ANIMALS-Obtaining a dog by a false pretence. See False Pretence.
APPEAL against order of removal: service of fresh grounds after adjournment]-Appellants, four- teen days before the next sessions, served re- spondents with notice of prosecuting an appeal against an order of removal, accompanied with a statement of grounds of appeal. At the ses- sions, the appeal was called on, and the respon- dents' counsel was beginning to state his case, when the appellants applied to have the hearing adjourned to the next sessions, on the ground of the absence of a material witness, and the Court adjourned it accordingly. Fourteen days before the next sessions, appellants served an- other statement, containing fresh grounds of appeal, and at those sessions the Court quashed the order of removal on evidence given in sup- port of one of the fresh grounds. It was held, on the authority of The Queen v. Derbyshire, that, under 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. s. 81, the appellants had power to serve the fresh grounds of appeal, and that the Quarter Sessions were right. The Queen v. Arlecdon distinguished. R. v. Inhabitants of Kendal, 110
against order of removal: entry and respite]— An order of removal was served on the 13th of September. Notice of appeal was given on the 2nd of October. The next sessions were held on the 18th of October, and at those sessions the appeal was entered and respited, and came on for hearing at the following sessions, on the 4th of January, when the order was quashed. The Court would not interfere, as the Justices had jurisdiction to adjourn the appeal to the January Sessions, and as they had so adjourned it; but held, that in each case the Justices should exer- cise their judgment whether justice required that the appeal should be adjourned, and that if there be time to try at the first sessions, and no reason for the delay be assigned, they ought to refuse to enter and respite. R. v. the Inha- bitants of Skircoat, 224
against order adjudging settlement of lunatic: to County or Borough Sessions]-An order under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97. s. 97, adjudging the settle- ment, &c. of a pauper lunatic confined in the borough lunatic asylum, was obtained by a parish situated wholly within a borough having sepa- rate Quarter Sessions, and was made by two Justices of the borough, the asylum being also within the borough; and it was held, the appeal against the order, under section 108, was to the county, and not to the borough Quarter Sessions. R. v. the Justices of Warwickshire, 249
against dismissal of complaint]-The statute 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. gives a right of appeal as well against the dismissal of a complaint as against a conviction. Davys v. Douglas, 193
See Case stated by Justices. Costs. Nui- sance. Recognizance.
APPRENTICE. See Settlement by Apprenticeship.
ARSON-setting fire to goods in a house]-A person who maliciously sets fire to his own goods in his own house with intent, by burning the goods, to defraud an insurance office, but does not set fire to the house, may be convicted of felony upon an indictment framed on the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 19. and the 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 89. R. v. Lyons, 33
ASSAULT-certificate of dismissal]-The granting a certificate of dismissal, under section 27. of 9 Geo. 4. c. 31, is a ministerial, and not a judi- cial act; and a Magistrate having heard a charge of assault and dismissed such charge, on either of the grounds stated in that section, is bound to grant a certificate, stating the fact of such dismissal. Such certificate, though not applied for and not drawn up in the presence of the parties, is a good defence, under section 28, to an action for the assault. Hancock v. Somes, 196
The word "forthwith" in section 27. of 9 Geo. 4. c. 31. means forthwith upon the application of the party entitled to the certifi- cate, and not forthwith upon the dismissal of the complaint. Therefore, where a charge of assault was heard and dismissed, as not proved, on the 17th of February, and application for a certificate was made on the 22nd, but not ob- tained on that day in consequence of the absence of the Magistrate, but on application on the 24th it was obtained, and dated as of the 17th, the day on which the charge was heard, such certificate was held to be a good defence, under section 28, to an action for the assault. -that the application for the certificate may be made at any time after the complaint has been dismissed. Costar v. Hetherington, 198
hostile intention necessary to constitute]-In order to constitute an assault and battery, punishable by the criminal law, the act com- plained of must be done with a hostile intention. Coward v. Baddeley, 251; Ex. 260
AUDITOR― appointment of, by parish not in a union] -The Poor Law Commissioners have power, under 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. s. 46, to compel a parish to appoint an auditor, although such parish is not in a union, and is not governed by a board of guardians appointed under the above act, and although it has adopted the provisions of 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 60, and has since the passing of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120. appointed auditors under and by virtue of that act. R. v. St. James, Westminster, 172
enforcing surcharge against guardians] — At an audit of the accounts of a poor-law union, the auditor disallowed a sum of money charged by the guardians for certain expenses, and sur- charged three of the guardians who had autho- rized payment of the money. Those guardians refused to pay, but did not appeal against the disallowance. The auditor summoned them before a Justice, and proved so much as is required by section 9. of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 91.
