a case on the ground that infection might be conveyed to the public by the attendance of the witnesses. (Reg. v. Taylor, Jan., 1882. Baggallay, L.J.) 8.
Refusal to set aside a judgment in murder- Venire de novo-Want of proper notice of intention to try before a special jury- Jury not properly summoned The Pre- vention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, sect. 4.-P. was indicted at the commission held in Green-street, in the city of Dublin, in the month of November, 1883, before Murphy, J., for the murder of K. in the city of Dublin on the 4th day of July, 1882. Notice under the 4th section of the Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882, was served on behalf of the Attorney- General for Ireland on P., requiring the case to be tried by a special jury. P. was tried on the 12th and 13th days of Novem- ber, 1883, before a special jury who were discharged without agreeing to a verdict. The Crown, without serving a new notice for a special jury, put P. upon his trial a second time at the same commission on the 19th and 20th days of November, 1883, before another special jury taken from those summoned for the former trial, and he was convicted. On motion by P. to set aside the verdict, and to avoid the judg ment, and for a venire de novo: Held, that it was not necessary for the Attorney- General to serve a new notice for a special jury for the second trial at the same com- mission, and that there had not been a mistrial; and that P. was properly con- victed. Poole. (Reg. v. Dec. 1883.
Q. B. Div. Ir.) 368. Right of appeal-Misdemeanour-Bill· Jurisdiction-Judicature Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66) ss. 19, 47.-A prisoner indicted for misdemeanour applied to a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division for bail, and on his application being refused, appealed to the Court of Appeal: Held, that the decision of the Divisional Court was a judgment of the High Court in a criminal matter, and there- fore the Court of Appeal had no jurisdic- tion to entertain the appeal. (Reg. v. Foote. March, 1883. Ct. of App.) 240.
SPECIAL VERDICT, FORMAL ADDITION TO.
Trial-Prisoner's statement.-Upon the trial of a prisoner who is defended by counsel (in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the judges) the prisoner after his counsel's address to the jury will be
allowed to make a statement of facts to the jury. But when it is proposed to call witnesses for the prisoner it will not be competent for him to make any statement to the jury in addition to his counsel's address. (Reg. v. Millhouse. Jan., 1885. Lord Coleridge, C.J.) 622.
Trial-Prisoner's statement - Counsel —
Right of reply.-A prisoner on his trial defended by counsel is not entitled to have his explanation of the case to the jury made through the mouth of his counsel, but may, at the conclusion of his counsel's address, himself address the jury and make such statement, subject to this, that what he says will be treated as additional facts laid before the court, and entitling the prosecution to the reply. (Reg. v. Šhim- min. May, 1882. Cave, J.) 122. Trial-Right of reply.-Upon the joint in- dictment of several prisoners, the prosecu tion has not a right to reply generally where one of the prisoners calls witnesses to prove an alibi, but the other prisoners do not call any witnesses. The counsel for the prosecuion should sum up the case generally, and reply upon the evidence as to the alibi, before the counsel for the pri- soners who did not call witnesses address the jury. (Reg. v. Kain and others. Nov., 1883. Stephen, J.) 388.
Trial of several prisoners jointly-Witnesses for defence-Limits of reply of counsel for the prosecution. The prisoners were indicted for obtaining goods by false pre- tences and conspiracy to defraud. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution witnesses were called for the defendants Welham and Schneider only, whose evi- dence was applicable to their respective cases only, and did not affect the cases of the other defendants. Held, that the counsel for the prosecution should confine his reply to the cases of Welham and Schneider. (Reg. v. Trevelli, Welham, Kendrick, Tattersfield, Schneider. Hiller, Erney, Garth, Jacobi, Lorenz, and Wright, May, 1882. Hawkins, J.) 289.
PRISONS ACT, 1877.
