THE DUTIES AND OFFICE OF MAGISTRATES:
TRINITY TERM 1857, TO MICHAELMAS TERM 1858.
ACCOUNTING OFFICER. See Highway.
ACTION-against Justices for malicious conviction. See Justice of the Peace.
AMENDMENT-case stated by Justices]--Justices having stated a case for the opinion of the Court, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. s. 2, this Court will not, before the case comes on for argument, entertain a motion to send it back to be amended. Christie v. the Guardians of St. Luke, Chelsea, 153
of convictions under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. s. 7. See Game.
ANATOMY ACT. See Indictment.
APPEAL TO QUARTER SESSIONS when it lies: order of Justices for payment of rate under Pub- lic Health Act.]-Quere-Whether an appeal lies against an order of Justices adjudging a person rated and summoned under section 103. of the Public Health Act, to pay the amount with costs, and ordering the same, if not paid, to be levied by distress. Ricardo v. Maidenhead Local Board of Health, 73
when it lies: against decision of Special Sessions as to utility of proposed Highway]- There is an appeal under section 105. of 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50, to the Quarter Sessions from the decision of Special Sessions, determining, under the proviso in section 23, as to the utility of a highway proposed to be dedicated to the public. R. v. the Justices of Derbyshire, 189
against order of removal: at what sessions to be tried or entered and respited]-On appeal against an order of removal the appellants are entitled to take the twenty-one days and the
fourteen days mentioned in the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 31. s. 9; and if at the expiration of the last of those days there is time to give effective notice of trial at next sessions, such notice ought to be given; but if there is not time to give such notice, the appeal ought to be entered and re- spited at those sessions. R. v. the Justices of the West Riding of Yorkshire (Broomsgrove v. Halifax), 269.
TO SUPERIOR COURT-on case stated by Justices, practice where respondent does not appear: service of notice of appeal]-On the hearing of an appeal, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. s. 2, the respondent not appearing, the appellant, in order to entitle him to the judgment of the Court, must shew that the decision of the Jus- tices was wrong. Where, the respondent not being to be found, notice of appeal and copy of the case were served on her attorney within three days after the appellant received the case, and they afterwards and before the hearing came to her hand, it was held there had been a suffi- cient compliance with the above section. Syred v. Carruthers, 273
When it lies against Justices' order under the Nuisances Removal Act. See Nuisance.
Allowance of Costs. See Costs.
Before Recorder interested in the matter of appeal. See Interested Judge.
APPRENTICE presumptive proof of indenture after search]-After due but fruitless search for an indenture, proof that a deceased person more than sixty years ago served A. in the apparent position of an apprentice, raises the presumption that he was bound apprentice by indenture, and is sufficient to sustain a settlement by apprentice-
ship. The King v. St. Marylebone approved. The statement of a deceased person respecting his indenture of apprenticeship is not admissible to prove that the deed ever existed. R. v. Fordingbridge (Inhabitants), 290
ARREST by policeman for an assault]-A man in presence of a policeman raised a shovel as if to strike his wife, saying he would have murdered her were it not for the policeman. For twenty minutes afterwards he continued to use vio- lent language towards his wife, and then left the house, professing an intention of going to his father's house to sleep. The policeman arrested him a few yards from his home as he was going from home; and it was held, the policeman was justified in so doing. R. v. Light, 1
AUDITOR-power of Poor Law Board to order Guardians under Local Acts to appoint]-Section 3. of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112. has not repealed the proviso in the 197th section of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. (Metropolis Local Management Act), which excepts from the operation of that act accounts subject to the audit of an auditor under the 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. By a local act a select vestry was appointed, and these vestry- men elected annually forty of their own body to be directors of the poor; the vestrymen had the appointment and removal of all the parish officers, amongst them visitors for inquiring into the circumstances of the poor, granting casual