Thomas v Sorrell

Facts:

• The defendant pleaded "nil debet" and submitted to the jury.
• The jury found that the defendant owed nothing except fifty pounds related to the retailing of wines under specific statutes.
• The jury also found that the defendant, at the time of the wine sale, was a natural born subject and a freeman of the Company of Vintners in the City of London.

Issues:

1. Whether the patent of 9 Jac. was void in its creation.

2. If the patent was not void in its creation, whether it became void upon the death of King James.

3. Whether the King had the authority to dispense with certain offenses under specific statutes.

Holding:

• The court held that the King may dispense, but not with offenses considered malum per se.
• It was determined that certain offenses like murder, adultery, stealing, etc., were malum per se and could not be dispensed with.
• The court concluded that the King could not dispense with public nuisances or penal laws that caused specific damage to individuals.

Rationale:

• The court reasoned that laws prohibiting malum per se offenses could not be dispensed with by the King.
• It was noted that the King's dispensation power did not extend to offenses that caused harm to specific individuals.
• The court emphasized that the King could not alter or transfer property rights through dispensations.
• The court concluded that dispensations by the King must align with the purpose and intent of the statutes in question.

Outcome:

• The court ruled that the patent of 9 Jac. was void in its creation and could not be used to excuse the defendant's actions related to the retailing of wines.
• The court affirmed that certain offenses, including those related to the retailing of wines, could not be dispensed with by the King.
• The defendant was found liable for the fifty pounds owed under the statutes concerning the retailing of wines.