"shall be guilty of felony." (Pun-" protection thereof." (Former proishment same as in the last but one vision, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 18, ss. 1, 2, preceding section.) 7. By Spring Guns. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 31, "whosoever shall set or place, or cause to be set or placed, any "spring gun, man trap, or other engine calculated to destroy human "life or inflict grievous bodily harm, with the intent that the same or "whereby the same may destroy or "inflict grievous bodily harm upon a trespasser or other person com"ing in contact therewith, shall be "guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servi"tude for the term of five years (27 " & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to be impris "oned for any term not exceeding "two years, with or without hard "labour. 66 66 3, 4.) The plaintiff entered the defendant's garden at night, and without his permission, to search for a stray fowl, and, whilst looking closely into some bushes, he came in contact with a wire, which caused something to explode with a loud noise, knocking him down and slightly injuring his face and eyes: -Held, in an action, that the defendant was not liable for this injury at common law, or in the absence of evidence that it was caused by a spring gun or other engine calculated to inflict grievous bodily harm, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 18, s. 1. Wootton v. Dawkins, 2 C. B., N. S. 412. (8) Illtreating Children, Appren tices, Servants, Idiots and Helpless Persons. (a) The Offence. "And whosoever shall knowingly "and wilfully permit any such spring gun, man trap, or other en- Statute.]-By 24 & 25 Vict. c. gine, which may have been set or 100, s. 26, "whosoever, being leplaced in any place then being in, "gally liable, either as a master or or afterwards coming into, his "mistress, to provide for any ap "possession or occupation, by some prentice or servant necessary food, 66 other person, to continue so set or "clothing, or lodging, shall wilfully placed, shall be deemed to have" and without lawful excuse refuse set and placed such gun, trap, or or neglect to provide the same, or engine with such intent as afore-"shall unlawfully and maliciously "said. Provided, that nothing in this "section contained shall extend to "make it illegal to set or place any gin or trap, such as may have "been or may be usually set or placed with the intent of destroying vermin." "Provided also, that nothing in "this section shall be deemed to "make it unlawful to set or place, dangered, or the health of such ap"prentice or servant shall have been 66 66 or shall be likely to be, permanent"ly injured, shall be guilty of a "misdemeanor, and, being convicted "thereof, shall be liable, at the dis"cretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for the term of five years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to "be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or with"out hard labour. (Former provision, 14 & 15 Vict. c. 11, s. 1.) or cause to be set or placed, or "to be continued set or placed, "from sunset to sunrise, any spring gun, man trap or other engine" "which shall be set or placed, or "caused or continued to be set or placed, in a dwelling-house for the 66 "lawfully abandon or expose any | 66 66 66 for the assistance provided by means of the poor laws. Reg. v. Mabbett, 5 Cox, C. C. 339. a A married woman who, having child under such circumstances, wilfully neglects for several days going to the union for the purpose of getting support for it, she knowing that such neglect is likely to cause the child's death, is guilty of manslaughter. Ib. Where any person undertaking the duty of supplying an infant with proper food and clothing, and furnished with the means of discharging that duty properly, wilful Children and Helpless Persons.]-ly neglects to do so, with an intenIt is a misdemeanor to refuse or tion to cause the death of the child, neglect to provide sufficient food or or to do it some grievous injury, other necessaries for any infant of and the child dies in consequence of tender years, unable to provide for such neglect, such person is guilty and take care of itself (whether such of murder. Where the neglect is infant is a child, an apprentice, or a culpable only, and not malicious, servant whom the party is obliged such person is guilty of manslaughby duty or contract to provide for), ter. Where a parent supplies suffiso as thereby to injure his health. cient food and clothing to another Rex. v. Friend, R. & R. C. C. 20—for the purpose of administering to Bayley. And see Rex v. Squire, 1 Russ. C. & M. 89, 678. his child, and that other person wilfully withholds it from the child, and the parent is conscious that it is so withheld, and does not interfere, and the child dies for want of proper food and clothing, the parent is guilty of manslaughter. Reg. v. Bubb, 4 Cox, C. C. 455. A single woman, the mother of an infant child, was indicted for neglecting to provide it with sufficient food, the indictment alleging that she was able, and had the means so to do. There was no evidence of the actual possession of means by A married woman cannot be conthe mother; but it was proved that victed of the murder of her illegiti she could have applied to the re-mate child three years old, by omitlieving officer of the union, and that if she had so applied, she would have been entitled to and would have received relief adequate to the due support and maintenance of herself and child-Held, that the allegation in the indictment was not supported by this evidence. Reg. v. Chandler, Dears. C. C. 