INDEX. ABDUCTION-Taking Girl under Sixteen out of Possession of her Father-24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 55.] 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 55, enacts that "whosoever shall take an unmarried girl, under the age of sixteen, out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care and charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour." A. met a girl in the street going to school, and induced her to go with him to a town some miles distant, where he seduced her. They returned together, and he left her where he met her. The girl then went to her home, where she lived with her father and mother, having been absent some hours longer than would have been the case if she had not met A. A. made no inquiry, and did not know who the girl was, or whether she had a father or mother living or not, but he had no reason to and did not believe that she was a girl of the town:-Held, that A. was not guilty of having unlawfully taken the girl out of the possession of her father under s. 55 of 24 and 25 Vict. c. 100. THE QUEEN v. HIBBERT PAGE .. 56 An ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION - Manslaughter International Law-Merchant Shipping Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), 8. 267.] The Admiralty jurisdiction of England extends over British vessels, not only when they are sailing on the high seas, but also when they are in the rivers of a foreign territory at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go. All seamen, whatever their nationality, serving on board British vessels, are amenable to the provisions of British law. American citizen, serving on board a British ship, caused the death of another American citizen, serving on board the same ship, under circumstances amounting to manslaughter, the ship at the time being in the river Garonne, within French territory, at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbed and flowed, and great ships went-Held, that the ship was within the Admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at the Central Criminal Court. Quære, as to the effect of the Merchant Shipping Act (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), s. 267 THE QUEEN v. ANDERSON AMUSEMENT: See PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT. 46 ANIMALS FERE NATURE: See LARCENY. ASSAULT: See MISDEMEANOUR. BANKRUPT-Order of Discharge-ProcessOverseer of Poor Poor-Law AuditorProceedings against Overseers-4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76, 8. 99-7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 32.] By 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 32, the poor-law auditor is to certify on every account audited by him any money found to be due from any person, and such person shall pay over such money to the treasurer of the union within seven days, and if it be not so paid, the auditor is to proceed to enforce the payment of the money, which is to be recoverable in the same manner as penalties may be recovered under 4 & 5 Wm. 4, c. 76. By 8. 99 of that act, all penalties inflicted by the act for any offence against the same shall, upon conviction of the offence, be levied by distress and sale of the goods of the offender or person liable by warrant of justices, and, in default of sufficient distress, the justices may commit the offender to prison for any time not exceeding three months unless the penalties be sooner paid. An auditor on the 14th of April certified a balance to be due from the late overseer of a parish, and on the 5th of May laid an information against him for nonpayment. At the hearing on the 10th of May, the overseer proved an order of discharge dated the 11th of May, on an adjudication of bankruptcy dated the 4th of January, and relied on it as a bar to the proceedings:-Held, that the balance was a debt only, and the mode given for enforcing it did not make the nonpayment an offence; and the debt being proveable under the bankruptcy, and therefore barred by the order of discharge, no proceedings could be taken to enforce it. Quære, whether the power of commitment in default of sufficient distress applies to such a case, or only to things which are expressly made "offences." THE QUEEN v. MASTER .. BARGE, RATEABILITY OF FLOATING: See POOR RATE. BENEFICIAL OCCUPATION: See POOR RATE. PAGE 25 CASES: BAUMAN v. VESTRY OF ST. PANCRAS (Law REG. v. CORY (10 Cox, C. C. 23), followed: ST. GEORGE, HANOVER SQUARE, v. SPARROW (16 C. B. (N. S.) 209; 33 L. J. (M. C.), 118), discussed: See METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1862. CLERK OR SERVANT: See EMBEZZLEMENT. COMPENSATION: See RAILWAY COMPANY. CONSENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD: See RAPE. CONTINUOUS TAKING: See LARCENY. CONTRACT IN WRITING: See MASTER AND SERVANT. "DWELLING PLACE OR SHOP": See MARKETS SONATION. EMBEZZLEMENT-" Clerk or Servant "-Treasurer of Friendly Society-24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, 8. 