페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

the Queen. Per Denman, J.: I cannot added, and the indictment sent up to the
accept the above passage from Blackstone grand jury, who found a true bill against
as exhaustive of the cases in which the the defendants in respect of the whole
court ought to interfere, for, if a news- indictment. The indictment was removed
paper or an individual should, by repeated by certiorari from the Central Criminal
and widely circulated attacks upon a pri- Court into the Queen's Bench Division of
vate individual, British or foreign, resi- the High Court. The defendants then
dent or abroad, show a persistent deter- obtained a rule nisi, calling upon the
mination to persecute, it would be the duty, prosecution to show cause why the two
in many cases, of this court to protect that additional counts should not be quashed.
individual by granting a rule, and even, in Held, on argument of the rule, that the
case of a further persistence, by making it counts must be quashed on the ground
absolute. (Reg. v. Labouchere ; Duke of that the leave of the court to add them was
Vallombrosa's case. Feb., 1884. Q. B. obtained on materials insufficient for the
Div.) 415.

exercise of its discretion; and that the

obtaining of such leave in cases under the
Newspaper-Charge of libel not contained Vexatious Indictments Act, and Acts

in original summons withdrawn before amending it, is not a mere formality, but
police magistrate-Counts subsequently must conform to the spirit and intention of
added to indictment containing charge of those Acts. (Reg. (on the Prosecution of
libel so withdrawn_Consent of court- Sir Henry Tyler, M.P.) v. Bradlaugh and
Vexatious Indictments Amendment Act, others. Dec., 1882. Q. B. Div.) 156.
1867, and Newspaper Libel Act, 1881-22 Newspaper-Criminal informations against
& 23 Vict. c. 17, s. 1-30 & 31 Vict. c. 35,

proprietors of newspapers for libel-News-
8. 1–44 & 45 Vict. c. 60, 88. 3, 6.--The
defendant B., with others, was charged

paper Libel Act, 1881-Fiat of the Direc-

tor of Public Prosecutions not necessary
with having published alleged blasphemous for criminal informations.-An applica-
libels on certain dates, in the F. news-

tion upon the part of the proprietor of a
paper. The fiat of the Director of Criminal

newspaper, defendant on a criminal infor-
Prosecutions had been obtained authoris.

mation for libel, to quash the information
ing the prosecution. The summons on on the ground that the fiat of the Director
which the defendants

charged of Public Prosecutions had not been
specified the particular dates of the libels

obtained, the point not being here taken
on which the prosecution relied. At the

on the argument of the rule, was dismissed,
first hearing before the magistrates the and held by Field, Denman, and Mathew,
alleged libels were not read out in court, JJ., (Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Hawkins,
but the counsel for the prosecution gave J. contra), that in such a case the fiat is
an undertaking to furnish both to the

not required. (Reg. v. Yates. July, 1883.
court and the defendants particulars of the Q. B. Div.) 272.
numbers of the newspaper and articles

Newspaper-Fiat for criminal prosecution
prosecuted. At the adjourned hearing the
defendant B. called the attention of the

-Discretion of the Director of Public
court to the fact that the particulars

Prosecutions--44 & 45 Vict. c. 60, 8. 3.-

When the Director of Public Prosecutions
furnished in pursuance of the undertaking
contained a reference to an alleged libel

in England has refused to grant his fiat

under 44 & 45 Vict. C. 60, s. 3, for a
published in an earlier number of the

criminal prosecution against the proprietor,
same newspaper, but not included in the
The counsel for the prosecu-

&c., of a newspaper for a libel published
tion then withdrew the number as not therein, the High Court of Justice has no
being in the summons. The defendants

power to interfere, the matter being left
were committed for trial. The counsel for

by the enactment entirely to his discretion.

(Ex parte Hubert and Co., Jan., 1882.
the prosecution subsequently applied ex
parte to the Recorder of London under

Q. B. Div.) 166.
30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 1, to add two counts
to the indictment based upon the alleged

“LONDON GAZETTE,”
libel contained in the number withdrawn

CUTTINGS FROM.
before the police magistrate; the counsel

(See Evidence.)
for the prosecution did not state in his
application that he had so withdrawn the
said number of the newspaper. The Re-

LUNATIC (CRIMINAL).
corder granted leave; the two counts were

(See Criminal Lunatic.)

were

summons.

