« 이전계속 »
indictment against the wife for stealing the perse a meeting of certain persons who
defence was "bad, on demurrer, on the
ground that it did not allege as a matter
mote or carry into effect the unlawful con-
spiracies mentioned; and (2) that a justice
of the peace has no authority to disperse a
meeting not shown to be unlawful because
he reasonably believes it to be held with
an unlawful intent.
In his defence the defendant set out certain
inflammatory placards posted by the pro-
and alleged that informations were sworn
from which it appeared that if the meet-
ing was held the public peace would be
broken; that the defendant had reasonable
grounds for believing them and believed
them to be true; and believed and had
reasonable grounds for believing that a
breach of the peace would occur if the
meeting were allowed to be held and con-
tinued, and that the public peace and
tranquillity could not otherwise be pre-
served than by separating and dispersing
the persons assembled; and that in order
to separate and disperse the plaintiff and
the other persons so assembled the assault
complained of was committed. Held, that
from these statements it could not reason-
ably be assumed that the meeting therein
mentioned was in itself an unlawful
assembly; but that, assuming the plain-
tiff and others assembled with him to be
doing nothing unlawful, yet, if there were
reasonable grounds for the defendant, being
a justice of the peace, believing, as he
alleged he did, that there would be a breach
of the peace if they continued so assembled,
and that there was no other way in which
but by stopping and dispersing the plain-
tiff's meeting, the defendant was justified
in taking the necessary steps to stop and
disperse it. Humphries v. Connor (17
Ir. C. L. R. 1) approved of. Beatty v.
Gillbanks (9 Q. B. Div. 308) commented
on and distinguished. (O'Kelly v. Harvey,
-- Authority to disperse—Apprehended Sureties for good behaviour_Summons-
charged-Party accused as witness-
tenants of C., and advised them, if any for value of a New Zealand bond for 10001.,
Restitution of stolen property-Public sales.
masters-Stolen sheep-Sale in market
overt—Transfer of property-Conversion.
-D. was a farmer residing in the Queen's
County. C., who was also a farmer
residing in the same county, on the 17th
day of January, 1883, took twenty-one
sheep, the property of D., off his lands,
and brought them to Dublin, where there
is a cattle market established by the Cor.
poration of Dublin under the provisions of
the Dublin Improvement Act (12 & 13
Vict. c. 97, s. 80), and in which there is
held a public market for the sale of cattle
and sheep every Thursday, the legal hour
for commencing sales being eight o'clock
in the morning. On Thursday, the 18th
day of January, 1883, C. brought the
twenty-one stolen sheep to the market,
between eight and nine o'clock in the
morning, and asked W. and Sons, who
were salesmasters in the market, to have
the sheep sold for him. W. and Sons, in
ignorance of the theft, put the sheep into
their pons, and in a few minutes they were
after the sale G. removed the sheep, and
W. and Son paid to C. the purchase-money,
less their own commission. The next
day D. informed W. and Sons that the
shoep had been stolen from him, and
thereupon W. and Sons gave him all the
information in their power. C.was arrested,
and convicted of the theft. D. having
brought an action against W. and Sons for
711. 88., which he alleged was the value of
the sheep to him, a special case was stated
for the opinion of the court as to the
liability of W. and Sons. Held, by the
Exchequer Division and by the Court of
Appeal that W. and Sons were liable to D.
for the conversion of the sheep. (Delaney
v. Wallis and Sons. Jan. 1884. Ct. of
LARCENY BY BAILEE.
Contract by infant-Hire and purchase
system-Conversion of hired goods during
bailment—Special property-24 & 25 Vict.
c. 96, s. 3.-M., a minor, hired property on
company to a consumer, and standing in contract by which he undertook to pay for
ment becoming due, M. removed and sold
consent of the person from whom it was
hired, and having been indicted for larceny
found guilty. Held, upon a case reserved
void by reason of M.'s minority, the bail.
C. C. R.) 757.
that he knew of the libels. But express
Blasphemous libel-Liability for publication
of - Trial— Practice-Evidence-Indict.
of Cockburn, C.J. in Reg. v. Winsor and
Coleridge, C.J.) 217.
tigation before magistrates -- Seditious
preliminary investigation. Reg. v.
1883. Q. B. Div. Ir.) 180.
tion-Fiat of Director of Public Prose-
being first had and
Jan., 1885. Ct. of App.) 686.
vileged occasion. The defendant, the wife
information-Applicant a foreign noble-
was published maliciously, and with intent