenyon 's reputation as a great judge. It is noticeable that this decision by Ken yon, C. J., must have been under what he believed to be the common law, the statutes against forestalling, etc., having been pre viously repealed by the Act 12 Geo. 3. c. 71 (1772), as being detrimental, according to the preamble of the Act, to the supply of the laboring and manufacturing poor. Any doubts upon the subject were subsequently removed by the Act 7-8 Viet., c. 24, s. (1844), which expressly abolished forestalling, regrating and ingrossing, both as common law and statutory offenses. By section 4 of that Act, however, nothing contained in the Act "shall be construed to apply to the offense of knowingly and fraudulently spread ing, or conspiring to spread, any false rumor. 1 Another similar case against the same defend ant is reported in i East, 167. See, also, R. v. Gilbert (1801), i East, 582.