relief, &c. under the special directions of the vestrymen and directors; the vestrymen had also the making, assessing and levying of the poor- rates. The funds when collected were vested in the directors, and they had the distribution of them, and, with the above exceptions, exercised all the powers of overseers of the poor, and the subordinate officers, including the visitors, were under the direct controul of the directors in all matters connected with the poor. It was held, the directors were "guardians" within the definition of section 109. of 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76, and that an order of the Poor Law Board to appoint an auditor under section 46. was pro- perly addressed to them alone. R. v. Directors of the Poor of St. Pancras (Stockton and others),
BASTARDY-time for application and summons]- The application by the mother of a bastard child for a summons against the alleged father, under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101. s. 2, must be made within the time mentioned in that section, but it is not necessary that the summons should issue imme- diately, if the Justice thinks it would be useless in consequence of the mother not knowing the residence of the father. Potts v. Cumbridge, 62
BEERHOUSE-hours of closing on Sundays]-The 18 & 19 Vict. c. 118, by which alehouses are re- quired to be closed between the hours of three and five on Sundays, operates as a repeal of so much of the 9 Geo. 4. c. 66. (which imposes a penalty on offences against the tenour of the licence) as prohibits the opening of the house during the usual hours of the afternoon divine
service in the church or chapel of the parish or place in which the house is situate. It is, therefore, no offence to keep such a house open between half-past two and three, although that may be during the usual time of afternoon ser. vice in the parish. Whiteley v. Heaton, 217 BUILDING-Notice to Surveyor. See Metropolitan Building Act.
CASE-stated by Justices. See Amendment. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRY OF A SHIP-conviction of master for refusing to deliver up the certificate] -By section 50. of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, any person who has possession of the cer tificate of registry of a ship, is bound to deliver it up, on request, to any person who shall be entitled to the custody thereof for the time being, under a penalty upon conviction before a Justice of the Peace, unless it be proved that there was reasonable ground for such refusal. The respondent was ship's husband and managing owner of, and was also the holder of the majority of shares in the ship of which the appellant was master and part owner. On the 29th of October, while the ship was in harbour, and before she had discharged, and while the appellant was still master, the respondent demanded the certi- ficate of registry, without giving any reason for doing so, and without intimating his intention of appointing another master. The appellant, having refused to deliver it up, was summoned before two Justices and convicted under section 50. This conviction was held to be improper, as there was reasonable ground for refusing to deliver up the certificate. Arkle v. Henzell, 110 CHEATING-Cheat at common law. See Forgery. CHURCH RATE-effect of notice that validity of rate
disputed, on Justices' power to order payment]— Upon the hearing of a summons against defen- dant for non-payment of a church-rate, he gave notice to the Justices that he disputed the validity of the rate and his liability to pay it, and stated his reasons for doing so. The Jus- tices, were of opinion, though without any evi- dence to justify that opinion, that the allegations and notices of defendant were not made and given in good faith, but were put forward as a pretext for avoiding payment of the rate, and therefore they made an order for payment. It was held, they were wrong, as by the course adopted by defendant, they were deprived of all jurisdiction to make the order. R. v. Nunneley, 260
aiding a handicraftsman in unlawfully absent- ing himself from his service. Quare, whe- ther it is any defence that the party charged did not know that there was no lawful excuse for the absenting; but, semble, that if it is 80, is a matter arising on "not guilty," and on which the Magistrate's adjudication is conclu- sive. And the point cannot be raised upon a warrant of commitment stating the offence of the principal sufficiently, with averment of the absence of lawful excuse, and then alleging that the prisoner aided in the commission of the said offence. Ex parte Smith, 186
CONVICTION. See Certificate of Registry of a Ship. Justice of the Peace. Metropolitan Building Act. Pilot.