453; 1 Jur., N. S. 429; 24 L. J., M. C. 109; 3 C. L. R. 680. If parents have not the means of providing proper food and nourishment for their infant children who are incapable of taking care of themselves, it is their duty to apply ting to supply it with proper food, unless it is shewn that her husband supplied her with food to give to the child, and that she wilfully neglected to give it. Rex v. Saunders, 7 C. & P. 277--Alderson. A count charged a married woman with the murder of her illegitimate child of three years old, by omitting to supply it with sufficient food, and also by beating; it was not shewn that her husband had supplied her with food to give to the child :-Held, that this count could not be supported. Ib. An unmarried woman, eighteen years of age, who usually supported herself by her own labour, being about to be confined, returned to the house of her stepfather and her mother. She was taken in labour (the stepfather being absent at his work), and in consequence of the mother's neglect to use ordinary diligence in procuring the assistance of a midwife, the daughter died in her confinement. There was no proof that the mother had any means of paying for the services of a midwife-Held, that no legal duty was cast upon the mother to procure a midwife, and therefore that she could not be convicted of the manslaughter of her daughter. Reg. v. Shepherd, 9 Cox, C. C. 123; L. & C. 147; 8 Jur., N. S. 418; 31 L. J., M. C. 102; 10 W. R. 297; 5 L. T., N. S. 687. On an indictment for the murder of an aged and infirm woman, by confining her against her will, and not providing her with meat, drink, clothing, firing, medicines and other necessaries, and not allowing her the enjoyment of the open air, in breach of an alleged duty; if the jury thinks that the prisoner was guilty of wilful neglect, so gross and wilful that they are satisfied he must have contemplated her death, he will be guilty of murder; but if they only think that he was so careless that her death was occasioned by his negligence, though he did not contemplate it, he will be guilty of manslaughter. Reg. v. Marriott, 8 C. & P. 425-Patteson. Ill-treating Children.] - When from a conscientious religious conviction that God would heal the sick, and not from any intention to avoid the performance of their duty, the parents of a sick child refuse to call in medical assistance, though well able to do so, and the child consequently dies, it is not culpable homicide. Reg. v. Wagstaffe, 10 Cox, C. C. 530-Willes. A parent who wilfully withholds necessary food from his child, with the wilful determination by such withholding to cause the death of the child, is guilty of murder if the child dies. Reg. v. Conde, 10 Cox, C. C. 547-Channell. A parent who has the means to supply necessaries, but who negli gently though not wilfully, withholds from a child food, which, if administered, would sustain its life, and the child consequently dies, is guilty of manslaughter. Ib. In an indictment against a parent for neglecting to provide sufficient food and clothing for a child of tender years, for whom he is bound by law to provide, it is not necessary to aver that the parent was, at the time of the alleged offence, of sufficient ability to perform the duty so imposed upon him. Reg. v. Ryland, 17 L. T., N. S. 219; 1 L. R., C. C. 99; 37 L. J., M. C. 10; 10 Cox, C. C. 569; 16 W. R. 280. Deserting Children.]-It is an indictable offence to expose a person to the inclemency of the weather. Rex v. Ridley, 2 Camp, 640, 653— Lawrence. If a person does an act towards another who is helpless, which must necessarily lead to the death of that A. was convicted of the manother, the crime amounts to murder; slaughter of an infant female child, but if the circumstances are such on an indictment which stated the that the person could not have been death to have been caused by exaware that the result would be posure, whereby the child became death, that would reduce the crime mortally chilled, frozen and beto manslaughter, provided that the numbed-Held, that as the death death was occasioned by an unlaw- was attributable to an act of misful act, but not such an act as feasance, it was necessarily implied shewed a malicious mind. Reg. v. that the child was of such tender Walters, Car. & M. 164-Coltman. | age and feebleness as to be incom petent to take care of herself. Reg. v. Waters, T. & M. 57; 1 Den. C. C. 356; 2 C. & K. 864; 13 Jur. 130; 18 L. J., M. C. 53. An indictment charging a party with abandoning a child with the intent to burden a particular parish with its maintenance, is not supported by proof that the child was deposited by the accused in a parish in a secret place where it was not likely to be found. Reg. v. Renshaw, 11 Jur., 615; 2 Cox, C. C. 385-Parke. A female abandoned her infant child, having first deposited it in the bottom of a dry ditch among some nettles, by which it was not hurt; and, in consequence of being shortly afterwards found by other persons, had not experienced any inconvenience from the exposure:— Held, that she could not be convicted either of an assault with intent to murder the child, or of a common assault. Ib. Indictment charging A. with unlawfully leaving a child of a month old, of which she had the care, in a highway in a parish, with intent to burden the parish with the maintenance of the child, is bad, for not negativing the settlement of the child in the parish, and for not alleging any injury done to the child by the act of A. Reg. v. Cooper, 1 Den. C. C. 459; 2 C. & K. 876; T. & M. 125; 13 Jur. 502; 18 L. J., M. C. 168; 3 Cox, C. C. 559. An indictment charging that a woman deserted