ST 119 & 1:^ S ONS, ^DON, W.C. The Anni sxuw. Justice C tlic Ceiiti I'ricc '2\.i "A book wliicli Pollock's : thf Pint ]5art., U; cV-c. J),) Pollock's Obligutic is added BySIR 1 8fo. ISl Pollock's the (;.n? Juft/i JM M'.A., LI Edmunds Patent fc Conventi Foreign and Colou EENTON, Esqrs. " AVe have nothing but cc it is well and thoroughly oa .... The book is one to b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY C I. C Comltit. I by Thomas 'lerk of the Ilnii. Mr. F. A. STKIXGER, of ■/.?. Demi/ Hvo. 1890. y lieview. -Incorporatinf^ 'EIUCK rOLLOl 'K, I "The Law of Torts," J Principles of :ond Editiou, to which jrovemment of India. •rister-at-Law. JJemy 1 Treatise on 1 the Law of Enj^land. K POLLOCK, Bart., 8s. doth. ice of Letters 1 and the International kts, and an Outline of •S, assisted by A. WOOD 890. Price \L\-2s. cloth. and comprehensive spirit, law is accurate and clear. 390. r Registration, Sebastian's La-^ and matters coimected therewith, including a Chapter on Goodwill. Together with the Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Acts, 1883-8, and the Trade Marks Rules and Instructions thereunder, Foi-ms and Precedents; the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and other Statutory eiiactiiieiits ; and the Ignited States Statutes, 1870 to 18S1, and the Rules and Forms tlienuiider, and llie Treaty with the United States, 1877. Third Hdition. By LEWIS BOYD SEBASTIAN, B.C.L., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Ban-ister-at-Law. J)etn;i 8io. 1890. Price II. S-f. clo/h. " The work i^tands alone a.s an authority upon the law of trade marks and their registration." — Laiv .Tnurnnl, .\nu-ust •>. IWm. Eoscoe's Criminal Law. — A I)ip:cst of tlic T^aw of Evidence in Criminal Ca.ses. KIrmilh Edit. By HORACE SMITH and (JILBERT GEORGE KENNEDY, Esqrs., Metropolitan Police Magistrates. JJciti}/ ^vo. 1890. Price \l. 11. S-. (V/. cloth. "■\Vlii!t Itosciif s.iys, iriost judfres will accept without question." — T.nv Times. Brooke's Notary. — A Trciatise on tlie ( )fHce and Practice of a Notary r,f England. With a full Collection of Precedents. /'(/''''' ^''Z''- Bv GEORGE F. CIIA.MBEKS, Esq., Barri.ster-nt-Law. Jh>,n/ Hn/. 1890. Price 1/. l.v. cloth. Smith's Compendium of Mercantile Law. — Tenth Edition. Ijv JOHN MACDONELL, Ewj., one of the Masters of the Supremo Court, assisted Ly GEO. HU:\II'IIREYS, Esq., Barrister -at-Law. 2 Vols. Uoyal Sro. 1890. Price 21. 2s. cloth. " Of the greatest value to the mercantile lawyer." — Lnw Timex, March 22, IWO. Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing. — With Disserta- tions on its Law and Practice. Ffixrtrotth Edition. By FREDERICK PRIDEAUX, late Professor of the Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and JOHN WHITCOMBE, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 2 Vols. Poyal %vo. 1889. Price :M. \0s. cloth. o " The most useful work out on Conveyancing." — Latv Journal. I* A Cdltiloi/uc of 2\ew Law Works (1890j post free on application. n STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. -M Pitt-Lewis' Complete Practice of the County Courts, including that in Admiralty and bankruptcy, emhodyinf; tlic County Courts Act, 188S, and other existing Acts, Rules, Forms, and Costs, with Full Alj)liabotical Index to (_)thcial FoiTas, Additional Forms, and General Index. Fuurth Eihtion. By (i. PITT-LEWIS, Esq., Q.C , M.P., Recorder of Poole. 2 \'ols. Ut/ni/ Sro. 1890. Price 21. lOs. cloth. *»* The J'o/ioncs sold .separa/cli/, price, each, 'iOs. " The Standard County Court Practice " — Solicitors^ Journul. Chitty's Index to all the Reported Cases decided in the - several Courts of Eqtiity in England, tlie Privy Council, and the House of Lords, with a Selection of Irish Cases on c>r relating to the Principles, Pleading and Practice of Equity and Bankruptcy from the Earliest Period. Juiurth l-'.dition. Wholly Revised, Re-classified, and brought down to the end of 1883. By HENRY EDWARD HIRST, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Complete i?i 9 J 'ols. Jiot/alHvo. 1883-89. I'rice 121. I2s. cloth. *j^* T/ic Volumes iiiai/ be hnd separately to complete Sets. "The work is thoroughly well done." — Law Quarterly Jtevieic. Fisher's Digest of the Reported Decisions of the Courts of Common Law, Bankruptcy, Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce, togetlier with a selec- tion from those of the Court of Chancery and Irish Courts. From I75() to 1883 inclusive. Founded on Fisher's Digest. By JOHN MEWS, Assi-sted by C. M. CHAPMAN, HARRY H. W. SPARHAM, and A. H. TODD, Barristers- at-Law. In 1 Vols. EoyalSvo. 1884. J'rice 121. I2s. cloth. Mew's Consolidated Digest of all the Reports in all the Courts for the Years 1884-88 inclusive. By JOHN MEWS, Barrister-at-Law. EoyalSvo. 1889. Frice 11. Us. 6d. cloth. The Annual Digest for 1889. By John Mews, Banister-at- Law. Foyal Sro. Price 15s. cloth. *^* The above two vorks bring Fisher^s Common Law and Chitty''s Equity Bigests dozen to the end q/1889. Dale and Lehmann's Digest of Cases Overruled, Not Followed, Disapproved, Approved, Distinguished, Commented on, and Specially Considered in the English Courts, from the year 1756 to 1886 inclusive, arranged according to Alphabetical Order of their Subjects ; together with Extracts from the Judgments delivered thereon, and a Complete Index of the Cases, in which are included all Cases Reversed, from the year 1856. By C. W. M. DALE, M. A., LL.B., and R. C. LEHMAXN, M.A., assisted by C. H. L. NEI8H, M.A., and H. H. CHILD, B.A., Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Foyal 8vo. 1887. I'rice 21. 10s. cloth. *jf* Forms a Supplement to " Chitty\i Equity Index,'''' and Fisher''s Common law Pigcst. Tluring's Joint Stock Companies' Law. — The Law and I'ractice of Joint Stock and other Companies, including the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1886, with Notes, Orders, and Rules in Chancery, a Collection of Precedents of Memoranda and Articles of Association, and other Forms required in Making and Administering a Company. By Lord THRING, K.C.B. Fifth Edition. By J. M. RENDEL, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Foyal Svo. 1889. Price 11. 10s. cloth. " The highest authority on the subject."— TAe Times. Palmer's Company Precedents. — Conveyancing and other Forms and Precedents for use in relation to Companies subject to the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1883. Arranged as follows: — Promoters, Prospectuses, Agreements, Memoranda and Articles of Association, Resolutions, Notices, Certiticate \ Private Companies, Power of Attorney, Debentures and Debenture Stock, Policies, Petitions, Writs, Statements of Claim, Judgments and Orders, Reconstruction, Amalgamation, Arrangements, Special Acts, Winding-up. With Copious Notes and an A])])Pndix containing the Acts and Rules. Fourth Edition. By FRANCIS BEAUFORT PALMER, assisted by CHARLES MACNAGHTEN, Esqrs., Banisters-at-Law. Foyal Svo. 1888. Price '.Us. cloth. "In company drafting it stands unrivalled." — Law Times. Street's Public Statutory Undertakings. — Tlie Law relating to Public Statutory Undertakings : comprising Railway Companies, Water, Gas, and Canal Companies, Harbours, Docks, and Piers, with special reference to Modem Decisions. By JOHN B. STREET, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1890. Price 10s. 6d. cloth. Stringer's Oaths and Afiirmations in Great Britain and Ireland ; being a Collect'on of Statutes, Cases, and Fonns, with Notes and Practical Directions for the use of Commissioners for Oaths, and of all Courts of Civil Proce- dure and Offices attached thereto. [In succession to "Braithwaite's Oaths."] By FRANCIS A. STRINGER, of the Central Office, Supreme Court of Judicature, one of the Editors of the " Annual I'ractice." Croivn Svo. 1890. Price ^s. dd. cloth. r^ "Indispensable to all Commissioners." — Solicitors' Journal. "^lA *;»*■ All St'tndard Law Works are kept in stock, in law calf and other binding*. c J-^"^ A SELECTION OF LEADING CASES IN THE CRIMINAL LAW. i WM mta WALTER S. SHIRLEY, B.C.L., M.A. I" BAKRISTEE-AT-LAW, OF THE INNER TEMPLE AND NORTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT ; ADTIIOR OF " A SELECTION OF LEADING CASES IN THE COMMON LAW," " A SKETCH OF THE CRIMINAL LAW, " AN ELEMENTARY TREATISE ON MAGISTERIAL LAW," ETC., AND EDITOR OF "WIGRAM's justice's NOTE-BOOK." LONDON : STEVENS AND SONS, 119, CIIANCEET LANE, 1888 Av X i-.^*M^ '' ./s_. ^. v^ .7> L/^^kUk LONDON : PRtNTED BY C. F. EOWOETII, GREAT NEW STREET, FETTER LANE, E.C. T PREFACE. This is, I believe, the first collection of Leading Cases in the Criminal Law which has ever been published ; but it is difficult to see why such a collection should not be as useful in that as in any other branch of the law. At all events, I do not doubt that the book will be found useful — possibly, even entertaining — to students and young prac- titioners, and it is to their attention principally that I commend it. I have to thank my learned friend, Mr. H. Warburton, of the South Eastern Circuit, for the kind assistance in the way of suggestion and advice which he has given me during the whole time of the preparation of the work for the press. The value of such a collection as this must largely depend on the selection of tlie right cases for " leader- ship," and" it is here that Mr. Warburton's extensive and practical acquaintance with the Criminal Law has been of most service. My thanks are also due to my learned friends, Mr. C. M. Atkinson and Mr. II. T. Waddy, for occasional help. W. S. S. 4, Essex Couet, Temple. March, 1888. rt2 7559 'r? LIST OF LEADING CASES. Allen, R. v. (bigamy — invalidity of second marriage) AsHWELL, R. V. (sovereign mistaken for shilling) AuDLEY, R. V. LoED (trial of peers of the realm) PAGE 17 G7 119 Beatty v. Gillbanks (imlawful assemblies) ...... 4 Bedingfield, R. 1'. (exclamations as part of ?w yf.sic©) . . . 110 Bennett, R. v. (indecent assault by communicating disease) . . 57 Bishop, R. v. (lunatics) 24 Beadlaitgh and Besant, R. v. (setting out material passages in indictment) .......... 123 Beown and Hedley, R. v. (character of witnesses) . . . . 113 Beown, R. v. (concealment of birth) ...... 30 Beown, R. v. Samuel (attempt to murder) 48 Beyan, R. v. (puffing not indictable) ...... 86 BucKMASTEE, R. V. (larceny by trick) 63 BuEGESS, R. V. (compounding crimes) ...... 14 Caetee, R. v. ("other property stolen") Casteo, R. v. (the counts of an indictment) Child, R. v. (arson) ..... CoLEY, R. V. (embezzlement by assistant overseer) Collins, R. v. (attempt to steal) Coney, R. v. (presence at prize fight) CooPEE, R. V. (existing fact in false pretences) Ceunden, R. v. (public indecency) . Ceuse, R. v. (drunkenness as an excuse for crime) CuMPTON, R. V. (arrest) CuEQENVEN, R. V. (bigamy — seven years' rule) 77 125 96 81 74 7 82 33 99 115 15 LIST OF LEADING CASES. Ue Banks, H. r. (pcrsou employed to sell appropriating riionoy reeeivcd) .......... Deedoe, R. v. {corpKs (hlicti) . Dudley and Stephens, R. v. (homicide — necessity) .... Duncan, R. v. (ucw trial) Edwaeds, R. v. (value of property stolen) EL-\voETinr, R. v. (notice to produce) PAOE 71 60 37 131 58 111 Falkingham, R. v. (abandoning baby) . Fennell, R. v. (confessions under inducements) FisnEE, R. V. (homicide — provocation) Fisher, R. v. WillijVM (damage to property) . Flattery, R. v. (rape— consent and submission) Francis, R. v. (previous false pretences) . 29 106 43 97 54 92 Gallaghee, R. v. (treason felony) . . . . . Gibson, R. v. (effect of misreception of evidence) Glyde, R. v. (larceny by finding) GoLDSJiiTiT, R. V. (defect in indictment ciu'cd by verdict). 1 113 09 122 Hadfield, R. v. (obstructing trains) Hands, R. v. (stealing from automatons) Hennah, R. v. (administering "noxious tilings") Hermann, R. v. (uttering counterfeit coin) HoPLET, R. V. (homicide by correction) . Hughes, R. v. (perjury — competent jurisdiction) Hughes, R. v. (burglary) .... 25 G2 53 17 42 9 95 Jenkins, R. v. (dying declarations) . Jennison, R. v. (promissory false pretences) Johnson, R. v. (stealing children under foui'tccn) 108 84 28 Keyn, 'R. v. (Admiralty jurisdiction) KiLnAM, R. V. (hiring a horse by false pretences) 116 91 Latimee, R. v. (wounding) Letman v. Latuiee (effect of endurance of punishment) . LoED I\LvY0E OF London, R. v. (wives prosecuting husbands) 51 128 129 LIST OF LEADING CASES. vu McDonald, R. r. (infant may bo guilty of larceny by b;i McGeath, R. v. (extortion by frightoning) Manning, R. v. (conspiracy must bo of two) Martin, R. v. (remoteness in false pretences) Maetin, R. v. Edwin (grievous bodily harm) Maetin, R. v. Robeet (forgery) Middleton, R. v. (mistake of post office clerk) Mills, R. r. (prosecutor not deceived by false pretence] MOEBY, R. V. (homicide — neglect of duty) Most, R. v. (consjiiracy to miu'der) . Ice^ Co 22 89 TjO 94 68 88 4G 49 Nayloe, R. v. (intent to defraud in false pretences) Negus, R. v. (embezzlement — •" clerk or servant ") . 85 79 O'Beien, R. v. {autrefois acquit) Oeman, R. v. (conspiracy — elasticity) Oeton, R. v. (prize-fighting) .... Owen, R. v. (children as criminals) . OxTOED, R. r. (insanity as an excuse for crime) 119 20 G 102 101 Fetch, R. v. (stealing wild animals) PoYNTON, R. V. ("asportation" in larceny) Peince, R. v. (abduction of girls under sixteen) Pym, R. t\ (homicide — real cause of death) 59 01 20 39 Ransfoed, R. r. (attempt to incite) . Redman, R. r. (threatening to accuse) Rice and Walton, R. r. (keeping disorderly house) Riley, R. r. (character of prosecutrix in rape case) Ritson, R. f. ("recent possession") RoBSON, R. V. (stealing from co-partners) 114 GO 35 50 70 73 Salmon, R. r. (homicide — negligence) 45 Sandoval, R. v. (foreign enlistment) 2 Schmidt, R. v. (receiving stolen goods) 75 Seen£ and Goldfinch, R. v. (homicide — " constriictive miu-der ") . 40 Stainee, R. r. (embezzling funds of unregistered friendly society) . 81 Stephenson, R. v. (burning dead bodies) ..... 32 Stubbs, R. v. (accomplices) ........ 98 Sutton, R. v. (armed poaching by night) 8 viii LIST OF LEADING CASES. PAOE TnoMAS, R. V. (concealing treasure trove) ... . 19 TiTLEY, R. V. (trap for chemist— police ingenuity) .... 54 ToRPEY, R. V. (coercion by husband) 104 Tyson, R. v. (perjury — materiality) 12 ViLMONT V. Bextley (restoration of property) 93 Wellinqs, R. i\ (witnesses unable to travel) 106 Wells v. Abeahams (torts and felonies) 132 Welton, R. v. (amendment of indictment) 120 Wynn, R. v. (larceny by bailee) 70 LIST OF CASES REFERRED TO. ,-R.r. . PAGE 18 Carey, R. v. PAGE . 110 Care, R. r. . 118 Adams, H. v 64 Central Criminal Couet, Christopher, R. v. . R. V. 94 . 70 AlCKXES, R. V. . 112 Chapman, R. v. 11, 110 Allex, E. f. . 117 Cheeseman, R. r. . 75 Anderson-, E. v. 117 Cheeey, R. f. . . 02 Appleby v. Feanexin 133 Claek, R. v. . 31, 35, c )7, 58, 103 Aedley, R. v. . 87 Cleaey, R. v. . . 109 ASPINALL, H. V, 122 Clewes, R. v. . . 107 Atkinson, R. v. 8 Cliffoed v. Brandon . 20 CoDD V. Cabe . Cohen, R. v. . 116 . 104 Bailey, R. v. . . . 80, 107 Coles, R. r. . 11 Baillie, R. I' 27 COLMEE, R. V. . . 32 Ball, Ex paete 132 CONOLLY, R. V. . . 105 Baeford, Ex paete 27 Cook i\ Cox . 124 Baeker, H. v. . 112 COULSON, R. V. . . 84 Barnard, R. i\ B.ARRETT, R. V. . 83 29 Cox, R. v. Ceabb, R. r. . 139 . 87 Barrow, R. v. . 54 Ceacknell, R. u. . GO Barton, H. v. , 102 Ceamp, R. v. . 53 Bennett, R. v. 17 Ceonmiee, H. v. . 130 Beeeiman, R. v. 32 Ceuse, R. v. . 105 Beeteand, R. r. 131 Cuddington r. Wilkins . 128 BlLLINGHAW, R. V. 7 Cttetis. R. r. . . 48 BlEKETT, R. V. . 99 Blades v. Hiqgs o9 Dammaeee, R. v. . 2 Booth, R. v. 27 Davis, U. v. . . 3E , 101, 102 BOTTLTON, R. V. . BOWEES, R. V. . 92 80 Deasy, R. v. Dlllet, U. v. . . 140 . 138 Beadshaw, R. v. Beittleton, R. v. 45 130 Dillon v. O'Beien . DiPEOSE, R. V. . . 138 . 80 Beown v. Woodman 112 Dixon, R. r. . 105 Beyan, R. r. Buchanan v. Haedy 90 24 Doheety, R. r. . 4C DoLAN, R. t;. . , 100, 137 . 76 Bttens, R. v. 137 Donnally, R. v. . 05 Bueton, R. v. . 00, 91 DoODY, R. r. . 100 Butt, R. v. S. 131 Dovaston r. Payne . . 6 LIST OF CASES REFERRED TO. PAGE paoe Dowses, R. r. . . 47 Hancock, R. r. . 76 Draoe, R. v. . . 78 Haedy, R. v. . . 20 DuoDAXE, R. r. . 1-25 Harris, R. r. . . 97 Dunn, R. v. . . 94 Haevey, R. t'. . . 04 Dykes, R. v. . 105 Hassall, R. r. . . 72 Hayw^uid, R. v. . 109 Eldeesiiaw, R. v. . 104 Hazelton, R. f . . 83 Ellicombe, R. v. . 112 Heatox, R. v. . . 16 Evans, R. v. . . 40 Hegaety v. Shine . . 57 Fannino, R. v. . 17 Henkees, R. v. . 28 Feist, R. r. . . 33 Heymann v. The Queen . . 123 Feeens v. O'Brien . . 58 HiBBEET, H. V. . . 26 Feequson, R. v. . 127 Hickman, R. r. . 65 Feeeees, R. r. . 101 Hillman, R. y. . oi FiNKELSTEIN AND TeUSCOVITCII, HODGKISS, R. V. . 11 R. V . 136 Holland, It. r. . 39 Flo WEES, R. r. . 67 HoLLis, R. r. . . 69 FOSTEE, R. f. . 87, 110 Holmes, R. v. . 57, 139 FOITLKES, R. r. . . 80 Holt, R. v. . . . . 93 FOWLEE, R. V. . . 131 Homer v. Cadman 5 Feet-well, R. r. . 52 Hope v. Evered . 37 Feost, R. v. . . 2 Horsey, R. v. . . 42 Howell, R. r. . . 21 Galliaed v. Laxton . . 116 Howes, R. v. . . 107 Gaednee, R. f . 06, 90 Hubbard, R. f . . 109 Gaevey, R. r. . . 138 Hughes, R. v. . . 80 Gavin, R. r. . 107 Hunt, R. r. 52, 82 Geeeixo, R. v. . . 93 Ingram, R. v. . . 105 Gibbon, R. f . . . 13 Giles, R. v. . 85 Jackson, R. v. . . 83 Gilham, R. v. . . 107 James, R. v. . 121 GiLJIOEE, R. V. . 120 Jernot, R. v. . . 117 GODDAED, H. V. . 110 Jessop, R. v. . 50 Geay, R. v. . 93 Johnston, R. r. . 138 Geeathead, R. v. . 90 Jones, li. v. 16, 78, 88 Geeep, R. v. . . 12 Jones v. Dowle . 28 Geegoey, R. r. 115, 127 JuBY, R. r. . 137 Geey, R. v. . 35 Geice, R. v. . . 9 Kay, R. v. . 17 Geiffin, R. r. . . 43 Keir v. Leeman . 14 Geiffiths and Williams, R. V. 134 Keneick, R. v. . . 22 GUMBLE, R. r. . . 121 Kerr, R. v. . 107 Gunnell, R. v. . 136 Kingston, R. r. . 107 KlNNERSLEY, R. V. . . 23 ILVDFIELD, R. V. . 13 KlRKHAM, R. r. . 45 Hall, R. v . . 81 KiTSON, It. V. . . 112 Hammond, R. v. . 104 1 Knewland, R. f . . 65 LIST OF CASES REFEBRKD TO. PAGE FAGB L^VBOTTCITERE, R. r. . . 139 O'CONNELL V. TnE QUEEN . 23 Lamb, R. v. . 70 Olifieb, H. V. . . 27 Laexeb, R. v. . . 90 Oliver, R. v. . . 61 Lee, R. f . . 85 OSBOENE V. GiLLETT . . i:i6 Lemon v. Simmons . 130 OSBOENE ('. MilMAN . , 136 Lewis, R. v. . 48 Lloyd, R. r. 11, 109 Packer, R. r. . . 28 Lock, R. v. . 56 Page, R. y. . 18 Loedsmere, R. v. Ixiiabi TANTS Parnell, H. v. . . 20 OF . . 135 Peel, R. v. . 109 Lord Mayor of London, I I. V. . 136 Pembliton, H. v. . 52 LovELL, R. r. . . Go Perkins, R. r. . 7, 109 LUMLEY, R. r. . . 16 Peters, R. v. . . 134 Lynn, R. r. . 58 Phillips, R. v. . 115 Philpotts, R. v. . 13 Pierce, R. r. . . 137 Macdaniel, R. r. . 40 Pike, R. v. . 109 McIntyee, R. r. . 39 Pitts, R. v. . 40 McXaugiiten, R. r. . . 102 Pope, 'R. v. . 70 McPherson, R. ?•. . 74 Porter, R. v. . 24, 25 Maddy', R. v. . . 44 Powell v. Hoyland . . 64 Malloey, R. v. . 139 Price, R. v. 32, 105 Mankleton, R. !'. . 27 Pywell, H. v. . . 22 Manning, R. v. . 105 Martin and "Webb, R. r. . 131 Randell, R. r. . . 84 Mead, R. v. . 109 Regan, R. v. . 137 Meeey, R. v. . 9 Reiglehuth, R. v. . . 137 Mlllee, B,. v. . . 28 Richards, R. v. 66, 107 MOCKFOED, R. r. . 61 Richardson, R. r. . . 93 MONKHOTJSE, R. r. . 100 Robins, R. v. . . 27 MooN, R. V. . 112 Robinson, R. v. 66, 127 MooEE, R. t\ . . r •, 100, 107 Robinson v. Robinson . 23 MOEEIS, R. V. . 58, 105 RoBSON, R. r. . 64, 73 MoYCE V. Newington . 94 Roe, R. v. . 60 MUILANY, R. V. . 13 Roebuck, R. v. . 88 Murphy, R. v. . J, 127, 131 Roope v. D'Avigdor. . 133 Murray, H. v. . : 13 Rose, H. v. . 38 Mueton, R. f. . . 40 RosiNSKi, TR,. V. . . 56 Rothwell, R. v. . 44 R0WL7vNDS, R. V. . 22 Nash, H. v. . 41 ROWTON, R. V. . . 113 Nattrass, R. «-. . 96 RUNDLE, R. r. . . 24 Neai, R. v. . 99 Rust, R. r. . 95 Neville, H.v.. . 121 NiCHOLLS, R. V. 23,47 Sachevebell, R. r. . . 124 NOAKES, R. tJ. . . 99 St. George, R. r. . 48 Norton, R. r. . . 135 Saunders, R. v. . 35 LIST OF CASES REFERRED TO. PAGE 1 PAOB ScAiFE, R. r 131 1 Turner, R. v . . . 22 Sedley, R. v. . . 34 Tyree, R. 1'. . . 80 SnARPE, R. v. . 33, 58 Vann, R. v. . 33 Shepherd, R. v. . 48 Vincent, R. v. . . 5 Shtjimin, R. v. . . 140 Shtjemer, R. v. . 13G "Walker, R. v. . . 106 Sinclair, R. v. . . 57 Walne, R. f . . . 83 Sleep, R. v. . 31 Walsh, H. v. . 62, 64 Smith, R. v. 2-i, 44, 74, 7C Warrurton, R. I'. . . 21 Smith v. Young . 112 Ward, R. v. . 51, 127 Southampton, R. v. . 136 Watson, R. v. . . 34 Spanner, R. v. . . 95 Webb, R. v. . . 34 Speed, R. v. . 8o Webster, R. t;. . 139 Spilsbuey, R. v. . 107 Welch, R. v. . . 19 Squire, R. v. . . 80 Welland, R. v. . 35 Stone v. Stone . . 23 Wellock v. Constantine . 132 Stopford, R. r. . 52 Western, R. v. . 121 Steatton, R. r. . 38 WlIILEY, R. V. . . 93 Steoulger, R. v. . 123 White, R. f . . . 30 Stubbs, R. v. . . 138 Whitehouse, R. v. . . 131 Steds v. Hay . . 71 Whitmore v. Farley . 14 WiLBRAHAM V. SnOW . . 71 Wild, H. v. . . 107 Tacey, R. ». . 98 Wilkes, R. t?. . . 127 Taylor, R. v. . 7 Wilkinson, H. v. . 62 Thallman, R. f . 34 WiLLLlMS, R. V. . 86 Thomas, R. r. . 64 Williamson, R. v. . . 87 Thompson, R. v. 62 WiLLSHIRE, R. V. . 16 Thompson v. Teevanion 111 Wollaston, R. v. . 65 Thornton, H. v. 107 Woodcock, R. t'. . 109 Thurborn, R. v. 70 WOODFIELD, R. V. . 139 Tite, R. v. . 80 Woodward, R. v. . 105 Toole, R. r. . . 19 Wright, R. v. . . 121 TO-WEES, R. V. . . 40 TOWNLEY, R. 1'. . 59, 102 Teadon, H. v. . . 131 TOWNSEND, R. V. . . 13 York, R. v. . 104 LEADIM CiSES IN CRIMINAl LAW. Treason Felony, — ♦ — • R. V. GALLAGHER AND OTHERS. [1.] \\o Cox, C. C. 291 (1883).] The prisoners were indicted under the Treason Felony- Act, 1848 (11 & 12 Vict. c. 12), for compassing to depose the Queen from Ireland, to levy war against her, to make her change her counsels, and to intimidate Parliament. The evidence against them was that they belonged to secret societies in America, whose object was to procure " the freedom of Ireland hij force alone,^' and that they had come to England, adequately provided with fimds, for the purpose of destroying public buildings by nitro- glycerine and other explosives. On a trial at the Central Criminal Com-t, before Lord Coleridge, C. J., the Master of the Rolls, and Grove, J., four of the prisoners were convicted, and sentenced to penal ser\itude for life. [Edward Clarke, Q.C, Bo wen Rowlands, Q.C., J. J. Sims, M. W. Mattinson, Keith Frith, Bm-nie, II. J. Broun, Sanders and T. Waite for prisoners ; the Attorney- General, the Solicitor- General, Poland and P. S. Wright for Cro^\Ti.] War levied against the Queen is of two kinds — direct and con- Dii-ect and structive. Open and armed rebellion against the person of the construc- sovereign would, of course, belong to the former class. Instances ^^^ '^^^• of the latter class are attempts to effect innovations of a public and S. ]{ 2 TIlKASoy FELONY. general nature by force. Therefore, ■s\liero a mob assembled for the purpose of destroying all the Protestant dissenting meeting- houses, and actually jjulled down two, it was held to be treason («). Frost's ]]ut iu Frost's case (i), it was held that, if a person act as the ^^"^^ leader of an armed bodj', who enter a town, and their object bo neither to take the town nor to attack the militarj'-, but merely to make a demonstration to the magistracj' of the strength of their part}', cither to procure the liberation of certain prisoners con- victed of some political offence, or to procure for those prisoners some mitigation of tlieir punishment, this, though an aggravated Pulling misdemeanour, is not high treason. Xor would a tumidt, with a down par- yj^^. ^q ^^q pulling down of a particular house, or the laying open house. of a particular enclosure, be treason, this being no general defiance of piiblic government (c). Forcig)i Eiilisf/j/oit. — ♦— [2.] R. T. SANDOVAL. [16 Cos, C. C. 200 (1887).] The defendant, a foreigner, but resident in this country, was indicted for a breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, by fitting out an expedition '\\-ithin the Queen's dominions against a fi-iendly state. It was held, that an offence under sect. 11 of that Act is sufficiently constituted by the pui'chase of guns and ammunition in this country, and their shipment for the pm^pose of being put on board a ship in a foreign port, with a knowledge of the purchaser and shipper that they are to bo used in a liostile demonstra- tion against such state, though the shipper takes no part in any overt act of war, and the ship is not fully equip j)ed for the expedition within any port belonging to the Queen's dominions. ia) R. V. Dammarec, 8 St. T. {b) 9 C. & P. 129. 