CORONER'S FEES-discretion of Quarter Sessions as to allowance of ]-The Court of Quarter Sessions are the proper judges of whether or not a coroner has acted properly in holding an inquest so as to entitle him to the fee of 20s. allowed by 25 Geo. 3. c. 29; and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of the Quarter Sessions. Quære Whether the Court of Quarter Sessions have a discretion to disallow the fee of 6s. 8d. granted by 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 68. 8. 3. when the disbursements attending the holding of an inquest are allowed to the coroner. R. v. the Justices of Gloucestershire (Ex parte Gaisford), 15
COSTS-on appeal from Special Sessions of High- ways]-The provisions of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. 88. 5, 6, with regard to allowance of costs, are applicable to an appeal to Quarter Sessions against a decision of Special Sessions of Highways dismissing an appeal against the allowance of the accounts of the surveyors of highways. R. v. Padwick, 113
COUNTY COURT-conviction for delivering false process]-The prisoner, who had a claim for a debt against the prosecutor, sent him the follow- ing paper by post :-"In the County Court of Leicestershire, at Melton Mowbray. Castle, plaintiff; Charles, defendant. Take notice, that you are required to produce at the above court, on the trial of this cause, on the 17th day of September instant, the several accounts and memorandums given to you or to your wife, by the above plaintiff at various times, held this 2nd day of September 1857. By the plaintiff to Mr. Thomas Charles, the above defendant. Balance of Account, 38. 5d." No plaint had, in fact, been taken out in the county court, and it was held, a conviction for delivering a paper falsely purporting to be a process of the county court, under 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95. s. 57, could not be sustained, as the paper did not purport to be a process of the court, and was only a notice to produce. R. v. Castle, 70
DISORDERLY HOUSE-evidence necessary to support conviction]-By a section of a local act for NEW SERIES, XXVII.-MAG. CAS.
regulation of a borough, which recited that it was expedient to make regulations for preventing disorderly conduct in houses of public resort, the keeper of any place for refreshment, not being licensed, who should wilfully and knowingly permit drunkenness or other disorderly conduct in such place, or knowingly permit prostitutes or persons of notoriously bad character to meet together and remain therein, was made liable to a penalty. A magistrate dismissed a complaint under this section, and stated, on appeal, that defendant knowingly permitted twenty prosti- tutes to meet together, and remain in his coffee- shop (being a place within the section), together with a number of men, and that he allowed them to remain after he had been warned and knew that they were prostitutes; but no dis- orderly conduct was proved to have taken place in the shop. The question for the Court was, whether the magistrate was bound on the above facts to convict-and it was held, that proof of disorderly conduct was not necessary to justify a conviction; but that, as it did not appear that the prostitutes were allowed to remain in the shop beyond the time necessary for taking re- freshment, the magistrate was not bound to convict. Greig v. Bendino, 294
ELECTION by prosecutor as to articles stolen]- When many articles are charged as having been stolen, and there is direct evidence as to fixing the time when some were stolen, but the evi- dence as to the time when the residue were taken is of an indefinite character, the prisoner cannot compel the prosecutor to elect upon which articles he will proceed. R. v. John- son, 52
EMBEZZLEMENT-agent for sale of goods not a ser- vant]-Prisoner kept a refreshment house, and was employed by the prosecutors to get orders for their goods, to collect the money and pay it over. He was paid by commission. He was to go about among the farmers to get orders, but no definite time was to be spent in so doing. He was styled by them their agent for the par- ticular district. The prosecutors had a store at B. under the controul of the prisoner, who supplied customers from the stores pursuant to orders he obtained. In order to obtain the security of a guarantee society for the pri- soner's conduct, and in compliance with their regulations, it was arranged that the prosecutors should pay the prisoner a salary of 11. a year. The prisoner having got into arrear was treated by the prosecutors as a debtor for the amount. The prisoner fraudulently appropriated money received from customers and gave a false account. It was held, that a conviction for embezzlement could not be sustained, as the facts did not establish that the prisoner was the servant of the prosecutors. R. v. Walker, 207
