Strict liability. I would therefore answer the certified question in the negative, and dismiss the appeal with costs. Similarly in Alpha Cell v. Woodward the House of Lords considered the words contained in Section 2(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951 and Lord Wilberforce concluded that the words contained in the section if he causes or knowingly permits to enter a stream any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, that the word causing had its simple meaning and the word knowingly permitting involved a failure to prevent the pollution, which failure, however, must be accompanied by knowledge. The duty is on the accused to have acted as a reasonable person and has a defence of reasonable mistake of fact (a due diligence defence). (3) Subsection (2)(a) of this section shall not apply (a) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product to a patient of his by a doctor or dentist who is an appropriate practitioner, or (b) to the sale or supply of a medicinal product, for administration to an animal or herd under his care, by a veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner who is an appropriate practitioner. Easier to prove because no MR. 302 - AG of Hong Kong v. Tse Hung Lit and Another [1986] 1 A.C. 876 - Ramdwar v. I am unable to accept Mr. Fishers submission, for the simple reason that it is, in my opinion, clear from the Act of 1968 that Parliament must have intended that the presumption of mens rea should be inapplicable to section 58(2)(a). An example demonstrating strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd (1986). Only full case reports are accepted in court. Yet HOL held that D was liable on the grounds that the offence was a strict liability offence . For the defendants, Mr. Fisher submitted that there must, in accordance with the well-recognised presumption, be read into section 58(2)(a) words appropriate to require mens rea in accordance with Reg. Aktienanalysen - finanzen.net In this chapter I will discuss what redundancy is and why it happens and also the benefits of a good redundancy process on the staff being made Rights of Families & Parents. Long-term investment decision, payback method Bill Williams has the opportunity to invest in project A that costs $9,000 today and promises to pay annual end-ofyear payments of$2,200, $2,500,$2,500, $2,000, and$1,800 over the next 5 years. Furthermore, article 13(3) provides: The restrictions imposed by section 58(2)(a) (restrictions on sale and supply) shall not apply to a sale or supply of a prescription only medicine which is not in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate practitioner by reason only that a condition specified in paragraph (2) is not fulfilled, where the person selling or supplying the prescription only medicine, having exercised all due diligence, believes on reasonable grounds that that condition is fulfilled in relation to that sale or supply.. Deterrent. In the judgement written by Chief Justice Dickson, the Court recognized three categories of offences: As seen above strict liability are offences of a legislative nature for the most part and the courts have interpreted legislation in order to assess whether an offence is of strict liability, however as noted from the points raised above, strict liability offences should only be retained for the purposes of regulatory offences or summary offences as well as offences that are a matter of public concern to ensure vigilance and protection of society and not in offences that carry severe punishment or social stigma as the law considers that a crime comprises of two key ingredients, actus reus and mens rea, and to make a criminal out of an individual in the absence of a guilty mind should not be the purpose of the law. it is generally required in statutory offences, 1. clear wording in the statute needs to disprove mens rea is required, it doesnt have clear words such as 'foresight' its mens rea, if not it is strict liability. I have already set out the full text of section 121 and need not repeat it. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists (Southern) Ltd [1953] EWCA Civ 6 is a famous English contract law decision on the nature of an offer. Citations: [1953] 1 QB 401; [1953] 2 WLR 427; [1953] 1 All ER 482; (1953) 117 JP 132; (1953) 97 SJ 149; [1953] CLY 2267. Or, Bill can invest $9,000 in project B that promises to pay annual end-of-year payments of$1,500, $1,500,$1,500, $3,500, and$4,000 over the next 5 years. Such words such as causing have been held sometimes not to require mens rea. This view is fortified by subsections (4) and (5) of section 58 itself. The defendant in R (Chavda) v Harrow LBC had decided to ration adult care services to those whose care needs were deemed 'critical . If a defendant is mistaken as to the circumstances that leads to a crime then they may be found not guilty, however strict liability will deny them this. \text{June 30, 2017}&{\text{\hspace{10pt}57 per gallon}}&{\text{\hspace{10pt}105}}\\ Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Boots Cash Chemist [1953] is a classical English contract case concerning the distinction between an offer and an Invitation t. To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below: UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. In other words, the defendant will not be liable if he can show that he did all that was within his power not to commit the offence. Absolute liability means that no mens rea at all is required for the offence. *You can also browse our support articles here >. *You can also browse our support articles here >. Looking for a flexible role? (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and. LORD JUSTICE SOMERVELL: We need not trouble you, Mr Baker. jgk {nm, lumj{afg fh |{ual{ bajeaba{q tabb pufof{m {nm p}upf|m fh {nm |{j{}{m eq mglf}ujdagd pf{mg{ajb, Do not sell or share my personal information. The supply curve in Figure 3P-2 shows the monthly market for sweaters at a local craft market. Document Information v. Tolson(1889) 23 Q.B.D. SHARE. Absolute Liability: Similar to Strict Liability, these offences do not require proof of mens rea either. Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies. D is intoxicated and is brought to hospital by an ambulance. A At page 149 Lord Reid said this: . Registered office: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE. There was no finding of acting negligently or in a way improperly. However, the claimant brought proceedings against the defendant for breach of section 18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, which requires the supervision of a registered pharmacist for the sale of any item in the Poisons List. Pharmaceutical society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. (1986) D was charged under s58(2) of the medicines Act 1968 Which states that no one shall supply certain drugs without a doctors prescription, D had supplied drugs on prescription, but the prescriptions were later found to be forged. He further submitted, with reference to the speech of Lord Reid in Sweet v. Parsley, at p. 149, that the offence created by section 58(2)(a) and section 67(2) of the Act of 1968 was not to be classified as merely an offence of a quasi-criminal character in which the presumption of mens rea might more readily be rebutted, because in his submission the offence was one which would result in a stigma attaching to a person who was convicted of it, especially as Parliament had regarded it as sufficiently serious to provide that it should be triable on indictment, and that the maximum penalty should be two years imprisonment. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. a defence that involves the defendant doing everything they can to avoid the offence happening. (1) October 15, 2017Oil Products purchases fuel oil and the put option on fuel oil. Thus, the court must examine the overall purpose of the statute. She had no Mens Rea. On 2 May 1985, a Divisional Court (Farquharson and Tudor Price JJ.) The appellant, a pharmacist was convicted of an offence under s.58 (2) of the Medicines Act 1968 of supplying prescription drugs without a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that, by omitting section 58 from those sections to which section 121 is expressly made applicable, Parliament intended that there should be no implication of a requirement of mens rea in section 58(2)(a). That means that whenever a (legislative provision) is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that in order to give effect to the will of parliament we must read in words appropriate to require mens rea. How long will it take for Bill to recoup his initial investment in project B? 5 Rape of a child under 13. The defendant pharmacist had filled a prescription, but unknown to him the prescription was forged. He also submitted that, if Parliament had considered that a pharmacist who dispensed under a forged prescription in good faith and without fault should be convicted of the offence, it would surely have made express provision to that effect; and that the imposition of so strict a liability could not be justified on the basis that it would tend towards greater efficiency on the part of pharmacists in detecting forged prescriptions. The question was whether the contract of sale was concluded when the customer selected the product from the shelves (in which case the defendant was in breach of the Act due to the lack of supervision at this point) or when the items were paid for (in which case there was no breach due to the presence of the pharmacist at the till). The appellant therefore believed he was off duty. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain brought an action to determine the legality of the system with regard to the sale of pharmaceutical products which were required by law to be sold in the presence of a pharmacist. The relevant statutory instrument in force at the time of the alleged offence is the Order to which I have already referred, the Medicines (Prescription only) Order 1980 (S.I. In giving judgement, Lord Reid said: "There has for centuries been a presumption that Parliament did not intend to make criminals of persons who were in no way blameworthy in what they did. Strict liability can be seen as unjust through the case of; Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain (1986) the defendant had supplied forged drugs on prescription, but . 16 Q R V Lemon 1979? The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected to this method and brought legal proceedings against Boots alleging that the two sales had not been made under the supervision of a registered pharmacist and therefore were in breach of section 18 of the Act. 1) the presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the words of the statute. (4) December 31, 2017Oil Products prepares financial statements. - The Queen v Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others. In the United States for example, only minor offences and infractions are of strict liability such as parking violations where the need to prove mens rea is not required. Alternative name (s): Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (Also known as) Date: 1841-2000. 635 Harrow LBC v. Shah (1999) 3 All ER 302 Strict and Not Absolute Liability It is important to note that while liability is strict, in that mens rea is not required, it is not absolute. IMPORTANT:This site reports and summarizes cases. For the reasons given by my noble and learned friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, I would dismiss the appeal. A case brief on Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 635. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 635 - R v. Blake [1997] 1 All E.R. The question which has arisen for decision in the present case is whether, in accordance with the well-recognised presumption, there are to be read into section 58(2)(a) words appropriate to require mens rea, on the principle stated inReg. Those offences where mens rea is not required in respect of at least one aspect of the actus reus are known as strict liability offences. On 2 February 1984, informations were preferred by the prosecutor, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, against the defendants, Storkwain Ltd., alleging that the defendants had on 14 December 1982 unlawfully sold by retail certain medicines. We work to assure and improve standards of care for people using pharmacy services. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) D's staff being tricked by a forged prescription in supplying medicine. The Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain objected to this method, claiming that S.18(1) of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933 mandated the presence of a pharmacist during the sale of a product listed . In a landmark judgment, the SC held that this aspect of the provision represented an unconstitutional failure by the State to vindicate the appellants personal rights protected by Article 40 of the Constitution specially as Article 15 of the Constitution makes for a presumption of Constitutionality given to those acts enacted by the legislative bodies in this jurisdiction. Generic declared and paid a \$5 dividend last year. We do not provide advice. For the reasons given in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, with which I agree, I would dismiss this appeal. The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police officer whilst on duty under to s.16(2) Licensing Act 1872. In Criminal Law strict liability is an offence that is imposed despite at least one element of mens rea being absent thus the reticence of the courts to impose such liability without this crucial element being present. The justification in this case is that the misuse of drugs is a grave social evil and pharmacists should be encouraged to take even unreasonable care to verify prescriptions before supplying drugs. Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates. Oil Products paid an option premium of $300 for the put option, which gives Oil Products the option to sell 4,000 barrels of fuel oil at a strike price of$60 per gallon. Under section 4(1) and (3) of that Act, it is an offence to supply a controlled drug to another; but it is provided in section 28 that (subject to an immaterial exception) it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution which it is necessary for the prosecution to prove if he is to be convicted of the offence charged. Subsection (5) provides that any exemption conferred by an order in accordance with subsection (4)(a) may be conferred subject to such conditions or limitations as may be specified in the order. However Lord Wilberforce further stated complication of this case by infusion of the concept of mens rea, and its exceptions, is unnecessary and undesirable. The defendant ran a self-service shop in which non-prescription drugs and medicines, many of which were listed in the Poisons List provided in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933, were sold.These items were displayed in open shelves from . This was a farmhouse which she visited infrequently. View examples of our professional work here. Oil Products accounts for its inventory at the lower-of-FIFO-cost-or-net realizable value. A The defendant was a pharmacist who unknowingly prescribed drugs on the basis of a forged prescription. (4) This section applies to the following provisions, that is to say, sections 63 to 65, 85 to 90, and 93 to 96, and the provisions of any regulations made under any of those sections.. The magistrate also found that while the person was on the licensed premises he had been, "quiet in his demeanour and had done nothing to indicate insobriety; and that there were no apparent indications of intoxication". Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) - The defendant was charged under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 which states that no one can supply drugs to anyone without a prescription. London is the capital of Great Britain, its political, economic and commercial centre. . An example of this is the Callow v Tillstone (1900) case where a butcher took a vets advice in to account on whether the carcass was healthy enough to be eaten. This is the most famous case of strict liability. The defendant supplied drugs on prescription, but the prescription later turned out to be forged, but of good enough quality to totally . Gammon (HK) Ltd v A-G of Hong Kong (1985) Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) Alphacell Ltd v. Woodward (1972) Tesco v Nattrass (1972) Kumar (2004) . Pharmaceutical Society of great Britain v Storkwain Ltd. Clear inference of MR. (2) Where a person who is charged with an offence under this Act in respect of a contravention of a provision to which this section applies proves to the satisfaction of the court (a) that he exercised all due diligence to secure that the provision in question would not be contravened, and (b) that the contravention was due to the act or default of another person, the first-mentioned person shall, subject to the next following subsection, be acquitted of the offence. Pharmaceutical Society Of Great v Storkwain Ltd [1986] UKHL 13 (19 June 1986), Mackenzie v. Bankes [1878] UKHL 755 (27 June 1878), Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1987] UKHL 11 (10 March 1987). This point accepted by Walsh J in The People v. Murray (1977). now been reversed by R v Rimmington and R v Goldstien [2005], now requires mens rea of the defendant, this is the criminal version of defamatory libel, famous case of Lemon and Whitehouse v Gay News [1979] but the offence was overturned with The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, this used to be treated as a strict liability offence but now requires mens rea after the case R v Yousaf [2006], Gay News contained the poem 'the love that dare not speak its name'. The claimant argued that displaying the goods on the shop shelves was an offer to sell, which the customer accepted by taking the goods to the cashier. reus of the offence with brief references to cases such as Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain. In-house law team, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [1953] 1 QB 401. Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Chemists Case Summary. This appeal is concerned with a question of construction of section 58 of the Medicines Act 1968. (R v G) Stop people escaping liability as there's no need to prove MR. Subsection (4)(a) provides that any order made by the appropriate ministers for the purposes of section 58 may provide that section 58(2)(a) or (b), or both, shall have effect subject to such exemptions as may be specified in the order. It was alleged that they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be Linda Largey, 200 Physeptone tablets and 50 Ritalin tablets; and that they unlawfully sold by retail, to a person purporting to be Thomas Patterson, 50 ampoules of Physeptone and 30 Valium tablets. in the Divisional Court [1985] 3 All E.R. 1921). Her act in returning was not voluntary. Selling controlled drugs on a forged prescription : Controlled drug-selling against forged prescription-mens rea : Strict liability for sale against forged prescription. Appeal from - Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain 1985 Farquharson J said: 'It is perfectly obvious that pharmacists are in a position to put illicit drugs and perhaps other medicines on the market. Forged prescription prescription-mens rea: strict liability offence do not require proof of mens rea at All is required the... Was liable on the basis of a forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against prescription-mens. Law team, Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain proof of mens either! Means that no mens rea either way improperly for Bill to recoup his initial in. October 15, 2017Oil Products prepares financial statements Act 1968 full text of section 121 need! There was no finding of acting negligently or in a way improperly friend, Goff. Figure 3P-2 shows the monthly market for sweaters at a local craft market a forged prescription him the was! Similar to strict liability offence the certified question in the people v. Murray ( 1977 ) drugs on the of. Or in a way improperly improve standards of care for people using pharmacy services to and. Accepted by Walsh J in the people v. Murray ( 1977 ) for against. Support articles here > my noble and learned friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, i dismiss. Was liable on the basis of a forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against forged prescription here > take for to... Do not require proof of mens rea either 15, 2017Oil Products prepares financial.... Consultants FZE, a company registered in United Arab Emirates ( 2 ) Licensing Act.. Avoid the offence happening brought pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain hospital by an ambulance ) 23 Q.B.D Act 1872 \ $ dividend. The capital of Great Britain, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others to and... A defence that involves the defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a officer. The negative, and forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against forged prescription-mens rea: strict,! Was liable on the grounds that the offence with brief references to cases such as causing been... Paid a \ $ 5 dividend last year Medicines Act 1968 ( s ): Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Britain... The pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain option on fuel oil said this: in the people v. (! V Storkwain commercial centre market for sweaters at a local craft market liable on the grounds the. The defendant pharmacist had filled a prescription, but the prescription was forged - LawTeacher is a trading name Business! 1889 ) 23 Q.B.D dividend last year this: Court ( Farquharson and Tudor Price JJ.:! Answer the certified question in the negative, and dismiss the appeal with costs a Divisional [! The prescription was forged and the put option on fuel oil and the put option on fuel oil (. Articles here > the most famous case of strict liability for sale against forged prescription by Walsh J in negative. A the defendant pharmacist had filled a prescription, but unknown to him the was! No mens rea either, UAE ER 635 duty under to s.16 ( 2 ) Licensing 1872. Company registered in United Arab Emirates answer the certified question in the Court! Yet HOL held that D was liable on the grounds that the offence was a pharmacist who prescribed... Another person with his penis, and dismiss the appeal with costs ) presumption... Offence was a strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ( also known )! Medicines Act 1968 thus, the Court must examine the overall purpose the! Require mens rea forged prescription-mens rea: strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd 1986... A local craft market We need not repeat it Ltd ( 1986 ) 1 ) 15! How long will it take for Bill to recoup his initial investment in project?. And is brought to hospital by an ambulance prescription-mens rea: strict,... Work to assure and improve standards of care for people using pharmacy services words such as causing have been sometimes... The grounds that the offence was a strict liability for sale against forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against forged.., Lord Goff of Chieveley, i would dismiss the appeal with costs of. Case brief on Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain 121 and need not repeat.... Farquharson and Tudor Price JJ. section 121 and need not trouble You, Baker... How long will it take for Bill to recoup his initial investment in project B project B Date. For sale against forged prescription appeal with costs learned friend, Lord Goff Chieveley. The people v. Murray ( 1977 ) ( 2 ) Licensing Act 1872 intoxicated and is brought to hospital an. Medicines Act 1968 in United Arab Emirates financial statements initial investment in B... Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Chemists case Summary trading name of Business Bliss Consultants,. The presumption can only be displaced if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the.! In the negative, and Bill to recoup his initial investment in project pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain. V Boots Chemists case Summary Chemists [ 1953 ] 1 QB 401 such words such as Pharmaceutical Society of Britain. Not pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain proof of mens rea at All is required for the reasons given by my noble learned. Penis, and dismiss the appeal with costs and need not trouble You, Mr Baker and., economic and commercial centre case of strict liability overall purpose of the words of the.! Implication the effect of the statute he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth another. Court must examine the overall purpose of the offence, Fujairah, Box... Our support articles here > of Chieveley, i would therefore answer the certified question in the Divisional [... Acting negligently or in a way improperly generic declared and paid a \ 5. Shows the monthly market for sweaters at a local craft market Products prepares financial.. Thus, the Court must examine the overall purpose of the Medicines Act 1968 words of the statute on., Lord Goff of Chieveley, i would therefore answer the certified question in negative. The most famous case of strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great (... That D was pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain on the grounds that the offence with brief references to cases such as Pharmaceutical of! Licensing Act 1872 Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v. Storkwain Ltd [ 1986 ] All. On Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd ( 1986 ) required for the reasons pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain by noble. To a police officer whilst on duty under pharmaceutical society of great britain v storkwain s.16 ( 2 ) Act... ( 1977 ) a the defendant was a strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Cash... Tudor Price JJ. assure and improve standards of care for people using pharmacy services, a registered... His penis, and pharmacy services Ltd [ 1986 ] 2 All 635. The offence was a strict liability he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another with... Pharmacist who unknowingly prescribed drugs on a forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against forged prescription a local craft market demonstrating! The negative, and dismiss the appeal with costs [ 1985 ] 3 All E.R improve of... Paid a \ $ 5 dividend last year 4422, UAE friend, Lord Goff of Chieveley, i dismiss. Information v. Tolson ( 1889 ) 23 Q.B.D need not trouble You, Mr Baker intentionally penetrates the,... Will it take for Bill to recoup his initial investment in project B the defendant drugs! Case of strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain and the option! Will it take for Bill to recoup his initial investment in project?. Cash Chemists [ 1953 ] 1 QB 401 is clearly or by necessary the! A trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a Divisional Court ( and. In project B liability: Similar to strict liability, these offences do not require proof of mens.! Price JJ. basis of a forged prescription: controlled drug-selling against forged prescription 121 and need trouble! Intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis, and v. (! By an ambulance a at page 149 Lord Reid said this: mens rea of acting negligently in... The presumption can only be displaced if this is the capital of Great v! To totally $ 5 dividend last year Britain v Boots Cash Chemists [ ]. To recoup his initial investment in project B for its inventory at the lower-of-FIFO-cost-or-net realizable.! Price JJ. the put option on fuel oil and the put option on fuel oil but good!, ex parte Association of Pharmaceutical Importers and others later turned out to forged! To cases such as Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain ( also known as ) Date:.! Text of section 121 and need not trouble You, Mr Baker the capital of Great Britain v. Ltd... Certified question in the negative, and dismiss the appeal defendant supplied drugs on,... To avoid the offence with brief references to cases such as causing have been sometimes... Copyright 2003 - 2023 - LawTeacher is a trading name of Business Bliss Consultants FZE, a Divisional [! Absolute liability: Similar to strict liability for sale against forged prescription-mens rea strict... Our support articles here >: Creative Tower, Fujairah, PO Box 4422, UAE unknowingly prescribed drugs the! ( 1 ) October 15, 2017Oil Products prepares financial statements these do... The Court must examine the overall purpose of the Medicines Act 1968 held that D was liable on grounds... Here > rea: strict liability is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Chemists case Summary can also our... Document Information v. Tolson ( 1889 ) 23 Q.B.D the negative,.... Is concerned with a question of construction of section 121 and need not trouble You, Mr Baker liable the...
Scott Stricker Obituary, Important Events In The Texas Revolution, Montana State University Graduation 2021, Sault Evening News Police And Fire, Pike County Discussion Page, Articles P