218. {c) Fost. 210; 1 Hale, 131, FOREIGN ENLISTMENT. I " The Act was passed," said Da}', J., "to prevent such mischiefs as the present ; and I am of oi)inion tliat the moment any overt act of preparation is done the statutory offence is committed, so that such attempts may he defeated and the mischievous consequences likel}' to ensue U) this country may he prevented." "Nothing can he more mischievous," said Wills, J., " than that the persons who act as the present defendant has done should suppose that they can escape the responsi- hility for acts done in "siolation of the municipal law, passed to maintain the requirements of international comity; acts which might he followed hy consequences most mischievous, and A\hich under certain circumstances it might he impossihle to exaggerate. The present expedi- tion was contemptihle, and not of a character seriously to affect om* relations with a foreign power ; hut the law is the same as to a small expedition and a formidable one, as to an expedition against a small state and a great state, and those who took part in it are criminally liable." [J. P. Grrain for prisoner.] The lltli section of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870 (33 & 3-i Vict. 0. 90), provides, that "if any person witliin the limits of her Majesty's dominions, and ■without the licence of her Majestj', prepares or fits out any naval or military expedition to jiroceed Fitting against the dominions of any friendly state .... every person ^\ cx:pe- engaged in such preparation or fitting out, or assisting therein, or employed in any capacity in such expedition, shall he guilty of an offence against this Act." And the next section says, that "any person who aids, abets, counsels, or procures the commission of any offence against this Act, shall be liable to bo tried and punished as a principal offender." The Act also prohibits enlistment in the service of a foreign state at war with a foreign state at peace with us (cZ), illegal shii)-building(e), &c. Akin to this subject arc libels on foreign i^rinces and i:)otontates, Libels on which are punishable because they have a tendency to interrupt fori-'igii those pacific relations which ought to subsist between friendly ^ [d) Sect. 4. {e) Sect. 8. b2 UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES. nations (/). Fair criticiriin on mutters of public interest is, of course, allowable, but not violent and abubivo denunciation. Unlawful Assemblies. — ♦ — [3.] BEATTY v. GILLBANKS. [9 Q. B. D. 308 (1882).] A religious association, calling themselves "Tlie Salva- tion Anny," assembled to the number of about a hundi'ed persons, and, forming a procession, headed by flags and music, marched through the streets of Weston-super-Mare, as they had done on previous occasions. They were met by an organized band of roughs, calling themselves " The Skeleton Army," who also were in the habit of parading the streets, and who were antagonistic to " the Salvation Army." The two bodies met, and, as on several previous occasions, a free fight and great disorder ensued. It was held that the Salvationists ha\dng assembled for a lawful purpose, and with no intention of carrying it out imlaw- fully, could not be rightly convicted of an unlawful assembly, noticithstanding that they tcerc aurirc that a breach of the peace icould be very likely to result from their action. " What has hapj)ened here," said Field, J., " is that an unlawful organization has assumed to itself the right to prevent the appellants and others from lawfully as- sembling together, and the finding of the justices amounts to this, that a man may be convicted for doing a lawful act if he knows that his doing it may cause another to do (/) See R. r. D'Eon, 1 W. Bl. 517 ; and R. v. Peltier, 28 St. T. 529. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES. 5 an imlaTvfiil act. There is no authority for such a propo- sition," [E. Clai'ko, Q.C, Sutherst, and L. C. Jackson, for appellants ; A. E. Poole, and Yalj^y for respondent.] Beatty v. Gillbanks docs not go further than to establish tho Real effect proposition that an assembly which is lawful in itself does not of leading become unlawful merely because of tho disorderly intentions of ^^^^' others. It cannot be regarded (as apparently there is a disposition in some quarters to regard it) as an authority to show that, under all imaginable circumstances, people have a right to have proces- sions thi'ough the streets. "An unlawful assembly is an assembly of three or more What ia persons:— an unlaw- . . lul assGDi* (a) With intent to commit a crime by open force ; or j^jy p (b) With intent to carry out any common purpose, lawful or unlawful, in such a manner as to give firm and courageous persons in the neighbourhood of such assembly reasonable grounds to apprehend a breach of the i^eace in consequence of it. " Every unlawful assembly is a misdemeanour "((/). In the great case of E. v. Vincent (A), it was held that, in decid- Vincent's ing the question of whether an assembly is unlawful or not, the case, jury should take into their consideration the hour at which the parties met, and the language used by the persons assembled and by those who addressed them, and then consider whether firm and rational men, having their families and property there, would have reasonable ground to fear a breach of the peace. It may be observed that there is no right of pubHc meeting on a Public highway, as some people are apt to suppose. Highways are for meetings travelling along, and not for loitering (V). As a matter of fact, -^yays" however, as we all know, meetings are frequently held on highways, especially at election times ; and, provided no obstruction to the traffic, or nuisance to the neighbourhood, is caused thereby, such meetings are generally tolerated by the local authorities, notwith- standing their illegality. Those who convene meetings on high- ways, however, ought to have the civility to inform the police superintendent of the district of their intention to break the law. The right of public meeting is also limited in another way. Its object must not be to intimidate or to overawe, but to discuss. "I have ever held," said Lord Brougham, in the Ilouse of Lords in {g) Stephen's Digest, p. 40. Cox, C. C. 263 ; and Dovaston r. (A) 9 C. (S: P. 91. Payne, Shirley's Leading Cases in \i) Sec Homer v. Cadman, 31 the Common Law, 3rd cd. p. 379. "W. R. 413; Back v. Holmes, 16 UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES. " Monster meet- ings." Political meetings near AVestmin- ster Hall. Futility of proclama- tions. 184S(y), " tliat those meetings which are called, whether in Eng- land or in Ireland, ' monster meetiiifjs,' are in themselves essentially illegal. They are more exhibitions of physical force, and it is only by the perversion of langnago that they can be affected, or pre- tended to be nieetings for that which becomes an impossibility at them — discussion. . . . This is the view which I, and those with whom I had the honor of acting in the other House of rarliamcnt, openly held on the occasion of the great assemblage in Manchester in August, I think it was, 1819 (A"). We disapproved loudly, and, as far as we were concerned, unanimousl}', of the conduct of tho Government on that occasion ; but the late Lord Abingor and myself, then in opposition to the Government, avowed unlio^i- tatingly that the meeting itself was nevertheless not a lawful meeting." Political meetings of more than fifty persons may not, generally speaking, be held on the Middlesex side of the river in any street, square, or public place, within a mile of Westminster Ilall on any day on which cither Parliament or the Law Courts are sitting, are about to sit, or have been sitting (/). Such a meeting is by statute an unlawful assembly, the object of the legislature being to protect that freedom of debate and that judicial independence upon which the liberties and happiness of Englishmen so much depend. One point may be noticed in conclusion. The Government of the day have no power, under the common law, to make a meeting un- lawful by i^roclamation. To have such a power their proclamation must be issued under the provisions of some statute. The leading case was rather severely criticised by the Irish Court of Appeal in O'Kelly v. Harvey (?0- [4.] Prize Fls^htinc^. R. V. ORTON. [14 Cox, C. C. 220(1878).] A number of persons assembled in a room, somewhere in Leicestershire, a shilling being charged for admission, to witness a prize fight. Tlie combatants fought with gloves, but punished one another very severely. It was ( /) Hans, xcviii. 70. (k) The notorious roteiloo mas- sacre. (0 57 Geo. III. c. If), s. 23. Tho section contains an exception in favour of the parish of St. Paul's, Covcnt Garden. {II) 15 Cox, C. C. 4.3.5. PEIZE FIQUTINQ. >j held, that if this was a mere exhibition of skill in sparring, it was not illegal ; but that if the pugilists mot intending to fight till one of them gave in from exliaustion or injm-}', it was a breach of the law, and a prize fight; and that their wearing glares made no diji'ereuce. [No counsel appeared.] "No one, "says Mr. Justice Stei)lien, in his Digest of tlio Criminal Illegality Law (to), "has a right to consent to the infliction of bodily harm upon ^ P'"ize- himself in such a manuor as to amount to a breach of the j^eace, or ° in a prize fight, or other exhibition calculated to collect together disorderly persons." "All these fights are illegal," said Mr. Jus- tice Burrough in E. v. Billingham (/<). " Prize fights arc altogether illegal," echoed Mr. Justice Tatteson in R. v. Perkins (o). If one of the combatants in a prize fight is killed, not only is his Man- antagonist guilty of manslaughter, but also the seconds, the pro- slaughter, moters, the reporters (/*), and everybody present and approving (y). But in E. V. Taylor (?•), it was held that a mere stakeholder, who Stake- was not present at the fight, was not liable as an accessory before holder, the fact in manslaughter where one of the pugilists had been killed. " Nothing that the accused did," said Bramwoll, B., "assisted or enabled the fight to take place." Presence at Prize Fight. B. V. CONEY AND OTHERS. [8 Q. B. D. 534 (1882).] At the close of Ascot races in June, 1881, a prize fight took place somewhere near the high road towards Maiden- head, and the defendants were in the crowd looking on. It was held that, as nothing more had been proved against them than that they had been spectators, theu' conviction as principals in the second degree was wrong. " It is no criminal offence to stand by," said Mr. Justice Hawkins, (;n) Pag-e 122. {p) Red qnresence at afi(jht does not, as a matter of law, necessarily render persons so present yttilty of an assault, as aiding and abetting in such fight. If, however, it were shown that the defendants took a walk in the direction of the fight, for the purpose of seeing something of it (and a fortiori if they went by train or in omnibuses, with a lot of other blackguards, for the purpose of the " sport"), there would be evidence for the jury of participation and encouragement ( m ) . In E. V. Atkinson {n), it was held that, on an indictment for riot, persons are not liable merely on account of their having been present and among the mob, even although they had the power of preventing it. Armed Poaching by Night. [6.] R. V. SUTTON. [13 Cox, C. C. G48 (1877).] The prisoners were out poaching one night, and the question wliich had afterwards to be settled was, whether they were " armed " within the meaning of 9 Geo. IV. c. 69, s. 9. If they were, their weapons were not particu- larly formidable, consisting as they did principally of rustic uxilking sticks and a small pitclifork. The latter instru- ment, it appeared in evidence, was used by poachers to remove bushes which obstructed their nets, but one of the poachers presented it towards the keepers to prevent their approach. A few stones were also thrown, and probably (/«) See E. V. Billingham, 2 C. & P. 234. («) 11 Cox, C. C. 330, ARMED rO ACHING BY NIGHT. 9 these stones came out of the pockets of the poachers. It was held, that there was evidence of the prisoners heing armed, and they were found guilty and sentenced accord- ingly. [John Eose and C. J. Darling for prisoners ; Boddam for Crown.] The 9tli section of 9 Geo, IV. c. G9, says, that "if anj- jiersons, to The 0th the number of three or more together, shall by night unlawfully section, enter or be in any land, whether open or inclosed, for the purpose of taking or destroying game or rabbits, any of such persons being armed with any gun, cross-bow, firearms, bludgeon, or any other offensive weapon, each and every of such persons shall bo guilty of a misdemeanour." It will be observed that the statute does not require that it should be proved that all of the poachers were armed. It is enough that one was, if the others knew it. As the leading case shows, it is often difficult to determine the "Offensive exact meaning of "armed with any gun, cross-bow, firearms, weapons." bludgeon, or any other offensive weapon"; and, the law being always down on poachers, the words have been, perhaps, made to include rather too much. In E. v. Grice (o), it was held that large Stones, stones may be "offensive weapons" if they are caj^able of doing serious injury, and if they were brought and used by the j^oachers for that purpose. A stick may or may not be an offensive weapon. Sticks. according to its size, shape, or length (oo). PerJH ry — Conipctcu t Jii ; -isdidion . R. r. HUGHES. [7.] [4 Q. B. D. 614 (18T9).] A police constable in "Wales procured a wari'ant to be illegally issued, without either written information or oath, for the arrest of a man named Stanley, on a charge of " assaulting and obstructing him in the discharge of his duty." On this warrant Stanley was arrested, and brought (o) 7 C. & P. 803, [oo] E. V. Merry, 2 Cox, C. C. 240. 10 PERJURY— COMPETENT JURISDICTION. before tlie magistrates, who, on tlie testimony of the poliee- eonstahle, convicted him. The accused defended liimself on tlie merits, and did not take any objection to the ille- gality of the manner in which he liad been brought before the Coiu't. It afterwards turned out that the constable had been lying, and that Stanley had not really " assaulted and obstructed " liim as he had sworn. Accordingly the tables were turned, and Mr. Robert was put on his trial for per- jury. Then tlie ingenuity of the lawyers asserted itself, and it was uublushingly contended on his behalf that he ought to be acquitted, because, on account of the original informality, the proceedings in which he had sworn were coram non judice, — in other words, were not before a com- petent jurisdiction. This view of the matter, however, was not adopted by the Com't, and the conviction was affirmed, " I think," said Lopes, J., " the waiTant in this case was mere process for the pm-pose of bringing the party com- plained of before the justices, and had nothing whatever to do with the jurisdiction of the justices, I am of opinion that whether Stanley was summoned, brought by warrant, came voluntaril}', was brought by force, or under an illegal waiTant, is immaterial. Being before the justices, however brought there, the justices, if they had jurisdiction in respect of time and place over the offence, were competent to entertain the charge, and, being so competent, a false oath, wilfully taken, in respect of something material, would be perjury." [C. S. Bowen and Muir Mackenzie for prisoner; Sir John Holker, Att.-Gen., Poland, and Dicey for Crown,] To constitute the crime of perjury it is necessaiy, not only that the defendant should swear falsely, but also that the swearing Competent should bo in a judicial proceeding and before a competent jurisdic- jurisdic- f;^,„_ jf it turns out at the trial that the oath was taken before a person who had no lawful authority to administer it, or who had no jurisdiction of the cause, the defendant must be acquitted. PERJURY— COMPETENT JURISDICTION. H In E. V. Lloyd(jp), the prisoner was conyicted of perjury, ullcged "Tlio to haye been committed in an examination by " the Court " under Coiu-t." sect. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. It aiipcared that ho was summoned under sect. 27 before a County Court (Liverpool) haviii;.; juritidiction in bankruptcy. The oath was administered to the prisoner in Court by the registrar, but having administered it that official seems to have thought he had done enough. Ho remained in Court, while the prisoner's examination was conducted in another room. It was held, that there had been no valid examination by " the Court" within the meaning of sect. 27, and that the convic- tion must be quashed. "A man is brought before the registrar," jj ,._ said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "who under the Act and Eules is the Lloyd. Coiu't. The registrar administers the oath, but ceases to take any active part in what follows. He goes away and transacts other business. The witness, who, according to the Act and Eules, is to be examined before him, is taken to a room, where the examination proceeds in the registrar's absence. "What has been called his legal presence is his actual absence. The witness in then indicted for perjury committed before the registrar. But the examination has not been conducted before the registrar." " It is said in the case," said Hawkins, J., "that the registrar was at hand and ready to come if wanted. But this does not disturb the fact that he was not in the room. The examination, which is said to have taken place before him, took place behind his back." As already stated, to constitute the full crime of perjury, the false swearing must have been in a judicial proceeding. But if it Common has been before some jierson authorized to administer an oath, ^^'^' ™i'^- though not in a judicial j^roceeding, e. g., before a surrogate, in order to obtain a marriage licence, — there may be a conviction for a com- mon law misdemeanor {q). In the recent case of E. v. Coles (r), it was held by Mr. Justice Proof of Stephen at Chester Assizes, that, on the trial of a prisoner for per- pi"oceed- jury, the indictment preferred at the trial at which the perjury was ° committed is not sufficient proof of the proceedings there ; there must be either the record of the trial, or a certificate of it under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 22. The IGth section of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, provides that, "Every Power to court, judge, justice, officer, commissioner, arbitrator, or other •idiniuister person, now or hereafter having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, is hereby cm- powered to administer an oath to all such witnesses as are legally called before them respectively." (;j) 19 Q. B. D. 213. had sworn falsely in an affidavit [q] R. V. Chapman, 1 Den. 432 ; under the Bills of Sale Acts. and see R. v. Hodgki-ss, L. R. 1 [r) 16 Cox, C. C. 165. C. C. R. 212, where the pri.soner 12 rERJURT— MATERIALITY. PQ n Perjury — Jlfafcriality. ■R. r. TYSON. [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 107 (18G7).] Upon tlie trial of a man named Sullivan for robbery, on the night of the 13th of April, the prisoner, in support of an alibi, swore not only (1) that the prisoner was at home on tliat night ; but (2) that the prisoner had lived in the same house for the last two years ; and (3) that during the whole of that time he had not been absent from home for more than three nights. The last two statements were proved to be false, and it was held that they were material, and the proper subjects of assignments of perjury, inas- much as they tended to render more probable the statement that the prisoner was at home on the night of April 13. *' I was embarrassed at first," said Lush, J., " but now I am quite satisfied that the allegations on which the prisoner was convicted were calculated to make the jury give a readier credit to the substantial part of his evidence, and therefore became material." [Metcalfe for Crown.] Even althougli there is no doubt about the jH-isoner's having sworn falsely, or that it was in a judicial proceeding, and before a competent jurisdiction, there remains something else that must be proved against him. It must be sho-mi that what he swore was Materi- materidl to the issue being tried. "What, then, is "materiality?" &iitj. "It is here said by my brother Eyre," said Lord Holt, C. J., in a case tried a couple of hundred years ago(s), " that the matter in which the perjiirj' is assigned is immaterial to the issue, and there- fore no perjury punishable by indictment. But I hold it is perjury to swear falsely in any circumstance ivhich conduceth to the issue, or to the discovery of the truth : though, if it be only in some impertinent or minute circumstance, as where the witness dined on such a day, or the like, which is usual among the vulgar in giving evidence, it is not perjury, because this does not conduce to the issue, or to the truth of the matter to be tried." It would be veiy difficult indeed, in point of clearness and accuracy, to improve on this statement of the law. (.v) R. V. Greep, Holt, 535. PERJURY— MATERIALITY. 13 The case of E. v. Town.seinl(<) illustrates tliis brancli of the law. A candi- There the dcfeuilaut, who was ambitious of bocoiuing a Doncaster "'""^ <;»p*'r- town councillor, found it necessary to prosecute a person, who character, accused him of having knowingly let a house to a Birmingham prostitute during the race week, for libel. "When the case came on before tbe magistrates, the candidate went into the witness-box and falsely denied all the imputations made against him. There- upon the tables were turned, and he was himself prosecuted for perjury. It was held, however, that as magistrates are not en- titled to hear evidence as to the truth of a libel (except where the prosecution is under sect. 4 of 6 & 7 Yict. c. 96, for publishing a libel "knowing the same to be false"), what the defendant had sworn was immaterial to the issue, and he must bo acquitted. It has been lield, in the famous case of E. v. Gibbon («), that R. v. perjury may he assigned upon evidence going to the credit of a material Gril>uon. witness, although such evidence, being legally inadmissible, ought not to have been received. The perjury imjiuted to the defendant in that case was that, on the hearing of an affiliation summons against one of bis friends, he had gone into the witness box and falsely swore tbat he had liimself had connection witb. the woman about six months before the baby was born. The woman had denied this on cross- examination, and, the question being merely one of credit, her answer ought to have been taken as conclusive on the subject. In E. V. Mullany [v), the defendant, in a county court case, swore E,- f- falsely about his name, in consequence of which the Judge, who ^^l^^^y- had already come to the conclusion that the debt was due, refused leave to amend the plaint, and struck out the cause. It was held, that his statements were sufficiently material to sustain a conviction for perjury. "He swore it," said the Court, "in a judicial proceeding /or the purpose of affecting the decision; and the state- ment lie made was material, because, on the sti'ength of it, the county court judge altered his judgment for the plaintiff into one for the defendant. The case, therefore, clearly comes within the rule laid down in E. v. Philpotts (.c), and E. v. Gibbon (y). AMien the question arises, whether false swearing in a judicial proceeding, with intent to mislead, is to be free from punishment because it is wholly irrelevant and immaterial to the issue that is being tried, that will be a question for the fifteen judges to decide, though, for my own part, I should be inclined to hold that any false swearing in a judicial proceeding, with intent to mislead, iuhether material or not, would amount to tJie crime of p)erjury. That, however, will be a question of importance when it does arise. The present case is clearly governed by the cases referred to." See also the recent case of E. v. Hadfield, IG Cox, C. C. 148. [t) 4F. & r. 1089. {v) L. & C. 593. («) L. & C. 109, overruling R. v. {x) 2 Den. C. C. 302. Murray, 1 F. & F. SO. (y) L. & C. 109. 14 COMPOUNDING CRIMES. Co))ipoii)idi)io^ Crimes. [9.] Com- pounding felonies. Com- pounding misdemea- nors. R. V. BURGESS. [IGQ. 13. D. 141 (1SS.3).] The prisoner "was empLjyed to levy a distress for two weeks' rent, amounting to 28«., on tlie goods of a Mr. Bed- ford. Wliile in possession, his assistant, Arthur Bagley, helped liimself to some of Mr. Bedford's money laid away in a di'awer, and absconded. The prisoner, on discovering the theft, entered into some negotiations with Bagley's family, and finally handed his (Bagley's) mother a docu- ment to this effect : — " /, W. II. Burgess, undcrtalie not io charge Arthur Bagley wit// any criminal case that I have now against him on the money being ^jrovided to pay ivhat he tooh from Beckham Boad while in possession, viz., 30.s. " W. 11. Burgess." The money was paid to Burgess, hut Bagley w^as never- theless, on the evidence of Mr. Bedford, convicted simi- marily of the theft. Burgess was then prosecuted for compounding a felony, and it was held that his conviction was correct, notwithstanding that he was neither the owner of the goods stolen, nor a material witness for the prosecution. [Burnie for prisoner ; Poland for Crown.] To take a reward, which need not be of a pecuniary nature, for refraining from prosecuting a person for a felony, is a misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprisonment. The compounding of a misdemeanor, however, is not an offence, unless the misdemeanor inflicts a public as contrasted with a private wrong (z). Sect. 101 of the Larceny Act, 18G1 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), provides for the punishment as a felon of the individual who corruptly (;) See Keir v. Leeman, 9 Q. B. 371 ; and Wliitmore v. Farley, 14 Cox, C. C. 617. COMPOUNDING CRIMES. 