ADDENDA OF CASES

REPORTED WHILE THE WORK HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH

THE PRESS.

Page 14, note (r). Depositions.-A deposition is not admissible by reason only of the witness (74 years of age) being, in the opinion of a medical man, very nervous and liable to dangerous excitement on coming to Court, though still able to travel (R. v. Farrell, 43 L. J. M. C. 94; 30 L. T. N. S. 404; 38 J. P. 390). A statement is admissible as a dying declaration if repeated in the presence and at the request of the deponent by the person to whom it had been previously made and assented to by him when in such a state that if he himself had then made the statement it would be admissible (R. v. Steele, 12 Cox, C. C. 168).

Page 17. Evidence.-Evidence given by a boy to his mother of having committed an offence is admissible (see R. v. Reeve, 12 Cox, C. C. 179; R. v. Jones, 12 Cox, C. C. 241). Husband and wife.-The wife of a prisoner indicted and given in charge to the jury with other prisoners cannot be called as a witness by one of the other prisoners while the husband is also in charge with them (R. v. Thompson, 12 Cox, C. C. 202).

Coercion.-Where a man and woman had lived together as husband and wife, having with them an infant who passed as their child, it is not necessary for the woman to give evidence of her marriage in order to entitle her to the benefit of the doctrine of coercion (R. v. Torpey, 12 Cox, C. C. 45). Page 21. Ouster of jurisdiction.-After R. v. Mussett, insert see also R. v. Sandford, 30 L. T. N. S. 601. Where a man shoots on land in the presence of his landlord's gamekeeper in order to set up a claim of right, the jurisdiction of the justices is ousted (Lovesy v. Stallard, 30 L. T. N. S. 792; 38 J. P. 391).

Page 41. Appeal.-If a conviction be quashed on appeal, there is no power to award costs against the justices if they take no part in the appeal (R. v. Goodall, 43 L. J. M. C. 119; 38 J. P. 616).

Page 43. Mandamus.-Where justices refuse to hear an information, the proper remedy is a mandamus (R. v. JJ. of Cumberland, 43 L. J. M. C. 45; 38 J. P. 422).

Page 47, note (h). Adulteration of Food.-If the defendant has stated that the article sold was not pure but mixed, he has done all that is required of him; he is not bound to state what the article is mixed with or the quantities (Pope v. Searle, 43 L. J. M. C. 129; 30 L. T. N. S. 789; 38 J. P. 583). Green tea painted or "faced" with Prussian blue and gypsum before it arrives in this country is an adulterated article within the terms of the Act (Roberts v. Egerton, 43 L. J. M. C. 135; 30 L. T. N. S. 633; 38 J. P. 485).

Page 80. Bankruptcy. Sub-sect. 5.-The property must be the bankrupt's own; therefore property which he bad some months before assigned for the benefit of creditors was held not to be his, and the removal of it by him not an offence (R. v. Creese, 43 L. J. M. C. 51; L. R. 2 C. C. R. 105; 29 L. T. N. S. 897; 38 J. P. 229).

Page 83, note (p). Bastardy.-The Act applies to any bastard child born in England, and it is immaterial where the child was begotten (Hampton v. Rickard, 43 L. J. M. C. 133; 30 L. T. N. S. 636; 38 J. P. 646).

Page 84, note (r). The dismissal of a summons on an objection taken that the application alleged the child to be born after the passing of the Act of 1872, the child having been born before, is not final, and a second summons may issue and an order may be made (R. v. Mann and Johnson, JJ. of Lancashire, 29 L. T. N. S. 886; 38 J. P. 215).

Page 146, note (1). Conspiracy.—It is an unlawful conspiracy to obstruct a man in carrying on his business by persuading his workmen to leave (R. v. Duffield, 5 Cox, C. C. 404; see also R. v. Selsby, Ib. 495, note; R. v. Druitt, and R. v. Partridge, 10 Cox, C. C. 592).

Page 173. Cruelty to Animals.-The pursuit of rabbits with dogs in a field containing an area of nearly 4 acres, which is enclosed so that the rabbits cannot escape, is not baiting within the meaning of s. 3 of the statute (Pitts v. Millar, 30 L. T. N. S. 328; 38 J. P. 615).

Page 197. The Dogs Act.-The option is with the magistrates, under 8. 2, either to direct the dog to be kept under control or to be destroyed (Pickering v. Marsh, 43 L. J. M. C. 143; 38 J. P. 373).

Page 233, note (s). Factories.-Cement works are not "premises within the definition of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 103 (Redgrave v. Lee, 43 L. J. M. C. 105; 30 L. T. N. S. 519; 38 J. P. 309).

Page 242. If an employer arrange under the Secretary of State's modifications that the half holiday shall be on a Wednesday instead of Saturday, and young persons are found at work on the Wednesday afternoon, the information must be laid for working on the Saturday afternoon, as it is not an offence under the Act to work on Wednesday afternoon (Cameron v, Foy, 30 L. T. N. S. 517; 38 J. P. 292).

Page 250. Where a prisoner endeavoured to pledge a ring as a diamond one when it was only common crystal, evidence that he had shortly before offered other false articles to other pawnbrokers is admissible to show a guilty knowledge (R. v. Francis, 43 L. J. M. C. 97; 30 L. T. N. S. 503; 38 J. P. 469).

Page 290, s. 75. Fraudulent Agents, &c.-A stock and share broker was in the habit of buying for S. gratuitously, and receiving cheques on account. In November he wrote informing S. that he had been offered £300 Japanese bonds in one lot, and had secured them for her, at the same time enclosing her a sold note for £336 signed in his own name. S. wrote in reply "that she had received the contract note and enclosed a cheque for £336 in payment, and that she was perfectly satisfied that he had purchased the bonds for her." In fact the bonds had not been offered to the dealer in one lot, but he applied to a stock-jobber, and had agreed to buy 3 at £112 each, but never completed the purchase:-Held, that S.'s letter was a sufficient written direction within the meaning of this section to apply the cheque to a particular purpose, viz., in payment for the bonds (R. v. Christian, 43 L. J. M. C. 1; L. R. 2 C. C. R. 94: 29 L. T. N. S. 654; 38 J. P. 133).

W. deposited title deeds with D. as security for a loan, and requiring a further loan, defendant, an attorney, obtained for W. a sum of money from T., and delivered to her a mortgage deed as security. There were no directions in writing to defendant to apply the money to any purpose, and he was entrusted with the mortgage deed with authority to hand it over to T. on receipt of the mortgage money, which was to be paid to D. and W. less the costs of preparing the deed. Defendant fraudulently converted a substantial part of the money to his own use:-Held, that as there was no direction in writing, and the mortgage deed was duly delivered to T., defendant was not guilty of a misdemeanor under s. 75, or of converting property entrusted to him for safe custody, &c., under s. 76 (R. v. Ï. Cooper, 43 L. J. M. C. 89; 30 L. T. N. S. 306; 38 J. P. 341).