Expenses of conveying prisoner to prison- Meaning of "committal to prison 40 & 41 Vict. c. 21, ss. 4, 57, 61.-The effect of sections 4, 57, and 61 of the Prisons Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 21), is to transfer the liability for the expenses of conveying prisoners to prison from the county treasurer to the Secretary of State. "Committal to prison" means committal
by the magistrate's warrant, not reception within the prison by the prison officials. (Mullins v. The Treasurer of the County of Surrey. Nov., 1881. H. L.) 9. Superannuation Compensation -Appor- tionment-Superannuation Act, 1859 (22 Vict. c. 26)-Special minute.-At the time of the coming into operation of the Prisons Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 21), C. was the governor of a prison which had been under the control of the justices of M. as the local authority, but by the Act it was transferred to the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Shortly after- wards C., who was not incapacitated in any way, resigned his appointment in order to facilitate some improvements in the organisation of the prison, and the Com- missioners of the Treasury granted him an annuity pursuant to sect. 36 of the Act, and apportioned it, in accordance with paragraph 4 of that section, between the county rates of M. and moneys to be pro- vided by Parliament. No special minute within the meaning of sect. 7 of the Super- annuation Act, 1859 (22 Vict. c. 26), was made or laid before Parliament with office. reference to C. or his Held (affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeal, May, 1883, p. 347), that, upon the true construction of the Act, the com- missioners had power to apportion the annuity as they had done, and that the provisions of the Act of 1859 as to a special minute were directory only, and not a condition precedent to the grant- ing of an annuity such as that in question. (The Justices of Middlesex v. The Queen, April, 1884. H. L.) 542.
(See also Criminal Lunatic and Criminal Prisoner.)
PRISONER'S STATEMENT. (See Practice.)
PRIVILEGE.
(See Evidence and Libel.)
Illegality-Spectators-Encouraging-Aid- ing-Evidence.-B. and M. were stripped, and fought for nearly an hour in a ring of cord supported by four blue stakes; six other persons were in the ring, three in each combatant's corner. Bets were made by persons in the crowd of from 130 to 150 persons around the ring. The pri- soners were in the crowd, but were not speaking or betting, or taking any part in
the fight, or doing anything. Coney was hemmed in by the crowd, and could not have got out if he had wanted. The three prisoners were charged upon an indict- ment for assaults upon B. and M., and the chairman directed the jury "that they
were to determine whether or not this was a prize fight; that there was no doubt that prize fights were illegal, just as much so as that persons should go out to fight with deadly weapons, and that it was not material which party struck the first blow; and that all persons who go to a prize fight to see the combatants strike each other, and who are present when they do so, are in point of law guilty of an assault. If they were not casually passing by, but stayed at the place, they encouraged it by their presence, although they did not do or say anything." The jury found the three prisoners guilty, but added that it was in consequence of the direction of law of the chairman, as they found that the three prisoners were not aiding or abetting. Held that a prize fight is illegal, and that all persons aiding and abetting therein are guilty of an assault. Held (Lord Cole- ridge, C.J., Pollock, B., and Mathew, J. dissenting), that the conviction must be quashed, as the direction of the chairman amounted to this: That the mere presence of persons at a prize fight unexplained is conclusive proof of intending to encourage the fight, although they are not seen to do or say anything; and that the finding of the jury was in obedience to that direction without exercising any judgment of their own upon the sufficiency of the evidence as to encouraging, or aiding and abetting the fight. (Reg. v. Coney, Gilliam, and Tully. March, 1882. C. C. R.) 46.
an assembly of the public is collected. (Reg. v. Wellard. Nov., 1884. C. C. R.)
(See also Vagrancy Acts.)
Child between twelve and thirteen years old
-38 & 39 Vict. c. 94, s. 4.-The 38 & 39 Vict. c. 94, s. 4, which enacts that whoso- ever shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse any girl being above the age of twelve and under the age of thirteen years, whether with or without her consent, shall be guilty of misdemeanour, does not repeal the old law which made the offence of rape a felony. Reg. v. Dicken (14 Cox C.C. 8) affirmed. (Reg. v. Josiah Ratcliffe. Nov. 1882. C. C. R.) 127.
Contradictory statements by witnesses- Admissibility of evidence-Complaints of prosecutrix-28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 3.— Where in an indictment for rape a witness to whom the prosecutrix had made a state- ment shortly after the commission of the alleged offence, being asked on cross- examination as to the particulars of such statement, gave an answer which was different from that which the prosecuting counsel was instructed she had made: Held, by Day, J. (after consulting Cave, J.), that it was competent for the counsel for the prosecution, in re-examination, to ask the witness whether she had not at other times made a different statement, and one inconsistent with her present testimony, to certain persons named; and also to call such persons to give evidence of the state- ments so made to them under 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 3. (Reg. v. Little. 1883. Day, J.) 319.
Married woman-Carnal connection-Con- sent obtained by fraud.-Where a married woman consented to the prisoner having connection with her under the impression that he was her husband: Held, that the prisoner was guilty of rape. Reg.v. Barrow (11 Cox C. C. 191; L. Rep. 1 C. C. R. 156) not followed. (Reg. v. Dee. 1884. C. C. R. Ir.) 579.
