Odger's English Common Law

100 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION.
The Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, 1 enables a dock company
to make by-laws under its common seal for a great variety of purposes
connected with, the use and management of its docks and property.
Penalties may be imposed for infringements of these by-laws. 2 But no
by-laws (except such as relate solely to the company or its officers or
servants) have effect, unless confirmed by a judge of one of the superior
Courts, or by the justices at Quarter Sessions, or by such other confirming
authority as may be prescribed in the special Act. 3 Moreover, notices
have to be given before they are confirmed,* and, when confirmed, they
have to be published as directed by the Act. 6 When duly made, confirmed
and published, the by-laws become binding on all parties, 6 and they can
only be altered by other by-laws similarly made and confirmed. A board
of conservators has power to make by-laws under ss. 39 and 45 of the
r Salmon Fishery Act, 1873 ; so has a canal company. 8
When power to make by-laws is conferred by statute, a
condition, as we have seen, is generally imposed that before
such by-laws come into operation they must be submitted to
some confirming authority, which has power to disallow them,
wholly or in part. And even though a by-law has been
duly approved and confirmed by the appointed authority, it
may yet be held invalid by the High Court, if it be either
unreasonable in itself or contrary to the general law of the
land. It is impossible to lay down any general rule which
will determine when a by-law is unreasonable. As Lord
Russell, C. J., says in Burnett v. Berry, 9 " Authorities cited
on the construction of other by-laws are of very little use in
assisting the Court to decide whether the particular by-law
before them is or is not good. Each must be judged by its
own language." 10
A by-law imposing a penalty ou a passenger for travelling in a superior
class to that for which his ticket was issued, or for using a ticket on any
day for which it is not available, or which has been already used, without
requiring that the act should be done with intent to defraud, is un-
reasonable, an intention to defraud being " the gist of anv such offence." 1J
1 10 Vict. o. 27, s. 83.
8 S. 84.
» S. 85.
< Ss. 86, 87.
6 S. 88.
6 S. 89.
' 36 & 37 Vict. c. 7.
8 8 & 9 Vict. c. 42, B . 2.
» [1896] 1Q. B.atp. 643.
10 And see Gentel v. tfapps, [1902] 1 K. B. 160 ; WiUon, v. Fearnley (1905), 92 L. T
647 ; Batchelor v. StxHey (1905), »;! L. T. 539 ; Srott v. Pillinei; ri904] 2 K. B. 855
" Dyson v. L. # N. W. By. Co. (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 32'; Huffam v. North
Staffordshire By. Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 821.