servant to agent]- Receipt by servant to agent of railway company of money for the company on account of his master. R. v. Thorpe, 264
ERROR-Mode of assigning error in felony. Man- sell v. R. 4
EVIDENCE search for a will]-When circum- stances indicate no peculiarly likely place of deposit, searching in the drawers and boxes of a deceased person for a will, and finding none, is sufficient prima facie evidence that there is no will. R. v. Johnson, 52
FALSE PRETENCES-false representation of profits of a business]-If a person is induced by false representations as to the nature and profits of a business to enter into and continue in partner- ship with another, and to give him money as part of the capital of the concern (the whole scheme not being a mere sham), the latter can- not be indicted for having obtained the money by false pretences. R. v. Watson, 18
proof of one out of many alleged false pre- tences]-An indictment alleged that prisoner falsely pretended to the prosecutrix (among other false pretences) that she kept a shop at A, and that the prosecutrix might go and live with her there until she got a situation, and that by means of the false pretences the prisoner ob- tained from the prosecutrix 108. The making of the alleged false pretences was proved, and the evidence shewed that the prisoner did not keep a shop at A, but failed to negative the other alleged false pretences. The jury found spe- cially that the prisoner was guilty of fraudu- lently obtaining the 108., and that the prosecu- trix parted with it under the belief that the prisoner kept a shop at A, and that the prosecu- trix would have it when she went home with her. It was held, the indictment was good, and the conviction was supported by the evidence and finding of the jury. R. v. Fry, 68
pretence that a one pound Irish note was a five pound note]-Prisoner, with intent to defraud, falsely pretended that an Irish one pound note was a five pound note, and asked for change. The prosecutrix, believing his representation, without looking at the note, gave him change as for a five pound note. Prisoner guilty of obtain- ing the money by false pretences within the statute. R. v. Jessop, 70
allegation of property obtained]-An indict- ment, alleging that the prisoner, by means of false pretences, did "unlawfully obtain from A. B. a cheque for the sum of 8l. 148. 6d. of the monies of the said W. W." sufficiently shews that the cheque is the property of W. W. Godfrey, 151
FISHING-size of mesh of net]-The meaning of section 3. of 1 Eliz. c. 17, which enacts, that no person shall take fish as therein mentioned, "but only with a net or trammell whereof the mesh or mask shall be 2 inches broad," is, that every space between the threads of the net should be 24 inches from one thread to the oppo site thread, and that the superficial area which bounded each mesh should be 2 inches square at least. Thomas v. Evans, 172
FORGERY-imitation of name on a picture]-If a person knowingly sell as an original a copy of a picture with the painter's name imitated upon it, and by means of the imitated name know- ingly and fraudulently induce another to buy and pay for the picture as a genuine work of the artist, he may be indicted for a cheat at common law by means of a false token: but he cannot be indicted for forging or uttering the forged name of the painter, for the crime of forgery must be committed with reference to some do- cument or writing, and does not extend to the fraudulent imitation of a name put on a picture merely as a mark to identify it as the painter's work. R. v. Closs, 54
letters of recommendation for a situation]— Prisoner, with the view of getting the situation of police constable, forged and uttered to the chief constable, who had the power of appoint- ment to the situation, letters containing a false account of himself, and recommended himself as a person of upright character. It was held, he was guilty of forgery at common law. R. v. Moah, 204
a receipt stamp on the paper under the signa- ture, and wrote on the face of the stamp the amount in figures of the sum of the account charged for collecting and delivery. It was held, the prisoner was guilty of forging the receipt. R. v. Griffith, 205
wrappers for spurious articles]-Selling spu- rious articles in wrappers resembling those of the genuine maker not forgery, but might be false pretences. R. v. Smith, 225
altering shipping master's report of a sea- man's character]--Altering in a report as to the conduct and character of a seaman, made before the shipping master pursuant to the statute 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104. s. 176, the letter M, which denotes a character of middling ability, into the letter G, which means good, with intent to deceive, is a forgery within that section. R. v. Wilson, 230