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.
GUILTY KNOWLEDGE. (See Evidence.)
RINGING THE CHANGES. (See Larceny.)
ATTEMPT TO EXCITE.
(See Boycotting.)
ROGUE AND VAGABOND.
(See Vagrancy Acts.)
SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS. Tradesman supplying different article from that demanded by purchaser-38 & 39 Vict. c. 63, s. 6; 42 & 43 Vict. c. 30, s. 2.— Sect. 6 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875, as interpreted by and read together with sect. 2 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act Amendment Act, 1879, is not limited to cases of mixing and adulterating only, but applies also to cases where an article entirely different from, and not being of the nature or substance or quality of the article demanded by the purchaser, is supplied by the seller; and therefore a tradesman, who in response to a request for "saffron " supplies a customer with "savin," comes within and is liable to the penalty imposed by sect. 6 of the Act of 1875. (Knight v. Bowers. March, 1885. Q. B. Div.) 728.
(See also Adulteration of Food.)
SALVATION ARMY. (See Unlawful Assembly.)
SENTENCE, AMENDMENT OF, (See False Pretences.)
SOLICITOR AND CLIENT. PRIVILEGE-COMMUNICATION PRIOR TO COMMISSION OF CRIME.
SPECIAL VERDICT.
(See Murder.)
STATEMENT BY PRISONER, (See Practice.)
SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1879. (See Criminal Prisoner.)
SURETIES FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR.
ASSEMBLY FOR LAWFUL PURPOSE.
(See Unlawful Assembly.)
Jurisdiction of Magistrates-Certiorari― Evidence-Affidavit-34 Edw. 3, c. 1.- H. R., at the execution of an habere to enforce payment of rent, addressed a number of persons, including the tenant under eviction, as follows: "Pay no rent to the landlord. We will make you right about the land; we will build you a house at any expense, and make you comfortable during the winter." A summons issued against H. R., calling on her to show cause why she should not be bound over to be of good behaviour, and at the hearing of the summons H. R. was ordered to find bail to be of good behaviour for six months, and in default to be imprisoned for one month. She refused to give bail and was accordingly imprisoned for one month. Held, on motion to show cause against a conditional order for a writ of certiorari, that the justice had jurisdic tion to make the order. Held also that the court would not allow the evidence given in the court below to be supple- mented by affidavit of other facts that occurred at the execution of the habere. (Reg. v. The Justices of the County of Cork. Jan., 1882. Q. B. Div. Ir.) 78.
(See also Justices of the Peace.)
Original jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench -34 Edw. 3, cap. 1-21 Jac. 1, cap. 8 (Eng.)-10 & 11 Car. 1, cap. 10 (Ir.).— Notices were served on D. H. and Q. of applications to the Queen's Bench Divi- sion, requiring them to find sufficient sureties to be of good behaviour towards Her Majesty and all her Majesty's sub- jects, or in default that they should be committed to prison. Held, upon the hearing of the applications, that the judges of the Queen's Bench Division as con- servators of the peace have original juris- diction independently of the statute 34 Edw. 3, c. 1, to require sureties for good behaviour from persons whose acts or language are shown to be likely to endanger the public peace. Held also that these were proper cases in which to exercise that jurisdiction. Reg. (Reynolds) v. The Justices of Cork (10 L. Rep. Ir. 1; and Reg. (Feehan) v. The Justices of the Queen's County (10 L. Rep. Ir. 294; ante, p. 149, under the name of Reg. v. Justices of Cork) approved of. (Ex parte Charles E. Seymour v. Michael Davitt; Ex parte Patrick Bearns v. T. M. Healy, M.P.; Ex parte Charles E. Seymour v. P.J. Quinn, Jan., 1883. Q. B. Div. Ir.) 242.
THEFT-BOTE.
(See Compounding Felony.)
TRACTION ENGINE. OBSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY. (See Highway.)