68.] A. was treasurer of a friendly society, whose rules directed that all the moneys of the society should be paid to the treasurer, and that he should make no payments except on an order signed by the secretary, and countersigned by the chairman or a trustee, and that he should give security. By another rule, all the moneys of the society were vested in trustees. A. was a member of the society, but received no payment for filling the office of treasurer. Held, on an indictment against A. as clerk and servant of the trustees of the society, for embezzling money which he had received as treasurer, that A. was not the "clerk or servant" of the trustees within 8. 68 of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96. FACTORY MEANING OF WORD: See FACTORY ACTS, 1867. FACTORY ACTS, 1867 (30 & 31 VICT. o. 103), 66 8. 3, SUBS. 5, 7-" Factory"-" Making of an Article."] By 30 & 31 Vict. c. 103, s. 3, factory" shall mean . . . . . 5, "any premises in which steam, water, or other mechanical power is used for moving machinery employed. . . (b) in the manufacture of any article of metal not being machinery." A company carried on very large works, comprising the business of blast furnaces, iron rolling mills, engine building, and iron ship-building, in all its branches. The whole of the several branches communicated, and were open from one end to the other, and were within one common boundary. A boy was employed as a rivet-boy, and in the department where he worked steam machinery was in use for cutting and shaping iron PAGE 53 plates, and rivets were heated there; both the plates and rivets were used in the manufacture of a ship. The company having been convicted of having employed the boy in a "factory" bevond the statutable number of hours:-Held, that the department in which the boy was employed was a "factory" within the above definition; and that the conviction was therefore right. Semble, that a ship is not "an article within the meaning of s. 3, subs. 7, which defines 66 factory as any premises in which fifty or more persons are employed in any manufacturing process," "manufacturing process" being defined as "any manual labour incidental to the making of any article or part of an article." PALMER'S SHIPBUILDING, &C. COMPANY, v. CHAYTOR .. FALSE PRETENCES: See LARCENY. FRAUD, CONSENT OBTAINED BY: See RAPE. GAS: See LARCENY. GENERAL DISTRICT RATES: See LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1858. GENERAL LINE OF BUILDINGS: See METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT Аст, 1862. GUARDIAN OF POOR, ELECTION OF: See PER SONATION. INDICTMENT: See MISDEMEANOUR. INFORMATION UNDER 30 & 31 VICT. c. 141, FORM OF: See MASTER AND SERVANT. INTERNATIONAL LAW: See ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION: See NUISANCES REMOVAL ACT, 1855. JURISDICTION, ADMIRALTY: See ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE: See METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1862. LANDS CLAUSES ACT, 1845.-See RAILWAY COMPANY. LARCENY-Animals feræ Naturæ-Young Partridges reared under a common Hen.] Partridges, hatched and reared by a common hen, while they remain with her, and from their inability to escape, are practically under the dominion and in the power of the owner of the hen, may be the subject of larceny, though the hen is not confined in a coop or otherwise, but allowed to wander with her brood about the premises of her owner. Reg. v. Cory (10 Cox, C. C. 23), followed LARCENY-Continuous Tuking · -Abstraction of Gas.] A. stole gas for the use of a manufactory by means of a pipe which drew off PAGE 23 45 the gas from the main without allowing it to pass through the meter. The gas from this pipe was burnt every day, and turned off at night. The pipe was never closed at its junction with the main, and consequently always remained full of gas:Held, that as the pipe always remained full, there was, in fact, a continuous taking of the gas, and not a series of separate takings; but Held, further, that, even if the pipe had not been thus kept full, the taking would have been continuous, as it was substantially all one transaction. THE QUEEN v. FIRTH. LARCENY-False Pretences-Master and Servant-Effect of Distinction between General and Limited Authority of Servant.] Where a servant is entrusted with his master's property with a general authority to act for his master in his business, and is induced by fraud to part with his master's property, the person who is guilty of the fraud and so obtains the property, is guilty of obtaining it by false pretences, and not of larceny, because to constitute larceny there must be a taking against the will of the owner, or of the owner's servant duly authorized to act generally for the owner. But where a servant has no such general authority from his master, but is merely entrusted with the possession of his goods for a special purpose, and is tricked out of