part of the prisoner that an omnibus was not a public place, and that the indictment was bad in law as it did not conclude "ad commune nocumentum," but only to the great scandal of the said (that is, of divers) liege subjects of our Lady the Queen. The jury found the defendant guilty, and the above points were reserved by the court. Judgment was postponed, and the defendant was committed to prison to abide the decision of this case. (b) Ballantine for the prisoner.-An omnibus is not a public place for the purposes of this indictment. The publicity depends upon user, as appears plainly from the case of R. v. Crunden (2 Camp. 89), where the offence was bathing at Brighton as a sport on the beach, which had recently become so frequented or so overlooked as to make the bathing there a possible outrage on decency. On the other hand in R. v. Orchard (3 Cox C. C. 248), a public urinal was held not to be a public place, because it was enclosed, and what must be done therein could not be said to be a nuisance to the public. So in R. v. Webb (1 Den. C. C. 338), an indecent exposure of a man's person to a woman in a public passage, leading from the entrance door of a public-house to the bar parlour, was held not to be a public nuisance. The law makes a broad distinction between public and private nuisances-between such as are indictable and such as are not; and whether a nuisance falls under the one class or the other depends upon the extent of the annoyance which it occasions: (R. v. Lloyd, 4 Esp. 199.) Now an omnibus is both private property, and also an enclosed place; and is at least as private as the passage in a public-house. Secondly. The indictment ought to have concluded ad commune nocumentum. MARTIN, B.-The precedent in Archbold is not so. It is, "to the great scandal." Ballantine. The other allegations there sufficiently supply that omission, because the exposure is alleged to be in "a certain public and common highway there situate." In this case there is neither express allegation nor necessary inference that the act done was a public nuisance. [LORD CAMPBELL, C. J.-Is not the defect cured by s. 24 of stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100?] Not where the words are necessary to render the indictment valid. Parry, contrá.—The second count is clearly good according to the argument on the other side. MARTIN, B.-The question as to that count is, whether there was evidence to support it; and that depends upon the answer to the question, whether an omnibus is a public place. In R. v. Webb the exposure was to one person only, and was intended to be an exposure to one person only. Parry. In this case the indecency was with a more general intent. (He was stopped.) REG. v. HOLMES 1853. Indecent exposurePublic place. Argument. LORD CAMPBELL, C. J.-It would be a reproach to the law if Judgment. this indictment was held not to disclose an offence; or this evidence not to support it. The exposure is shown to have been in a public (b) An application was made by the prisoner's Counsel to the court, to remit the case to the assistant judge to be re-stated; but not being made with his assent, it was refused REG. v. HOLMES. 1853. Indecent exposure omnibus going along a public high road, and in the omnibus were three or four females. What more can be wanting? This would not be a country to live in if such an abominable outrage could go unpunished. PARKE, B.-We are asked two questions-first, Whether the omnibus was a public place for the purpose of this indictment? and Public place. secondly, Whether the indictment ought to have concluded ad commune nocumentum? I think that an omnibus may be a public place for the purpose of this indictment, and that if the evidence shows an exposure made designedly before more than one person, or so made that any one being in or coming in to the omnibus might see it, the omnibus is made out to have been at the time of the offence a public place, and that being so in this case the conviction is right. As to the other point, the statute 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 24, furnishes a complete answer. Judgment. MAULE, J., TALFOURD, J., and MARTIN B., concurred. Conviction affirmed. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. JUNE SESSION, 1853. (Before ALDERSON, B.) June 11. REG. v. GRIFFIN. (a) Privileged communication-Clergyman. A chaplain to a workhouse had, in his spiritual capacity, frequent conversations there with the prisoner, who was charged with the murder of her child, but who was too ill to be removed from the workhouse: Semble, per Alderson, B., these conversations ought not to be adduced in evidence at the trial. THE HE prisoner was indicted for the wilful murder of her infant child. Amongst other evidence, the chaplain of the workhouse, to which the woman was taken after she had inflicted the alleged injuries on the child, was called to prove certain conversations he had had with her with reference to the transaction. He stated that he had visited her as her spiritual adviser to administer to her the consolations of religion. ALDERSON, B.