15 takes a reward " imtler pretence or upon account of helping any Ilt'lpinf? person " to eet kis stolon ffoods back : and sect. 102 of the samo P*^^**"" ^'^ tr o o ^ ' recover statute makes a person wlio advertises a reward for the return of stolen stolen property, with a hint that no unpleasant questions will bo goods. asked, liable to "forfeit the sum of fifty pounds for every such Advcr- offence to any person who will sue for the same." The printer and *'""^"" . . . '■ reward. publisher are also liable to this forfeiture, but newspapers are specially protected by a later Act {a). Somewhat analogous to the offence of compounding a felony is Mispri- that of misprision of fduny. ^Misprision of felony is the conceal- ^^^^' ment, or procuring the concealment, of felony, whether such felonies be at common law or bj- statute. Silently to observe the commission of a felony without using any endeavour to apprehend the offender, is a misprision. If to the knowledge there be added assent, the party will become an accessory. The punishment for this offence is fine and imprisonment ; and i^rovisions against the commission of it by sheriffs, coroners, and other officers, are contained in 3 Edw. I. c. 9. See also Flower v. Sadler, L. E. 10 Q. E. D. o72. Bigamy — Seven Years Rule, R. V. CURGERVEN. [10.] [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 1 (18Gj).] The prisoner was a man-of-war's man, and married one Charlotte Curgerven at Bmyan, in Cornwall, on September 1st, 1852. In June, 1853, in consequence of some dis- agreement, his wife left him and retm'ned to her father's house at Bmyan. Then the Crimean War broke out, and the prisoner was away from England for years. On July 9th, 1862, being then at a coastguard station at a small place on the Devonshire coast, and never ha\dng heard of Charlotte since 1854, he went through the form of mar- riage with one Eliza Hardy, Charlotte, however, as it (rt) 33 k 34 Vict. c. G.5, s. 3. 16 BIGAMY— SEVEN TEARS RULE. Prisoner not bound to prove negative. R. V. Jones. Presump- tions, Honest and rea- liapponed, was alive, and a bigamy prosecution was started. It was held, that the prisoner was entitled to be acquitted ; and the rule was stated to be, that upon a trial for bigamy, when it is proved that the prisoner and his first -wife have lived apart for the seven years preceding the second marriage, it is incumbent on the prosecution to show that during that time he was aware of her existence. [No counsel appeared.] This view of tlie law was an exceedingly merciful one for tte prisoner ; for on his return to England lie seems to have got married again without taking the slightest trouble to inquire what had become of his first wife. Probably she had been livicg at Buryan all the time, so that he could easily have found out whether she was dead or alive, if he had liked. But the ground of the decision is, that the prisoner in such a case is not to he called upon to prove a negative [b). In E. V. Jones (c), the leading case was distinguished. The prisoner married one "Winifred Dodds in 18()-3, and they lived together after the marriage. In 1S82 he went through the marriage ceremony with one Phoebe Jones, Winifred being still alive. On the trial for bigamy, it was shown that the prisoner had married Winifred, and also that they had Uved together ; and there was no evidence at all as to their having ever separated, or as to when, if separated, they last saw each other. This being so, it was held that the facts could not be brought within the case of P. v. Curgcrven. " There is proof," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "of the existence of a state of things, and no evidence of the cessation of that state of things ; consequently, the presumption is that the existing state continued. That presumption could only have been displaced by evidence, and no evidence displacing it was forthcoming." The mere fact that there are no circumstances leading to the inference that the absent party has died, does not raise a presump- tion of law that such party is alive. The jiroscciition must satisfy the jury that, as a matter of fact, such party is alive, and it is a question entirely for them. Where the only evidence is that the party was alive more than seven j'ears ago, then there is no question for the jury, and it is a presumption of law that he is dead((i). On an indictment for bigamy, evidence is not (it seems) admissible to show that the prisoner honestly and reasonably believed that his {b) SeeR.r.Heaton,3F.&F.819. (c) 11 Q. B. D. 118. {(l) n. V. Lumlcv, L. R. 1 C. C. n. 196 ; and see E. v. Wiltshire, 6 Q. B. D. 366. BIOAMT— SEVEN YEARS' RULE. 17 first wifo was dead -^-lien ho married a second within seven years of sonable his last having heard of, or seen, tho first wife (e). Such a belief l^^hef. can only be used in mitigation of punishment after conviction. Bigamy — Invalid! fy of Scco)id Marriage. R. V. ALLEN. [11.] [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 3G7 (1872).] Tlie prisoner, wliile his proper wife was yet alive, went tlu'ougli tlie ceremony of marriage with another woman, 'O'lio was within the prohibited degrees of affinity, so that, even if the parties had been fi'ee, they would have been under a statutory inability to maiTy one another. It was held that, not^\'ithstandiug such inability, the prisoner was guilty of bigamy. [E. Y. Bullen for prisoner ; "WaiTy for Crown.] In deciding this case, the Court expressed their disaj^proval of the Irish case of E. v. Fanning (/), where a Protestant, having a R wife living, had been married by a Eoman Catholic priest to a Eoman Catholic lady, contrary (even apart from questions of bigamy) to a statute of George II. {g). The view of the Irish Court was that, to constitute the ofi;ence of bigamy, the second marriage must have been one which, but for the existence of tho previous marriage, would have been a valid marriage. See the recent case of E. v. Kay {gg), where the prisoner was ac- Invalidity quitted on account of the invalidity of the first marriage, through undue publication of banns. rauuiu}?. of first marriag'e. Uttering Counterfeit Coin. R. r. HERMANN. [12.] [4 Q. B. D. 284 (1S79).] The prisoner was indicted for uttering and putting off two false and counterfeit sovereigns, knowing them to be false and counterfeit. The coins, however, were not " false {e) R. V. Bennett, 14 Cox, C. C. (/) 10 Cox, C. C. 411. 45; but see R. v. Moore, 13 Cox, (y) 19 Geo. II. c. 13. C. C. .544. {g), it was held that, although it may not R. v. be a criminal offence at common law for a person to cheat his Warbur- pai'tner, yet where one of two partners combines, during the con- ^' tinuance of the partnership, with a third party to enable the one (o) 4 F. & F. IGO. (;;) L. R. 1 C. C. R. 274. 22 CONSPIRACY— ELASTICITY OF LAW. partner to cheat tho other with regard to tlio division of tho part- nership property on a contemplated dissolution of tho partnership, this combination is a conspiracy (e aequitted or J)oth convicted. (q) The offence was fully coin- property, pleted before the passing of o\ & (;) 13 East, 228. 32 Vict. c. IK), by which a partner (s) 17 Q. B. 07 1. can be criminally convicted for (/) 1 Stark. N. P. C. 402. feloniously stealing partnership [k) o Q. B. 40. CONSPIRACY— MUST BE OF TWO AT LEAST. 23 "Tho rule appears to be this," said Matliew, J., "in a cliarge for conspii-acy in a ease like this, where there are two defendants, the issue raised is whether or not both tlio men are guilty, and if the jury are not satisfied as to the guilt of either, then both must be acquitted." "I have arrived at the same conclusion," said Stephen, J., " with great reluctance, and entirely upon the authority of the passage in O'Connell i\ The Queen (y). The decision is of the highest authorit}', and clearly shows that it is a legal impossibility that, when several persons are indicted for a conspiracy, any verdict should be found which implies that some were guilty of one conspiracy and some of another." [Charles, Q.C., and Warry for defendant; 0. "W. Mathews, and the Hon. Bernard Coleridge for Crown.] Lord Coleridge, C. J., in liis judgment very candidly admitted Misled by that he had been wrong at the trial, having been misled by the divorce . . . cases, practice in the Divorce Court in such cases as Eobinson v. Eobin- son and Lane (.r), and Stone v. Stone and Appleton [y), which was based on the fact that that which is evidence against one person is by no means necessarily evidence against another. In O'Connell v. The Queen (f), referred to above, a count in an O'Connell indictment charged eight defendants with one conspiracj' to effect ^ certain objects, and a finding that three of the defendants were guilty generally, and that five of them were guilty of conspiracy to effect some, and not guilty as to the residue of these objects, was held bad and repiignant ; the jirinciplo of the decision being that where thei-e are two or more persons charged with conspiracy in the same count, the count is a single and comideto count, and cannot be separated into parts. It may be mentioned that a man and his wife cannot be indicted Husband for conspiring together alone, because they are in law one person (2). ^ wiic. But one person alone may be tried for conspiracy, provided the indictment charges him with consjiiring with others who have not appeared («), or who are since dead(Z;). (0 11 CI. & F. 155. (;) 1 Hawk. c. 72, s. 8. {x) 1 Sw. & Tr. 3(32. («) R. r. Kinnorslcy, 1 Str. 193. (/) 3 Sw. & Tr. 608. {h) R. v. NichoUs, 2 Str. 1227. 24 LUNATICS. LiDiatics. [16.] R. V. BISHOP. [11 Cox, C. C. 404 (1880).] Tlio defendant Avas indicted under 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, s. 44, for receiving two or more lunatics into a liouse not duly licensed or registered. Her practice had been to advertise for patients suffering from "liysteria, nervous- ness, and perverseness." It was held that, although she honestly and reasonably believed that none of her patients were " lunatics," she might nevertheless be convicted. [Mellor, Q.C., and Hams for Crown.] Lunatics are protected against ill-treatment by various statutes. 16 & 17 Vict. c. 96, s. 9, for instance, makes it a misdemeanour for "any superintendent, officer, nurse, attendant, servant, or other person employed in any registered hospital, or licensed house, or any person having the care or charge of any single patient," to abuse, ill-treat, or wilfully neglect such patient. It was held in E. V. Eundle(c), that a husband could not be convicted under this section (c), because it was not intended to apply to persons whose care or charge arose from natural duty. But in E. v. Porter (f/), where a man voluntarily took upon himself the care and charge of a lunatic brother in his own private house, he was held to be Hablo to be indicted for ill-treating him under the above statute ((Z). "The statute," said Pollock, C. B., "was not intended to interfere with persons in the relation of husband and wife, but a brother has no legal control over a brother." In the recent case, however, of Buchanan v. Hardy (e), the principle of Bundle's case (/) was ques- Parcnts. tionod, and it was hold, that the parents of a lunatic who resides with them under their care, are persons "having the care or charge" of a lunatic within the section, and may bo convicted under it. "I am of opinion," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., " that the case of E. v. Bundle (/), if it is an authority at all, can only be held to be a binding authority in the case of a husband and wife. ... I cannot say that the reasons given in E. v. Bundle (/) are satisfactory to lU-trcat- ment of lunatics. Husband. Brother. (f) 1 Dears. 432. \l) L. & C. 394 ; and see E. v. Smith, 14 Cox, C. C. 398, {c) 18 Q. B. D. 486. (/) 1 Dears. 432. LUNATICS. 25 my mind, nor do I think that Pollock, C. B., was satisfied with them when ho had occasion to re-consider them in K. i-. Porter (•) 16 Cox, C. C. 57. (s) 9 M. & W. 19. STEALING CHILDREN UNDER FOURTEEN. 29 against him wlio never had possession of the chattel, but it does against him. who once had, but has improperly parted with, the possession of it." The j6th section docs not api)ly to the case of force or fraud exercised merelj' on the guardian of the child, nor on any other person other than the child itself. See E. v. Barrett (t), where a Leadin;,'- little boy of ten took a strange fancj' to a blind man, and ran ^^^^ bliud. away from school in order to lead him about from place to place up and down the couutrj'. "I did not entice him away," said the blind man, " the child wished to go." This -nas admitted by the proscciition, and it was held accordingly that the prisoner hud not committed the offence provided for by the section. Stealing a child under fourteen (sect. 5G) is a felony, punishable Distiuc- with a maximum of seven years' penal servitude, whereas the abduction of a girl under sixteen (sect, oo) is only a misdemeanor, and cannot be punished with more than two years' imprisonment with hard labour. tion. Abandoning Baby, R. V. FALKINGHAM. [20.] [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 222 (1870).] Mary Falkiiigliam "vvus the mother of an illegitimate child, which, wlien it was five weeks old, she carefully packed in a hamper, and sent, lahelled " with care," to the address of the father, who, of coui"se, was not expecting such a surprise. The parcel was delivered at the father's address in about an hour, and, when opened, the baby was discovered very much in its usual state of hcaltli. Inside the parcel was also a piece of paper, on which was written, "P/(?ff.s(? take care of this cJiild, for George Beaumont is the father of itJ' It was held that the prisoner came within the meaning of 24 & 26 Vict. e. 100, s. 27, which {t) 15 Cox, C. C. 658. 30 Actual custody unneces- sary. ABANDONING BABY. provides that, " Wliosoever shall unlawfully abandon or expose any child, being under the age of two years, whereby the life of such child shall be endangered, or the health of such child shall have been, or shall be, likely to be permanently injured, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." [No counsel appeared.] In E. r. White () R. V. Webb, 1 Den. 338 ; R. {c) L. & C. 32G. PUBLIC INDECENCY. 36 imi)ortuut caso on the subject, tliat it is not now nccctsary for the prosecution to show that an act of indecency which was conimittad before several persons was committed in a public place ((Z). In E. V. Saunders (e), the defendants were held to have committed Booth on an indictable offence by keeping a booth on ]']psom Downs for the com-sp purpose of an indecent exhibition which anybody who jiaid was allowed to see ; and in E. v. Grey (/), a hcrbalit^t, who had exhi- Picture of bited in his shop-window in the High Street at Chatham, a picture ^^^^ P^"" of a man naked to the waist, and covered with eruptive sores (y), -with sores. so as to constitute an offensive and disgusting exhibition, was held guilty of a nuisance, although there was nothing immoral or indecent in the jiicture, and his motive was innocent. " There is no doubt," said Willis, J., "the exhibition of the picture on a highway is a n^iisance. It is so disgusting that it is calculated to turn the stomach." See also E. v. Qla,rk{g(j), It is to be observed that the indecent exposure of the person may Summary sometimes be punished summarily as well as on indictment. The ^^^^^^ '°°' 4th section of 5 Geo. 4, c. 83, treats "every person wilfvilly, openlj', lewdly and obscenely exposing his j'jei'son in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female," as a ro(jne and vagalond, and gives a bench of magistrates power to send him to prison for three months with hard labour. If a man who has been convicted of the above offence under the above section repeats the act of indecency, he becomes an incorrigihle rogue, and the Quarter Incorrifri- Sessions have power not only to send him to prison, but to have *^ rogue, him soundly whipped. Keeping Disorderly House. R. V. RICE AND WALTON. [24.] [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 21 (180(5).] Tte defendants, as master and mistress, resided in a house at Chester to which men and women resorted for [d) K. ■;;. WoUand, 14 Q. B. D. .and life size, one ropresoiUiug the 63. disease — as bad as it could be made, {e) 1 Q. B. D. 15. — and the other the perfect cure, (/) 4 F. & F. 73. which, of course, his medicines {g) The herbalist had two pic- would effect, tures in his window, both coloured (. 1802), a man set tiro to a stack, and a person sleeping by it was burned to death. Baron liramwell, in summing up, adopted tho rule laid down by Foster, but suggested to the jur}' that, if tho deceased was not shown to bo in tho barn at tho time when tho pri- soner sot fire to tho stack, thoy might acquit him, on tho ground that tho man's death was not tho natural and probable consequence of his act. " As it is laid down as law," said tho learned Baron, of the doctrine of constructive murder, "it is our duty to act upon it." As a matter of fact, however, he did not act upon it, but evaded it. Homicide by Correction. [28.] R. V. HOPLEY. [2 F. & F. 202 (ISOO).] The prisoner was a sclioolmaster at Eastbomiie, and a ratlier stupid boy of thirteen or fourteen, named Cancellor, •was entrusted to his charge. At the beginning of the summer term in 1859 tlie prisoner v\Tote to the parent, saying the hoy was extremely obstinate, and ought to be severely and frequently beaten. *'I do not -wish to in- terfere with your plan," replied the father. Accordingly, the sclioolmaster beat the boy for two /lotir-s and a half secret I// in the nUjht Kith a thick stick imtil he died. It was hold that, such punishment being excessive and un- reasonable, the schoolmaster Avas guilty of manslaughter. [Ballantine, Serjt.,and Gr. Denman for prisoner; Parry, Serjt., and Knapp for Crown.] Collection Even if it be admitted that sparing tho rod means spoiling tho must be child, the corporal punishment administered by a father to a son, or moderate. ^ master to his scholar, must bo moderate and reasonable. If it is not, and death results, it will be muider or manslaughter according to the circumstances. "In a case at Norwich Assizes in 1070," says Sir Matthew Hale (m), " where the master struck a child that Great ^^g j^ig apprentice with a great staff, of which it died, it was ruled murder." Perhaps, considering the size of the stick which llopley (/) 3 F. & F. 287. ('«) Hale, Pleas of Crown, 1, 473. staff. HOMICIDE BY CORRECTION. 43 used, and the cruel vigour -with which ho -wielded it, ho had reason to congratulate himself on being convicted only of man- Blaughter. In E. V. Griflfin («) it ^vas held that a father wlio for some Strapping childish fault gave an infant of two and a-half years about a dozen an infant, strokes with a strap an inch wide and eighteen inches long, from the effects of which the child died, was guilty of manslaughter. " The law as to correction," said Martin, B., "has reference only to a child capable of appreciating correction, and not to an infant two years and a-half old. Although a slight strap may bo lawfully given to an infant by her mother, more violent treatment of an infant so young by her father would not be justifiable." Ho J? I icidc — Provocation . R. r. FISHER. [29.] [8 C. & P. 182 (1837).] If a father actually sees a man in tlie act of committing an unnatui'al crime with his son, a boy of fifteen, and immediately kills him, his doing so is not murder, but manslaughter; but, if he only hears about it, and then pursues the blackguard and kills him after an interval, he is guilty of mm'der, notwithstanding that his indignation may not have in the least degree subsided. " In all cases," said Park, J., " the party must see tlie act done. What a state should we be in if a man, on hearing that something had been done to his child, should be at liberty to take the law into his own hands, and inflict vengeance on the offender ! In this case the father only heard of what had been done from others. I say, therefore, and I do it with the assent of those who are with me, that there is not enough to reduce the offence from mm-der to manslaughter." [C. Phillips for prisoner ; Bodkin for Crown.] So, if a man catches another in the act of adultery with his wife, {n) 11 Cox, C. C. 402. 44 HOMICIDE— PllOVOCA TION. Caught iu the act. Provoca- tion must be sub- stantial. Words no provoca- tion. Words and spit- tinor. Express malice. Provoca- tion sought. Friends and com- rades. and kills him, or licr, iu tho first transport of passion, ho is only guilty of mauslaughtcr, for tho law recognizes tho immensity of tho l)rovocatiou ; but the killing of an adulterer deliberately and for revenge would be murder [o). To reduce murder to manslaughter, tho provocation must bo such as would upset not merely a hasty and hot tempered person, but one of ordinary sense and calmness; and, in anj' case, twenty minutes or half an hour would be considered ample time for jmssion to subside, and reason to resume its swaj'. Mere words, however irritating or insulting, cannot constitute tho kind of provocation required by the law ; and tho case of R. v. Rothwell (p), where Blackburn, J., held, on the Northern Circuit, that special circumstances may take a case out of the general rule, must be regarded as a decision of very doubtful authority. But an assault too slight in itself to be sufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter, may become sufficient when coupled with words of great insult. This was held in a case in which a wife not only used the most frightful language to her husband, but also spat at him ((/). Neither the language nor the spitting would have been enough provocation by itself, but together they effected the reduc- tion (?•). "If two military officers," said Bylos, J., "met in tho street, and one called the other a coward and a scoundrel, and spat in his face, and if the one so treated immediately drew his sword and stabbed tho person assaulting him, this, I think, would be manslaughter." Provocation is no defence where there has been express malice, or where it was sought by the prisoner himself. " If a person has received a blow," said Coleridge, J., in E. v. Kirkham (s), where the prisoner was indicted for the murder of his son, " and in tho consequent irritation immediately inflicts a wound that occasions death, that will be manslaughter. But he shall not be allowed to make this blow a cloak for what he does ; and therefore, as in the case of poisoning, though there have been an actual quarrel, and the deceased shall have given a great number of blows, yet if the party inflict the wound, not in consequence of those blows, but in consequence of previous malice, ctll the hlvics will {fo for nothing. ' ' Provocation to a person by an actual assault or by a mutual combat, or by a false imprisonment, is, in some cases, provocation to those who are with that person at the time, and to his friends who, in the case of a mutual combat, take part in the fight for his defence. But it is uncertain how far this principle extends " it). (p) E. V. Maddy, 1 Ventr. 158. Ip) 12 Cox, C. C. 145. {q) It did not appear whether the lady actually spat on him, but spitting at a person is an assault. though not a battery. {r) R. V. Wilfiam Smith, 4 F. & F. 1066. (5) 8C. &P. 117. {t) Steph. Dig. Cr. Law, p. 151. HOMICIDE— NEGLIGENCE. 