that possession by fraud, the person who is guilty of the fraud and so obtains the property is guilty of larceny, because the servant has no authority to part with the property in the goods except to fulfil the special purpose for which they were entrusted to him. The cashier of a bank is a servant having a general authority to conduct the business of the bank, and to part with its property on the presentation of a genuine order from a customer; and if he is deceived by a forged order, and parts with the money of the bank, he parts, intending so to do, with the property in the money, and the person knowingly presenting such forged order is guilty of obtaining the money by false pretences, and not of larceny. THE QUEEN V. PRINCE .. LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1858 (21 & 21 VICT. c. 98), ss. 55, 56-General District Rates-Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 25 & 26 Vict. c. 103, s. 28.] By s. 55 of the Local Government Act, 1858, the general district rates shall be assessed upon the full net annual value of all property assessable to the poor-rate ascertained by the poor-rate made next before the making of the assessment; by s. 56, if there is no such assessment for the relief of the poor, or if such assessment is, in the judgment of the local board, an unfit criterion for making a general district rate, the local board may have a valuation made by which the value of the property shall be ascertained. By the Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862, s. 28, in every parish where a valuation list has been approved and delivered to the overseers, no poor-rate, or other rate which by law is required to be based on the poorrate, shall be of any force, unless the property rated in it be rated according to the PAGE 51 42 66 value appearing on such valuation list :Held, that general district rates were not required" to be based on the poor-rate by reason of the option given to the local board by s. 56 of the former act; and, therefore, that they were not within s. 28 of the latter act, but might still be based on a valuation made by order of the local board, if in their judgment the poor-law valuation list was an unfit criterion for making them. NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY Co. v. THE LOCAL BOARD OF SCARBOROUGH .. LOSS OF TRADE PROFITS, COMPENSATION FOR : See RAILWAY COMPANY. MAINTENANCE, EXPENCES OF: See POOR. MALICIOUSLY WOUNDING: See MISDEMEANOUR. MANSLAUGHTER: See ADMIRALTY JURISDIC TION. MARKETS AND FAIRS CLAUSES ACT, 1847 (10 VICT. C. 14, s. 13-Exposing Goods for Sale-"Dwelling Place or Shop."] By s. 13 of the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847, after the market-place is opened for public use, every person, other than a licensed hawker, who shall sell, or expose for sale, in any place within the prescribed limits, except in his own dwelling place or shop, any articles in respect of which tolls are authorized to be taken in the market, is made liable to a penalty not exceeding 408. The appellant was the tenant of a dwelling-house and shop, and a piece of ground in front of the shop, in the town of B.; there was a wooden shed affixed to the house, and supported on wooden posts, which had been erected over the piece of ground for eighteen years; and previous to the erection of the shed stone flags had been built into, and formed part of, the house, which projected three feet from the house and these flags helped to support the wooden shed. The appellant, after a market had been opened for the town, exposed potatoes and other vegetables for sale outside his house and shop, upon the piece of ground and beneath the wooden shed, and was convicted by justices on an information charging that he had contravened the above section. On a case stating the above facts:-Held, by Cockburn, C.J,, and Lush and Hayes, JJ. (Mellor, J., dissenting), that the facts shewed that the shed was part of the appellant's dwelling place or shop, and the justices were wrong in convicting him. ASHWORTH V. HEYWORTH MASTER AND SERVANT: See LARCENY. MASTER AND SERVANT-30 & 31 VICT. c. 141, 8. 9-Information-Order of Justices-Contract in Writing.] An information by a master under the Master and Servant Act, 1867, claimed a fulfilment of the contract but not payment of damages in the altertive:-Held, that it was not invalid to sustain an order for fulfilment. The justices on the above information ordered that the servant should fulfil the contract, and they adjudged that if, upon a copy of a minute PAGE of the order being served on him, he should neglect or refuse to comply with the same, he should, for such his disobedience, be imprisoned for one calendar month:-Held, that if the justices had not jurisdiction to imprison the servant, except on a fresh summons after he had disobeyed the order, the latter part of the order might be rejected as surplusage, and the order itself was still good. A., being in