her bastard child with intent to throw the burden of its maintenance on the parish, is bad, without an averment that the child had sustained any injury by the abandonment, or that the woman had the means of supporting the child. Reg. v. Hogan, 2 Den. C. C. 277; T. & M. 610; 15 Jur. 805; 20 L. J., M. C. 219; 5 Cox, C. C. 255. If a woman, in breach of her maternal duty, wilfully abandons her child of too tender years to provide for itself, she is not indictable at common law, unless her abandonment causes an injury to the health of the child. Reg. v. Phillpot, Dears. C. C. 179; 17 Jur. 399; 22 L. J., M. C. 113; 6 Cox, C. C. 140. Evidence" that the child had suffered injury, but not to any serious extent,' "does not sufficiently support an averment in the indictment that the health of the child had been greatly and materially injured. Ib. If a woman leaves her child, a young infant, at a gentleman's door, or other place where it is likely to be found and taken care of, and the child dies, it will be manslaughter only; but if the child is left in a remote place, where it is not likely to be found, e. g. on a barren heath, and the death of the child ensues, it will be murder. Reg. v. Walters, Car. & M. 164-Coltman. Apprentices and Servants.]—If a master, by premeditated negligence, or harsh usage, causes the death of his apprentice, it is murder. Rex v. Self, 1 Leach, C. C. 137; 1 East, P. C. 226. An indictment lies against a master for not providing sufficient food and sustenance for a servant, whereby she became sick and emaciated. Rex v. Ridley, 2 Camp. 650-Lawrence. A master is not by law bound to provide medical advice for his servant; but with respect to an apprentice, a master is bound, during the illness of his apprentice, to provide him with proper medicines. Reg. v. Smith, 8 C. & P. 153-Vaughan and Patteson. A girl of sixteen is not an infant of tender years, and therefore her master and mistress, who have not kept her under duress, are not guilty of a misdemeanor in not supplying her with sufficient food and nourishment, whilst in their service. Anon., 5 Cox, C. C. 279-Coleridge and Cresswell. Where a master culpably neg Prisoners of War.]-It is an indictable offence wilfully and maliciously to supply prisoners of war with unwholesome food not fit to be eaten by man. Rex v. Treeve, 2 East, P. C. 821. lects to supply proper and sufficient is a person having the care and food and lodging to a servant dur-charge of a lunatic within 16 & 17 ing a time when the servant is re- Vict. c. 96, s, 9, and is liable to be duced to and in such an enfeebled indicted for ill-treating him. Reg. v. state of body and mind as to be help- Porter, L. & C. 394; 9 Cox, C. C. less, and unable to take care of him- 449; 10 Jur., N. S. 547; 33 L. J., self, or is under the dominion and re- M. C. 126; 12 W. R. 718; 10 L straint of the master, and unable to T., N. S. 306. withdraw himself from his control, and the servant's death is caused or accelerated by such neglect, the master is guilty of manslaughter. Reg. v. Smith, L. & C. 607; 10 Cox, C. C. 82; 11 Jur., N. S. 695; 34 L. J., M. C. 153; 13 W. R. 816; 12 L. T., N. S. 608. Duty of Overseers.]-It is an inIdiots.]—If one has his idiot broth-dictable offence in an overseer to er, who is helpless, as an inmate in neglect to supply medical assistance, his house, and omits to supply him when required, to a pauper labourwith proper food, warmth, &c., he ing under dangerous illness, although is not indictable for the omission. he was not in the workhouse, nor Rex v. Smith, 2 C. & P. 449-Bur- had, previously to his illness, rerough. ceived or stood in need of parochial relief. Rex v. Warren, R. & R. C. C. 48, n. And see Hays v. Bryant, 1 H. Bl. 253; Rex v. Saunders, 7 C. & P. 277. A count stating that the defendant did, whilst S., being a person of unsound intellect and incapable of taking care of himself, was under the care, custody and control of the defendant, keep, confine and imprison S., is bad, for want of a positive averment that S. was under the care, custody and control of the defendant. Reg. v. Pelham, 8 Q. B. 959; 10 Jur. 659; 15 L. J., M. C. 105. A. was convicted on an indictment under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 96, s. 9, which charged that he, having the care and charge of his wife, a lunatic, did abuse and ill-treat her :Held, that he was not a person having the care or charge of a lunatic within the meaning of the statute, inasmuch as its provisions were not intended to apply to persons whose care or charge arises from natural duty. Reg. v. Rundle, Dears. C. C. 482; 1 Jur., N. S. 430; 24 L. J., M. C. 129; 6 Cox, C. C. 549; 3 C. L. R. 659. But a man who has voluntarily taken upon himself the care of a lunatic brother in his own private house But an overseer is not indictable for not relieving a pauper, unless there is an order for his relief; except in case of immediate emergency, when there is not time to get an order. Rex v. Meredith, R. & R. C. C. 46. But see contrà, Rex v. Booth, R. & R. C. C. 47, n, ; and 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 76, ss. 52, 54. (b) Indictment. An indictment charging a feme covert, living separately and apart from her husband, with neglecting and refusing to provide necessary meat and drink for her servant, and keeping her without sufficient warmth, whereby she became sick and emaciated, is insufficient, in not alleging that the servant was of tender years, and under the dominion and control of the defendant. Rex v. Ridley, 2 Camp. 650-Lawrence. So an indictment against a master for not providing necessaries for his apprentice, ought to state that |