45 IIoDiicidc — Ncgligoicc. R. V. SALMON AND OTHERS. [30.] [G Q. 13. D. 79 (1880).] Three voimg fellows took a rifle, wbieli ■would lia-so been deadly at a mile, and began practising filing with it at a target, wbicb they erected in a field near to roads and bouses, from a distance of about 100 yards. One of the shots thus fired (it was not proved by wbicb particular young fellow) killed a boy in a tree in a neigbboimng garden, at a spot 393 yards from the firing point. It was held that all three were guilty of manslaughter. " It is the legal duty," said Stephen, J., " of everyone who does an}- act which, without ordinary precautions, is or may be dangerous to human life, to employ those precautions in doing it. Firing a rifle under cii'cum- stances such as in the present case, was a highly dangerous act, and all are responsible, for they unite to fii'o at the spot in question, and they all omit to take any precautions whatever to prevent danger." [Nonis for Crown.] "Where an act, in itself lawful, is at the same time dangorous, it Danger- must appear, in order to render an unintentional homicide from it ous acts, excusable, that the party, ■whilst doing the act, used such a degree of caution as to make it improbable that any danger or injury should arise from it to others ; if not, the homicide ■nill bo man- slaughter at the least. If a person -whilst doing or attempting an unlawful act {malum in se), but not amounting to felony, undesignedly kill a man, he is guilty of manslaughter. For instance, in the well-known football Football, case, E. i\ Bradshaw(<), it was laid down that if, while engaged in a friendlj' game, one of the players commits an unlawful act whereby death is caused to another, it is manslaughter ; nor is it material to consider whether the act which caused the death was in accordance or not with the rules and practice of the game. " No rules or practice of any game whatever," said Bramwell, L. J., " can make that lawful which is unlawful by the law of the laud ; and the law of the land says you shall not do that which is likely {t) 14 fox, C. C. 83. Bid 4G HOMICIDE— NEGLIGENCE. to causo tho death of another." So if a man throws a stono at a horse, and it hits tho rider and kills him, it is manslaughter (?<). But a mere civil ■wrong, committed hj' one person against another, cannot be made tho foundation of the crime of manslaughter. So 'Arry at where, one summer day in 1882, a stupid fool, who was disporting the sea- himself on the "West I'ier at Brighton, snatched up a big box from the refreshment-stall, and pitched it recklesslj- into the sea, thereby unintentionally killing a boj' who hajipened just then to be bathing, it was held that the civil wrong against tho refreshment stall- keeper was immaterial to the charge of manslaughter. If he was to be convicted, it must be upon the broad ground of negligence, and not tqwn the narrow ground of his having committed a trespass. " I have a great abhorrence," said Tield, J., "of constructive crime." See some remarks of Stephen, J., on manslaughter by negligence, in the very recent case of E. v. Doherty, IG Cox, C. C. 306. Homicide — N'cglcct of Duty. [31.] R. V. MORBY. [8 Q. E. D. oil (1882).] Mr. Morby, of Woolwich, was one of the " Peculiar People," and, when one of his friends fell ill, he did not believe in doctors for effecting a ciu-e, but only in prayers and anointment. On the 27th of December, 1881, his little boy of eight years old was knowTi to be suffering from confluent small-pox, and yet no medical aid was called in. On January 8th ho died — as the j)Ost-mortem examination showed — of the disease. Nothing could be clearer than that, if the doctor had been sent for at once, the child's life might have been saved, but, on the other hand, it might not have been ; and, there being therefore no positive evidence that the death was caused or accele- rated by the neglect to provide medical aid or attendance, it was held that the father could not be proj)erly con^^.cted of manslaughter. "It is not enough," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "to (m) 1 Hale, 39. HOMICIDE— NEGLECT OF DUTY. 47 show neglect of reasonable means for preserving or pro- longing the child's life ; hut to convict of manslaughter it must he shown that the neglect had. the effect of shortening life. ... In order to sustain the conviction affirmative proof is required." "Under section 37 of 31 & 32 Yict. c. 122," said Stephen, J., "it may he the prisoner could have been con- victed of neglect of duty as a parent, hut to convict of manslaughter you must show that he caused death or accelerated it." [D. Kingsford for prisoner ; Poland and Mead for Crown.] In the earlier case of E. v. Downes (;r), where the facts were some- Tl. v. what simihir, it was distinctly shown, and found by the jury, tlmt the -Downcs. child's death ivas caused hy the neglect to provide medical aid, and there- fore the conviction for manslaughter was upheld. ' ' I agree with my Lord Coleridge," said Bramwell, B., " as to the difficulty which would have existed had it not been for the statute. But the statute im- poses an absolute duty on parents, whatever their conscientious scruples may be. The jDrisoner wilfully — not maliciously, but in- tentionally — disobeyed the law, and death ensued in consequence. It is, therefore, manslaughter." The material words, it may bo mentioned, in section 37 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, are as follows: — " When any parent shall wilfully neglect to provide adeqiiate food, Sect. 37. clothing, medical aid, or lodging for his child, being in his custody, under the age of fourteen years, whereby the health of such child shall have been, or shall be likely to be, seriously injured, ho shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." In E. V. Nicholls (?/), an old woman was put upon her trial for the manslaughter of her grandson, an infant of tender years, who was said to have died from the neglect of the prisoner to suj^ply him with proper nourishment. " If a grown-up person," said R. v. Brett, J., " chooses to undertake the charge of a human creature, Nicholls. helpless either from infancy, simplicitj', lunacy, or other infirmity, he is bound to execute that charge without, at all events, wicked negligence ; and if a person who has chosen to take charge of a helpless creature lets it die by wicked negligence, that person is guilty of manslaughter. Mere negligence will not do ; there must be wicked negligence." {x) 1 Q. B. D. 25. {t/) 13 Cox, C. C. 75. 48 HOMICIDK—KKdLECT OF DUTY. In anotlior case (2), a girl of ciglitcen was taken in labour at her steji- father's house during his absence. The mother omitted to procure for her the assistance of a midwife, in consequence of which Not the girl died. It was held that the mother was not legally bound fetching ^q procure the aid of a midwife, and that she could not be convicted of manslaughter for not doing so («). The recent case of E. v. Curtis {b), should bo referred to as to the Relieving responsibility of relieving officers for refusing medical assistance to officers. destitute persons in cases of urgent necessity. Attempt to Murder. [32.] R. J.. SAMUEL BROWN. [10 Q. L. D. 08I (1883).] Brown di-ew a loaded revolver from his pocket for the purjiose of murdering his friend, Sutton. Sutton's nephew saw what he was up to, and snatched the weapon away before he liad time to do anything more. It was held that tlie offence w^as not within sect. 15 of 24 & 2o Vict, c. 100, under which tlic prisoner had been tried and convicted. [Poland for Crown.] 2-4 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 11, punishes several ways of attempting Sect. 14. to commit murder, one of which is, " Whosoever shall, by drawing a trigger, or in any other manner, attempt to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person with intent to commit murder." Sect. 1.5. Sect. 15 punishes every one who "by any means other than those specified in any of the preceding sections of this Act attempts to com- mit murder." The probabilities are that, notwithstanding two de- cisions in the 9th volume of Carrington and Payne (c). Brown's offence would now be held to come within sect. 14. {£) R. V. Shepherd, L. & C. 147. [h) 15 Cox, C. C. 746. {a) The case appears to have («) R. r. St. George, 9 C. & P. turned to some extent on the fact 483, and R. v. Lewis, 9 C. & P. that there was no evidence that the 5 2 3, Loth which cases are threat- mother had money enough to pay cned in the judgments of the lead- for a midwife. hig case with re -consideration. CONSFIIiACy TO Mm DEI!. 49 CoNspi)'ac\' to Ulurdcr. — ♦ — R. r. MOST. [33.] [7 Q. B. D. 244 (1881).] Shortly after the assassination of the Emperor of Russia the prisoner pnblislicd a violent article in a German news- l^aper called Frvihett, piiLlished and circulating- in London, exulting in the nimxler, and recommending all true patriots to follow the example set. It was held that he could be convicted, under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 4, of " endeavom-ing to persuade" to murder. "An endeavour to persuade, or an encom'agcmeut," said Lord Coleridge, C J., "is none the less an endeavoiu' to persuade, or an encouragement, because the person who so encourages, or endeavours to persuade, does not, in the particular act of encoui'agement or persuasion, personally address the number of people, the one or more persons, whom the address which contains the encouragement or the endeavour to persuade reaches." [A. M. Sullivan for prisoner; Sir II. James, A.-G., Sii' F. Herschell, S.-G., Poland, and A. L. Smitli for Crown.] The 4tli section of 24 & 'lb Vict. c. 100, provides that " all per- Conspir- sons who shall consi^ire, confederate, and agree to murder any "'o ^" person, -whether he be a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, and whosoever shall Soliciting' solicit, encourage, persuade, or endeavour to persuade, or shall to murder, propose to any person to murder any other person, whether he bo a subject of her Majesty or not, and whether he be within the Queen's dominions or not, shall be guiltj' of a misdemeanour," punishable with not more than ten and not less than live years penal servitude, or with imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for anj' term not exceeding two years. Although conspiracy to murder is only a misdemeanour, sending Tliroaten- a letter threatening murder is a felony (c^). ^"S letter. (d) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 16. See page CU. s. p: 50 CONSPn/A'V To MUnDKll. Agi-ee- If two persons cuter into an ajjrcemont to commit suicide together, lucut to j^j^^i ^jjp means cniplovcd to produce death prove fatal to one only, Buicide. the survivor is guilty of murder (c). In the latest case in which this was lield (c), it was ingeniously contended by the piisoner's counsel that a distinct consideration must he jjroved for the survi- vor's promise to destroy himself, hut the Court said that that was " not the law of the land." Grievous Bodily Harm. — ♦ — [34.] R. V. EDWIN MARTIN. [8 Q. B. D. j-1 (IS.Sl).] Just before the conclusion of the performance at the Leeds Theatre Eoyal on the 30th of April, 1881, a mis- chievous rough determined to play a practical joke on the audience. According!}', he put out the gaslights on a stair- case which a large numher of the people had to descend, and blocked up the exit with an ii'on bar. The result was that a large portion of the audience were seized with panic, and rushed A\-ildly down the staircase against the iron bar. Amongst those seriously injured were two men named Pybus and Dacey. It was lieLI that the rough could be convicted of unlawfully and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon them, "The prisoner," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "must be taken to have intended the natiu\al consequences of tliat which he did. He acted ' unlawfully and maliciously,' not that he had any personal malice against the particidar individuals injm'cd, but in the sense of doing an unlawful act calculated to injure, and by which others were in fact [e) R. V. Jessop, 16 Cox, C. C. 204. OJIIEVOUS BODILY HARM. 51 iujiu'cd; ju^t as iu the oaso of u man Avhu uulawrully fires a gun among a crowd, it is mm-der if one of the crowd is thereby killed." " If the prisoner," said Steplien, J., "did that wliidi he did ' as a mere piece of foolish mischief ' unlawfully and without excuse, he did it ' ?,) -j_Q. B. D. 307. 54 ADMINISTERING NOXIOUS THINGS. oil of juniper had Loon admiuistored to a woman in the hopo of procuring lior miscarriage), tliat if the thing given were a recog- nized " poison," it would come A\-ithin the Act, even if administered in so small a dobO as to bo innocuous. [37.] Trap for Chcniid — Police Ligcnuity. — ♦ — R. r. TITLEY. [14 Cox, C. C. r;02 (ISSO).] Tliis was a case in wliicli tlio police laid a trap for a cliemist whose business, as lie put it himself, " generally lay with ladies whose husbands were away." It was held that supplying a noxious thing to a person Avitli tlie intent that it shall be used by a certain woman to jirocuro abortion, is a misdemeanoiu- witliin 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 69, although ilie woman for irJioin it is intended is not j^regnant. [Edward Clarke, Q.C., and Bcsley for prisoner; Poland and Montagu Williams for Cro^ii.] jj_ ^_ The Court (Mr. Justice Stephen) in this case followed E. v. Hillraan, Hillman(?i), where the jirisoner had supplied a noxious drug, but the woman had no intention of taking it. The conviction was affirmed because, as Erie, C. J., said, "The defendant know what his own intention was." [38.] Rapt — Consent and SiibniissioJi. — ♦ — R. r. FLATTERY. [2Q. B. D. 410(1X77).] A man who kept a stall in a public market, and pro- fessed to give medical and sm-gical advice, fraudulently («) 9 Cox, C. C. 386. RAPE— CONSENT AND SUBMISSION. 65 had sexual connection ^\\\\l a girl of nineteen, under the pretence tliat lie was going to perform an operation whicli would cui'e her of an illness. It was only "Natm-e's string," he remarked, that "wanted hreakiug." It was held that there was no consent to the intercourse, and tliat the prisoner was guilty of rape. ^^ She siihiiiiffcd,^' said Kelly, C. B., ^^ to a surgical operation and nothing eke. It is said, however, that, ha\ang regard to tlie age of the prosecutrix, she must have known tlie natiu-e of sexual connection. I know no ground in law for such a proposition. And, even if she had such knowledge, she might suppose that penetration was being effected witli tlio hand or with an instrument." [Lockwood for prisoner; 8ir II. Giffard, S.-Gr., and C. Bowen for Crown.] It was formeiij^ held tliat tlie having carnal knowledge of a Porsonat- woman by a fraud, which induced her to suppose it was her ^""j"''' husband, was not rape (o}. It has been enacted, however, by the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (^), that such a personation, successfully carried out, shall make the offender guiltj^ of that crime. The same statute makes it a misdemeanour, punishable Violating^ with two years' imprisonment, to unlawfully and carnally know, or idiots, attempt to know, any female idiot or imbecile under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but which prove that the offender knew the woman was an idiot or imbecile (5'). It is to be observed that in cases of this kind there is a distinc- Submis- tion known to the law between consent and submission. "Mere ^^°^* submission," as Kelly, C. B., said in E. v. Wollaston (r), "is not consent, for there may be submission without consent, and while the feelings are repugnant to the act being done." It is obvious, however, that courts and juries must be careful not to avail them- selves of this distinction for the mere purpose of securing the punishment of an immoral man, because the law expects that a person who is indecentlj' assaulted shall make an immediate and effective resistance, and his or her not doing so raises a i^rcsumption of participation amounting to consent. In the case last refei'red to, for instance, where the prosecutors were two boys of fourteen, {o) R. V. Barrow, L. R. 1 C. C. (7) Sect. 5, sxib-s. (2). R. 156. (.'•) 12 Cox, C. C. 180. {/)) 48 & 49 Vict. c. G9, s. 4. 66 RAPE— CONSENT AND SUBMISSION. R. V. Lock. Stripping female patient naked. tho Chief ]5aron, aftor stating the distinction between consent and submission, ■went on to say, " IJiit in tho present case there was actual participation by both parties in tho act done, and complete mutuality. "\Vo should be overturning all the principles of law to say that in this case there was any assault in law"(«). E. r. Lock (<) shows that almost, if not quite, the only case of submission not amounting to consent is where the assault is committed on " one who does not know the nature of the act done." In tho well-known case of E. ;•. Eosinski {n), a quack doctor who made a female patient striji naked, under the pretence that he could not otherwise judge of her illness, was held to have committed an assault on her. The jury in this case expressly found that the prisoner had no real belief that tho stripping the girl could assist him in enabling him to cure her, and accej)ted her statement that " .she did not put off her clothes willingly, but that he made her," so that there was no difficulty. Character of Prosecutrix in Rape Case. [39.] R. r. RILEY. [IS Q. B. D. 481 (1887).] The prosecutrix, in an attempted rape case, was asked in cross-examination whether she had not repeatedly had vohiutarij connection with the prisoner before. This she denied, and it was proposed on behalf of the prisoner to call witnesses to prove times and places. The court refused to hear these witnesses, and the prisoner was found guilt}'. The Court for Crown Cases Eeserved, however, held that the evidence ought to have been received, and quashed the conviction. [Addison, Q.C, for prisoner.] tion with The prisoner, however, cannot call witnesses to show that the othermen. prosecutrix has had connection with other man named. He may ask her in cross-examination whether such is not the fact, but he is bound by her answer on the point. If the rule of evidence were (s) If such a case happened now, the proper course would be to in- dict them all tlirce under the 11th section of the Criminal Law Amend- ment Act, 1885. (0 L. R. 2 C. C. R. 10. («) 1 Moo. C. C. 19. ClfARACTER OF mOSECUTRIX /X I? APE CASE. 67 otherwise, "it would,"' a>i Ivdly, ('. B., said in Iv. r. Holmes (x), R. c. " not only involve a multitude of collateral issues, but an inquiry Holmt'S- into matters as to -which the i:)rosceutrix might bo wholly uniiro- pared, and so work great injustice." It appears, however, that evidence to show that the prosecutrix Common is a common prostitute is still admissible (y). prostitute. Indecent Assault by Conununieat'nig Disease. R. r. BENNETT. [4F. &F. llOd (IS(iG).] The prisoner, knowing that ho had a venereal disease, induced a young gu-1, who was ignorant of his condition, to consent to sleep with him, with tlie result that he com- mimicated his disease to her. It was held that he "s\'as guilty of an indecent assault. "Although," said Willes, J., " tlie girl may have con- sented to sleep, and therefore to have connection, witli her uncle, yet, if she did not com^od to the agcjrai-ated circum- stanccfi, i. e., to connection with a diseased man, and a fraud was committed on her, the prisoner's act would be an assault by reason of such fraud. An assault is within the rule, ihixi fraud vitiates consent.''^ [Murch for Crown.] The prisoner might also, under a similar state of facts, be indicted for inflicting actual bodilj^ harm {z). But a civil action cannot be brought, under such circimistances, by the injured partj% because ex turpi causa non oritur actio («). " Courts of justice no more exist to provide a remedy for the con- sequences of immoral or illegal acts and contracts than to aid or enforce those acts or contracts themselves " (6), [40.] Actual bodily harm. No civil action. {x) L. R. 1 C. C. R. 334. (y) R. V. Clarke, 2 Stark. N. P. 241. (z) R. V. Sinclair, 13 Cox, C. C. 28. («) Ilcgarty v. Shine, 14 Cox, C. C. 145. (i) Per Ball, C, in Hegarty v. Shine. 58 VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN. Value of Proper fy Sfo/eii. [41.] Value. Stealing corpses. Treasure trove. Wreck. Water. R. V. EDWARDS. [13Cox, C. C. 384 (1S7T).] Throe pig.s belonging to Sir William Hart-Djke were Litten by a mad dog. Sir William thereupon had them shot, and buried three feet deej) on his e.state. The pri- soners "SAent the same evening, dug them up, and sent them to the London Meat Market, making about 10/. by the transaction. It A\-as held that, notAvithstanding that the owner had no intention of making any further use of the pigs, there was no ahaiulonrnvnt of the property, and that the jirisoners could be convicted of larceny. [No counsel appeared.] To constitute larceny, tlie tiling stolen must be of some value, although it need not be of the value of any coin known to tho law (z). Neither is it necessary that the property should bo of value to third jjersons, if valuable to the owner (a). Larcenj' at common law, however, cannot be committed of things which are not the subject of property, as of a corpse; but it is a misdemeanour to remove a dead body without authority (h), how- ever laudable may have been the motives of the defendant (c). Of things in which no person has anj determinate propertj', as treasure trove, waifs, itc, till seized, it has been said that larceny cannot be committed ; but it would seem that the true owner, though unknown, has still a property in them, before seizure by tho lord, unless there be circumstances to show an intended dereliction of the property {d). The same has been said of wreck, but wreck- ing is now p^mishable as a felony by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 64. Water supi:)lied by a water company to a consumer, and standing in his pipes, may be tho subject of larceny (e). (;) R. V. Morris, 9 C. & P. 349. la) R. V. Clarke, 2 Leach, 1037. [h) R. r. Lynn, 2 T. R. 733. {c) R. V. Sharpe, Dears, k B. IGO. {d) 2 East, P. C. 606. {() Ferens v. O'Brien, 15 Cox, C. C. 332. STEALING WILD ANIMALS. 59 Sfca/i)io- J J"! Id /iiiinials. R. V. PETCH, [42.] [14 Cox, C. C. 11G(18TS).] The prisoner was indicted under 24 & 25 Yiet. c. 96, s. G7, for larceny, as a» servant to tlio Maliarajali Dhideep Sing, of sixty-one dead rabbits, the property of his master. Tlie prisoner was emplo3'ed by the Maharajah to trap rabbits on a jiart of his estate, and it was liis duty to take them, when trapped, to the head keeper. Contrary to his duty, he fi'oin time to time took rabbits whicli lie had trapped to another part of the land, and put them in a bag- hidden in a hole near a furze bush, witli the intention of appropriat- ing them to his own use. This was noticed by one of the under keepers, a man named Howlett, who went to the bag while the prisoner was away and found sixty-one dead rabbits concealed. He took twenty of them out of the bag, marked them by cutting a small slit under the throat of each, and then replaced them in the bag, covering it up in the hole as it was before. His reason for nicking them in this way was, of com\se, that he might know them again. The prisoner afterwards went to the hole and took away the bag and the rabbits. It was held that the act of the keeper in nicking the rabbits was not a reduction of tliem into the possession of the master, so as to make the prisoner guilty of steahng them. [Kingsford and Maiden for prisoner.] Eabbits, ujion being killed by a wrongdoer, become the property Eeduction of the o'^ner of the soil (/) ; but they arc not thereby rednccd into into pos- possession so as to support an indictment for larceny against a necessary person wrongfully removing and carrying them away (y). (y) Blades V. Higgs, 11 II. of {q) R. v. Townlcy, L. IJ. 1 C. L. Ca. 621. C. k. 315, 60 STKAL/X'i WILD AX/MALS. Dead "NVhero the in■) R. .V: R. 413. EXTOR TK >N B Y FmGIITENimi. 65 Extortion by Frio/ittuing. R, V. McGRATH. [47.] [L. E. 1 C. C. Pv. -lOo (18G9).] Jano Powell, passing a sale room at Liverpool, was invited to enter, and did so. Tliere were about a dozen persons in the room, .and the prisoner was acting- as auctioneer, and selling table cloths and other articles. Although he knew very well that she had not made any- bid, the auctioneer knocked down a piece of cloth to Jane Powell for 26.s\, and refused to let her leave the room till she had paid for it. Simply because she was afraid, she jiaid the money. The prisoner was afterwards convicted of feloniously stealing these twenty-six shillings, and it was held that the conviction was right : because, if the force used to the woman made the taking a robbery, larceny was included in that crime ; A^'hereas, if the force Avas not sufficient to constitute a robber}^, the taking of the money nevertheless amounted to larceny, as she paid the money to the prisoner against her will, and because she was afraid. [Commins for prisoner ; McConnell for Crown.] The leading case was followed in E. v. Lovell {t), where a Needy- travelling grinder had by menaces extorted an excessive price kmfe- from a woman in "Worcestershire for the grinding of some knives. " It is probable that the facts in these cases would not have sus- tained an indictment for robbery, -enough intimidation not having Robberj-. been emploj-ed to constitute that crime (it). But, before the statute referred to in the next leading case, the obtaining of money under a threat of cJiarfjing the prosecutor icith sodornitical p7-actices had been Accusa- held to be robbery (a;); "the law considering the fear of losing tion of character by such an imputation as equal to the fear of losing life ' itself, or of sustaining other personal injury "(?