want of workmen, applied to the Free Labour Registration Society, and filled up and signed a form sent by them to him, containing the particulars of the employment and terms offered by him, and his address at S. This form was read over to B. by the secretary of the society, and B. then signed an agreement headed "Free Labour Society," by which he stated that he had accepted employment at S., and agreed that one half-day's wages, "being the fee to the society for obtaining him the employment," should be deducted from his wages, and that he would not quit" the service of his employer" without just clause:-Held, that the documents sufficiently referred to one another, and so constituted a contract in writing signed by both parties. CRANE v. POWELL.. MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1854, s. 267: See ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1862-25 & 26 VICT. c. 102, s. 75—“ General Line of Buildings "Jurisdiction of Magistrate. H. erected a building beyond a line which was subsequently decided by the superintending architect to the Metropolitan Board of Works to be the general line of buildings of the row of houses in which the same was situated. The superintending architect had not decided what was the general line of buildings for that row of houses previously to the date when H. erected his building. A complaint having been made by the District Board of Works before a magistrate, under 25 & 26 Vict. c. 102, s. 75. the magistrate was of opinion that the line determined by the architect was, in fact, the "general line of buildings at the time that H. built:-Held, that H. had committed a breach of the statute (25 & 26 Vict. c. 102), and that the magistrate had jurisdiction to order the building to be pulled down. PAGE St. George, Hanover Square, v. Sparrow (16 C. B. (N.S.) 209; 33 L. J. (M.C.) 118), and Bauman v. Vestry of St. Pancras (Law Rep. 2 Q. B. 528), discussed. BOARD OF WORKS FOR WANDSWORTH v. HALL MISDEMEANOUR-Prior Conviction of Felony not alleged in Indictment-Period of Penal Servitude-27 & 28 Vict. c. 47, s. 2.] 27 & 28 Vict. c. 47, s. 2, enacts, that when any person shall, on indictment, be convicted of any crime punishable with penal servitude, after having been previously convicted of felony, the least sentence of penal servitude that can be awarded shall be a period of seven years. A. was convicted of the misdemeanour of having done grievous bodily harm to B. The indictment did 38 35 not charge a previous conviction of felony; but after the jury had found A. guilty, it was proved on oath that A. had been previously convicted of felony, but no record or certificate of such conviction was produced. A. was sentenced to penal servitude for five years, as for a misdemeanour only, without any previous conviction of felony :- -Held, that the sentence was correct. THE QUEEN v. SUMMERS.. NOTICE OF OBJECTION: See POOR RATE. -- TO FOUND JURISDICTION: See Nг1SANCES REMOVAL ACT, 1855. NUISANCES REMOVAL ACT, 1863 (26 & 27 VICT. c. 117), ss. 2, 3-Carcases deposited in any "place" for the purpose of being prepared for Sale as Food of Man.] By the Nuisances Removal Act, 1863, s. 2, the inspector of nuisances may at all reasonable times inspect "any animal, carcase, &c., exposed for sale, or deposited in any place for the purpose of sale, or of preparation for sale, and intended for the food of man," and if it appear to a justice that it is unfit for food, he may order it to be destroyed; and the person in whose possession or on whose premises the carcase was found, is liable to a fine of 20%., or to be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three months, at the discretion of the justice; by s. 3, if any person prevent the inspector "from entering any slaughterhouse, shop, building, market, or other place," where such carcase, &c., is kept for sale or preparation for sale, he is liable to a penalty of 51. Two carcases of cows, unfit for food, were found in a yard at the back of a butcher's house, there being a slaughter-house on one side of the yard: -Held, that the yard was a place within the meaning of the Act. VICT. C. 121), ss, 10, 11, 12, SCH. FORM (C.) -Notices necessary to found Jurisdiction under 8. 12-Sanitary Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict. c. 90), s. 21.] When a nuisance has been ascertained by the local authority to exist on private premises, and a notice has been served under the Sanitary Act, 1866, 8. 21, it is not necessary, in order to found proceedings before justices for the abatement, under s. 12 of the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855, that a notice should have been served under s, 11 and Sch. Form. (C.) of the latter act. AMYS v. CREED PAGE 55 22 17 OCCUPATION: See POOR RATE. PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS- Union Assessment Committee Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 103), ss. 14, 20, 25.] New houses completely |