« 이전계속 »
rebate, payable half-yearly, on the freight
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD.
no jurisdiction to compel him to make the
COMMITTAL TO PRISON,
stention from prosecution-Commission of
(See also Bankruptcy.)
money by false pretences- Evidence- An
ence by items charged on various pre-
CONVEYANCE OF PRISONER.
to remove a corpse from a burial ground
ing a dead human body is not in itself a
OBSTRUCTION OF COURSE OF JUSTICE.
CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT
be in or upon premises for unlawful pur-
-48 &49 Vict. c. 69, 8s. 6 and 12.-Under
Vict. c. 21, 88. 4 and 57.-The effect of
“ CRIMINAL PRISONER.”
Act, 1867—Summary Jurisdiction Act,
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
-By the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, s. 2, it was
DEBTORS ACT, 1869.
to defraud creditors—Evidence of intent
any person has, with intent to defraud his
previous orders had been obtained. P.
REFUSAL OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TO, BY
(See Evidence and Murder.)
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
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
having been ruled at the trial that he was
not a servant, that he was bailee of the
of the money. (Reg. v. De Banks. May,
1884. C. C. R.) 450.
tension of the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ among young men, and the develop: ment 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.
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.
EVIDENCE. Admission obtained by questions-State
ment 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
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 Divi. sion, and bore his particular mark. It sometimes happens that in the process of stamping a second sheet of paper is inad. vertently 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.