/). {i) 8 Q. B. D. 185. and R. v. Hickman, 1 Leach, 278. (u) See R. r. Knewland and (y) Per Ashurst, J., in R. v. Wood, 2 Leach, 721. Ivnewland and Wood, supra. (.r) R. V. Donnally, 1 Loach, 193; 66 THREATENING TO ACCUSE. Threatening to Accuse. [48.] Guilt or innoceuce imma- terial. Bad law on the "Western Circuit. Third person. Thrcaten- inor letters, R. ( . REDMAN. [L. E. 1 C. C. E. VI (l.S6u).] The prisoner tlireatened a boy's father that he would accuse the boy of having committed an abominable offence on a mare, unless the father bought the marc at tlie prisoner's price. It was held that he was guilty of threatening to accuse, with intent to extort money, within the meaning of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 47. [C. S. Bowen for Crown.] So gravely does tlie law regard the offence of threatening to accuse another of a serious crime (r), with intent to extort money, that the person found guilty of it may be sent into penal servitude for life. It is immaterial whether the person against whom the accusation is threatened he innocent or guilty if the prisoner intended to extort money (s) ; and, therefore, although the prosecutor may be cross-examined as to his guilt of the offence imputed to him, with a view to shake his credit, yet no evidence will be allowed to be given, even in cross-examination, bj'' another witness, to prove that the prosecutor was guilty of such offence (<). A ruling of Mr. Justice Blackburn's on the Western Circuit, to the effect that the guilt or innocence of the prosecutor is material in considering whether, under the circumstances of the case, the intention of the prisoner was to extort money, or merely to compound a felony, is probably bad law (?«). The threat to accuse need not be a threat to accuse before a judicial tribunal; a threat to charge hefore any third j^crson is sufficient («). Sect. 44 of 24 & 2.5 Vict. c. 9G, provides for the proper iiunish- ment (jDcnal servitude for life as a maximum) of the person who sends a letter demanding, with menaces and without reasonable cause, any chattels, money, or other property. Sending a letter threatening to murder a person, to burn down his house, or to maim his cattle, are felonies jiunishable with ten years penal servitude (?/). (m) E. v. Richards, 11 Cox, C. C. (r) See 24 & 2o Vict. c. 96, s. 4G, for Hst of such crimes. (*) R. V. Gardner, 1 C. & P. 479. (t) R. V. Cracknell, 10 Cox, C. C.408. 43. (x) R. V. Robinson, 2 M. & R. 14. (y) See 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 50 ; and 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 10. SOVEREIGN MISTAKEN FOR SHILLING. 07 Sovereig/i fnistakoi for SJiilliiig. R. r. ASHWELL. [49.] [IG Q. B. 1). 190 (188J).] Drinking togetlier one Januaiy evening at a puLlic house in Leieestersliii'o, Ashwell asked Keogli to come into the yard. There he requested Keogh to lend him a shilling. Keogh consented, gave Ashwell what both of them thought was a shilKng, and tlien went home. Ashwell soon discovered that his friend had made a mistake, and that the coin in his possession was not a shilling, but a sovereign. Instead of returning it like an honest man, he fraudulently appropriated it to his own use, changing it the same night at another public house, and afterwards giving false and contradictory accounts as to how he had got it. On these facts (after conviction by a jmy) it was held that the prisoner had not been guilty of larceny as a bailee, and the judges were equally divided in opinion as to whether lie had been guilty of larceny at common law. The conviction therefore stood. " When Ashwell discovered," said Cave, J., " that the coin was a sovereign, he was, I think, boimd to elect, as a finder would be, whether he would assume the responsi- bilities of a possessor ; but at the moment when he was in a position to elect, ho also determined fi-audulently to convert the sovereign to his own use ; and I am, therefore, of opinion that he falls within the principle of R. v. Middleton (2), and was guilty of larceny at common law." [Sills for prisoner ; A. K. Loyd for Crown.] The leading case was distinguislied aud discussed in E. i\ R- v. I'luwcrs. (2) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 4y. f2 G8 SOVEREIGN MISTAKEX FOR f^IIILLINQ. Flowers (a), whero a Leicester •workman received some money innocently, bnt afterwards frandulently appropriated it. " If the jud;^nients of the seven judges," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., " who affirniod the conviction in li. v. Ashwell arc carefully read, it will bo seen that there is a substantial dift'ercnco between that case and the present, and that those judges were of opinion that, to justify a conviction for larceny, the receipt and appropriation must bo contemporaneous." " I am of the same opinion," said Manisty, J., " and am glad that the opportunity has occurred for stating the substance of the decision in R. v. Ashwell. The difference of opinion amongst the judges in that case was founded on the facts of the case, and on the application to those facts of the settled principle of law, that innocent receipt of a chattel, coupled with its subsequent fraudulent appropriation, does not amount to larcenj'. Some of the judges thought that the facts of that case did not show an innocent reception of the sovereign, and said that it was larceny ; others thought that the reception was innocent, and held that it was not larceny. I am glad to think that the old rule of law still exists in its entirety." " The old rule of law," said Sir Henry Ilawkins, " was never really questioned in E. v. Ashwell. This case is altogether different." [50.] Mistake of Post Office Clerk. R. r. MIDDLETON. [L. l\. 2 C. C. 11. 3.S (1,S73).] The prisoner was a dejiositor iu the post office savings Lank at Notting Hill, wlierc the smn of ILs. stood to his credit. He made arrangements for -svithdi'awing 10s. of it, and went to the post office for tlie piu'pose. Unfor- tunately, the clerk referred to the wrong letter of advice, and, instead of handing the customer his lOs., put down £8 : ICs. \0d. on the counter. Tlic prisoner took iqj the money and went off, ha^■ing at the moment of [a) IG Q. B. D. 04. 'i. MISTAKE "F roST OFFK'E CLERK. 69. taking it up an aiiiinua furaudi, and knowing tlio money to Le the money of the Postmaster-Generah By eleven against fom-, the judges decided that the prisoner was guilt}^ of larceny. [Sir J. D. Coleridge, A.-Gr., Metcalfe, and Slade for C^o^^^l.] The ordinary lay reader -will wonder ■svlij' there should have been a shadow of doubt about Middletou's being guilty of larceny, since he clearly intended to steal somebody else's monej'. l>ut the View 2 (1884).] The prisoner was indicted for stealing a mare, the jiro- perty of Alfred Smith, on the 20th of May, 1888, and there was a second count for receiving. It was shown tliat he was in possession of it shortly after it had been stolen, {g) Per Stephen, J., in the leading case. [59.] 78 E. V. Dra":c. Another indict- ment. Previous convic- tion. " 0TIIJ<:R I'linPERTY STOLEN:' for he sold it on or about May 2Gtli. It was held that e\'idenco could not be given by the prosecution to tlie effect that a few days before May 20th the prisoner had been selling another mare which had been stolen from one Harry Broyd on the 22nd of October, 1882. The 19th section of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871 (34 & 35 Vict. c. 112), re(iuires tliat the " other property stolen," of which evi- dence can sometimes bo given, must have been actually in the possession of the prisoner at the time when he was found in possession of the property mentioned in the indictment. [AVedderbm-n for prisoner ; Grrubbe for Crown.] The same ruling had been given a few years before by Bram- well, L. J., on the Midland Circuit (//), and no doubt it is the correct view of the section. But it is perhaps to bo regretted that, -when the only question in issue is the guilty knowledge of the prisoner, the legislature did not clearly provide that the fact of his having been at any time in possession of other property stolon within the preceding period of twelve months should be regarded as relevant and material. Upon the trial of a;n indictment for larceny and receiving, evi- dence of "other jiroperty stolen" maybe given under the Act, although such other property is the subject of another indictment against the prisoner (?). It may be mentioned that the 19th section of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, also provides that, when a person is charged with receiving stolen goods, evidence of his having been convicted during the preceding five years of " any offence involving fraud or dis- honesty " may be given against him at any stage of the proceedings, provided he has had seven days' notice in writing of the prosecu- tion's intention to bring up such previous conviction against him. {h) R. V. Drage, 14 Cox, C. C. (() R. V. Jones and Haynes, 14 Cox, C. C. 3. t^—'^t^ «< .rn^ EMBEZZLEMENT— '' CLERK OR SERVANTS 79 Embezzlement — " Clerk or Servant y R. V. NEGUS. [60.] [L. E. 2 C. C. E. 34 (1873).] The prisoner "\^•as engaged by the prosecutors to solicit orders for them, and he was to be paid by a commission on the simis recei^■od through his means. lie had no authority to receive money, but, if any was paid to him, he was to liand it over at once to his employers. He was at liberty io apply for orders whenever he thought most convenient, but was not to employ himself for any other persons than the prosecutors. Contrary to his duty, he apphed for pajanent of a certain sum, and, having received it, he applied it to his own pui^poses, and denied that it had been paid to him. On these facts it was held that the prisoner was not a " clerk or servant," and could not be convicted of embezzlement under 24 & 25 Vict. e. 96, s. 68. "The test," said Blaekbm-n, J., "is very much this, viz., xchdhc)' the permn charged is uiidei- the control, and hound to ohcij the orders of his master. He may be so without being bound to devote his whole time to this service ; but, if bound to devote his whole time to it, that would be very strong evidence of his being imder control. This case differs in nothing from the ordinary one of a commission agency, except in the sole statement that the prisoner was not to work for others. But I do not think that circumstance by itself alone enables us to say that ho was a servant of the prosecutor." [F. F. Lewis for Crown.] A person indicted for embezzlement must be shown either to << Clerk or have been "« clerk or servant," or, at all events, to have been servant." 80 EMBEZZLEMENT— '^ CLERK o/,' SEIiVAXT." Son may bo clerk. Not con- fined to trade. Mode of paj'ment imma- terial. R. V. Bailey. R. V. Bowers. Employ- men c need not be perma- nent. Treasurer of friendly society. " employed fur the purpose, or in the capacity, of a clerk or servant." A son who lives with his father, and performs for him duties usually performed by a clerk, is witliin the statute, though he receives no salurj', and though there is no contract binding him to go on doing those duties (y). "If it had been necessary," said Pollock, B., "to say absolutely that the prisoner was a clerk or servant, I should have hesitated. But I think the words ' employed for the purpose, or in the capacity, of a clerk or servant ' are wider, and that there is evidence to bring the case within them." The statute is not confined to the clerks and servants of persons in trade, but extends to the clerks and servants of all persons whatsoever if they are employed to receive money, etc. (A-). The mode by which the prisoner was remunerated for his service is immaterial. Thus, a commercial traveller who is paid by com- mission onlj% getting no definite salary whatever, is within the statute if he is hound to go tvliere his employer tells him, and to devote his whole business time to his service (l). But where the prisoner was emi^loyed by the prosecutors as their agent for the sale of coals on commission, and to collect monej'S in connection with his orders, but was at liberty to dispose of his time as he liked, and to get or abstain from getting orders as he chose^ he was held not to be " clerk or servant " (m). It is not nccessarj'' that the emijloyment should be of a permanent kind. Thus, where a drover, who was employed to drive two cows to a purchaser, and receive the purchase-money, embezzled it, he was held to be a servant (n). A mere unpaid treasurer of a friendly society is not a clerk or servant of the trustees in whom the moneys of the society are vested, and cannot be indicted for embezzlement (o). "I believe that there is no case," said Bovill, C. J., "to show that the treasurer of a friendly society can be indicted for embezzlement. The essence of the indictment in this case is, that the prisoner was a clerk or servant of the trustees. The trustees have all moneys of the society vested in them by Act of Parliament, as well as by one of their rules, and the prisoner must account to them ; but this does not make him their servant. The treasurer is an account- able officer, but not a servant." U) R. V. Foulkes, L. E. 2 C. C. R. 150. (A) R. V. Squire, R. & R. 349. (l) R. V. Bailey, 12 Cox, C. C. 56 ; and see R. v. Tito, L. & C. 29. (/«) R. V. Bowers, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 41. («) R. V. Hughes, 1 Moo. C. C. 370. {o) R. V. Tyree, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 181 ; and see R. v. Diprose, 11 Cox, C. C. 185. EMBEZZLEMENT BY ASSISTANT OVERSEER. 81 Embezzleinent by Assistant Overseer, R. V. COLEY. [61.] [10 Cox, C. C. 226 (1887).] The prisoner was indicted for embezzling tlio moneys of the inhabitants of the toAMiship of Hasbmy, in Worcester- shire, while acting as assistant overseer. His nomination, however, to that office did not specify as one of the duties he was to perform the duty of collecting or recei\'ing money, and it was held that, inasmuch as under 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7, an assistant overseer can only be appointed by justices for such purposes as are specified in the nomina- tion, he could not be convicted of embezzling rates col- lected by him as clei^ or servant of the inhabitants within the meaning of 24 & 25 Yict. c. 95, s. 68. [Amphlett for prisoner ; Cranstoun for CrowTi.l This is an important decision if it is allowed to stand ; Liit it is p.. v. difficult to see how it is reconcilable with E. v. Hall (77) and other cases. HaU. Evibezzlhig Funds of Unregistered Friendly Soeiety. R. V. STAINER. [62.] [L. Pv. 1 C. C. E. 230 (1870).] The prisoner was local secretary of an unregistered friendly society, some of whose rides were in restraint of trade, and it was contended that, for that reason, he could not be con\icted of embezzling the funds of the society. It was held, however, that, while sucii rides may be void {p) 1 Moo. C. C. 474. 8. G S2 KMUF./ZLiNa rrxDs (IF uxnFdfsT /■:/!/■:/) society. JUS l)ciii<^- against puLlic pnlicy, llicy arc iiol cviinliial, and therefore that the couviotion was proj^er. [Strceter and Jelf for prisoner ; J. O. CJriflits for CroA\Ti.] ^^If^^"^ In lu r. naut(7), however, it was liokl tLat a i)orsoii could not be convicted of cuibezzlomcnt as clerk or servant to a society ■which, in consequence of administering an unlawful oath to its members, was an unlawful combination and confederacy. E.xistiug Fact in False Pretences. t^3 3 R. ,. COOPER. [2 Q. 1!. ]). 01()(1ST7).] Tlie prisoner -was indicted for having oLtained a qnan- tity of potatoes by tlie false pretences that he was a potato dealer in a large way, and able to pay for large quantities of potatoes supplied to him. The only evidence of these pretences was the following letter from him to the j)rose- cutor : — '■'■ Jlconcrion., Bheffidd, ^^ Bear Sir, ^' Jaiiiiar// 17///, 1S77. '^Please send )ne one truvl; of regcHfa and one trucl; of rocJis as samj^le, at your prices named in your letter. Let them he good quality, and then I am sure a (jood trade uill he done for hoth of us. I will remit you the cash on arrival of goods and iiwoice. " Yours truly, " WiUiani Cooper. '' P.S. — / n/ay say, f you use me u-ell, I shall he a good customer. An answer will ohlige saying when they are put 0)i." [q) 8 C. i: P. 6-1 -2. EXISTlNd FACT IX FALSI-: /'JIFTFXCKS. 83 It was held that this letter reasuiiuLly conveyed to the mind the construction put upon it in the indictment, and that the false pretences alleged were proved. " The question in all these cases," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "is ic/iat icas infolded to be conveyed to the mind of the prosecutor by the acts, conduct, or silence of the prisoner. If a particular idea is intended to he convej'ed to his mind, and is conveyed, and if it bo false, the statute is complied with." [Sanderson Tennant for prisoner ; Frank Lockwood for Crown.] So in the famous case of the sham under(jraduate (r) it was held ^- ''• ^^'^• that if a person at Oxford, who is not a member of the TJniversitj% ^^^ ' goes to a shop for the purpose of fraud, wearing a commoner's cap and gown, and obtains goods, his appearing in caji and gown is a sufficient false pretence to satisfy the statute, although ho does not say anything. So, also, if a person obtains goods from another by giving his Worthless cheque upon a banker with whom in fact he has no account, and '^"^l"^- having no reason to suppose his cheque will be honoured, this is an obtaining by false in-etences (s). In E. r. Hazclton(/), it was R. r. said by Lush, J., "I think giving a choquo is not a representation HazeltoD. that the giver then has funds in the bank to the amount of the cheque. Many a man draws a cheque, either intending to pay in money to meet it, or having a right to overdraw. But here the prisoner, when he obtained the goods, said that he irishal to 2^ui/ ready money ; and that amounts to a rejiresentation that the cheque was equal to cash, whereas he had no real account at the bank at all." But a man who gives a cheque on a bank where he has no Sanguine, account at the time he gives it, must not be convicted of false • V" , pretences if he was honestly in the expectation of there being funds to meet the cheque at the time of its presentment («). Such a person may have acted rashh' and foolislil}', but ho had no intent to defraud. Fraudulently offering a "Hash note" in i)a3'ment, under Flash notes. (/■) R. V. Barnard, 7 C. k V. 78i. knew that it was virtually closeil, («) E.. V. Jackson, 3 Camp. 370. and that his cheques would not bo {t) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 13i. lu paid. this case the prisoner had formerly {u) R. r. Walae, 11 Cox, C. C. had an account at the bank, hut he 647. 2 84 EXISTING FACT IN FALSE PRETENCES. Word competi- tions. R. V. deU. Ran- liretencc that it is a gooil bank note, is a false pretence within the statute {or). The leading case was followed in the very recent case of R. v. Randcll(y), where the defendant's particular line of swindling was the advertising of sham "word competitions" in newspapers. "The advertisement," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "was clearly intended to convey that there was such a person as the ' Eev. A. Brient,' and that he had instituted a word competition for which a prize was to be given, and that the proceeds were to be devoted to one of the charitalile institutions of Dr. Baruardo, all which was pure invention, and made for a purpose which is quite jilain. The l^erson who put forth such pretences, and who received money by means of such pretences, which he knew to be false, is guilty of obtaining money by means of false jiretences. This is the effect of all the authorities, and especiallj^ of E. v. Cooper." See also the recent case of R. v. Powell [yy), where the conviction of the fraudulent agent of a life assurance company was aflirmcd. Prom is SO jy False Pretences. [64.] R. V. JENNISON. [L. & C. 157 (18G2).] The prisoner was indicted for obtaining 8/. from a servant girl by false pretences ; the false pretences being tliat be v\'as an unmarried man, that he would marry the prosecutrix, and that with the money she was to give him he would fmniisli a house at Liverpool for tliem to live in. It was held that the prisoner could be properly convicted, because though two of the false pretences alleged were merely promises relating to tlmigs to be done in the future, the statement that he was unmarried was a false pretence as to an existing fact, without making which he would not have got the money. [No counsel appeared.] A promissory false pretence cannot be made the subject of an (.r) R. V. Coulson, 1 Den. 592. \y) Times Law Reports, Dec. 10th, 1887. {>jy) 15 Cox, C. C. o68. rnoMissonv false pretences. 85 indictment. To constitute the crinie of obtaining by false pre- tences, the pretence must bo of an existin(j fact ; and so where tho Gouicr to prosecutor lent 10?. to the prisoner on the false pretence that he 1"'^ ^""^ ... rcut. was going to pay his rent, it was held that there could bo no con- viction, for the prisoner's representations related merely to his future conduct (z). But such representations may render the As.scrtiou person who makes them criminally liable if they imply an assertion ? I'owt'r of his poivcr to carrj' them out, as in a ca.se where tho prisoner used oulj' promi-ssory words about bringing back a woman's husband Bringing (who had run away) "over hedges and ditches," but implied that ^'^^^^ ^^^^' she had^>o(f'e?' to bring him back (rt). And where money was obtained ' by the defendant by the false representation that Messrs. "Warrinor directory & Co. were about to publish a new directorj', and that tho defen- coming dant was collecting information for it, this was held to be a false *^^*'* pretence of an existing fact(i). "At the time the money was obtained," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "the representation was false, and it was not the less a false pretence because at a future time the prisoner might have brought out a new directory with tho title of "Warrinor & Co.'s Directory." Intent to Defraud in False Pretences. R. V. NAYLOR. [65.] [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 4 (18G.5).] In this case tlie j^i'isoiier had been found guilty of obtaining some carpets by false pretences, and the convic- tion was held to be right, notwithstanding that he had intended to pay for the carpets when it should be in his j)0wer to do so. [No counsel appeared.] Though, to constitute the misdemeanour of obtaining money or Intent to goods by false pretences, there must always be an intent to defraud, defraud, that intent may be implied sufficiently from the facts of the case. [z) E. v. Lewis Lee, 9 Cox, C. C. («) R. f. Giles, L. & C. .502. 304. [h) R. V. Speed, 15 Cox, C. C. 24. 8G How to get pay- ment of a debt. Indict- ment. INTENT TO DKI'RAUI) IN IWLHK I'llETENCKS. Hut in R. V. Ilonry Williams (c), -whero tho prosecutor, Teter "Williams, owed John "Williams, tho prisoner's master, a sum of money of wliicli it seemed impossible to get payment, and the prisoner, to secure to his master tho means of paying himself, vent to the prosecutor's wife in her husband's absence, and falsely told her that his master had bought of her husband two sacks of malt, and had sent him to fetch thcni away, whereupon tho prosecutor's wife, believing tho story, delivered tho sacks to him, it was held that if the prisoner's intention was not to defraud Peter "Williams, but merely to jntt it into his master's j)Oiver to compel him to j)(ii/ a just debt, there ought not to be a conviction for false pretences. " It is not sufficient," said tho Court, " that tho prisoner knowingly stated that which was false, and thereby obtained the malt ; you must be satisfied that tho prisoner at tho time intended to defraud Peter "Williams." An indictment for false pretences must contain the words " in- tent to defraud," and, if they are omitted, it cannot be amended (cc). Puffnii^ not Indictable. [66.] R. V. BRYAN. [1 Dears. &!!. 2GJ( 18,37).] The prisoner succeeded in obtaining a substantial loan from a pawnbroker on sonic very inferior sjwons by fi'audulently and falsely representing tbem to be as good as "Elkington's A." spoons, to have as much silver on them, that the foundations were of the best material, &c., &c. It was held, Iiowever, that he could not be (■()n^•i(•t('d of obtaining money by false pretences, because his state- ments were in the natm-e of " mere praise or exaggeration, or puffing." " It seems to me," said Lord Campbell, C. J., " it ncvcv could have been the intention of the Icgi-slature to make it an indictable offence for the Heller to exaggerate the quality {<■) 7 C. & r. 3.51. \cc) R. V. James, 12 Cox C. C. 127. PUFFING NOT INDICTABLE. 