11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, s. 3-Levying war against the Queen to compel her by force to change her counsels-Evidence-Overt act or deed -Corroboration of accomplice.-Secret clubs were formed in America, branches of a society called the Fenian Brotherhood, whose object was said to be to procure "the freedom of Ireland by force alone." The prisoners, members of these clubs, came to England provided with funds, their intent being to destroy public build- ings by nitro-glycerine and other explo- sives. One of the prisoners appeared to be the director of the movements of the others, another was detected in manufac- turing nitro-glycerine in large quantities at Birmingham, and others were employed in the removal thereof, when manufactured, to London under the director's superinten- dence. There was evidence that the House of Commons and Scotland Yard Office of the detective police were pointed out as places to be destroyed, as well as that the nitro-glycerine was to be used for destroy- ing other public public buildings. prisoners were indicted under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, s. 3 (Treason-Felony Act) for compassing, devising, and intend- ing to deprive and depose the Queen from the style, honour, or royal name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom, for levying war against her to compel her to change her counsels, and to intimidate and overawe the Houses of Parliament. The jury were directed (1.) That if they thought that one or more of the prisoners did compass, devise, or intend to force the Queen to change her counsels and to over- awe the Houses of Parliament by violent measures, directed against either the pro- perty of the Queen, the public property, or the lives of the Queen's subjects, and not with the view of repaying any private spite or enmity against any particular sub- jects of the Queen, it would be a levying of war against the Queen within the mean- ing of the first count of the indictment; that it was not the less compassing and intending levying war, because by the progress of science two or three men could do now what could not have been done
years ago except by a large number of persons; that the question was, was there proof that the prisoners did what they did with the intention of depriving and depos- ing the Queen from the style of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom or with the intention of separating Ireland from the Crown of England and establish- ing an independent republic. (2.) That if what the prisoners did was done to compel Her Majesty, or her Ministers, by force to change the present constitution, and to alter the relations between England and Ireland, or even to set up a separate Par- liament in Ireland, it would be within the second count of the indictment. (3.) That if what the prisoners did was done for the purpose of intimidating and overawing both or either Houses of Parliament so as to frighten them into doing what otherwise they would not have done, it would be within the third count. The evidence of an approver may be acted on by the jury if they think it true, but the practice is to require some corroboration of his evidence. It is not necessary that he should be cor- roborated in every particular, for if so it would not be necessary to call him as a witness, but there must be a certain amount of confirmation sufficient to satisfy the jury. (Reg. v. Thomas Gallagher, Whitehead, Wilson, Ansburgh, Curtin, and Bernard Gallagher. June, 1883. Lord Coleridge, C.J., the Master of the Rolls, and Grove, J.) 291.
Purpose of instrument-Treasonable inten- tion - Evidence-Burden of proof.-D. and others were charged under the Treason- Felony Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 12), sect. 3, with being in the possession of certain instruments and explosive materials, with intent to use them for the pur- pose of carrying out the objects of certain treasonable combinations existing in the United Kingdom and abroad. Held, that, for the purpose of showing such intent, evidence might be given showing that the only known use hitherto made of such instruments and explosive compounds had been in causing destructive explosions to property; and that the fact of some of those explosions having happened out of the jurisdiction of the court did not affect the admissibility of the evidence. Held also, that, for the purpose of showing a treasonable object on the part of the pri- soners, and negativing any private object, evidence might be given of the existence, down to a period nearly approaching the date of the alleged acts, in the country
from which the instruments and explosive materials were brought, of a treasonable conspiracy having for its object the altera- tion of the existing form of government by violent means, although such evidence did not establish that the prisoners were mem- bers of, or directly connected with, such conspiracy. Though the general rule is that the prosecution must make out intent, there may be circumstances under which the burden of proof is shifted to the other side. (Reg. v. Deasy and others. Aug., 1883. Stephen. J.) 334.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY. AUTHORITY TO DISPERSE.
(See Justice of the Peace.)
The "Salvation Army"-Assembly of per- sons for lawful purpose-Knowledge by them that such assembly would cause others to commit a breach of the peace- Liability for such breach-Sureties to keep the peace. The appellants, with a considerable number of other persons, forming a body called the Salvation Army," assembled together in the streets of a town for a lawful object, and with no intention of carrying out their object unlawfully, or by the use of physical force, but knowing that their assembly would be opposed and resisted by other persons in such a way as would in all pro- bability tend to the committing of a breach of the peace on the part of such opposing persons. A disturbance of the peace having been created by the forcible opposi- tion of a number of persons to the assembly and procession through the streets of the appellants and the Salvation Army, who themselves used no force or violence:-- Held, that the appellants had not been guilty of "unlawfully and tumultuously assembling," &c., and could not therefore be convicted of that offence, nor be bound over to keep the peace. Held also, that knowledge by persons peaceably assembling for a lawful object that their assembly will be forcibly opposed by other persons, under circumstances likely to lead to a breach of the peace on the part of such other persons, does not render such assembly unlawful. (Beatty and others (apps.) v. Gillbanks (resp.). June, 1882. Q. B. Div.) 138.
« 이전계속 » |