no jurisdiction to compel him to make the
order. (Reg. v. The Judges and Justices
of the Central Criminal Court. Feb. 1883.
Q. B. Div.) 324.
CERTIORARI.
(See Practice.)
FRESH EVIDENCE ON MOTION FOR.
(See Sureties for Good Behaviour.)
COERCION.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY.
(See Husband and Wife.)
COMMITMENT,
EFFECT OF HOME OFFICE CIRCULAR ON
FORM OF,
(See Gaol Delivery.)
COMMITTAL TO PRISON,
MEANING OF.
(See Prisons Act, 1877.)
COMMON NUISANCE.
(See Cremation.)
COMPOUNDING FELONY.
Indictment-Absence of allegation of ab-
stention from prosecution—Commission of
offence by other than owner of stolen pro-
perty-Theft-bote.-The offence of com-
pounding a felony is complete at the time
when the agreement to abstain from pro-
secuting is made; and it is not necessary
therefore in an indictment for such an
offence to allege that the prisoner did
abstain from prosecuting, and that by
reason of such abstention the thief escaped
prosecution. Any person having know-
ledge that a felony has been committed,
and entering into an agreement to abstain
from prosecuting, or to hinder the ends of
justice, is guilty of the offence of com-
pounding a felony; and that offence is not
confined to the owners of stolen property
entering into such agreements. (Reg. v.
Burgess. Dec. 1885. C. C. R.) 779.
(See also Bankruptcy.)
Restraint of trade-Combination of ship-
owners-Circulars-Interim injunction.-
The defendant shipowners had combined
together, and their agents in China had
issued circulars there to the effect that
exporters in China who confined their
shipments of goods to vessels owned by
the combined lines should be allowed a
rebate, payable half-yearly, on the freight
charged. Any shipment at any port in
China by an outside steamer to exclude the
shipper of such shipment from participating
in the return during the whole six-monthly
period within which it had been made.
The plaintiffs, on the ground that such
combination was a conspiracy entered into
with the object of ruining them (the plain-
tiffs), and of driving away competition,
applied for an interim injunction to restrain
the defendants from continuing to issue
these circulars, and from otherwise acting
in restraint of trade: Held, that, as the
plaintiffs had not shown that the refusal of
this application would result in irreparable
injury to them, and as they might recover
ample compensation in damages if they
succeeded at the trial, and the cause of
action being doubtful, this was not a case
in which the court would grant an interim
injunction. Held, that such a combination,
if proved according to the plaintiffs' con-
tention, would be a conspiracy within the
principle laid down in Rex v. Eccles (1
Leach C. C. 274). (The Mogul Steamship
Company Limited v. McGregor, Gow, and
Co. and others. Aug., 1885. Q. B. Div.)
740.
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.
Abuse of legal process-Attempt to obtain
money by false pretences-Evidence-An
attorney combining with his client to en-
force payment of money known not to be
really owing, and making false representa-
tions with that object.-On a motion for a
new trial on behalf of two defendants,
an attorney and his client, indicted for con-
spiring to defraud, and also with attempt-
ing to obtain money by false pretences,
there being evidence that they combined
together to enforce, by means of the abuse
of legal process, payment of sums they
must have known not to be due, and also
made false representations with that object,
Held, that there was evidence for the jury
on both charges, that a direction to the
jury that if they were satisfied of these
facts they ought to convict on both charges,
was correct, and that the conviction there-
fore was right. (Reg. v. Taylor and Boynes.
April, 1883. Q. B. Div.) 268.
False Pretences-Combining together to en-
force by means of legal process payment
of pretended debt.-A moneylender having
a claim for a small sum against a borrower
for money lent and high interest, caused
an attorney to issue process for a sum
double the amount, making up the differ-
ence by items charged on various pre-
tences; and after receiving payment from
a third party of the sum lent, so that only
a sum of 51. remained due for interest,
still prosecuted the suit for the whole
amount indorsed on the process, and then
tried to get from the debtor a charge on
property of far greater value, and repre-
sented to the third party that the whole
sum claimed was really due.