The Justice dismissed the summons; and there- upon this Court made a rule absolute to compel him to issue a distress warrant against the goods of the three guardians. R. v. Finnis, 201
BANKRUPT Disclosure by agent before Commis- sioner. See Principal and Agent.
BASTARDY-proof of payment of money within twelve months after birth: waiver]-The mother of a bastard child, more than twelve months old, applied to a Justice for a summons against the prisoner, the putative father, alleging (but not proving on oath) that he had paid money for the maintenance of the child within twelve months from the birth. The summons issued in the form given by the schedule to 8 & 9 Vict. c. 10, except that it stated that the woman alleged that the man had paid money within the twelve months, instead of saying that she had given proof of the fact. The prisoner appeared and took no objection to the summons or the proceedings on which it was founded, but denied the paternity, and falsely swore he had not paid any money as alleged. The prisoner was on this indicted for perjury and convicted. On the trial, it was objected, that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction, as proof on oath that the money had been paid as alleged was necessary, ander 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101. s. 2. and 8 & 9 Vict. c. 10, to give the Justices authority to issue the summons, and that it was immaterial at the hearing whether the money had been paid, as proof of that fact was only necessary prior to the issuing of the summons. It was held, that had the objection of the want of proof on oath of payment of the money, and of the variation of the summons from the form given by the sta- tute, been taken before the Magistrates, it pro- bably ought to have prevailed, but that this was a mere irregularity in process to bring a defen- dant into court in a proceeding in the nature of a civil suit, and that the prisoner waived it by not taking any objection at the hearing, and by then going into the merits of the case. Also, that it was necessary at the hearing to make proof of the alleged payment; and, further, that such proof was also material as corroborative evidence of the paternity. R. v. Berry, 86
Where, on the application of the mother of a bastard child more than twelve months old, a Justice issued a summons to the putative father, without any proof having been given to him that the party charged had, within the twelve months after the birth of the child, paid money for its maintenance, and the summons, on the face of it, was regular, and the Justices at petty sessions heard and adjudicated on the case on its merits, the defendant appearing and making no objection, it was held, the want of proof of such payment was not fatal to the authority of the petty Sessions; that the proof was matter of process only; and that the Justices had jurisdic- tion to inquire into the matter charged in the summons; and, consequently, defendant might be indicted for perjury, for false evidence given
on oath before them at the hearing. R. v. Sim- mons, 183
BEERHOUSE. See Ale and Beerhouse.
BOROUGH RATE-mandamus to enforce]-A bo- rough rate having been levied on the township of H, and paid, was subsequently increased by the town council of the borough of L, of which the township of H. formed part. The township of H. having refused to pay this increased rate, the Court would not grant a mandamus to com- pel it, because (assuming the rate to be valid) the town council might enforce payment by dis- tress under 7 Will. 4. & 1 Vict. c. 81. R. v. the Overseers of Hunslet, 180
BOUNDARIES-Evidence of. See Poor-rate.
BUILDING ACTS-Houses facing each other at less than ten feet. See Towns Improvement Acts. CANAL. See Larceny. Poor-rate.
CASE STATED BY JUSTICES-right to begin]-On appeal against the determination of Justices, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, the party in support of the information or complaint is entitled to begin. Bennett v. the Blackpool Local Board of Health, 203
objections not made before the Justices]-Upon the argument of a case stated by Justices, under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, the appellant will not be allowed to take objections which were not raised before the Justices. Purkis v. Hux- table, 221
CHURCH-enforcing payment of annuity in lieu of tithes by summary proceeding before Justices]— The church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, was built within the limits of the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, and by an Order in Council, made in 1850, under the Church Building Act, 59 Geo. 3. c. 134, a particular district was assigned to it within such parish, with authority to publish banns of marriage, and to solemnize marriages, baptisms, churchings and burials therein, the fees for which were to be paid to the incumbent. It was held that the church of St. Bartholomew, Moor Lane, being a church to which a district had been assigned within the limit of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was capable of receiving, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 21, an annexation, by the Vicar of St. Giles, Cripple- gate, of part of his annual revenues, although the district had for ecclesiastical purposes be- come by virtue of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104. s. 14. a distinct and separate parish; and although by the local act the tithes of the parish of St. Giles, Cripplegate, were extinguished, and a certain annuity payable quarterly was secured to the vicar in lieu of such tithes. By the said local act the said vicar of St. Giles, Cripplegate, was enabled to enforce payment of the annuity in lieu of tithes by a summary proceeding before a
Justice of the Peace. Held, that after an an- nexation of a portion of such annuity had been made to the District Church of St. Bartholo- mew, Moor Lane, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 45. 8. 21, the incumbent of such district church had the like power of enforcing payment, by sum- mary proceeding, of the portion so annexed. Hughes v. Denton, 140
CLERGY. See Church. Poor-Rate.