87 of that nJiivh he isi scl/iiu/, any iiioro tlian it ■would Ito an indietable offeiieo for tlio piu'cliaser, during- tlio bargain, to depreciate the quality of the goods, and to sa}' that they were not equal to that which they really were. . . . As yet, I find no case in which a mere misrepresentation at the time of sale of the quality of the goods has been held to be an indictable offence." [B. C. Robinson and F. II. Lewis for prisoner ; Hardinge Giffard for Crown.] The later case of R. v. Ardley {d) does not in any waj' conflict R. ,.. with the leading case. There the prisoner induced the prosecutor Ardley. to buy a chain from him by fraudulently representing that it was 15-carat gold, when ho knew very well it was only of a qualit}' a trifle better than 6-carat. This was held to be a statement as to a specific fact •within the knowledge of the prisoner, and therefore a sufficient false i)retence to warrant a conviction. So, where the defendant falsely represented to the prosecutrix The tea that certain packages which he sold to her contained good tea, trade, whereas in fact they contained a mixture of which only one -fourth part in each package was tea, the remaining three-fourths consist- ing of eand and other articles unfit for food or drink, and the jury found that the defendant knew the real natiu'O of the contents of the packages, the conviction was held right (e). "Where the defendant pretended that he was carrying on an Swindling extensive business as a surveyor and house agent, and therebj' ^ clerk, induced the prosecutor to deposit with him 25^ as a security for his fidelity as a clerk, whereas, as a matter of fact, the defendant was not carrying on any business as a surveyor or house agent, ho was held to be gviilty of obtaining the money by false pretences (/). But a false representation, though "grossly fraudulent," as to Misrcpre- the value of a business, supposing the defendant was doing any scntiug business at all, will not sustain an indictment for false pre- j '' V^ " tences {(j). {(f) L. R. 1 C. C. R. 301. iff) R. V. Williamsou, 11 Cox, [c) R. V. Foster, 2 Q. B. D. 301. C. C. 328. (/) R. r. Crabb, 11 Cox, C. C. 85. [67.] PROSECUTOR NOT DECEIVED BY FALSE PRETENCES. Prosecutor not deceived by False Pretence. R. !. MILLS. [Dears. & B. 20j (1857).] The prisoucT was cliargcd with obtaining money by the false pretence that he had cut sixty-three fans of chaff, when in fact he had only cut forty-five. It appeared by the e\-idence that the prisoner A\\as employed to cut chaff at twojience per fan, and that on making- the false pretence alleged in the indictment, lie demanded lOs. M. from the prosecutor. The prosecutor had previously seen the prisoner remove eighteen fans from an adjoining place and add them to the heap which he pretended he had cut, but, notwithstanding this knowledge, he paid the prisoner the amount he demanded. It was held that there ought not to be a conviction, because the money had not been obtained by means of the false pretence. " The test is," said Cockbm-n, C. J., " ichat is tJte moticc operating on the mind of the prosecutor which induced him to part yai\\ his money ? Here the prosecutor knew that the pretence was false ; he had the same knowledge of its falseness as the prisoner. It was not the fahe jjrctcncc, therefore, which induced the prosecutor to part with his money ; and if it is said that it was parted ■\^•ith from a desire to entrap the prisoner, how can it be said to have been obtained by means of the false pretence ? " [On'idge for Crowii.] In such a caso as this, however, there can be a conviction for attempting to obtain (A). In E. V. Jones (t) the prisoner went into a shop called London House, at Llanrwst, and asked for some goods, which were put (A) R. r. Roebuck, Dears, k B, 24. (j) 15 Cox, C. C. 475. PROSECUTOR NOT DECEIVED BY FALSE PRETENCES. gg Joues. into a parcel for her. She said her name was Miss Jonos of Cefn Tliowronf Shercam, Carnarvon, wliicli ^"as a lie. The Jones of Cefn Shcrcam Miss did not know the prisoner, and never ordered any good.s. It was hehl, however, that a conviction could not be sui)ported, as tho false pretence charged and proved was that the prisoner was tho daughter of Miss Jones of Cefn Shercam, and there was 720 evidence that the goods had not been delivered to the prisoner before her name and address tvere asked for. " It must always appear," said Grove, J., "on an indictment for obtaining goods by false pre- tences, that the iH'osecutor parted with the goods upon i/ic faith of the false pretence alleged, and here that does not appear." "It is not enough," said Mathew, J., "to show that a false address was given if it does not appear that the goods were parted with on the faith of it." Remoteness in False Pretences, R. V. MARTIN. [L. E. 1 C. C. E. 5G (1867).] In tliis case tlie prisoner liacl by false pretences induced a wheelwriglit to make him a spring van, and it was held that a con%'iction for obtaining a chattel by false i')retences is good, although the chattel is not in existence at the time the pretence is made, provided the subsequent de- livery of the chattel is dii'ectly connected with the false pretence. "It is absurd," said Bovill, C. J., "to say that the chattel obtained must be in existence when the pretence is made. The pretence must, indeed, precede the delivery of the thing obtained ; but at what distance of time ? "What is the test? Sm-ely this, that there must be a direct connection heticccn the i^rctcncc and the dclivcnj, — that there must be a continuing pretence. Whether there is such a connection or not is a question for the jmy. . . . In the present case, when the false pretence was made [68.] 90 REMOTENESS IN FALSE PnETENCES. P. r. Gardner. R. r. IVIonis Brj-an. Interven- tion of contract. How to vriu a 8-wimming handicap. An honest foreman. and tlio order given, it was never contemplated that the matter should rest there ; and -we have no difriculty in liolding that there Avas a continuing pretence, and a delivery obtained thereby." [Kennedy for prisoner.] AVitli tho loading case should be compared the cases of E. r. Gardner (/), and E. v. ;^[orris Bryan (//(j. In the fonner case tho prisfoncr falsely represented himself to bo a naval officer, and eg obtained lod) IG Cox, C. C. 02. 92 HIRING A HORSE BY FALSE PRETENQES. "The word 'obtain,'" said Bovill, C. J., "docs not nicau obtain tlic loan of, but obtain the property in, any cliattol." [Simpson for CroA^ai.] Obtaining Tho ablo counsel who appeared for the prosecution in this case railway pressed upon the attention of the Court the case of E. v. Boulton(r), where the prisoner had by false pretences obtained a railway ticket to travel by the Lancashire and Yorkshire lino from Bradford to Iluddcrsfield, and was hold to have been rightly convicted, though tho ticket had to bo given up at the end of tho journey. " Tho reasons for this decision," said the Court in the leading case, " do not very clearly appear, but it may be dis- tinguished from the present case in this respect, that the prisoner by using the ticket for tho purpose of travelling on tho railway entirely converted it to his own use for the only X'urpose for ichich it was capahh of heinrj applied." [70.] Previous False Pretences. B. V. FRANCIS. [L. E. 2 C. C. E. 128 (1874).] The prisoner was indicted for endeavom-iug to obtain an nih-anee from a pa^v^lbroker upon a ring by the false pretence that it was a diamond ring. Evidence was held to have been rightly admitted to the effect that two days before the transaction in question the prisoner had ob- tained an advance from a pawnbroker upon a chain which he represented to be a gold chain, but which was not so, and had endeavom-ed to obtain from other pawnbrokers advances upon a ring which he represented to be a diamond 1 Den. C. C. 508. PREVIOUS FALSE PRETENCES. 93 ring, but which, in the opinion of the "uitnesses, was nothing of the kind. "It seems clear npon principle," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., " that when the fact of the prisoner having done the thing charged is proved, and tlie onl}^ remaining question is, whether at the time he did it he had guilty knowledge of the quality of his act or acted under a mistake, evidence of the class received must be admissible. It tends to show that he was pursuing a course of similar acts, and thereby it raises a presumption that he was not acting under a mistake." [Hensman for prisoner.] Tliis case is useful as sliowing that there are times when the Provioiis previous misdeeds of a prisoner may be given in evidence against ""^"^'c^^^- him. See, also, E. v. GeGring(.5) as to 25oisonings ; E. v. Richard- son {t) as to embezzlements ; E. v. Gray (u) as to arsons ; and E. v. Whiley {v) as to utterings. But on a charge of obtaining money by false pretences from one Suhse- person, evidence of a subsequent obtaining from another, is not ?"•'"• ,^ admissible {x). Restoration of Property on Conriction. VILMONT V. BENTLEY. [71.] [57 L. J. Q. 13. 18 (1887).] This was an interpleader issue, Bentley, the defendant, being a person who had in a hond fide manner, in the ordinary way of business, and in nuirket overt, bought some goods wliieli a man named Hodder had obtained by false pretences. Hodder was prosecuted to con\dction, and, that being so, it was held that, in ^'irtue of 24 & 25 {s) 18 L. J. (M. C.) 215. {v) 2 Leach, 983. (0 2 F. & F. 3J3. \x) R. V. Holt, 30 L. J. (M. C.) In) AY 5' F. 1102. 11. 94 JIESTOUATION OF rilOI'FJlTY <>\' ('oSVK'TloN. Moyce r. Newing- ton over- ruled. Proceeds. Yict. c. OG, s. 100, Bentley must restore tlif <,n)(Ml.s tu the people ulio liad been swindled out of tlieui. [Charles, Q.C., aud 0. W. Mathews for philntiff ; Sir R. Webster, Q.C., A.-G., Jelf, Q.C., and AttenLorough for defendant.] The leading case overrules Moyce v. Newington (y), where it was held that section !00 only applied to cases in ^s•llicll possession had been obtained without the property passing. See the recent case of E. v. JJ. of the Central Criminal Court {yy), as to the power of courts before which convictions take place to order the restitution of the proceeds of the goods as well as of the "oods themselves. Forgery. [72.] R. V. ROBERT MARTIN. [5 (i. B. ]). ?>\ (1879).] 'Ihe prisoner, admiring a pony and carriage which the prosecutor was driving at Ashford in Kent, agreed to buy them for £32, and both parties went into a neigldjom-ing public-liouse to settle the matter. There the prisoner wrote out a cheque for the amount on a bank wliere he knew very well he had no account, and signed it " William Martin," whereas his real Christian name was " Robert," all this being with the intent to defraud. It was held, however, that he could not be convicted of forgery. [No counsel .'ippearcd.] Dunn's ^'^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^'^ Court full(;wed the resolution in Dunn's case (z), case. which is that, "In all forgeries the instrument supposed to bo forged must be a false instrument in itself ; and if a person give a note entirely as his own, his subscribing it by a fictitious name will not make it a forgery, the credit there being wholly given to himself, without any regard to the name, or any relation to a third person." See also the recent case of E. v. Ilarper {zz). (y) 4 Q. B. D. 32. [y,j) IG Cox, C. C. 143. (.-) 1 Leach, 59. (rr) H Cox, C. C. 574. nunaLMiv. ' 95 Burglary. [73.] R. r. HUGHES. [1 Loacli, -lOG (ITSJ).] The prisoner, ^Yith the intention of breaking into a house in the night-time to steal, bored a hole with an instrument called a " centre-bit" through the panel of the house-door near to one of the bolts by which it was fastened. iSome of the pieces of the broken panel were found inside the thi^eshold of the door, but it did not apipear that any instrument, except the point of tlic centre-bit, or that any part of the prisoner's body, had been inside, or that the aperture made was in fact large enough to admit a man's hand. It was held that there was here no sufficient entru to constitute bm'glary. [No counsel appeared.] Wliere no part of the prisoner's body entered tlio house, but lie Whatisan introduced an instrument, wbether that introduction was such an " entry P" entry as to make him guilty of burglary depends on the object with which the instrument was employed. Thus, if the instru- ment was employed not merely for the purpose of making the entry, but for the purpose of committing the contemplated felonj', it will be held to have been an entry, as where a man puts a hook or other instrument to steal, or a jHstol to kill, through a window, though his hand is not in, this is an entry («). In E. V. Eust(Z;) where the prisoner threw up a window, and E.c. Rust, introduced a crow-bar to force the shutters, which were three inches from the window, but no part of his hand was within the window, this was held not to be an entry, although the jurj' found that the prisoner did it with the intent to steal. "Where the breaking with intent to commit a felony is 2)roved, Attempt. but there is no proof of entry, the prisoner may bo convicted of the attempt to commit burglary ('•). (a) 1 Hale, P. C. 555. (c) E. r. Spanner, 12 Cox, C. C. (i) 1 Mood. C. C. 183. 155. 96 ARSON. Arsoji. — ♦- — ■ [74.] R. V. CHILD. [L. E. 1 C. C. R. 307 (1871).] The prisoner, from ill-will and malice against the prose- cutrix, broke up her chaii's, tables, and other fumitui'e, made a pile of them and her clothes on the stone floor of the kitchen of her lodgings, and lit them at the four comers, so as to make a bonfire of them. The building ■would almost certainly have been burned in consequence had not the police, who were sent for, succeeded in extin- guif^hing the bonfire which the prisoner had kindled before the house was actually ignited. Tlie prisoner was indicted under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 7, which provides that " who- soever shall unlawfully and maliciously set fire to any matter or thing being in, against, or under any building, under such circumstances that if the building were thereby set fire to the offence would amount to felony, shall be guilty of felony." The verdict of the jury was " guilty, hut not so tJuit if the house had caught fire the setting fire to the house u-ouW have been uilful and malicious" On this finding, it was held that the prisoner was entitled to have his con\'iction quashed. " It is a simple case," said Bovill, C. J., " of wilfully and maliciously setting fii'e to goods, and no more felony than setting fire to a box of matches on a stone floor." "I reserved the question for this Court," said Black- bm-n, J., "because I thought the framers of the section in question intended to include this case. But they have failed to express their intention." [No counsel appeared.] E. V. In E. V. Kattass(cZ), where a servant girl under notice to leave Nattass. {(l) 15 Cox, C. C. 73. AESON. Qf set various things on firo on three different occasions, and in E. v. R. v. Ilarris(t'), -where a -workman cut a valuable painting, kno-wn as Harria. " The Monarch of the Meadows," out of its frame, and then set firo to the frame in order to conceal his larceny, the leading case -was foUo-wcd, and indeed, though some unfortunate miscarriages of justice have taken jdace in consequence, no other construction of section 7 seems possible. Daviao^c to Property. R. V. WILLIAM FISHER. [L. E. 1 C. C. E. T (KSGJ).] Tlic prisoner plugged up tlie feed-pipe of a steam engine, and displaced otlier parts of the engine in such a way as rendered it temporarily useless, and woidcl have caused an explosion if the obstruction had not been dis- covered and removed. It was held that he was guilty of damaging the engine Tvitli intent to render it useless, within the meaning of 24 & 25 Yict. c. 97, s. 15. " It is like the case of spiking a gun," said Pollock, C. B., "where there is no actual damage done to the gun, although it is rendered useless. The case falls within the expression ' damage with intent to render useless.' Can it be said that the machine was not damaged when it was placed in such a position that, if the water had gone on boiling, the boiler would have bm'st ? Moreover, great injmy may be done to a machine by the displacement of its parts ; and in this case, until the parts were replaced, the machine was useless. Sm-ely the displacement of the {/) li5 Cox, C. C. 75. S. H [75.] 98 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. parts Avas a (laniag(> ultliiii tlio 15th section, if done with intent to render tlic niaeliine useless." [J. II. Mills for prisoner ; Onidge for Crown.] R. V. So under tlio rci^ealecl statute, 28 Geo. 3, c. bb, it was held that Tacoy. ^^^ taking out anil carrying away a part of a stocking frame, with- out which the frame would not work, was damuyiitg the frame, although the jmrt taken out was not injured, and the replacing it would make the frame all right again (/). Accomplices, [76.] R. V- STUBBS. [25 L. J. M. C. IC (1855).] Stubbs and tliree other persons were indicted at Durham County Quarter Sessions for stealing some copper. Three accomplices swore that Stubbs assisted at taking some of the coi^per and selling it to a marine-store dealer. The latter being called, stated that the tliree other prisoners were the parties who brought the copper and sold it to him. No other evidence was adduced against Stubbs, but the accomplices were corroborated in other particulars with regard to the three other prisoners. Stubbs was found guilty by the jury, and it was held that, although a con- viction on the uncoiToborated testimony of an accomphce is contrary to usage and to be regretted, still it is not contrary to the law, and cannot be quashed. "We cannot interfere," said Jervis, C. J., "though we may regret the result that has been amved at, for it is contrary to the ordinary practice. It is not a rule of law that accomplices must be confu-med in order to render a conviction valid, and it is the duty of the judge to tell the (/) R. v. Tacey, R. & R. 452. ACCOMPLICES. 99 jury that they may act on the unconfirmed testimony of an accomplice ; hut it is usual in practice to adciac the jiuy not to convict on such testimony alone, and jmies generally attend to the judge's direction, and require confirmation. But it is only a rule of practice." [Gray for Crown.] The evidence of an accomplice, altliougli admissible, is naturally regarded -witli very great suspicion. Not only is the witness Necessity neceisarily a person of damaged character — not onlj' is he pre- "^j" ^°''" sumably anxious to save his own skin and please the authorities — ^jqu / but also he shows, by the very fact of his "rounding" on his friends, that he is destitute of the most elementary notions of loyaltj^ and honour. The rule of practice, therefore, which requires that he shall be corroborated has become so well established that it is now almost (but not quite) a rule of law. The corroboration should be not onlj' as to the circ^imstanccs of both as to the crime itself, but also as to the prisoner's having been implicated circum- 111 it ((/). ^ jin^ iden. The evidence of other accomplices is, of course, not corrobora- tity. tion (/«) ; for no number of blacks will make a white. Nor will Other the evidence of the wife of an accomplice carry the case any ^?|^°"^' further ; for husband and wife ' ' must bo taken as one for this purpose" {i). It is to be observed, in conclusion, that the judge is not entitled puty of to direct an acquittal as a matter of course in a case where there is ^^^ °*^' no sufficient confirmation of an accomplice's evidence. lie cannot do more than give the jury his advice, and tell them how im- portant it is, for the jwotection of innocence, that no one should bo convicted except on the testimony of at least one reliable witness. Dnuikcnncss as an Excuse /or Cri/nc. R. V. CRUSE. [77.] [8 C. & P. 541 (1838).] A hushand and wife were charged with seriously in- juring a child with intent to murder it. It was hold that ig) See R. v. Birkett, 8 C. & P. {i) Per Park, J., iu R. r. Neal, 732. 7 C. & P. 1C8. (/*) R. V. Noakos, 5 C. & P. 320. h2 100 DEUNKENNESS AS AN EXCUSE FOR CRIME. R. r. Monk- house. R. V. Doherty ilR'ir lla^dng both been dnuik at tlio tlnio was a circum- staneo whii'li mig-lit lie taken into account to sliow tliat they had no such guilty intention. "It appears," said Pattesou, J., to the jury, "that both these persons were di-unk, and although drunkenness is no excuse for any crime whatever, yet it is often of very great importance in cases Avlicre it is a question of intention. A person fiia// he .so dnoih an to he ntterlij unable to form any intention at alir [Carrington for prisoners; J, Jeffreys Williams for Crown.] In the later case of E. i\ Monkliousc(/), where the prisoner -was indicted for discharging a loaded pistol at the prosecutor with intent to murder him, Mr. Justice Coleridge expressed substantial agreement with the view of Mr. Justice Patteson in the leading case. "Drunkenness," he said, "is ordinarilj^ neither a defence nor excuse for crime, and where it is available as a partial answer to a charge, it rests on the prisoner to prove it, and it is not enough that he was excited or rendered more irritable, unless the intoxication was such as to prevent his restraining himself from committing the act in question, or to take away from him the power of forming any specific intention. Such a state of drunken- ness may no doubt exist. To ascertain whether or not it did exist in this instance, you must take into consideration the quantity of spirit he had taken, as well as his previous conduct." So, in the very recent case of E. v. Dohertj' (/c), which was a trial for murder, Mr. Justice Stephen said, " Although you cannot take drunkenness as anj' excuse for crime, j'ct when the crime is such that the intention of the party committing it is one of its constituent elements, you may look at the fact that a man was in drink in considering whether he formed the intention necessary to constitute the crime." Attempt- Drunkenness may be a complete defence to an indictment for attemjiting suicide (/). Delirium tremens caused by drinking, if it produces such a degree of madness, although only temporary, as to render a person incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, relieves him ing sm- cide. Delirium tremens. (i) 4 Cox, C. C. 55. {k) IGCox, C. C. 30G. (l) See R. V. Moore, 3 C. & K. 319 ; and R. v. Doody, G Cox, C. C. 463. INSANITY AS AX EXCUSE FOR CHIME. IQl from criminal responsibility for any act committed by him while under its influence (m). Insanity as an E.xcilsc for Cr'uitc. R. V. OXFORD. ["73 -] [9 C. & P. 525 (1840).] Tlic prisoner cliscliargccl tlio contents of two i)Istols, probably not loaded -v^dtli ball, at tlie Queen, and the defence of insanity was set up for him. It was held that he was not to be acquitted unless it was shown that he did not hnow he ivas doiiKj wrong. "The question is," said Lord Denman, 0. J., "whether the prisoner was labouring under that species of insanity which satisfies you that he was quite tinaicare of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing, or, in other words, whether he was under the influence of a diseased mind, and was really imconscious at the time ho was committing the act that it w^as a crime." [J. Sydney Taylor for prisoner; Campbell, A.-Gr., and Wilde, S.-G., for Cro^vii.] The point is, that everything depends on the attitude of the frisoner^s mind vnth rerjard to the particular act charged against him. If it was a guilty mind with regard to that act, its general derangement will not bo an excuse. Tlius, in the case of Lord PeiTcra' Ferrers (h), who was tried before the House of Lords for the murder case, of his steward, it was shown that he was occasionallj^ insane, and incapable from his insanity of knowing what ho did, or judging of the consequences of his actions. Many witnesses stated tliat they considered him insane, and it appeared tliat several of his relations had been confined as lunatics. But as it ajipcared that the murder (ill) E. V. Davis, 11 Cox, C. C. (») 19 St. Tri. 917. 563. 102 INSANITY AS AN EXCUSE FOR (TdME. Tho Townlcy case. Remarks of Ste- phen, J., in. E. V. Davis. Sudden and un- controll- able im- pulse. of his steward was deliborato, and that tho carl know quite well in that particular instance what ho was doing, ho was found guilty and executed. So, in tho Townloy case(«), the prisoner was no doubt tho sort of person who ought to have been kept locked up all his lifc(2>); but he was perfectly capable of appreciating the nature of his crime, and a moro deliberate murder than that of Miss Goodwin was never committed. " A person," said Stephen, J., summing up to tho jury in R. c. Paris (7), a delirium tremens case on the North-Eastern Circuit, "may be hoth insane and responsible for his actions, and the great tc=;t laid down in McNaughten's case (r) was, ivhether he did or did not know at the time that the act he toas committinfj ivas lorong. If ho did, even though he were mad, he must be responsible ; but if his madness prevented that, then he was to be excused. As I under- stand the law, any disease which so disturbs the mind that you cannot think calmly and rationally of all the different reasons to which we refer in considering tho riglituoss or wrongness of an action, — any disease which so disturbs tho mind that you cannot perform that duty with some moderate degree of calmness and reason, — may bo fairly said to prevent a man from knowing that what ho did was wrong;" A mere uncontrollable impulse of tho mind, co-existing with the full possession of the reasoning powers, will not warrant an acquittal on tho ground of insanity (s). For instance, if a barber is suddenly seized with an extraordinary impulse to cut the throat of the customer he is shaving, and does it without reason or motive, acting sunjjly from the impulse, this is no ground for tho de- fence of insanity. As to the defence of kleptomania, sec Taylor's Medical Jurispru- dence, vol. 2, p. o93. Children as Crini'uiah. [79.] R. V. OWEN. [4 C. & P. 2;3G (isao).] A gii'l of ton was indicted for stealing coals. She had taken a few knobs of coal from a large heap, belonging to I ever found that of any other human l)rin<,'." (7) \\ Cox, C. C. 5G3. (r) 10 CI. & Fin. 200. {•?) R. V. Barton, 3 Cox, 275. (0) R. V. Townlcy, 3 F. & F. 839. (j?) "His moral sense," said Dr. Forbes Winslow, in jriving evidence, " was more vitiated than CHILDREN AS CRIMINALS. 