GAME-conviction adjudging several to pay costs or be imprisoned effect of claim of right on Jus- tices' jurisdiction]-A conviction under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32. s. 30. included four persons, and adjudged each of them to forfeit and pay the sum of 21. each, &c., and if the said sums be not paid, then each of them the said C, B, W. and S. so making default, should be imprisoned for one month, unless the said several sums and the costs and charges of conveying each of them the said C, B, W. and S. so making default to the said gaol, shall be sooner paid. This con- viction was held to be bad, as it made each de- fendant liable to be imprisoned until he had paid the penalty and the expense of conveying, not only himself, but the other persons convicted; and not a case in which to exercise the power of amendment under 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45. s. 7. On the hearing of the information, defendants bona fide claimed a right to enter upon the land under an authority from S, who was alleged to be owner of the land, and asked for an adjourn- ment, as they were not then prepared with evi- dence, which was refused. Semble-this was such a bona fide claim of right as put an end to the jurisdiction of the Justices. R. v. Crid- land, 28
GENERAL RATE-Property liable to. See Rate. HABEAS CORPUS-substitution of good for bad com- mitment, and admissibility of affidavits upon re- turn]-A warrant of commitment being bad, a second warrant was allowed to be substituted for it as the return to a habeas corpus. Upon a return to a habeas corpus affidavits are not admissible to shew that the offence was not com- mitted within the jurisdiction of the Justices. Ex parte Smith, 186
HAWKER-trading without licence: sale in market] -To avoid the penalty of the Hawkers Act (50 Geo. 3. c. 41), on the ground that the goods were exposed for sale in a "legally established market." the market must be one created by grant, and not merely a market de facto.
Section 20. of that act applies to the offences mentioned in section 17, and therefore a hawker who trades without a licence contrary to section 17. may be arrested for such offence under the powers of section 20. Benjamin v. Andrews, 310 HIGH SEAS-Offence on. See Indictment. HIGHWAY-effect of denial of liability to repair- On the hearing of a summons, under 5 & 6 Vict. c. 50. s. 94, against the surveyor of a parish respecting the repair of an alleged highway, if the obligation to repair is denied by the parish, the Special Sessions cannot inquire at all into the matter, but are bound, under section 95, to direct an indictment to be preferred against the inhabitants of the parish. R. v. Arnould, 92
liability to repair ratione clausura] The liability to repair a highway ratione clausura is only on the occupier of the lands inclosed, and not on the owner-So held by Erle, J. and Crompton, J. By Erle, J, the liability does not attach where the way is not immemorial, or where the land inclosed has not been used for passage before the inclosure. v. Ramsden, 296
assistant surveyor not an accountiny officer] -An assistant surveyor, appointed by the high- way board of a parish, under 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50. s. 18, has no duty thrown upon him of keeping accounts; and therefore is not liable to penalties for not making out and laying before the vestry and Justices in special sessions ac- counts, pursuant to section 44. Adams v. Lake- man, 307
See Appeal. Costs. Railway. HUSBAND AND WIFE-Coercion of Wife. Wounding with Intent.
INDICTMENT-liability to, of foreigner in English ship-A foreigner on board an English ship on the high seas is subject to the law of England; and, therefore, if he there does an act which is a criminal offence by the law of England, he may be punished for it by that law, and may, by virtue of the statute 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91. 8. 21, be tried for the offence before any Court of justice in the Queen's dominions having cog- nizance of such crimes when committed within its limits, within whose jurisdiction he may be brought; for when so brought, he is, within the language of the act, "found within its jurisdic- tion." Nor is it material, as to the liability of the foreigner to punishment or to the juris- diction of the Court to try him, that he was illegally and by force taken on board the English ship and there detained in custody at the time of the committal of the offence, the act alleged to be a crime not being committed for the pur- pose of releasing himself from the illegal duress. R. v. Lopez; and R. v. Sattler, 48
disposing of dead body for gain]-Disposing of dead body for dissection for gain, and pre-
« EelmineJätka » |