MALICIOUS INJURY.
Property-Incorporeal right-24 & 25 Vict.

c. 97, s. 52.—The resident freemen and
widows of freemen of the borough of N.
were each entitled by right, declared and
confirmed by local Acts, to "the full right
and benefit to the herbage of the town
moor for two milch cows." Subject to the
" herbage right” aforesaid, the corpora-
tion of the borough were declared to be
owners of the soil in fee simple. The
respondent having played at bowls on the
town moor, and done nominal damage, the
appellant, one of the freemen, laid an in-
formation against him under the Malicious
Injuries to Property Act, 1861 (24 & 25
Vict. c. 97), s. 52. Held, that the "herbage
right” was not real or personal property
within that Act, which contemplated tan-
gible and visible property only. (Laws v.
Eltringham. Dec., 1881. Q. B. Div.) 22.

MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.
Burden of proof.-In an action for malicious

prosecution the burden of proof as to want
of reasonable and probable cause lies on
the plaintiff, and if in order to show
absence of reasonable and probable cause it
is necessary to establish any minor propo-
sitions, the burden of proving each of
such propositions also lies on the plaintiff.
(Arbrath v. The North-Eastern Railway
Company. June, 1883. Ct. of App.) 354.

MANDAMUS
WILL NOT LIE TO CENTRAL CRIMINAL

COURT.
(See Central Criminal Court.)

MANSLAUGHTER.
Infant-Neglect of parent to supply medical

aid-Evidence.- Where a parent reglects
to supply medical aid for his child who is
suffering from malignant disease, and the
infant dies, in order to convict the parent
of the crime of manslaughter it must
be proved affirmatively that the death was
caused by such neglect, and if the medical
evidence on behalf of the prosecution only
goes to the extent that the life probably
might have been prolonged by calling in
medical aid, it is not sufficient to support
a conviction. If death is accelerated by a
parents wilfully neglecting to provide
medical aid, in such a case the parent is
guilty of manslaughter. (Reg. v. Morbey.

March, 1882. C. C. R.) 35.
Injury causing medical treatment necessary

-- Death resulting during an operation

under medical advice.- Where an injury
was inflicted on a person by a blow which
in the judgment of competent medical
men rendered an operation advisable, and,
as a preliminary to the operation, chloro-
form was administered to the patient, who
died during its administration, and it was
agreed that the patient would not have
died but for its administration : Held,
that the person causing the injury was
liable to be indicted for manslaughter.
(Reg. v. Davis and Wagstaffe. Jan. 1883.

Mathew, J.) 174.
Neglect of duty-Refusal of medical assis-
tance by relieving officer-Destitute person

- Local government orders - General
Order (Consolidated), 24th July, 1847,
art. 215 (3), and Outdoor Relief Regula-
tion Order, 14th Dec. 1852, arts. 5 and 7.
-The law imposes upon relieving officers
the duty and obligation, in cases where
bonâ fide applications are made to them
for medical assistance by destitute persons
in cases of sudden and urgent necessity, to
give such assistance promptly, so that the
mischief may be dealt with in its infancy;
and where application is made to a relieving
officer for medical assistance in a case of
emergency, and death or bodily harm
results from a refusal to grant such assis-
tance, it is no answer to an indictment
against the relieving officer for man-
slaughter or for causing bodily harm that
the applicant was in employment for wages
or other hire or remuneration, if at the
time the application was made the applicant
was in fact destitute of the means of pro-
viding independent medical assistance.
(Reg.v. Curtis. Sept., 1885. Hawkins, J.)

746.
Unlawful Act-Negligence. The mere fact
of a civil wrong committed by one person
against another ought not to be used as an
incident which is a necessary step in a
criminal case, apart from the question of
criminal negligence. Therefore the more
fact of a person wrongfully taking up
a box from a refreshment stall on a sea
pier and wantonly throwing it into the sea,
and thereby unintentionally causing the
death of another bathing in the sea, is not
per se and apart from the question of
negligence sufficient to constitute the
offence of manslaughter. (Reg. v. C. H.
Franklin. Jan., 1882. Field, J.) 163.

