Page images

ANIMALS— Obtaining a dog by a false pretence.

See False Pretence.

ARBON—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 beard 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

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. 8. 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 bad
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

The word “forthwith" in section 27. of
9 Geo. 4. C. 31. means forth with 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. Semble
—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

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.

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.
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.

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. Pinnis, 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. 8. 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
& 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

BUILDING Aots-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. Huc-
table, 221

See Costs.

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. 8. 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

for throwing ballast, rubbish, &c. into a
river. See Navigable River.

See Indictment.

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. Euis, 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. g. 29; and the Justices having convicted
him of drunkenness under 21 Jac. 1. c. 7, the
conviction was held bad. Martin v. Pridgeon,

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


DBUNKENNESS-Conviction for, on charge ofriotous

conduct. See Conviction.


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. o. 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

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 Firincipal
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-

FALSE PRETENCE-by means of innocent agent :

mode of alleging the pretence.]-J. B. wiis 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 suid 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

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 Commig.
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

INDICTMENT - conviction for misdemeanour on in-

dictment for felony)-An indictment charged
three prisoners with felonious wounding with
intent to do grievous bodily harm; the jury
found two guilty of the felony alleged, and the
third guilty of the misdemeanour of unlawfully
wounding, and the conviction was held good.
R. v. Cunningham, 68

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 be filled up,
and, without any authority, signed it "W.G.,
Registrar of the Taunton Court." The form
stated his own name, Alexander Richmond, as

, 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.Ğ.” 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.

for acting under colour and false pretence
of process of County Court. See False Pre.

Ownership of property found in a canal. See

Venue. See Jurisdiction.

See Highway. Previous Conviction.

INNKEEPER—Sunday trading. See Ale and Beer-


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 bad, and there.
fore that the conviction was bad. Spicer v.

Barnard, 176
GAMING—Right to moiety of penalty. See

HIGHWAY— encroachment] — The erection of a


JURISDICTION10 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 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,

of Justices. See Ale and Beerhouse. Con-
viction. Nuisance. Truck Act.


JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-Appeal from decisions on

summary jurisdiction. See Appeal. Case stated by Justices. • Costs.

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

See Embezzlement.

LICENCE — for performance of stage plays. See


Action against. See Conviction. LARCENY - appropriating property found] — If a

See Ale and Beerhouse.

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 bebalf 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

[blocks in formation]

MANSLAUGHTER — keeping fireworks : too remde

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

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, 35

of lead gutters of a shed on a wharf]-Pri. soners 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 pawn. broker'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


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 wbich gewers 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 wbom any sewer is vested to remove any building erected thereon without their consent. Qucre- 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 »