The money-
lender and the attorney being indicted for
conspiracy to defraud the borrower, and
also for attempting to obtain money from
the third party by means of false pre-
tences, it was held that there was a case for
the jury on both counts; and that if the
jury believed the two combined together to
enforce by legal process payment of sums,
they knew not to be due, and falsely re-
presented them to be due, in order to
obtain payment, they were liable to be con-
victed. (Reg. v. Taylor and Boynes.
April, 1883. Q. B. Div.) 265.
CONVEYANCE OF PRISONER.
EXPENSES.
(See Prisons Act, 1877.)
COPARTNERSHIP.
YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION.
(See Embezzlement.)
Interference with-Obstruction of course of
justice-Jurisdiction of coroner-Burning
body after appointment and before holding
of inquest-Misdemeanour.-It is an in-
dictable misdemeanour wilfully to prevent
the holding of an inquest of which a
coroner has given notice, or to destroy a
body upon which an inquisition ought to be
held. Where, therefore, a coroner bonâ
fide believes information given to him to
be true, which, if true, would necessitate
the holding of an inquest, it is the duty of
the coroner to hold an inquest; and it is a
misdemeanour to prevent the holding of
such inquest, notwithstanding that the in-
formation given to the coroner was in fact
untrue. A coroner, however, has not an
absolute right to hold an inquest in any
case he chooses. In order to justify him in
holding an inquest he must have reasonable
grounds for believing that the death was
caused by unnatural means. (Reg. v. Ste-
phenson. June, 1884. C. C. R.) 679.
EXPOSURE ON HIGHWAY.
(See Nuisance.)
PREVENTION OF INQUEST ON.
(See Coroner.)
Property in-Fraudulently obtaining a licence
to remove a corpse from a burial ground
-Rights of executors-Cremation.-By a
codicil to his will A. directed that within
three days after his death, or as soon as
conveniently might be, his body should be
given to W., to be dealt with by her in such
manner as he had directed to be done in a
private letter to her, and that any costs or
expenses that might be incurred by W. in
carrying out and performing the instruc-
tions contained in the said letter should be
paid and discharged by the executors to
his will on production of account and
vouchers within three months after his
decease. The private letter referred to
contained directions for the cremation of
the body. The executors refused to deliver
up the body to W., and had it buried, two
days after his death, in the unconsecrated
part of Brompton Cemetery. W. obtained
a licence from the Secretary of State for
the removal of the body on a representa-
tion that she desired to remove it into
consecrated ground. She then had it con-
veyed to Italy, and cremated, and the
ashes brought back and buried in England.
She then brought an action to recover
from the testator's estate the expenses
incurred in the cremation of his body.
Held, that, there being no property in a
corpse, the direction in the testator's
codicil for the delivery of the body to W.
was wholly void. That the use of the
licence to remove a body for the purpose
of re-burial, in order to remove it for the
purposes of cremation, is an illegal act.
That the way in which the licence was
obtained and the act done were fraudulent,
and no claim for expenses for an act so
done could be permitted in a court of
equity. Semble, cremation in England is.
per se illegal. (Williams v. Williams.
March, 1882. Ch. Div.) 39.
Common nuisance.-The mere act of burn-
ing a dead human body is not in itself a
crime, but if it is burnt in an indecent
manner or in such a way as to give offence
to any portion of the public being in a
place where they had a right to be it is a
common nuisance. (Reg. v. Price. Feb.,
1884. Stephen, J.) 389.
OBSTRUCTION OF COURSE OF JUSTICE.
(See Coroner.)
PROPERTY IN CORPSE.
(See Corpse.)
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
ACT, 1885.
Girl under sixteen-Suffering to resort to or
be in or upon premises for unlawful pur-
poses Daughter living with mother.