103 Messrs. Harford and Brothers, and put tlicni in a basket she had witli her. Of coiu'se she had no satisfactory explanation of her approjariation of the coals to offer. Notwithstanding that the facts were undisputed, the jury acquitted her, saying, " "Wo do not think that tlie prisoner had any guilty knowledge." "In this case," said Littledale, J., "there are two ques- tions : first, did the prisoner take these coals ? and scconclli/, if she did, had she at the time a guilty knowledge that she was doing wrong ? The prisoner, as we have heard, is only ton years of age ; and unless you are satisfied by the evidence that, in committing this offence, she knew that she was doing wrong, you ought to acquit her. Wheticrer a 2^c''so)i- committ'uig a felony is under fourteen pears of age, the presumj^fion of law is that he or site has not sufficient capacity to know that it is wrong ; and such person ought not to he convicted, unless there he evidence to satisfy the jury that the party^ at the time of the offence, had a guilty knowledge that lie or she teas doing urong" [Lumley for Crown.] A child under seven cannot be guilty of a crime, for it is con- clusively presumed to be doU iiicapax. Between seven and fourteen Malitia the presumjjtion in favour of innocence still continues, but may be suppkt rebutted by strong and j^regnant evidence of a mischievous discre- tion ; for then malitia supplet oitatem. This capacitas dolt ought to be affirmatively proved, as in the case of E. v. Clark (<), tried before Clark's Mr. Justice Denman at Winchester Assizes in 1880, where a little case, boy of eleven was charged with manslaiighter, and his school- master was put into the witness-box against him to show the amount of his intelligence. If it were merely proved against a Two clis- boy of ten or eleven that he killed a person intentionally, or iiicked tinct ques- his pocket, he would be entitled to his acquittal ; but, of course, the surrounding circumstances may, in any particular case, furnish the proof of the "mischievous discretion" required. Thus, at Preco- Abingdon Assizes in 1G29, before Mr. Justice Whitlock, a boy ^^"^"^ly, named Dean, about eight or nine years of ago, was found guilty of -^^^^ {t) Not reported, except in the Times. 104 CniLDREN AFi CRIMINALFi. CapacUas doli sllOWTl by at- tempt at conceal- ment. Early de- pravity. burning some barns at "Windsor, and sentenced to death, it appear- ing upon examiiKiiion that he had malice, rcroxje, craft, and cun- ning [u). So, in a case ■svhcro a boy of nine killed a playmate, and then hid the blood and body, tlie attempt at concealment was con- sidered to prove the capacitas doli (x). The case of E. v. York (y), where a boy of ten murdered a little girl of five, is verj' similar. A boy under fourteen is conclusivelj- presumed to be incapable of committing a rajic ; but he niay be a i)riucii)al in the second degree as aiding and asf>isting another, or he may bo convicted of a common assault (z). Coo'cion by Husband. [80.] R. (,. TORPEY. [12 Cox, C. C. 45 (1871).] The prisoner, a married woman, was indicted, together ■with her husband, who was not in custody, for a robbery with violence, in which slie had herself taken a very active part, and the jury returned as their verdict that they were of opinion that the whole matter was pre-arranged by the husband, and that the wife acted under his coercion and control at the time. This was held to amount to a verdict of not guilty. [Montagu Williams and Horace Bro"v\ai for prisoner ; Metcalfe and Straight for Cro-s\ni.] Wife act- The presumption that the -wife was acting under her husband's ing volun- coercion is one which can be rebutted by evidence, and, if it is clear that she was acting freelj' and voluntarily in the matter, she ought to bo convicted and puni.shed just like a spinster (a). In one of the earliest criminal cases in which the author was ever engaged (E. v. Wilson, tried at Leeds Summer Assizes, 1877), Strange case at Leeds Assizes. {ti) 1 Hale, P. C. 25, n. [x) 1 Halo, P. C. 26. [y) Post. 70. (s) R. V. Eldershaw, 3 C. & P. 396. («) R. t'. Cohen, 1 1 Cox, 99 ; and R. V. Hammond, 1 Leach, 447. COERCION BY HUSnAXD. 105 a liusband and wife Tvcrc jointly indicted for rajie, the wife liaying gone so far as witli her own hand to insert the organ of her husljand into that of the prosecutrix. Mr. Yernon Bhickburn and Mr. Charles Mellor, who defended the female prisoner, raised on her behalf the plea of coercion ; but it was held by Mr. Justice Manisty, who tried the case, that there was ample evidence that the woman was acting freely and yoluntarilj^, and not merely in obedience to her husband. The presumption does not arise at all, unless the husband was Further present at the time of the commission of the offence [h), nor does it li'»itii- apply to crimes which are mala in se, and prohibited by the law of ,joctrinc of nature(c), nor to those relating to domestic matters and the govern- coercion, meut of the house {d). The point is not free from doubt, but there is some authoritj' for Misde- saying that the presumjition of coercion does not apply to misdc- mcanom-s. meanours at all(c). Evidence of reputation and cohabitation is, in these cases. Evidence sufficient evidence of marriage (/). It is a question for the jury, °f mar- who need not attach any great importance to the female prisoner's ' ° having pleaded to an indictment describing her as a "single woman." The leading case was followed in the more recent case of E. v. Dykes (/). JVifjicsscs unable to Travel. R. v. WELLINGS. [81.] [;3 Q. B. D. 426 (1878).] In tliis case the principal witness for tlie prosocntion wiis in hoiu'ly expectation of being confnied, and tlio question .was wlietlier lier deposition could be read at the trial on tlie ground that she was so ill as to be unable to travel. It was clear from the evidence of lier husband that she was very ill, and under the particular circiun- (h) R. V. Morris, R. & R. 270 ; (r) Sec E. v. Iiio-rani, 1 Sulk, but sec R. V. Conolly, 2 Lcwiii, 3St; R. v. Cruse, 8 C. k P. 54;3; 229. and R. r. Price, 8 C. & P. 19. ((•) R. V. Manuing, 2 C. & K. (/) See R. v. Woodward, 8 C. & 903. P. 561. (r/) R. V. Dixon, 10 Mod. 33G. {f) 15 Cox, C. C. 771. 106 Presump- tion can be re- butted. WITNESSES UNABLE TO TRAVEL. stances of the case it was liold that lior deposition "was rightly received in evidence. " Pregnancv," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., " may be a source of such illness as to render the Avitness unahle to travel, and be an illness -svithin tlie statute. It is in each case a matter fur the presiding judge to deter mine." [Selfe for prisoner ; Godson for Crown.] This decision is manifestlj'' consistent with reason and common sense. No doubt, as "VVilles, J., is reported to have said in E. v. Walker (7), " illness from confinement is an ordinary state, and not such an illness as is contemplated by the statute; " but that is only the presumption, and if it can be shown that, as a matter of fact, the woman is "so ill as not to be able to travel," and that the other conditions of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, have been complied with, her deposition ought to be received. The leading case was followed in the later case of E. v. Good- fellow {fjrj). Confessions under Inducements. [82.] R. r. FENNELL. [7 Q. B. D. 147 (1881).] The prisoner was accused of larceny as a servant. Pre- viously to being charged, he had been taken into a room with the prosecutor and a police inspector. The prosecutor then said, " The inspector tells me you are mahing house- breaking imp)lements ; if that is so, you had letter tell the truth ; it may he better for youP It was held that the admissions subsequently made could not be received in evidence. [Mews for prisoner ; Prankerd for Crown.] Confes- For a confession to bo admissible evidence against a prisoner, it eions must must have been made freely and vohintarihj. If it was made in be free. {g) 1 F. & F. 53t. {(fg) 14 Cox, C. C. 32C. CONFESSIONS UNDER INDUCEMENTS. 107 consequence of anj' inducement f>/ a temporal nature, harinrj reference to the char■) Per Tindal, C. J., R. r. Hay- said that he could nut, iu the ah- ward, 6 C. & P. 160. sence of evidence, presume that a (.v) 14 Cox, C. C. 565, man who had been shot through {() R. V. Lloyd, 4 C. & P. 233 ; the body must necessarily feel that and R. v. Mead, 2 B. & C. 605. he was about to die. See also R. v. {>() R. V. Pike, 3 C. & P. 598; and Smith, IG Cox, C. C. 170. 110 EXCLAMATIONH AS PART OF RES GESTJE. E.Xilania lions as pari 0/ Res Gcstcc, [84.] General rule as to declara- tions at time of assault. Followed in R. !'. Goddard. R. r. Foster. R. r. BEDINGFIELD. [14 Cox, C. C. 341 (IST!)).] Ou an iiulictnient for nnu'der, it appearing tliat the deceased, witli licr tliroat cut, came suddenly out of a room in whicli slie left tlie prisoner, ■\vlio also had his tlu'oat cut, and was speechless, and that she said some- tliing immediately after coming out of the room, and a few minutes before she died, the question being one of mui'der or suicide, it was held that her statement was not admissible either as a dying declaration or as part of the re& (jedce. " It was not," said Cockbum, C. J., " as if, while being in the room, and while the act was being done, she had said something which was heard." [Simms Eeevo for prisoner ; Carlos Cooper and Blofield for Crown.] The general rule is, that the declarations of a person robbed, ravished, or murdered, made immtdluUhj after the assault, are good evidence, and there is considerable doubt whether the ruling of Cockburn, C. J., in the leading case was correct {y). It ajipears, however (see page 23 of his pamphlet), to have been given after consultation v\'ith Field and Manistj', JJ., who agreed with him, and it was followed by Hawkins, J., in E. v. Goddard (2). In E. V. Foster ((/), where the jirisoner was on his trial for man- slaughter bj- driving a cabriolet over a man named FerraU, it was proposed to give in evidence against him a statement made by the deceased, immediately after ho was knocked down, as to how tho accident haj^pened. Mr. C. Phillips, for the prisoner, objected that " what the deceased said in the absence of the prisoner as to what had caused the accident, was not receivable in evidence." Baron Guruey, however, replied, " AVhat the deceased said at the (//) The Chief Justice 'est. — ♦ — R. V. CUMPTON. t®^-^ [o Q. B. D. 341 (ISSO).] The prisoner was convicted of an assault on two police constables of the county police of Worcestershire in the execution of their dut}^ The constables were apprehend- ing the prisoner within the city of Worcester under a w^arrant, issued by two county justices, for his commitment to j)rison for default in payment of a fine, but the warrant was not hacl-ed hy any city justice. It was held that the conviction was -^Tong, the constables not having been acting " in the execution of their duty." [J. J. Powell, U.C., and Patrick Evans for prisoner; H. Matthews, Q.C., and E. H. Amphlett for Crown.] The liberty of the subject is so jealously guarded by our laws that all prescribed formalities must be carefully complied with {m) R. V. Philipps, 6 East, 4G4. («) R. v. Gregory, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 77. i2 116 ARREST. Co:ld V. before an arrest can bo recognized as legal. Thus, in Codd v. ^^^°- Cabo (o) it was hold, following Galliard v. Laxt(jn ( i>) and R. v. Chapman (7), that when a warrant has boon issued to apprehend a person for an offonco less than felony, the police ofiicor who executes it must have the warrant in his possession at the time of ari'ost, otherwise there cannot bo a conviction for assaulting the police officer in the execution of bis dutj'. " I have always held it to bo clear law," said Baron Bramwell, "that a person not charged with a felony shall have the opportunity of seeing the warrant R. «'• when he is taken into custody." So, in 11. v. Chapman (7), above Chapman, ppf^ji-i-ed to^ it ^^s held not to be murder, but only manslaughter, whore the arrest of a poacher was attem^jtcd by an officer who had seen the warrant, but had not got it with him at the time, and the poacher killed the officer. But " cases may be imagined where the absence of a warrant might be no defence, as where the murder was premeditated (^)." See also "Wigram's Justices' Note Book, 5th cd., p. 82. A dm iralty Jii i ■isdidion . [90.] H- V. KEYN. [2 Ex. D. 03 (1876).] This was the famous case of the " Franconia," a German ship which ran down a British ship, tlie " Strathclyde," a couple of milos off Dover, and drowned a passenger named Jessie Young. The prisoner, a German, was in command of tlie " Franconia," and the question was whetlier the Central Criminal Comi had jurisdiction to try him for manslaughter. Tins question, after most elaborate dis- cussion, was decided in the negative, on tlie ground that prior to 28 lien. 8, c. 15, the Admiral had no jm'isdic- tion to try offences committed by foreigners on board foreign ships, whether within or without the limit of tlireo (0) 1 Ex. Div. 352. (/) Per Lindley, J., in R. v. \p) 2 B. & S. 363. Carey, 14 Cox, C. C. 214. \q) 12 Cox, C. C. 4. J DMIUA L TY JURISDICTION. \ { J miles from the sliore of England, and iliat that and llio subsequent statutes only transferred to tlie common law courts and the Central Criminal Coiu't the jimsdietion formerly possessed by the Admu-al. [Benjamin, Q.C., Cohen, Q.C., Phillimore, and Stubbs for prisoner; Sii" H. Giffard, S.-C, Poland, 0. Bowen, and Straight for Crown.] The judgment iu this case led to the passing of 41 & 42 Vict. Alteration c. *73, the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878, the second ^^^ ' section of -which statute enacts that "an offence committed by a person, -s^-hether he is or is not a subject of her Majesty, on the open sea within the territorial waters of her Majestj^'s dominions, is an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, although it may have been committed on board, or by means of, a foreign ship ; and the person who committed such offence may be arrested, tried, and punished accordingly." The j urisdiction of the Admiralty in the case of British ships, and British all persons on board them, extends not only over the high seas, ^^^'Pf ^^ . . . ■ lorci^^ii but also in foreign rivers " as far as great ships go" ; although the pjypj.^ municipal authorities of the foreign country may have concurrent jurisdiction (s). An American citizen, serving on board a British ship, caused the Ander- 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 tcrritorj', at a place below bridges, where the tide ebbed and flowed and great ships went. It was held that the ship was within the admiralty jurisdiction, and that the prisoner was rightly tried and convicted at the Old Bailey (^). "There is no doubt," said Bovill, C. J., ' ' that the place where the offence was committed was within the territory of France, and that the prisoner was, therefore, subject to the laws of France, which that nation might enforce if they thought fit ; but at the same time he was also within a British merchant vessel, on board that vessel as a part of the crew, and as such he must be taken to have been under the protection of the British law, and also amenable to its provisions. It is said that the prisoner was an American citizen, but ho had embarked by his own consent on board a British ship, and was at the time a portion of its crew." "The ship," said Byles, J., "being a British ship (,s) R. r. Anderson, L. R. 1 C. 1 Mood. C. C. 494. C. R. 161 ; and see R. v. Jemot, 1 (0 R- i'- Anderson, L. R. 1 C. Russ. C. p. 153 ; and R. v. AUeu, C. R. 161. 118 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. Carr'a case. Limita- tions on Admiralty jurisdic- tion. British murderers abroad. ■was, undor tlio circumstances, a floating island, where the British law prevailed .... Tho only consequence of the ship being within the ambit of French territory is, that (the vessel not being an armed vessel) there might have been concurrent jurisdiction, had tho French law claimed it." The later case of E. v. Carr («) is to the same effect. Some bonds were stolen from a British ocean-going merchant ship whilst she was lying afloat in the ordinary course of her trading in the river at Botterdam, in Holland, moored to the quay, and were afterwards wrongfully received in England by the prisoners with a knowledge that they had been thus stolen. The place wlicrc tho ship lay at the time of the theft was in tho open river, sixteen or eighteen miles from the sea, but within the ebb and flow of the tide. There were no bridges between the shii) and the sea, and the place where she lay was one where large vessels usually lay. It did not appear who the thief was, or under what circum- stances he was on board the ship. It was hold that the prisoners could be proi^orly tried at the Old Bailey, the larceny having taken place within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. "The whole question is," said Stephen, J., " was the theft within the juris- diction of the Admiralty of England ? Ever since the time of Eichard 11. its jurisdiction has extended to ivhere great ships go I see no reason founded on expediency or authority to induce us to say that a ship at anchor is within the jurisdiction, and that a ship moored to the land is not, or to introduce intricacies as to the mode of attachment to laud, or to inquire when the flag is lowered or when hoisted. Such rules wovild be to make law with- out meaning, and to narrow well founded and beneficial juris- diction. I prefer the obvious and wholesome principle that juris- diction and protection in these cases are co-extensive." The Admiralty jurisdiction, however, does not extend to any cinque port, haven, or pier ; or to any creek, river, or port ivithin the hodij of a country^ that is to say, so far land-locked as that a man standing on either side can j)erceive what is doing on the other. It maj' be mentioned here that British subjects who commit murders or manslaughters on land in foreign countries are triable in this country by virtue of 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 9. («) 10 Q. B. D. 7G. TRIAL OF PEERS OF THE REALM. 119 Trial of Peers of t lie Realm. R. V. LORD AUDLEY. [91.] [3 Cobbett's Stato Trials, 402 (1031).] In this extraordinary case two points of considerable importance were settled : (1) that a peer of the realm may not waive his trial by peers, and (2) that a husband may be found guilty of a rape on his own wife if he was giving assistance to the person actually committing the crime. [Sir Eobert Heath, A.-Q., Sir Eichard Shelton, S.-G., Sir John Finch, Queen's A.-G., and Sir Thomas Crew, King's Serjeant-at-Law, for Crown.] It is oulj" in cases of treason and felony tliat a peer is entitled to be tried bv bis brother iieers. For a misdemeanour he is tried iust Jjlistic- . . . iiiGiino'Lir. like a commoner. " If a peer of Parliament, indicted for felony, is ^, . X Icti in arraigned elsewhere than before the House of Lords, or in the ji^ate- Court of the Lord High Steward, he may jilead his peerage in ment. abatement" (x). When a charge of treason or felony is made against Finding a peer, the indictment is found in the ordinary way by a grand ^7 grand iury, and removed thence by certiorari. The privilege of being ^" ; ' • Ts ODllltv tried before the House of Lords, or in the Court of the Lord High ^^ ^lood. Steward, depends not on the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords, but on nobility of blood. Therefore, a peer who is a minor, a peeress, or a Scotch or Irish non-representative peer, can claim such a trial, while a bishop cannot (?/). Autrefois Acquit. R. V. O'BRIEN. [92.] [15 Cox, C. C. 29 (1882).] A couple of Irishmen were tried at the Worcestershu-e Quarter Sessions on an indictment charging them ys\i\\ [x) Stephen's Dig. Crim. Troc. (y) Sec Shirley's Sketch of the p. 172. Ciimmal Law, !>. 81. 1 20 ^ UTEEFOIS A CQ UIT. larceny at common law, and, in a second count, with receiving " the goods aforesaid." Tliey were acquitted, on the ground tliat tlie alleged goods were a fixture in a building. They were then charged upon a second indict- ment, under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 31, for stealing the fixtm-e, and to that they set up the plea of autrefois acquit. It was held that such a defence would not avail tliem, because they were never in jeopardy in respect of the count for receiving in the first indictment. [F. Forester Goold for prisoners ; J. D. Sims for Cro-svn.] R. V. So it was held in E. v. Gilmore (2) that an acquittal upon an Gilmorc. indictment under 2-4 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 35, and 21 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 32, charging the prisoner with the felony of obstructing a rail- way, with intent to endanger the safety of passengers, &c., was no bar to a subsequent indictment under sections 36 and 34 of the same statutes respectively, preferred on the same facts charging him with the misdemeanour of endangering the safety of passengers, &c., by an unlawful act. [93.] Amendment of Indictment. R. V. WELTON. [9 Cox, C. C. 297 (1862).] The indictment charged the prisoner with attempting to murder a cliild named " Annie Welton." The prosecu- tion, however, failed to prove that the child had ever borne such a name. It was held that the indictment could be amended under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1, by striking out the words " Annie Welton " and substituting " a certain female child whose name is to the jm-ors unknown." (z) lo Cox, C. C. 85. AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENT. 121 "The Act -wliifli gives power of amendment," said Byles, J., "states in the preamble that 'offenders fre- quently escape conviction on their trials hy reason of the technical strictness of criminal proceedings in matters not material to the merits of the case.' Here the amendment cannot prejudice the prisoner in her defence, and I con- sider the variance not ' material to the merits of the case.' A sfatidc of tliin kind nhould have a ividc construction, and I shall not interpret it in favom- of technical strictness." [Sleigh for prisoner ; Eibton and Oppenheim for Crown.] So in E. V. Westeru («), wlicro iu an indictment for pcrJTirj- at Not petty sessions the magistrates were described as county magistrates, |°i° ^' when really they were for a horovrjh, it was held that this was a borough proper subject for amendment. So, also, as in E. v. Gumble (6), justices, where the statement in the indictment is, that the prisoner stole N°*' nineteen shillings and sixpence, whereas the proof is that she stole but £l'' a sovereign, or, as in E. v. Neville (c), Avhere the indictment charges Not barn perjury committed on a trial for burning a ham, whereas the proof hut siaclc. is that the trial was for burning a siuch, an amendment may bo made. But an amendment which alters the nature or quality of the Altering offence charged will not be made ; and so in E. v. Wright [d), ^i^^'^^'^l of where the defendant was indicted for a foi-gerj- charged as a -p , statutable fdony, whereas the offence turned out to be forgery at Wrio-ht. common law, and, therefore, only a misdemeanour, it was held that the word " feloniously " could not be struck out of the indictment. " Show me an authority," said the judge (Hill, J.) to Mr. Campbell Foster, the counsel for the prosecution, " where the Court has made an amendment altering the quality of the offence found by the gi'and jury from a felony to a misdemeanour ; " and Mr. Campbell Foster had to admit that he " was not aware of any such case." It seems that an indictment for false pretences is bad and "Intent incapable of amendment if it omits to allege in express words an P *\" . , "intent to defraud " (e). (a) L. R. 1 C. C. R. 122. {d) 2 F. & F. 320. \b) L. R. 2 C. C. R. 1. (e) R. v. James, 12 Cox, C. C. {c) 6 Cox, C. C. G9. 