MARRIED WOMEN.
CARNAL CONNECTION OBTAINED BY

FRAUD.
(See Rape.)

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE.

REFUSAL OF.
(See Manslaughter.)

MURDER.
Attempt to murder-Taking out a pistol

from pocket-Pistol seized by bystander
24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 14, 15.-B. was
indicted for attempting to discharge a
loaded pistol at S., with intent to murder.
B., having a grudge against S., went to S.'s
house. B. was observed to draw a pistol
from his pocket, a third person snatched
the pistol away, and B. was arrested.
Held, that this was not an offence within
sect. 15 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100. Quære,
whether the case was within sect. 14. The
cases of Reg. v. St. George and Reg. v.
Lewis (9 Car. & P. 483 and 523) commented
upon. (Reg. v. Samuel Brown. March,

1883. C. O. R.) 199.
Evidence-Dying declarations.-Statements

made behind the back of the prisoner are
not admissible in evidence as dying declara-
tions unless the person making them
entertains at the time a settled hopeless
expectation of immediate death. Answers
in the affirmative to the following ques-
tions : “Do you think you are in bodily
danger, and in fear of death p”

“ You
are not expecting to recover; are you aware
that you will die p” 'Do you fully and
clearly understand what I am saying to
you ” and the use of the expression “I
am sure I am going to die ” do not indicate
such a state of mind. _(Reg. v. William

Osman. Oct., 1881. Lush, L.J.) 1.
Extreme necessity of hunger-Justification-

Homicide by necessitySpecial verdict-
Formal addition to special verdict-Cer-
tiorari-36 & 37 Vict. c. 36, s. 16.-The two
prisoners were indicted for wilful murder,
and on the trial the jury returned a special
verdict, stating the facts, and referred the
matter to the court. The facts stated in
the special verdict were substantially as
follows: The prisoners, able-bodied English
seamen, and the deceased, an English boy
between seventeen and eighteen years of
age, the crew of an English yacht, were
cast away in a storm on the high seas 1600
miles from land, and were compelled to put
into an open boat. The food they took
with them was all consumed in twelve days,
and having been for eight days without food,
and for six days without water, the prisoners
killed the boy. The boy when killed was
lying at the bottom of the boat quite help-
less and weak, and unable to make any re-

sistance, and did not assent to his being
killed. The prisoners and another man
who was with them fed upon the body and
blood of the boy for four days, when they
were picked up by a passing vessel. The
verdict went on thus : That if the men had
not fed upon the body of the boy, they
would probably not have survived to be so
picked up and rescued, but would within
the four days have died of famine; that
the boy, being in a much weaker condition,
was likely to have died before them; that
at the time of the act in question there
was no sail in sight nor any reasonable
prospect of relief : that, under the circum.
stances, there appeared to the prisoners
every probability that unless they then fed,
or very soon fed, upon the boy or one of
themselves, they would die of starvation;
that there was no appreciable chance of
saving life except by killing someone for
the others to eat; that, assuming any
necessity to kill anybody, there was no
greater necessity for killing the boy than
any of the other three men.” On the
argument of the special verdict, the
following objections among others) were
taken by the prisoner's counsel : “That the
formal ending of the special verdict, as
entered upon the record, was not found by
the jury, but subsequently added, and
therefore invalidated the record, rendering
the trial abortive; also, that the record
ought to have been bronght up into the
Queen's Bench Division by certiorari, and
not by mere order of the court. Held,
that the facts as found afforded no justifi-
cation for the killing of the boy, and that
the prisoners were guilty of wilful murder.
Held, also, that the addition of the formal
ending of the special verdict was matter
of mere form, and did not invalidate the
record. Held, further, that the record was
rightly brought up by order, and not by
certiorari, since by the Judicature Act the
courts of oyer and terminer and gaol
delivery were made part of the High
Court of Justice. (Reg. v. Dudley and
Stephens. Dec., 1884. Q. B. Div.) 624.