Mother permitting prostitution of daughter
-48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, ss. 6 and 12.-Under
sect. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act,
1885, a mother can be convicted of know-
ingly suffering her daughter, of the age
mentioned in the section, to be in or upon
premises for the purpose therein specified,
notwithstanding the fact that such pre-
mises are those in which the mother and
daughter live together, having no other
home. Sect. 12 of the Act is not intended
to deal with such a case to the exclusion of
sect. 6, but is intended to enable the court
to make an order divesting parents, &c.,
of authority over girls in respect of whom
such parents, &c., have been convicted of
an offence under sect 6. (Reg. v. Webster.
Dec. 1885. C. C. R.) 775.
CRIMINAL LUNATIC.
Maintenance of-Prison Act, 1877-40 & 41
Vict. c. 21, ss. 4 and 57.-The effect of
sect. 4 of the Prison Act, 1877, is to
transfer the liability for the maintenance
of a criminal lunatic from the county to
the Consolidated Fund. Judgment of the
Court of Appeal reversed. (Mews v. The
Queen. Dec., 1882. H. of L.) 185.
"CRIMINAL PRISONER."
Prisons Acts, 1865 and 1877-Vaccination
Act, 1867-Summary Jurisdiction Act,
1879-Jervis's Act, 1848.-A person who
is committed to prison in default of dis-
tress for non-payment of a sum of money
adjudged to be paid by a court of
summary jurisdiction on an information
under sect. 31 of the Vaccination Act,
1867, is a "criminal prisoner " within the
meaning of the Prisons Act, 1865, s. 5,
and must be treated as such while in
prison. (Kennard v. Simmons and others.
Feb., 1884. Lindley, L.J.) 397.
CRIMINAL TRIAL.
(See Practice.)
Dishorning cattle-12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2.
-By the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2, it was
enacted, "That if any person shall from
and after the passing of this Act cruelly
beat, ill-treat, over-drive, abuse, or torture,
or cause or procure to be cruelly beaten, ill-
treated, over-driven, abused, or tortured, any
animal, every such offender shall for every
such offence forfeit and pay a penalty not
exceeding five pounds." MCA. being the
owner of thirty-four head of cattle, on the
25th day of February, 1884, caused their
horns to be cut off close to the skull. B.
took out a summons against McA. for
having caused the horns of certain cattle to
be cut off and otherwise ill-treated them on
the 25th day of February, 1884, at Greenan,
in the county of Meath, and thereby caused
and procured them to be then and there
cruelly ill-treated, tortured, and abused,
contrary to the 2nd section of the 12 & 13
Vict. c. 92. Upon the hearing of the
summons evidence was given that the
operation of dishorning caused very great
pain and suffering, and that the reasons
for cutting off the horns were (1) greater
convenience in feeding cattle in yards, and
(2) that cattle without horns brought in
some places 21. a head more than those
with horns. The magistrate who heard
the summons, having refused to convict
McA., was called upon by B. to state a case
for the opinion of the Exchequer Division
as to whether he was wrong in point of
law in dismissing the case. Held, that
MCA. was guilty of the offence of cruelly
ill-treating and abusing the cattle, within
the meaning of the 2nd section of the
12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, and ought to have
been convicted. (Brady (app.) v. McArdle
(resp.). April, 1884. Ex. Div. Ir.) 516.
DEBTORS ACT, 1869.
32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 5-Motion to commit
-Refusal by judge at chambers-Appeal
-Discretion.-A refusal by a judge at
chambers to make an order to commit a
defendant to prison for default of payment
of a judgment debt is a matter within
sect. 50 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and
therefore subject to appeal. (Debenham v.
Wardroper. March, 1883. Q. B. Div.)
207.