CLERK OF THE PEACE-Emoluments of the office of clerk of the peace for the city of Westmin- ster under the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 71. ss. 11, 12. Nicholson v. Ellis, 246; Q.B. 238
CONVICTION-variance between summons and con- viction]-A person having been summoned be- fore Justices on a charge of being drunk and guilty of riotous behaviour under 10 & 11 Vict. c. 89. s. 29; and the Justices having convicted him of drunkenness under 21 Jac. 1. c. 7, the conviction was held bad. Martin v. Pridgeon, 179
signing conviction and warrant with blanks for amount of costs]-Defendants, Justices of the Peace, convicted plaintiff in a penalty of 21. and costs, or two months' imprisonment. Against this decision, which was given orally, plaintiff gave notice of appeal, and left the court. A con- viction and warrant of commitment were after- wards drawn up, in which blanks were left for the costs to be inserted, and so signed by defen- dants. The blanks were afterwards filled up by the Magistrates' clerk, and plaintiff was arrested on the warrant, when he, for the first time, be- came aware of the amount of costs. The signing in blank by defendants was held to be a mere irregularity, and not an excess of jurisdiction; and plaintiff having brought an action for false imprisonment was rightly nonsuited, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44. s. 1. Bott v. Ackroyd, 207
sending dangerous goods by railway: Guilty knowledge necessary to constitute the offence]· By section 168. of 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. cvii. every person who shall send, or cause to be sent, by the Great Western Railway any aquafortis, oil of vitriol, gunpowder, or other goods of a dan- gerous quality shall distinctly mark or state the nature of such goods on the outside of the package, or shall give notice of the nature of such goods, on pain of forfeiting 101. Under this enactment guilty knowledge is necessary before the offence is committed; therefore, where G. and S. re- ceived from N. cases which contained oil of vitriol, and N. had imposed upon them by stating that the contents were of an entirely different description, and G. and S. had no knowledge of what the contents really were, and sent them innocently by the railway, it was held that they were not liable to be convicted. Semble-that G. and S. would be civilly liable to the railway company as being the senders of the goods. Semble, also, that Ñ. might have been proceeded against under the above section. Hearne v. Garton, 216
for throwing ballast, rubbish, &c. into a river. See Navigable River.
COSTS appeals from summary decision of Justices] -Where, upon appeal, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, against a conviction under a local turnpike act, for illegally taking toll, the conviction is quashed, the party prosecuting must pay the costs. Ven- ables v. Hardman, 33
In cases stated by Justices, under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, the general rule is, that the costs follow the judgment; but when no one appears on behalf of the respondents that rule will not be applied. Lee v. Strain, 221
In all cases of appeal under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. from the summary decision of Justices, on informations, the Court has power, under section 6, to award costs to the successful party, including cases in which the Crown is, directly or indirectly, a party to the information. Moore v. Smith, 126
COUNTY COURT-False process. See False Pre-
DANGEROUS GOODS-Sending by railway. See Conviction.
DRUNKENNESS-Conviction for, on charge of riotous conduct. See Conviction.
ECCLESIASTICAL DISTRICT. See Poor-Rate. EMBEZZLEMENT-sale of his master's goods by ser- vant who conceals the transaction.]-A foreman employed to sell goods sold some to a cus- tomer, who bought them bona fide as bought from the master, and who paid the foreman for them. The foreman did not enter the sale in his books or account for the price to his master, as in duty bound, but concealed the whole transaction, and employed the money for his own use. It was held, the foreman was not guilty of stealing the goods, as the sale was binding as between the buyer and the master, but that his offence was embezzling the price. R. v. Betts, 69
EVIDENCE-Disclosure by agents. See Principal and Agent.