[blocks in formation]

Poison-Accident or design-Evidence of (Weekes (app.) v. King (resp.). May,
other deaths with same symptoms-Motive 1885. Q. B. Div.) 733.
-Admissibility of Fresh evidence.-.-F. Exposing the dead body of a child on a high-
and H. were jointly charged, on indict-

way-Common Law misdemeanour.-The
ment for the murder of the husband of H.,
with causing his death by the administra-

prisoner was indicted for unlawfully ex-
tion of arsenic. Evidence having been

posing the dead body of her infant child
given that the deceased had died from

near a public highway. The jury found
arsenic, and had been attended by the

that the body was exposed by the prisoner
prisoners. Held, by Butt, J., that it was

in a public highway; that the place was
competent for the prosecution to tender

one where many people were certain to
evidence of other cases of persons who had

pass and repass; and that the exposure was

calculated to shock and disgust passers-by,
died from arsenic, and to whom the pri-

and ontrage public decency: Held, that
soners had access, exhibiting exactly similar
symptoms before death to those of the case

the prisoner was guilty of a nuisance at
under consideration, for the purpose of

common law. (Reg. v. Jane Clark. Jan.,
showing that this particular death

1883. Denman, J.) 171.
from arsenical poisoning—not accidentally

(See also Cremation.)
taken, but designedly administered by some-

NUISANCE TO HIGHWAY.
one. Such evidence, however, is not ad-
missible for the purpose of establishing

(See Highway.)
motives; though the fact that the evidence
offered may tend indirectly to that end is PASSENGER STEAMSHIP.
no ground for its exclusion. The true
principle on which the admissibility of all Passenger-Certificate necessary for carry.
such evidence rests is that laid down in

ing passengers—-17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, 88.

303 and 318-39 & 40 Viet. c. 80, s. 16.-
Reg. v. Geering (18 L. J. 215, M. C.).

G. J. Kidston, who did not live in Dublin,
Reg. v. Winslow (8 Cox C. C. 397) com-
mented on and disapproved. The pro-

was the owner of a tug-steamer called the
duction of fresh evidence on behalf of the

Flying Hawk. He was summoned before
prosecution (not known or forthcoming at

the Divisional Justices of Dublin by the
the preliminary investigation, and not,

Board of Trade, who complained that the
previously to the trial, communicated to

Flying Hawk went to sea from Dublin on
the other side), may be ground for a post-

the 21st day of July, 1882, with more than
ponement of the trial if it appears neces-

twelve passengers on board, without any
sary to justice. (Reg. v. Flanagan and

Board of Trade certificate, and without
Higgins. Feb., 1884. Butt, J.) 403.

having a duplicate of such certificate put

up in some conspicuous part of the ship,
NEGLECT TO SUPPLY MEDICAL

contrary to the provisions of the 17 & 18

Vict. c. 104, s. 318, and the 39 & 40 Vict.
AID.

c. 80, s. 16. The people on board on the
(See Manslaughter.)

occasion in question, other than the master

and crew, were the Dublin manager for the
NEWSPAPER LIBEL ACT.

owner, his wife, the Dublin staff, and some
(See Libel.)

friends and their wives who had been

invited by the Dublin manager for a
NUISANCE.

pleasure trip to see the fireworks at Kings-
Chimney sending forth black smoke-Fur-

town; none of them paid anything for the

trip. The magistrate having dismissed the
nace constructed to consume smoke -
Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict.

summons, and the case having been brought

before the Queen's Bench Division on a
c. 55), s. 91.-An information was laid
against the proprietor of a brewery under

case stated: Held, per Lawson and John-

son, JJ. (dissentiente O'Brien, J.) that the
the 7th sub-section of the 91st section of
the Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict.

magistrate was wrong, and that, if he

believed the evidence, he should have
c. 55) for that black smoke was from time

convicted the defendant. (Reg. V. The
to time sent forth from the chimney of his

Divisional Justices of Dublin and G.
brewery in such quantities as to be a

Kidston. Jan., 1884. Q.B. Div. Ir.) 379.
nuisance, and he was convicted and fined
thereon. Held, on a case stated, that the

PLEADING.
defendant was not entitled to call evidence
as to the construction of the furnace.

(See Practice.)