32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 13, sub-sect. 3― Intent
to defraud creditors-Evidence of intent
to defeat, and delay one creditor only-
Meaning of "any person" in sect. 13.-
The 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 13, enacts, "if
any person has, with intent to defraud his
creditors, concealed or removed any part of
his property since or within two months of
any unsatisfied judgment, or order for pay-
ment of money," he shall be guilty of a
misdemeanour. A judgment was obtained
against R. for 181. 48. 8d. (November 8,
1881). On the night of that day he, with
the assistance of the other two prisoners,
removed his goods with the object of
defeating and delaying the execution
creditor. R. and the other two prisoners
were indicted and convicted for removing
the goods, with intent to defraud R.'s
creditors [plural]. The chairman left the
question of intention to defeat the creditors
to the jury, ruling that there was evidence
of an intention to defraud the creditors
generally. Held, that the ruling of the
chairman was wrong, and that the convic-
tion could not be sustained. Held, also,
that the words " any person "in sect. 13
meant any person, and was not confined to
bankrupts or persons who had liquidated
their affairs in bankruptcy. (Reg. v. Row-
lands, Williams, and J. Williams. March,
1882. C. C. R.) 31.
Debtors (Ireland) Act, 1872 (35 & 36 Vict.
c. 57)-Order of commitment for non-
payment of instalments-Not acted on-
Expiration of time during which order
was in force-Second order of commitment
for non-payment of same instalments—
Writ of prohibition.-In June, 1879,
T. Haynes obtained a decree from the
Recorder of the city of Dublin against
P. Keogh for 391. 10s. Not being able to
get payment, he obtained an order from
the Recorder under the Debtors (Ireland)
Act, 1872, against the said P. Keogh for
payment by monthly instalments.
Keogh having made default in payment
of some of the instalments, the Recorder
in July, 1880, on the application of T.
Haynes, made an order of commitment
against P. Keogh, but a stay was put on
the order until the month of October,
1880. No payment having been made by
P. Keogh, a second order of commitment
was made by the Recorder, at the October
sessions for 1880, for the instalments that
fell due between the months of July and
October. P. Keogh was not arrested under
either of the said orders, and the time for
which they were in force having expired,
T. Haynes applied to the Recorder and
obtained from him, at the October sessions
of 1882, fresh orders of commitment
against P. Keogh on foot of the same
instalments as those upon which the
previous orders had been obtained. P.
Keogh having obtained a conditional order
for a writ of prohibition to prevent the
last orders from being acted on, and T.
Haynes having showed cause: Held, that
the conditional order must be discharged.
(Reg. v. The Recorder of Dublin. Dec.,
1883. Q. B. Div. Ir.) 376.
DESTITUTE PERSON.
REFUSAL OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO, BY
RELIEVING Officer.
DYING DECLARATIONS.
(See Evidence and Murder.)
ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACTS.
DETENTION OF CHILD AT SCHOOL AFTER
SCHOOL HOURS.
(See Assault.)
Larceny-Sale by a person authorised to
sell, and fraudulent appropriation by
him of the price.-On an indictment
which charged that the prisoner, as ser-
vant of the prosecutor, received a sum of
money and fraudulently embezzled and
appropriated it, and so did steal the
money; the evidence being that the
prisoner, not being otherwise in the service
of the prosecutor, was employed by him
merely to take care of a horse for a few
days and afterwards to sell it, and having
sold it, had absconded with the money
and dishonestly appropriated it: Held, it
having been ruled at the trial that he was
not a servant, that he was bailee of the
money, and might be convicted of stealing
the money Stephen, J. dissenting, on the
ground that the prisoner was not a bailee
of the money. (Reg. v. De Banks. May,
1884. C. C. R.) 450.
Moneys belonging to copartnership-Asso-
ciation for gain or profit-Young Men's
Christian Associatian-31 & 32 Vict. c.