-I think these conversations ought not to be given in evidence. The principle upon which an attorney is prevented from divulging what passes with his client is because without an unfettered means of communication the client would not have proper legal assistance. The same principle applies to a person deprived of whose advice the prisoner would not have proper spiritual assistance. I do not lay this down as an absolute rule; but I think such evidence ought not to be given. Bodkin (for the prosecution), said that, after such an intimation, he should not tender the evidence. Bodkin and Clerk for the prosecution. Ballantine for the defence. (a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT. JULY SESSION, 1853. (Before the RECORDER.) July 6. REG. v. LEGGE. (a) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 124-Giving false evidence before Commissioners of Bankruptcy-Indictment—Allegation of materiality. An indictment under the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 254, contained the fol lowing allegation of materiality: "And that at and upon the said examination of the said J. Legge, it then and there became and was material in and to the matter of the said bankruptcy, to inquire what was the nature and extent of the said J. Legge's connection and dealings with one Mr. Marshall, and how long he had known the said Mr. Màrshall, and whether the said Mr. Marshall was a relation of the said J. Legge?" The following was the evidence given by the defendant before the Commissioners of Bankruptcy : "Mr. Marshall is not in trade; he is a speculator in anything and everything. I have known Mr. Marshall about two or three years (meaning that he the said Joseph Legge had not known the said Mr. Marshall more than two or three years.) I imagine he was always a speculator, and never in business." The assignment of perjury was in these words: "Whereas in truth and in fact, the said person so described as Mr. Marshall aforesaid, was one and the same person as one S. Marshall Legge, and was and is the father of the said Joseph Legge; and whereas in truth and in fact, the said Joseph Legge had known the said Samuel Marshall Legge, so described as Mr. Marshall as aforesaid, for a longer period than two or three years, to wit, for twenty years and upwards:" Held, that there was no sufficient averment of materiality on the face of the indictment. THE THE defendant was tried upon the following indictment:~ Central Criminal Court, The jurors for our Lady the Queen to wit. upon their oath present, that heretofore, to wit, on the 2nd day of April, in the year of our Lord 1853, a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy of Joseph Legge, hereinafter mentioned, and one John Legge, was, under and in pursuance of the statute made and passed in the session of Parliament holden in the 12th and 13th years of the reign of Queen Victoria, (a) Reported by B. C. ROBINSON, Esq, Barrister-at-Law. intituled An Act to amend and consolidate the Laws relating to Bankruptcy, filed and prosecuted in the Bankruptcy Court of London; and the said Joseph Legge and John Legge, on the day and year aforesaid, duly became and were adjudicated to be bankrupts under and in pursuance of the said statute. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that afterwards, and whilst the proceedings upon and in respect of the said bankruptcy were depending in the said court, to wit, on the 4th day of April, in the year of our Lord 1853, the said Joseph Legge came before J. E., Esq., at the Bankruptcy Court-house in Basinghall-street, in the city of London, and within the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, to be examined in the said Court of Bankruptcy, in the matter of the said bankruptcy, by and before the said J. E., Esq., touching the trade and dealings and estate of the said bankrupts Joseph Legge and John Legge aforesaid, he the said J. E. then being a commissioner of the said Court of Bankruptcy duly appointed, and empowered to act in the matter of the said bankruptcy; and then and there having lawful power and authority to examine the said Joseph Legge in that behalf; and the said Joseph Legge, before his examination and solemn declaration before the said J. E., Esq., hereinafter mentioned, made and signed the declaration, by the said act required by bankrupts to be made, and signed and countersigned in schedule W. of the said act above mentioned, which declaration is as follows, that is to say : SCHEDULE W. The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849. FORM of DECLARATION to be made by the Bankrupt or In the Court of Bankruptcy, Basinghall-street, London, I, Joseph Legge, one of the persons declared a bankrupt under a petition for adjudication of bankruptcy, filed on the second day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-three, do solemnly promise and declare that I will make true answer to all such questions as may be proposed to me respecting all the property of me the said Joseph Legge, and all dealings and transactions relating thereto, and will make a full and true disclosure of all that has been done with the said property to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. J. E. JOSEPH LEGGE. And that at and upon the examination of the said Joseph Legge, it then and there became and was material in and to the said matters of the said bankruptcy, to inquire what was the nature and extent of the said Joseph Legge's connexion and dealings with one Mr. REG. v. LEGGE. 1853. False evidence before Commissioners of Bankruptcy. |