ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

MONMOUTHSHIRE SPRING ASSIZES, 1853.

Monmouth, March 31.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE TALFOURD.)

REG. v. SPOONER.(a)

Wounding-Stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 4-Indictment—

Injury.

To constitute the offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, under the stat. 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 4, the wound must be direct, and therefore an injury occasioned by the prosecutor falling on some iron trams in consequence of a blow from the prisoner,

is not within the statute.

ICHARD SPOONER was indicted for feloniously wounding Alfred Williams, on the 28th of December, 1852, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

The evidence against the prisoner was, that he, in consequence of some ill feeling entertained towards the prosecutor, attacked the latter while at work on a tram road, and knocked him down with a stick, inflicting a serious wound. On the part of the prisoner it was contended that the injury was occasioned by the prosecutor falling on the iron trams.

TALFOURD, J.-In summing up, told the jury, that in order to convict the prisoner of the offence charged in the indictment, the wound must be direct, and if they should be of opinion that the injury was the result of a fall, although occasioned by a blow from the prisoner, that would not be sufficient, for it would not be within the statute.*

Verdict-Not guilty.

[It had been previously held, that where in self-defence the prosecutor forced a part of his body against an instrument in the defendant's hands, and so cut and wounded himself, it was not within the statute; (Reg. v. Becket, 1 M. & Rob. 526.)-J. E. D.]

* 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 4, which enacts," that whosoever unlawfully and maliciously shall shoot at any person, or shall, by drawing a trigger, or in any other manner, attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person, or shall stab, cut, or wound any person, with

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

intent, in any of the cases aforesaid, to maim, disfigure, or disable such person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to such person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life, or for any term not less than fifteen years, or to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding three years."

REG.

v.

SPOONER.

1853.

Wounding.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

BERKSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES, 1853.

Abingdon, July 9.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE CROMPTON.)

REG. v. KIRTON.(a)

Perjury-Jurisdiction of justices over beer-houses-Sale of beer on
Sundays.

Justices of the peace have power to control the sale of beer, &c., on
Sunday, as well in unlicensed as in licensed houses.

An indictment against one W. K., for perjury, alleged that one J. H.
was duly licensed to keep a beer-house, and that an information had
been laid against him for unlawfully keeping it open on Sunday, the
6th of February, and that on the hearing of the said information
the defendant falsely swore that he was not in the beer-house.
was no evidence that at the time of the alleged offence J. H. was
a licensed beer-house keeper.

There

Held, that such proof was unnecessary, as the justices had a general jurisdiction over the subject of keeping such houses open on Sundays independently of any licence.

WILLIAM KIRTON was indicted for having committed

perjury at the Petty Sessions, at Reading, on the 26th of March, 1853.

The indictment alleged that one Isaac Horn was duly licensed to keep a beer-house, and that an information had been laid against him, for that he being duly licensed to keep a beer-house, had it open unlawfully on the morning of Sunday, the 6th of February, 1853, and that on the hearing of the said information it became and was a material question whether the defendant William

(a) Reported by J. E. Davis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

REG.

v.

KIRTON.

1853.

Perjury.

Kirton had been in the beer-house on that morning, and whether he had been supplied with beer on that occasion, and whether he had been seen going into and coming out of the house. The indictment then averred that the defendant falsely and corruptly swore that he had not been supplied with beer in the house, and that he was not in the house at all on the 6th of March, and was not seen going in or coming out of it.

In order to prove the averment in the indictment that Horn was duly licensed to keep a beer-house, he was called as a witness, and produced a licence, but on examination it appeared to be a licence for a year, commencing on the 11th of May, 1853. The witness proved that he was keeping the beer-house at the time of the alleged offence, on the 6th of February, 1853.

At the close of the case for the prosecution

J. J. Williams (for the prisoner), objected that there was no evidence to support the averment in the indictment that Isaac Horn was duly licensed on the 6th of February. That was a material allegation, for without that proof, it did not appear that the justices had any jurisdiction to inquire whether Horn kept the house open on that day, and therefore, as the case now stood, the deposition of the defendant was sworn before a tribunal not competent to administer an oath, and it was coram non judice.

