Pigot and Macpherson, JJ.
1. We are of opinion that both questions should be answered in the negative. The section contemplates one offence and one prosecution, a conviction upon which is to involve a liability to fine not exceeding Rs. 100 and to a further fine not exceeding Bs. 20 for each day during which the offence is continued.
2. In Garrett v. Messenger L.R. 2 C.P. 583 the offence was the keeping a house for public dancing, &c;, without a license, and the section under which the prosecution was instituted provided that 'every person keeping such house, &c;, without such license as aforesaid, shall forfeit the sum of 100 to such person as will sue for the same.' Two actions were brought under the Act by common informers, each to recover a penalty of 100. A verdict was taken in the first, and in the second, Wills, J., held that the penal powers of the Act were exhausted by the recovery of one penalty: the full Court concurred in this view, Bovill, C.J., saying that, if the Legislature had intended that there should be more than ,one penalty, that intention would no doubt have been expressed in clear and unequivocal terms. That case was referred to in Milnes v. Dale L.R. 10 C.P. 595 and 597 where the distinction is pointed out between cases where a penalty is imposed in respect of a complex and continuous act, and those where it is imposed in respect of a simple uncomplicated offence which is complete.
3. In this case, the keeping of animals without a license is, as in the case of Garrett v. Messenger the keeping a house of entertainment without a license was, a comprehensive offence to be proved by many acts, all of which constitute only one offence for which only one penalty is recoverable-that penalty being a fine not exceeding Rs. 100, and such further fine as may be imposed; those of the acts done which are committed after summons and before conviction must be treated as part of it.
4. We therefore answer both questions submitted to us by the Magistrate in the negative.