Hearsay, to prove search for lost document. See Settlement by Apprenticeship.
Secondary evidence to prove the binding of an apprentice. See Settlement by Apprentice- ship.
FALSE PRETENCE-by means of innocent agent: mode of alleging the pretence.]—J. B. was one of many persons employed, whose wages were paid weekly at a pay-table. On one occasion, when J. B.'s wages were due, the prisoner said to a little boy, I will give you a penny if you will go
and get J. B.'s money. The boy innocently went to the pay-table and said to the treasurer, I am come for J. B.'s money, and J. B.'s wages were given him. He took the money to the prisoner, who was waiting outside, and who gave the boy the promised penny. It was held, that the prisoner could not be convicted on the charge of obtaining the money from the treasurer, by falsely pretending to the treasurer, that he, the prisoner, had authority from J. B. to receive his money, or of obtaining it, from the treasurer and the boy, by falsely pretending to the boy that he had such authority, or of obtaining it from the boy by the like false pretence to the boy; but that he might have been convicted on a count charging him with obtaining it from the treasurer, by falsely pretending to the treasurer, that the boy had the authority from J. B. to receive the amount. R. v. Butcher, 14
obtaining a dog by]-A person cannot be convicted of obtaining a dog by false pretences, since it is not an animal in respect of which lar- ceny can be committed. R. v. Robinson, 58
acting under false pretence of process of county court]-Prisoner obtained a blank form of in- structions to be filled up by plaintiffs for the purpose of having a county court summons issued against defendants. This he filled up, and, without any authority, signed it "W. G., Registrar of the Taunton Court." The form stated his own name, Alexander Richmond, as plaintiff, the name of a debtor to himself, as defendant, the residences of both of them, the amount claimed, 98. 6d., and the nature of the claim, goods sold and delivered. On the back the prisoner wrote," Unless the whole amount claimed by Alexander Richmond, draper, of Taunton, is paid on Saturday, an execution warrant will be immediately issued against you. Witness my signature, W. G." This he sent to the debtor with the view to obtain payment. It was held, the prisoner was indictable under section 57. of 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, on the charge of acting or professing to act under false colour and pretence of the process of the county court. R. v. Richmond, 188
FELONY-in the Bristol Channel, where triable. See Jurisdiction.
GAME right to kill rabbits]-The tenant of a farm, the right of sporting over which was re- served to the landlord, employed the appellants to kill rabbits upon the farm. They were pro- ceeded against under the 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32. 8. 30, and were convicted; and it was held, that the tenant himself could not be so convicted; that the appellants, having acted by his direc- tions, had the same rights as he had, and there- fore that the conviction was bad. Spicer v. Barnard, 176
GAMING-Right to moiety of penalty. See Penalty.
building within fifteen feet of the centre of a carriage-way, which has been repaired by the surveyor for the six months preceding, but not on any part of the highway which has been lately used for passage, is not an encroachment of which Justices can take summary cognizance under the 69th sect. of the 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50. Chapman v. Robinson, 30
liability of parish to repair: old highway widened and straightened]-Inclosure Commis- sioners, by their award in 1840, set out a public highway which ran in the same track, and in- cluded, but straightened and widened, an ancient highway repairable by the parish. The road passed through allotable land on each side, ex- cept that on one side in one part there was an old inclosure. Before and since the award, the parish had done repairs to the road. No steps had been taken by the Commissioners for put- ting the road into complete repair, pursuant to the statute 41 Geo. 3. c. 109. ss. 8. and 9; nor had there been any declaration by Justices at their special sessions that the road had been fully and sufficiently formed, completed and repaired. The parish was held not indictable for not repairing this road. R. v. the Inhabit- ants of East Hagbourne, 71
JURISDICTION—to try a felony committed in the Bristol Channel]-The Bristol Channel between the shores of Glamorganshire and Somerset- shire, where it is about ten miles across, and the one shore is visible from the other on a clear day, is within the bodies of the counties by which it is bounded. Therefore, where a felony was committed on board a ship in this part of the Bristol Channel, about three quarters of a mile from the Glamorganshire shore, it was held, that the offence was committed within the body of the county of Glamorgan. R. v. Cunningham, 66
of Justices. See Ale and Beerhouse. Con- viction. Nuisance. Truck Act. 2 L
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-Appeal from decisions on summary jurisdiction. See Appeal. Case stated by Justices. Costs.
Action against. See Conviction.
LARCENY-appropriating property found]-If a person finds a purse of money on the high road and appropriates it to his own use, the question for the jury is, whether he did so at the time of finding with a felonious intent, and that depends on whether at that time he knew who the owner was, or had the means of knowing him by reason of marks on the article indicating the owner. But the finder is not guilty of felony merely because, when afterwards learning who the owner is, he fails to make restitution, and fraudulently retains the property. R. v. Christopher,
of lead gutters of a shed on a wharf]—Prisoners were convicted of stealing the lead gutters of some brick and timber and tile made sheds built on a wharf. The indictment charged them with stealing lead fixed to a wharf. It was held, the conviction was good, as the evidence shewed that the sheds on the wharf were part of the wharf, and that the wharf was a building within the 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. 29. s. 44. R. v. Rice, 64
adulterer carrying off husband's goods with the wife]-Prisoner, watching his opportunity when the prosecutor was absent, took away prosecutor's wife, and with her several boxes filled with prosecutor's property. The prisoner and the wife were found living together in adultery. The property was all in their lodgings. The prisoner was held to be indictable for stealing the property of the prosecutor, as he took the property under such circumstances that the assent of the husband to the taking could not be presumed. R. v. Berry, 70
ownership of property found in a canal]— In an indictment for stealing some iron from a canal, in which it was found when the canal was in process of being cleaned, it is sufficient to allege the property to be in the proprietors of the canal. R. v. Rowe, 128
assisting wife to take away her husband's goods]-If a person merely assist a married woman, who has not committed or intended to commit adultery, in carrying away the goods of her husband without the knowledge and consent of the latter, though with intent to deprive the latter of his property, he cannot be convicted of stealing the goods. R. v. Avery, 185
pawnbroker's duplicate]-Stealing a pawnbroker's duplicate is larceny.-It may be described, in an indictment for larceny, as a warrant for a delivery of goods; since the Pawnbrokers' Act, 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 99. authorizes and requires the pawnbroker to deliver the goods to the person producing the ticket. It may also be alleged to be a pawnbroker's ticket, or a piece of paper; for it is evidence of title to
a specific personal chattel, the property in possesion of the pawner, and consequently does not come within the common law rule, that larceny cannot be committed of documents concerning title to land or mere choses in action. R. v. Morrison, 210
LICENCE- for performance of stage plays. See
LIMITATION of time for taking proceedings. See Metropolitan Building Act.
LUNATIC PAUPER signature of statement of grounds of settlement]-Where the order of adjudication of the settlement of a pauper lunatic is obtained by the guardians of a union on behalf of a township, the proper persons to sign the statement of the grounds of adjudication, and of the particulars of settlement required by section 107. of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, are the overseers of the township. R. v. the Inhabitants of Heaton, 181
MANCHESTER IMPROVEMENT ACT. See Towns Improvement Acts.
MANDAMUS-when it lies. See Borough Rate. MANSLAUGHTER
keeping fireworks: too remote cause of death]-The prisoner made fireworks, and kept them for sale in a house in the Westminster Road. In his absence, by negligence or accident, a fire took place among the materials of the fireworks, which set light to a rocket and caused it to fly across the street and set fire to a house in which a person was who was burnt to death. It was held, that as the death was not caused alone by the illegal act of the prisoner in keeping the fireworks, but by the superadded act of some one else in setting them on fire, the illegal keeping the fireworks was too remotely the cause of the death to render the prisoner amenable to a charge of manslaughter. R. v. Bennett, 27
METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT — what constitutes a "sewer": vesting of property: house built on surface]-A marsh wall or embankment that keeps back the river Thames at high water from inundating the Isle of Dogs, and through which sewers pass which drain the isle at low water, is a sewer" within the meaning of the 204th section of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, which gives power to the district board of works in whom any sewer is vested to remove any building erected thereon without their consent. Quare-Whether the marsh wall was vested in the district board under section 68. and Schedule A, or in the Metropolitan Board of Works under section 135. and Schedule D; but the latter never having exercised any jurisdiction
« EelmineJätka » |