CROMPTON, J., held that the justices had jurisdiction generally over the subject of keeping houses for the sale of beer and other liquors open on Sunday, and that as in order to establish an offence, it was not necessary to prove that the keeper of the house was licensed, what was sworn on the subject of Horn's keeping the house open brought the case within the jurisdiction of the justices, even if it turned out that he was not licensed at the time. The learned judge said he was so satisfied of the correctness of his decision, that he should not reserve the case for the consideration of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The defendant was acquitted.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.

STAFFORDSHIRE SUMMER ASSIZES, 1853.

Stafford, July 22.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE CROMPTON.)

REG. v. HARTSHORN AND OTHERS.(a)

Forgery at common law—Attestation of voting papers—Board of Health Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 63)—Trial together of several misdemeanants, indicted separately.

The Board of Health Act, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, directs that the votes for the election of members of local boards shall be given by means of voting papers, and enacts (sect. 25), "that if any voter cannot write, he shall affix his mark at the foot of a voting paper in the presence of a witness, who shall attest and write the name of the voter against the same, as well as the initials of such voter against the name of every candidate for whom the voter intends to vote." The defendants who took an active part on behalf of some of the candidates, went to the houses of voters who were marksmen, to assist in filling up the voting papers, and having obtained the express or implied consent of voters or members of their families, filled up the papers with the proper names and marks of the voters, and put their own names as attesting witnesses without obtaining the actual signatures or marks of the parties themselves.

Held, that this did not constitute the offence of forgery at common law. Quære, whether the irregularity amounted to an indictable misdemeanor. The defendants having been indicted separately, Crompton, J., on the application of their counsel, and with the consent of the counsel for the prosecution, permitted all the cases to be tried.

THE

HE indictment against Samuel Hartshorn, contained five counts. The first count alleged, that before and at the time of the commission of the offence hereinafter mentioned, the hamlet of Sneyd, in the county of Stafford, formed and was part of a district into which "The Public Health Act, 1848," had been and was applied and put in full force and operation according to and in pursuance of the provisions of the said act, and for which said district a local board of health, called The Burslem Local Board of Health, had been formed; and that before and at the time of the commission of the said offence, an election of one person for the said hamlet of Sneyd, to be a member of the

(a) Reported by J. E. DAVIS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law.

REG.

V.

HARTSHORN

1853.

Forgery.

said Burslem Local Board of Health, was about to take place according to the provisions of the said act, and that before and AND OTHERS. at the time aforesaid, two persons, being a number exceeding the number of persons to be elected at the said election for the said hamlet of Sneyd, that is to say, Joseph Edge and Thomas Massey, had been and were respectively and duly, and according to the provisions of that act, qualified and nominated to be elected as members of the said Burslem Local Board of Health, for the said hamlet of Sneyd, and that upon such nomination as aforesaid, and before the time of the commission of the offence hereinafter next mentioned, the chairman of the said Burslem Local Board of Health, to wit, John Pidduck, caused voting papers, in the form contained in Schedule A, to the said act annexed, to be prepared and filled up according to the provisions of the said act, and inserted therein the names of the said two candidates aforesaid, so nominated as aforesaid, according to and in pursuance of the provisions of the said act; and before the commission of the said offence, and three days before the day fixed for the said election, the said chairman, according to, and in pursuance of the said act, caused one of such voting papers to be delivered by certain persons duly appointed for that purpose, whose names are to the jurors aforesaid unknown, at the address in the said hamlet of Sneyd, of each owner and proxy, and at the residence of each rate-payer of the said hamlet of Sneyd, entitled to vote therein, at the said election, and amongst others, at the residence of one George Garner, then being a rate-payer, resident in the said hamlet of Sneyd, and duly qualified and entitled to vote therein for the election of members of the said Burslem Local Board of Health, for the said hamlet of Sneyd, at the said election, and which said last-mentioned voting paper was as follows, that is to say:

[blocks in formation]

The voter must write his initials against the name of every person for whom he votes, and must sign this paper.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »