Odger's English Common Law

CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTES. 73
Thus section 4 of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, 1 is not retrospective,
and does not prevent the further maintenance of an action against a trade
union which was commenced before the passing of the Act. 2 Again, the
Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, 3 was held to apply to a person convicted
of a crime committed between the date of the passing of the Act and the
date of its coming into operation, the trial and conviction taking place
after the latter date, the words of the Act being " a crime committed after
the passing of this Act." 4
(v.) If general words in a statute follow particular terms,
they will be construed as applying only to persons or things
of the same class (ejusdem generis) as those already mentioned.
Thus a bicycle is not included in the words " coach, chariot,
hearse, chaise, gig, car, chair, and every other carriage hung
on springs." 5
(vi.) If particular terms only be used and no general words
follow, the statute will be construed as not applying to any
other persons or things of the same class, but only to those
already expressly mentioned. Expressio unius est exclusio
alterius.
Thus the first great Poor Law Act, passed in 1601, 6 imposed rates on
" "
lands, houses, tithes, coal mines, or saleable underwoods in the parish ;
and it was held that no other mines could be rated. " As there may be a
reason for the strict letter of the statute, and none appears for extending it
beyond the letter, we have no ground or authority or pretence for giving it
that extensive construction." 7
(vii.) If one statute deals generally with a whole class of
persons or things, and another statute, whether earlier or
later in date, deals exclusively with a particular species of
the persons or things included in that class, the special
provision will restrict the general enactment and will control
the particular species of persons or things. 8
Thus, as we have seen above, 9 a general enactment that no county court
i 6 Edw. VII., c. 47.
2 Smithies v. National Association of Operative Plasterers, [1909] 1 K. B. 310.
3 8 Edw. VII., c. 59, s. 10.
1 R. v. Smith, [1910] 1 K. B. 17.
6 Simpson v. Teignmouth # Shaldon Bridge Co., [1903] 1 K. B. 405 ; Smith v.
Kynnersley, ib. 788 ; Plymouth, $c, Tramways Co. v. General Tolls Co., Ltd.
(1896), 75 L. T. 467 ; (H. L.) (1898), 14 Times L. E. 631 ; and see Camiam v.
Earl of Abingdon, [1900] 2 Q. B. 66.
« 43 Eliz. c. 2.
7 Per Lord Mansfield in Lead Co. v. Richardson (1762), 3 Burr, at p. 1344 ; and
R. v. The Inhabitants of Woodland (1802),
see R. v. Bell (1798), 7 T. K. at p. 600 ;
2 East, at p. 164 ; R. v. Cunningham and others (1804), 5 East, 478.
8 As to ttie construction of private Acts, see In re
Cargo, ex
Yen-all, [1916] 1 Ch. 100.
" Argos," suprd.