APPENDIX. STATUTES AND PARTS OF STATUTES AFFECTING THE CRIMINAL LAW. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... page i i ... ii xiii xili xiv XV ... xvi ... DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ACT, 1882 (45 Vict. c. 9) xix XX xxii xxiii XXX xxxii ... xxxii xxxiii xliii xlix li lx lx REPORTS OF Criminal Law CasES. NORTH WALES CIRCUIT. CHESTER ASsizes. Thursday, Oct. 27, 1881. (Before Lord Justice LUSH.) REG. v. WILLIAM OSMAN. (a) Murder-Evidence-Dying declarations. Statements made behind the back of the prisoner are not admissible in evidence as dying declarations unless the person making them entertains at the time a settled hopeless expectation of immediate death. Answers in the affirmative to the following questions: "Do you think you are in bodily danger, and in fear of death? "You are not expecting to recover, are you aware that you will die? "Do you fully and clearly understand what I am saying to you?" and the use of the expression "I am sure I am going to die" do not indicate such a state of mind. THE HE prisoner was indicted for the murder of his wife on Friday, the 19th day of August, 1881, at Bredbury, in Cheshire. The deceased left her husband about two and a half years before the night of her death, and they had never cohabited together since. Five months before her death she went on a visit to a friend who kept the Railway Inn, Bredbury, and during that time the prisoner visited her several times. On the night in question the prisoner was at the inn in the company of his wife, with whom he appeared to be on friendly terms, for about an hour and a half, during which time he was heard to tell his wife that he had taken a house for her at Lower Broughton, near (a) Reported by CLEMENT HIGGINS, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. VOL. XV. B REG. CSMA. 11. Evidence tions. Manchester, that he had paid for the furniture in it, and was earning 31. a week. He also obtained a time table, and fixed the train by which his wife was to travel the next day to Manchester, for the purpose of returning home to live with him again. No angry words passed between them. The prisoner and his wife left the Iying declara- kitchen, and walked into the lobby, where they were alone together. A few minutes after, a person in the bar heard the deceased say, "Oh! Will, don't," and a gurgling noise. On going into the lobby the deceased was found lying on the floor in a pool of blood, with her throat cut. The prisoner was not seen again until the 28th day of September following, when he was apprehended at West Bromwich. But for the fact that medical aid was obtained almost immediately after the infliction of the wound, she would, according to the medical evidence, have died within a few hours. The wound in the throat was nine inches long, above the larynx, dividing the gullet, so that, after the wound had been properly dressed, the woman was able to speak in a low tone. medical men who attended deceased were of opinion, from the first, that the case must prove fatal, and so informed her. At 1.30 on Saturday morning, about three hours after the wound had been inflicted, a magistrates' clerk and a county magistrate, who was also a surgeon, attended upon the woman for the purpose of taking her dying declaration, but before doing so the following questions were asked. The Magistrates' clerk.-"Do you think that you are in bodily danger and in fear of death ?” Deceased.-"Yes." Magistrate." You are not expecting to recover, are you aware that you will die ?" Deceased.-"Yes." Magistrate." Do you fully and clearly understand what I am saying to you?" Deceased.-"Yes." The oath was then administered, and a statement, as to who inflicted the wound, was made by the woman, but only in answer to questions put to her. At the time the above statement was made the woman was quite conscious. The statement was read over to her, and she stated that it was correct, and signed it. The medical evidence was to the effect that the woman did not recover from the shock until 10.30 on Sunday night, but that she was in a condition before then to form, and to express an opinion, as to whether she was likely to recover. During the day she asked the medical man if she should get better, and he told her there was no chance of it. She replied, "I should like to get better so that I could have it in for him." During the afternoon she was seized with a fit of coughing, during which she said to her sister, "I am sure I am going to die," and immediately afterwards, in answer to questions by her sister, made statements respecting the infliction of the wound. Clement Higgins, for the prosecution, tendered the statements REG. made by the deceased woman, in the morning to the magistrate, and in the afternoon to her sister, as dying declarations. Swetenham, Q.C., on behalf of the prisoner, objected to their reception. Evidence tions. LUSH, L.J.-The fact that the statement made by the deceased woman in the morning, in answer to questions put by the Dying declaramagistrate, was upon oath, adds no strength to it as a dying declaration. The admission of a dying declaration is a strong exception to the rule of law that statements made behind the back of the prisoner cannot be given in evidence. A dying declaration is admitted in evidence because it is presumed that no person, who is immediately going into the presence of his Maker, will do so with a lie on his lips. But the person making the declaration must entertain a settled hopeless expectation of immediate death. If he thinks he will die to-morrow it will not do. The statements in the present case seem to me deficient in the most essential feature of dying declarations, namely, the fear of immediate death. The words here used amount to nothing more than "I am in great danger, I fear I must die." I find no stage at which the deceased had a settled hopeless expectation of immediate death. Care must be taken that statements are not admitted unless this rule is strictly complied with. Evidence rejected. Verdict Guilty. CROWN CASES RESERVED. Saturday, November 19, 