116, s. 1.-An association which has not
for its object gain or profit is not a co-
partnership within sect. 1 of the Act to
amend the law relating to Larceny and
Embezzlement of 1868; and where R., a
member of a Young Men's Christian Asso-
ciation, having embezzled money obtained
by him on behalf of the association, was
indicted for that he, being a member of a
copartnership, did embezzle moneys belong-
ing to the copartnership: Held, that the
object of the association being "the ex-
tension of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ among young men, and the development of their spiritual life and mental powers," such association was not a copartnership within the section, and that therefore R. could not be convicted upon such an indictment. (Reg. v. Robson. Dec. 1885. C. C. R.) 772.
Admission obtained by questions-Statement of one prisoner incriminating others -Admissibility of, against them.-After a prisoner is in custody the police have no right to ask him questions, and an admismission or confession obtained in that way is inadmissible in evidence; and where one of several prisoners in custody makes a statement admitting his guilt and also incriminating the other prisoners, and such statement is afterwards read over to the others by the constable who asks them what they have to say to that, this is in the nature of a cross-examination of the prisoners, and such statement and their answers are not admissible as evidence against them on their trial. Secus where the persons are not in custody. (Reg. v. Gavin and others. April, 1885. Smith, J.) 656.
AIDING AND ABETTING.
(See Prize Fight.)
Bankruptcy Notices in the London Gazette-Cuttings from the Gazette. -A petition in bankruptcy having been presented against the prisoner in the D. County Court, the Court made an order that the publication of a notice of the petition in the London Gazette should be deemed service of the petition on the prisoner. The prisoner did not appear according to this notice, and there was no evidence that it had come to his know. ledge. The prisoner was adjudicated bankrupt in his absence, and divers proceedings in the bankruptcy took place. Subsequently thereto the prisoner was arrested, and afterwards examined in court touching his affairs by the trustee in the bankruptcy, and the result was that he was indicted and convicted for various offences under the Bankruptcy Act. On the trial, in proof of the publication of the order of the County Court in the Gazette the file of the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court was produced, containing a cutting from the Gazette of the advertisement of the order of the County Court and notice to appear. Held, that this cutting from the Gazette was improperly
received as evidence of the publication of the notice in the London Gazette and that the conviction could not be sustained. (Reg.v. Thomas Lowe. June, 1883. C. C.R.) 286.
Collateral documents-Uttering-Evidence of guilty knowledge-Admissibility of evidence-Functions of judge and jury.— The prisoner, who was the stamp distri butor of the Queen's Bench Division, was indicted for uttering three law forms with forged stamps impressed thereon. The forms which were the subject of the indictment were those ordinarily used by the stamp distributor of the Exchequer Division, and bore his particular mark. It sometimes happens that in the process of stamping a second sheet of paper is inadvertently placed under the sheet which is brought into contact with the die; this second sheet receives an impression, but of a fainter character, and one which can be distinguished from the impression made on the outer sheet. These second sheets are called "blinds," and are never supposed to be issued by the Stamping Department, nor are they regarded as genuine dies. The principal defence was that when the prisoner sent to purchase genuine stamps. his messenger, either deceived by the guilty party or in collusion with him, brought back "blinds" which were then innocently sold by the prisoner. To meet this defence counsel for the Crown proposed to give in evidence several documents from the files of the Queen's Bench Division, which were on forms bearing the prisoner's particular mark, and the stamps on which were, in the opinion of the expert, forgeries of a similar character as those the subject of the indictment. Counsel for the prisoner objected to these documents being given in evidence, as there was not sufficient evidence to connect the prisoner with them; but the learned judge, being pressed by the Crown, received them in evidence, but reserved the question for this court whether he was warranted in permitting the jury to regard these documents as having been uttered by the prisoner, and having been so uttered as evidence of guilty knowledge. Held (diss. Fitzgerald, B. and Barry, J.), that there was sufficient evidence to connect the prisoner with the documents on the file of the Queen's Bench Division, and of these having been uttered by him; and that they were rightly submitted to the jury as evidence of guilty knowledge. (Reg. v. Colclough. Feb., 1882. C. C. R. Ir.) 92.
|