« 이전계속 »
the Queen. Per Denman, J.: I cannot added, and the indictment sent up to the
exercise of its discretion; and that the
obtaining of such leave in cases under the
in original summons withdrawn before amending it, is not a mere formality, but
proprietors of newspapers for libel-News-
paper Libel Act, 1881-Fiat of the Direc-
tor of Public Prosecutions not necessary
tion upon the part of the proprietor of a
newspaper, defendant on a criminal infor-
mation for libel, to quash the information
charged of Public Prosecutions had not been
obtained, the point not being here taken
on the argument of the rule, was dismissed,
not required. (Reg. v. Yates. July, 1883.
Newspaper-Fiat for criminal prosecution
-Discretion of the Director of Public
Prosecutions--44 & 45 Vict. c. 60, 8. 3.-
When the Director of Public Prosecutions
in England has refused to grant his fiat
under 44 & 45 Vict. C. 60, s. 3, for a
criminal prosecution against the proprietor,
&c., of a newspaper for a libel published
power to interfere, the matter being left
by the enactment entirely to his discretion.
(Ex parte Hubert and Co., Jan., 1882.
Q. B. Div.) 166.
(See Criminal Lunatic.)
c. 97, s. 52.—The resident freemen and
prosecution the burden of proof as to want
aid-Evidence.- Where a parent reglects
March, 1882. C. C. R.) 35.
-- Death resulting during an operation
under medical advice.- Where an injury
Mathew, J.) 174.
- Local government orders - General
from pocket-Pistol seized by bystander
1883. C. O. R.) 199.
made behind the back of the prisoner are
Osman. Oct., 1881. Lush, L.J.) 1.
Homicide by necessity—Special verdict-
sistance, and did not assent to his being
Poison-Accident or design-Evidence of (Weekes (app.) v. King (resp.). May,
way-Common Law misdemeanour.-The
prisoner was indicted for unlawfully ex-
posing the dead body of her infant child
near a public highway. The jury found
that the body was exposed by the prisoner
in a public highway; that the place was
one where many people were certain to
pass and repass; and that the exposure was
calculated to shock and disgust passers-by,
and ontrage public decency: Held, that
the prisoner was guilty of a nuisance at
common law. (Reg. v. Jane Clark. Jan.,
1883. Denman, J.) 171.
(See also Cremation.)
NUISANCE TO HIGHWAY.
ing passengers—-17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 88.
303 and 318-39 & 40 Viet. c. 80, s. 16.-
G. J. Kidston, who did not live in Dublin,
was the owner of a tug-steamer called the
Flying Hawk. He was summoned before
the Divisional Justices of Dublin by the
Board of Trade, who complained that the
Flying Hawk went to sea from Dublin on
the 21st day of July, 1882, with more than
twelve passengers on board, without any
Board of Trade certificate, and without
having a duplicate of such certificate put
up in some conspicuous part of the ship,
contrary to the provisions of the 17 & 18
Vict. c. 104, s. 318, and the 39 & 40 Vict.
c. 80, s. 16. The people on board on the
occasion in question, other than the master
and crew, were the Dublin manager for the
owner, his wife, the Dublin staff, and some
friends and their wives who had been
invited by the Dublin manager for a
pleasure trip to see the fireworks at Kings-
town; none of them paid anything for the
trip. The magistrate having dismissed the
summons, and the case having been brought
before the Queen's Bench Division on a
case stated: Held, per Lawson and John-
son, JJ. (dissentiente O'Brien, J.) that the
magistrate was wrong, and that, if he
believed the evidence, he should have
convicted the defendant. (Reg. V. The
Divisional Justices of Dublin and G.
Kidston. Jan., 1884. Q.B. Div. Ir.) 379.
POACHING PREVENTION ACT. other matter with intent to endanger the
safety of any passenger travelling or being
— Search of
obstruct or injure any engino, shall be
guilty of felony, and being convicted
thereof shall be liable to penal servitude
for life or to be imprisoned for any time
and 34 of the same statutes respectively
it is provided that a person who by any
unlawful act shall endanger the safety of
any person conveyed or being upon a
railway, or shall obstruct any engine or
carriage using any railway shall be guilty
of a misdemeanour and shall be liable to
two years, Held, that an acquittal upon
an indictment charging the prisoner with
a felony was no bar to a subsequent indict-
for a misdemeanour under the provisions
of the above statutes. (Reg. (on the Prose-
cution of the Great Western Railway
Company) v. Gilmore. April, 1882. Hud-
dleston, B.) 85.
that the alleged goods were a fixture in a
building. They were then charged upon
a second indictment under the 24 & 25
Vict. c. 96, s. 31, for stealing the fixture,
to which charge they pleaded autrefois
acquit. The presiding chairman at sessions
held that plea not to be proved, and the
prisoners then pleaded not guilty, but were
convicted. Held, that the ruling of the
chairman was right, and that the prisoners
had not been in peril on the count for
receiving in the first indictment. (Reg. v.
O'Brien and another. March, 1882.
C. C. R.) 29
Pleading-Indictment—Non-use of statut-
able word-24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, 8. 18.-
The 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, enacts that
whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously
by any means cause ”any grievous bodily
harm to any person, &c., shall be guilty of
maliciously did inflict' grievous bodily
harm," not using the statutable term
“ cause." Held, that the indictment was
sufficient. (Reg. v. James Bray, March,
1883. C. C. R.) 197.