1881. Before Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., FIELD, HAWKINS, STEPHEN, and REG v. O'CONNOR AND BROWN. (a) False pretence-Winning at tossing with coins by fraud and illpractice-8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17-" Game, sport, pastime, or exercise." The prisoners were indicted and convicted under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17, of obtaining by fraud and unlawfal device and ill-practice in playing at a certain game or sport, to wit in and by wagering on the event of a certain game or sport, a watch and other things from the prosecutor. The evidence was that the prosecutor was induced to go to a public-house and drink and toss for wagers with one of the prisoners, and the event was that the prosecutor lost, and the prisoners took away the property stated. (a) Reported by JOHN THOMPSON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. REG. v. O'CONNOR AND 1881. Wager on toss ing for money -Gaming Act, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109, s. 17. Held, that this was a sport, pastime, or exercise, if not a game, within the meaning of sect. 17 of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 109. AT a Court of Quarter Sessions for the Parts of Holland in the county of Lincoln, held by adjournment at Spalding, on the 20th day of October, 1881, Thomas O'Connor and George Brown were charged upon the following indictment: Lincolnshire, Holland, to wit.-The jurors of our Lady the Queen, upon their oath present, that Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, on, &c., by fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice, in playing at a certain game or sport, to wit, in and by wagering on the event of a certain game or sport with one Henry Chambers the younger, whether the said Thomas O'Connor would or would not win a certain wager made or pretended to be made by him with the said George Brown, unlawfully and fraudulently did win from the said Henry Chambers the younger to themselves, the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown certain valuable things, to wit, one silver verge watch, one silver watch chain, one watch key, and one letter seal, of the chattels of the said Henry Chambers the younger, and did then and thereby unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly obtain the said valuable things and chattels from the said Henry Chambers the younger by a false pretence, to wit, by the fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice aforesaid, with intent then to cheat and defraud the said Henry Chambers the younger of the same valuable things and chattels, against the form, &c. 2nd count. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, being persons of evil minds and dispositions, on the seventeenth day of May one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, unlawfully and wickedly did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together by fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice in playing at a certain game or sport, to wit, in and by wagering on the event of a certain game or sport with one Henry Chambers the younger, whether the said Thomas O'Connor would or would not win a certain wager made or pretended to be made by him with the said George Brown, unlawfully and fraudulently to win from the said Henry Chambers the younger, to themselves the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, certain valuable things, to wit, one silver verge watch, one silver watch chain, one watch key, and one letter seal, of the chattels of the said Henry Chambers the younger, with intent to cheat and defraud the said Henry Chambers the younger of the same valuable things and chattels. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present, that the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, in pursuance of and according to the said conspiracy, combination, confederacy, and agreement between them the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown as aforesaid, afterwards, to wit, on the day and year aforesaid, by fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice in playing at a certain game or sport, to wit, in and by wagering on the event of a certain game or sport with one Henry Chambers the younger, whether the said Thomas O'Connor would or would not win a certain wager made or pretended to be made by him with the said George Brown, unlawfully and fraudulently did win from the said Henry Chambers the younger, to themselves the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, certain valuable things, to wit, one silver verge watch, one silver watch chain, one watch key, and one letter seal, of the chattels of the said Henry Chambers the younger, and did then and thereby unlawfully, knowingly, and designedly obtain the said valuable things and chattels from the said Henry Chambers the younger, by a false pretence, to wit, by the fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice aforesaid, with intent then to cheat and defraud the said Henry Chambers the younger of the said valuable things and chattels, against the peace, &c. 3rd count. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, being persons of evil minds and dispositions, on the seventeenth day of May in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one, unlawfully and wickedly did conspire, combine, confederate, and agree together, by fraud, unlawful device, and ill-practice in playing at a certain game or sport, to wit, in and by wagering on the event of a certain game or sport with one Henry Chambers the younger, whether the said Thomas O'Connor would or would not win a certain wager made or pretended to be made by him with the said George Brown, unlawfully and fraudulently to win from the said Henry Chambers the younger, to themselves the said Thomas O'Connor and George Brown, certain valuable things, to wit, one silver verge watch, one silver watch chain, one watch-key, and one letter-seal, of the chattels of the said Henry Chambers the younger, with intent then to cheat and defraud the said Henry Chambers the younger of the same valuable things and chattels, against the peace, &c. |