POACHING PREVENTION ACT. other matter with intent to endanger the
Person seen by constable with rabbits in

safety of any passenger travelling or being
possession on highway-Flight of accused upon such railway, or with intent to
and pursuit by constable

Search of

obstruct or injure any engino, shall be
accused and seizure of rabbits 200 yards

guilty of felony, and being convicted
from highway-Accused and rabbits never

thereof shall be liable to penal servitude
out of constable's sight-Validity of in-

for life or to be imprisoned for any time
formation and conviction-25 & 26 'Vict. not exceeding two years. By sects. 36
c. 114, s. 2.- Where a constable sees a man

and 34 of the same statutes respectively
on a highway having rabbits in his posses-

it is provided that a person who by any
sion which the constable has good cause to

unlawful act shall endanger the safety of
suspect have been unlawfully searched for

any person conveyed or being upon a
or pursued by such man, who, on catching

railway, or shall obstruct any engine or
sight of the constable, runs away across an

carriage using any railway shall be guilty
adjoining field, and on being pursued by

of a misdemeanour and shall be liable to
the constable throws down the rabbits in be imprisoned for any term not exceeding
the field some 200 yards from the highway,

two years, Held, that an acquittal upon
and neither the man nor the rabbits have

an indictment charging the prisoner with
been lost sight of by the constable, the latter

a felony was no bar to a subsequent indict-
may then and there search the man and ment being preferred upon the same facts
seize the rabbits under sect. 2 of the

for a misdemeanour under the provisions
Poaching Prevention Act (25 & 26 Vict.

of the above statutes. (Reg. (on the Prose-
c. 114), and a conviction of the man under

cution of the Great Western Railway
that section before justices is good and

Company) v. Gilmore. April, 1882. Hud-
will be upheld. So held by Mathew and

dleston, B.) 85.
Smith, JJ., distinguishing the cases of Pleading-Counts for stealing at common
Clarke v. Crowder (L. Rep. 4 C. P. 638; law and under statute--Autrefois acquit.
38 L. J. 118, M. C., and Turner v. Morgan -In one indictment the prisoners were
33 L. T. Rep. N. S. 173; 44 L. J. 161, charged with larceny at common law, and
M. C.; L. Rep. 10 C. P. 587). (Lloyd v. for feloniously receiving "the goods afore-
Lloyd. March, 1885. Q. B. Div.) 767. said.” They were acquitted on the ground

that the alleged goods were a fixture in a
PRACTICE.

building. They were then charged upon

a second indictment under the 24 & 25
Certiorari-Conviction in Superior Court-

Vict. c. 96, s. 31, for stealing the fixture,
Removal of record-Jurisdiction.- Where

to which charge they pleaded autrefois
judgment has been entered up in the

acquit. The presiding chairman at sessions
Superior Court, upon a conviction in such

held that plea not to be proved, and the
court, the right to a certiorari to remove

prisoners then pleaded not guilty, but were
the record does not exist. Poole's case

convicted. Held, that the ruling of the
(14 L. Rep. Ir. 14) explained. (Nally and

chairman was right, and that the prisoners
others v. The Queen, June, 1884. Q. B.

had not been in peril on the count for
Div. Ir.) 638.

receiving in the first indictment. (Reg. v.

O'Brien and another. March, 1882.
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS BY
WITNESSES.

C. C. R.) 29
(See Rape.)

Pleading-IndictmentNon-use of statut-

able word-24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, 8. 18.-
FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED WITHOUT

The 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 18, enacts that
NOTICE TO PRISONER.

whosoever shall unlawfully and maliciously

by any means cause ”any grievous bodily
(See Murder.)

harm to any person, &c., shall be guilty of
Plea of autrefois acquit-Indictment for felony. An indictment framed upon this
felony - Acquittal - Subsequent indict- section alleged that “A. unlawfully and
ment for misdemeanour upon same facts

maliciously did inflict' grievous bodily
-24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, 88. 35, 36, and 24 &

harm," not using the statutable term
25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 32, 34.-By 24 & 25

“ cause." Held, that the indictment was
Vict. c. 97, s. 35, and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100,

sufficient. (Reg. v. James Bray, March,
8. 32, it is enacted that any person who

1883. C. C. R.) 197.
unlawfully and maliciously throws upon or Postponement of case-Danger to public-
across any railway any wood, stone, or Infectious witnesses.--Postponement of

وو

« 이전계속 »