Multiple Choice
Give correct response. In Allen v. Whitehead, the defendant, an occupier and licensee of a refreshment house employed a manager for running the refreshment house. He used to visit it only once or twice a week. He had given express instructions to the manager that no prostitutes were to be allowed to congregate on the premises of the house. The manager, inspite of his instructions to the contrary, allowed some women, whom he knew to be prostitutes, to congregate on the premises. The defendant had no personal knowledge of it. Held that:
A) The defendant was not liable but the manger was liable because the defendant had given express instructions to the manger not to allow prostitutes to congregate on his premises.
B) The defendant was not liable for the offence of allowing prostitutes to congregate on his premises because he had no knowledge about it.
C) The defendant was held vicariously liable for knowingly suffering prostitutes to meet and remain in the refreshment house.
D) None of the above answers is correct.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q82: Give correct response. The common law rule
Q83: If acts no fact reum nisi means
Q84: A person who obtains possessions by a
Q85: The essential ingredients of a crime are:<br>A)Motive,
Q86: Give the correct response<br>A)An accidental infliction of
Q88: The offence of criminal breach of trust
Q89: For the offence of criminal misappropriation--<br>A)There must
Q90: In the offence of extortion trust should
Q91: A Hindu girl paked up a memebrs
Q92: A in good faith, believing property belonging