127, per Lush, J. 122 DEFECT IN INDICTMENT CURED BY VERDICT, Defect ill Ind'uinicut cured by Verdict. [94.] R. V. GOLDSMITH. [L. E. 12 C. C. R. 71 (187:3).] The prisoner was indicted under 24 & 25 Yiet. c. 96, s. 95, for unlawfully receiving goods knowing them to have been obtained by false pretences. The indictment did not set out the false pretences. At the close of the ease for the prosecution the objection was taken, on behalf of the prisoner, that the indictment was bad because it did not set out the false pretences. The prisoner having been convicted, it was held that the objection must be taken to have been made after verdict in arrest of judgment, and that after verdict the indictment was good. "The objection here raised," said Bramwell, B., "is that the indictment shows no offence. In strictness the objection was taken at the wrong time. A question as to an indictment may bo raised by demiu-rer, by motion to quash, or by motion in arrest of judgment. Had the present objection been taken on demurrer or motion to quash, I am not prepared to say the count would have been good. But upon principle the defect, if any, is cm-ed by verdict." "This," said Cleasby, B., "is at most the case of a defective averment, and it must be taken after verdict to have been proved in the only sense in which it ought to have been averred." [Giifard, Q.O., and Poland for prisoner; Metcalfe, Q,.C., and Straight for Cro"WTi.] General It is a general rule of pleading at common law, — and where ^"^^'- there is a question of pleading at common law there is no distinc- tion between the pleadings in civil cases and criminal cases, — that where an averment, which is necessarj' for the support of the pleading, is impei-fectly stated, and the verdict on an issue in- Stroul^rer. DEFECT IN INDICTMENT CURED BY VERDICT. 123 volving that averment is found, if it appears to the Court, after vei'dict, that the vcrilict coukl not have been found on this issue without proof of this averment, then, after verdict, the defective averment which might have been bad on demurrer, is cured by the verdict (/). The leading case was followed in the recent case of E. v. R- «■• Stroulger ((7), where the prisoner was indicted for that at an election for members of Parliament (the Ipswich election of November, 1S85), he was " guilty of corrupt practices against the form of the statutes in that case made and provided." The jury found tho prisoner guilty of corrupt practices bj' offering money for votes, and after venliot it was objected that the indictment was bad because it did not sufficiently describe the nature of the offence charged. Upon a motion in arrest of judgment, it was held that, if the objection had been taken before the verdict, it would have been fatal, but that the defect in the indictment was such as could be supplemented bj^ the verdict or the evidence ; and, that tho prisoner having been found upon the evidence to have been guilty of bribery, the indictment was cured by such verdict. "I think," said Field, J., " that the iuinciple of E. v. Goldsmith, which has been cited on behalf of the prosecution, is applicable to this case." " There are many cases," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., "in which, if objection were taken to the indictment at the proper time, it would have been fatal, but where, if conviction follows before objection is taken, the defect in the indictment is cured by verdict;" and the learned Chief Justice proceeded to refer with approval to the state- ment of Wms. Saunders, Vol. I. p. 227, in a note to the case of Stennel v. Hogg. Setting out Material Passages in Indicfuient. R. V. BRADLAUGH AND BESANT. [95.] [U Cox, C. C. G8 (1878).] The defendants were indicted for that tliey " did print, publish, sell, and utter a certain indecent, lewd, filthy, (/) Heyinann v. R., L. R. 8 Q. Q. B. D. 08. B. 102 ; and see R. v. Aspiuall, 2 (y) 16 Cox, C. C. 85. 1 24 SETTING UT ]\L\ TERTA L FA SSA GES IN INDICTMENT. bawdy, and obscene book failed ' Fniits of Pliilosopby,' " and were found guilty by a jmy. It was bold, bowever, tliat as tbe indictment did not set out tbe passage or passages of tbe book alleged to constitute tbe offence, but only referred to tbe book by its title, it was bad, and tbat tbe defect was not cured by verdict. "Our Coiu'ts," said Cotton, L. J., "do not allow libels to be perpetrated and disseminated under a pretence of judicial necessity, but tbat is as far as tbey go. Wbere it is revelant and necessary, tbero is no rule wbicb allows matter to be omitted merely because it is impure or libellous. A court ought not to consider its records defiled 1/1/ anil matter irliivJi a defendant /las a substantial interest in demanding to be p/accd on tlicni. If it is desirable tbat tbere sbould be an exception in any sucb case, tbe Legis- lature must make it, as it bas made exceptions in otlier cases. Is tins omission, tben, cm'cd by verdict ? Tbe rule is simple ; verdict will cure only defective statements. Tbis is not a mere defective statement ; tbere is an absolute and total omission. Sucb an omission bas not been cured, and cannot be cured, by verdict ; tberefore, according to settled and well-establisbed rules of law, tbe defendants are entitled to om- judgment." [Sir H. S. Giffard, S.-G., and Mead for Crown.] Sacho- Ten judges in Dr. Sacheverell's case (//) delivered an unanimous vercll's opinion that, " by the law of England and constant practice, in all case. prosecutions by indictment or information for crimes or misde- meanours by writing or speaking, the particular words supposed to be criminal ought to be expressly specified in the indictment or information." Imputa- In Cook v. Cox {i) it was held that, in a declaration for slander- tion of in- [^g the plaintiff in his trade, a count alleging that the defendant 60 ^ency. .^ ^ certain conversation falsely asserted the plaintiff's insolvencj', and stating special damage, but without setting out the words, was bad, and that if it were joined with other counts which did set {}>) 5 State Trials, 828. (0 3 M. & S. 110. \ SETTING OUT MATERIAL PASSAGES IN INDICTMENT. 125 out tho words, and a geueral verdict were given the Court would arrest the judj^ment. In Dugdalo's case (A-) (where tho defendant was charged with Keeping preserving and keeijing in his possession a number of obscene bawdy prints for the purpose of corrupting tho morals of tho lieges), which ^ was cited by the prosecution in the leading case, it was not neces- sary that the indecent prints should be set out in the indictment, because the oii'ence was complete, even though the defendant might never have looked at them. T/ie Counts of ail Iiidictniciit. R. V. CASTRO. [96.] [u Q. E. D. 490 (1880).] The prisoner was tlie notorious " claimant " to tlio Ticliborne title and estates, and liad been con\'icted upon an indictment for perjury containing two counts. In one count the offence was alleged to have been committed in an action of ejectment in the Coiu't of Common Pleas, and in the other in an affidavit sworn before the Court of Chancery ; but the proceedings in both counts had one object. It was held that two consecutive terms of seven years' penal servitude might be lawfully passed, notwith- standing that seven years' penal servitude is the maximum punishment for per j my. "It was contended," said James, L. J., "that there was one fraud (Did one iniposftirc by .which the plaintiff in eiTor endeavom-ed to pass himself off as some otlicr person with the view of obtaining certain lands, and therefore t/iaf any nionher of fahe statements made on any number of occasions in any number of suits constituted only one perjury, and that one perjmy alone could form the subject of a legal sentence. To my mind it is only (/■) 1 Dears. & P. G4. rjG THE COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT. necessary to state tlie proposition in order to dispose of it. It is simply monstrous to sui>pose that the hiw allows a man to ho punished only once for any nimiher of perjiuies Avhioli he may conmiit, merely because they are conmiitted in furtherance of one fraudulent scheme and design. . . . It is perfectly idle to suggest that these two sets of false statements constituted but one and the same per j my, or that there is no legal j)ower to pass more than one sentence for those distinct perjuries." " I -^ill suppose a case like the present," said Bramwell, L. J., "where the perjuries, although committed upon different occasions, relate to the same subject-matter, and I will suppose that each of the offences is desendng of seven years' penal servitude. Is the Crown to prosecute for one offence, and after the defendant has been convicted to wait for seven years before it prosecutes for the other ? This, however, is the preposterous result of the argimient for the plaintiff in error. Or is the Crown to prosecute ujion two separate indictments ? And, if it does, what is to happen then ? Is judgment to be respited upon the second indictment until the first period of imprisonment is over ? Surely the Crown ouglit to do what is reasonable and consistent — what it has done in the present case — namely, when two offences of the same character are alleged to have been committed, to join them in separate counts of the same indictment, and it cannot be said that the defendant, if con\icted, ought to receive the punish- ment for one offence only." [Benjamin, Q.-C, Atherley Jones, Iledderwick, and Spratt for prisoner; Sir H. James, A.-G., Su' F. HerscheU, S.-Gr., Poland, and A. L. Smith for Crown.] Joining separate felonies. Indictments for misdemeanours may contain several counts for different offences; and although, where two separate felonies are charged in separate counts of the same indictment, it is almost a matter of course for the judge, ujion application, to compel the THE COUNTS OF AX INDICTMENT. 127 prosecutor to elect upon -nlucli charge lie will jirocecd (/), it is bj' Joining' no means a matter of course for him to do so where two sci^arato f'f^P'^rate misdemeanours are similarly charged. "Where, however, two do- nicauours. fendants were indicted for a consjiiracj', and also for a libel, and at ji. «.. the close of the case for the prosecution there was evidence against Murphy, both as to the conspiracy, but no evidence against one as to the libel, Coleridge, J., put the prosecutor to his election on whicli charge he would j)roceed, before the counsel for the defendants entered upon their defence [m). It seems that the joinder of a count for felony with a count for Joining- misdemeanour, would be held bad on demurrer, or, after a general felonies verdict, on motion in arrest of judgment; for the challenges and misde- incidents of trial are not the same in felony and misdemeanour, meanours. and, therefore, they could not be tried together. But where an indictment contains a count for felony, and also a count for mis- demeanoiir, and the prisoner is convicted of the felony alone, such joinder of counts for felony and misdemeanour furnishes no ground for arresting the judgment (n). In the leading case the Lords Justices followed E. v. Wilkes (o), John where the judges, in answer to a general question by the House of Wilkes. Lords, whether a sentence of imprisonment to commence from and after the termination of an imprisonment to which the defendant (the famous hero of the "North Britou," and the "Essay on Woman ") had been before sentenced for another offence, was good in law, replied that it tvas good. So, also, where an indictment contained two counts for passing Thomas bad sbillings to two different people on the same day, and the I^obinson. prisoner was sentenced to two years' imprisonment, this sentence was held to be wrong ; but the judges said that a sentence of one year's imprisonment might haye been passed for each offence, and that the commencement of the second might be postponed until the termination of the first (p). See, also, 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, s. 10. (/) See K. 1'. Ward, lOCox, C. C. Vict. c. 96, ss. 71 and 92, as to 42, where the indictment charged embezzlements and larcenies, the prisoner in three several counts (m) R. v. Murphy, 8 C. & P. with three several felonies, in send- 297. ing three separate threatening («) E.. v. Ferguson, Dears. & P. letters, and Byles, J., compelled 427, where Lord Campbell, C. J., the prosecutor to elect upon which inveighed against a recorder for count he would proceed. In point reserving such a jooint. of strict law, however, it is no ob- (o) 4 Bun. 2527. jection to an indictment that it {p) R. r. Robinson, 1 Mood. C. charges several different felonies in C. 413 ; and see R. r. Gregory, 15 different counts. See also 24 & 25 Q. B. 974. 128 EFFECT OF ENDURANCE OF PUNISHMENT. Effect of Eiidurancc of Pioiis/unoit. [97.] LEYMAN v. LATIMER. [;j E.\. D. Wo-l (1.S7S).] This was an action for libel brought by the editor of the Darbnouth Adcertincr against the proprietors, printers, and publishers of tlie Western Daily Mercuri/, his complaint being that they had described him as " a felon editor." As a matter of fact, the plaintiff had been convicted of felony some years before, and had been sentenced to twelve months' hard labom*. But, notwithstanding such convic- tion and sentence, it was held that, as he had served his time, he was not " a felon editor," and no one had a right to call him such names. "I am prepared to hold," said Brett, L. J., "that inasmuch as he has endured his j^anishment he is not now in law a '■felon ; ' endurance of the punishment does away with the penalty : I say so on the authority of Cuddington V. Wilkins ((/), which was a correct, and, in my opinion, a righteous decision. The judges thought that they ought not to favour idle and injmious words ; and I may add, that to allow defamatory words to pass imchecked is against public policy. . . . It is no doubt right, upon public grounds, to uphold this doctrine, and, to my mind, by enacting 9 Geo. 4, c. 32, s. 3, the legislature deliberately adopted the view of the judges : it was considered to be proper that a person who had endvired the punishment for a felony should not be liable to have reflections made upon him." [Cole, Q.C., and Bullcn for defendants ; Collins, Q.C., and Pitt-Lewis for plaintiff.] (?) Ilob. G7, 81. EFFECT OF ENDURANCE UF PUNISHMENT. 129 The third section of 9 Geo. 4, c. 32 ("An Act for amending the law of evidence in certain cases ") is as follows : — "And whereas it is expedient to prevent all doubts respecting Act of the civil rights of persons convicted of felonies not capital, bo it "'^'^" ^^' therefore enacted that where any offender hath been, or shall bo, convicted of any felony not pimishable with death, and hath endured, or shall endure, the punishment to which such offender hath been, or shall be, adjudged for the same, the iiunishmcnt so endured hath, and shall have, the like effects and consequences as a 2}ardon under the (jreat seal as to the felony whereof the offender was so convicted : provided always, that nothing herein contained, nor the endui-ing of such punishment, shall prevent or mitigate any punishment to which the offender might otherwise be lawf ullj' sentenced on a subsequent conviction for any other felony." Wives Prosecuting Husbands. R. V. LORD MAYOR OF LONDON. [10 Cox, C. C. 81 (1S86).] This was a rule calling upon the Lord Mayor of London and Alfred Yance (the notorious comic singer) to show cause why the Lord Mayor sliould not be made to grant a summons to Emma Yance against her husband, Alfred, for libel. Alfred had put an advertisement in the Dailij Telegraph suggesting that Emma was not his wdfe, but his mistress. It was held, however, that the Married "Women's Property Acts do not enable a married woman to take criminal proceedings against her husband for libel. The counsel who argued in support of the rule, contended tliat the scj)arate property of the wife was affected by the libel, but the Court replied, "How can a prosecution for a libel, which is criminal only because of the tendency above pointed out (viz., the ""tendency to arouse angry passions, jirovoke revenge, and thus endanger the public peace "), be said to S. K [98.] 130 IfVI'A'.s' PnoSECUTING HUSBANDS. Recent legisla- tion. Lemon v. Simmons. Act of 1884. be for tlic protectiou and seeimty of the separate estate ? It seems to us impossible to so liold, even if it may here- after be held (upon •which Ave give no opinion) that an action for libel in a case like the present can be maintained by a "s\ife against a husband. It seems to us, moreover, looking at tlie complaint made, that it would be impossible to hold the separate estate, as contemplated by the statute, •was ever here in jeoj^ardy. IF/iat icas damayed, if (utij- thinrj, was the fair fame of the applicant, and that, in our judgment, is not separate estate. We are of opinion, that neither as the la-w stood prior to 1870, nor since, can. a •wife criminally prosecute a husband, or give e"vidence against him upon a prosecution for a personal libel ujwn herself." [Crispe for rule ; Poland and W. Baugli Allen for Lord Mayor.] The tendency of recent legislation has been to establish the inde- pendence of the -wife, so that she can sometimes prosecute her hus- band for offences against her property. See, however, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 12, and the recent case of Lemon v. Simmons (r). That was an action for slander, the words complained of being to the effect that the i:)laintiff robbed his wife of £75 before her removal to a lunatic asylum, and was anxious to got rid of her, in order that he might take the remainder of her money. It was held that, as such words did not im2:)ute to the plaintiff that he stole his "wife's money while they were living apart, or when he was about to leave or desert tier, they were iiot actionable, inasmuch as thej' did not, even under the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, impute an indictable offence. By the first section of 47 & 48 Vict. c. 14 (which was passed to supply the omission disclosed in E. v, Brittleton(s)), it is pro- Tided that, " in any such criminal proceeding against a husband or a wife as is authorised by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the husband and wife respectively shall be competent and admissible witnesses, and, except when defendant, compellable ^o give evidence." ()•) 36W. R. 3.51. (.s) 12 Q. B. D. 2G6. NEW TRIALS. 131 Nczu Trials. B. V. DUNCAN. [99] [7 a B. D. 198 (1881).] On an indictment, found at quarter sessions, removed into the Queen's Bencli Di-sdsion, and tried at Winchester Assizes, for obstructing a highway, the defendant was acquitted, and it was held that a new trial on the ground of misreception of evidence, misdii-ection, and that the verdict was against evidence, could not be granted. " The practice of the Coiu'ts," said Lord Coleridge, C. J., " has been settled for centuries, and is that in all cases of a criminal kind where a prisoner or defendant is in danger of imprisonment, no new trial will be granted if the prisoner or defendant, having stood in that danger, has been acquitted." [Charles, Q.C., and Bullen showing cause ; Collins, Q.C., and Warry in support of rule.] Wliere a misdemeanour is tried in tlie Queen's Bencli Di-vision, or Misde- has been removed into that Court by certiorari, and sent to be tried peanours ... -, ,•-,-, J i" Pi . m Queen s as a msi prius record, a new trial may be moved lor alter convic- J^^,■^^^.]^ tion on any ground on wbicb a new trial might be moved for in a Divi.sior. civil case, as misreception or rejection of evidence, misdirection, or that the verdict was against the evidence {t). No new trial, how- Felonies. ever, can be granted in a case of fdony {u). But in a felony case, Yenirc de as well as in a misdemeanour case, where there has been a mistrial, a novo. venire de novo wiU be awarded, and a fresh trial had ; for example, where the jury have been improperly chosen (x). (OR. V. Fowler, 4 B. & Aid. Q. B. 238. 273; and R. I'. Whitehouse, Dears. {x) R. v. Teadon, L. & C. 81 ; ,& P.- 1. and see R. v. Murphy, L. R. 2 P. (m) R. v. Bertrand, L. R. 1 p. C. C. hZb \ and R. r. Martin and 520, overruling R. v. Scaife, 17 Webb, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 373. k2 132 TORTS AND FELONIES. Torts and Felonies. [100.] WELLS V. ABRAHAMS. [L. E. 7 Q. 13. oJ4 (187:^).] In answer to an action for the recovery of a broocli, the defence was raised that, as it appeared from tlie e-sidence tliat the brooch was taken by the defendant under such circumstances as to prove a charge of felony, the plaintiff ought to be nonsuited. It was held, however, that a judge at nisi j^riiis is bound to try the issues on the record, and cannot nonsuit under such circumstances. "No doubt," said Cockbmii, C. J., "it has been long estahlifihed as the laic of England that where an injury amounts to an infiingement of the ci\dl rights of an individual, and at the same time to a felonious WTong, the civil remedy, that is, the right of redress by action, is suspended until the j)arty inflicting the injury has been prosecuted. But although that is the rule, it becomes a different question when we have to consider how it is to be enforced." [ToiT, Q.C., for defendant ; Aspinall, Q.O., for plaintiff.] Wcllock V. The leading case practicallj' overrules Wellock v. Constantiiie(?/), Constan- -^herc the plaintiff, a housemaid who tried to get damages out of her master for raping her, consented to a non-suit on the judgo saying that ho should direct a verdict for the defendant, and leaves the question of procedure (assuming the existence of the rule) rather doubtful. Ex parte In Ex parte Ball(2), -where a clerk had embezzled moneys of his Ball. employer to a largo amount, it was hold that, even if a person injured by a felon j' is debarred from proving in the bankruptcj' of the felon, in respect of the injur}', until he has prosecuted the felon, the obligation to prosecute docs not extend to his trustee in bank- ruptcy, even though that bankru])tcy occurred after a proof in (y) 2 H. & C. 146. (c) 10 Ch. D. CG7. TORTS AND FELONIES. 133 respect of tlio injury had boon tendered hy tlio injured person himself. " The hiw on this sul)ject," said Bramwell, L. J., " is in a remarkable state." In Appleby v. Franklin (a), which was an action for the seduc- Apjilebyr. tion of the plaintiff's daughter, a paragraph of the statement of FraLklin. claim alleged that the defendant administered noxious drugs to the daughter for the jjurpose of prociiring abortion, and it was objected to as imputing a felony which ought to bo prosecuted for before it could form the foundation of a civil action. It was held, however, that, as the plaintiff was not the jjerson upon whom the felonious act had been committed, and had no duty to prosecute, the paragraph could not be struck out. "The authorities which have ^^^- J^s- been referred to," said AVills, J., "leave no room for doubt that 1*^*1^/ '"' no action can be maintained for a civil injury resulting to tho subject, plaintiff from a felonious act on the part of the defendant until public justice has been vindicated by a prosecution of the criminal. It is equally clear that the objection to the maintenance of tho action cannot be raised by plea or by demurrer, or, as it would seem, by way of nonsuit, inasmuch as the cause of action still subsists. But here the action is brought not by the person upon whom the felonious act was committed, and who owes a duty to the public to prosecute the offender, but by one who has sustained consequential damage, but who is not under any obligation to prosecute. Osborn v. Gillett(6) is a distinct authority to show that the present plaintiff is not debarred from maintaining this action." Mr. Justice Cave suggested, in Eoope v. D'Avigdor (c), that the View of proper way of staying an action, where the facts disclosed a felony ^. "• ^ ^" which the plaintiff ought to have prosecuted, was " by some application made summarily to the Court." On the whole subject-matter of this note, see Shirley's Leading Cases in the Common Law, 3rd ed. p. ;?41. {a) 17 Q. B. D. 93. ((•) 10 Q. B. D. 414. [b) L. R. 8 Ex. 88. APPENDIX. Consisting of Notes of Recent Cases in the Criminal law itot referred to in the body of the Work. R. V. Peters, IG Cox, 36. Where an xmcliscliarged bankrupt obtains goods of the value of 20Z. and upwards, without paying for them at the time he obtains them, and without informing the person from whom such goods are obtained that he is an undischarged bankru^Dt, he is guilty of a misdemeanour under sect. 31 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, notwithstanding that the contract may be silent upon the question of credit. A person may bo indicted in England for having, whilst resident therein, obtained credit within the meaning of sect. 31 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, from a person resident in Ireland at the time such credit was obtained. R. V. Cronmire, 16 Cox, 42. A stock-broker who ignores the written instructions of his principal to buy certain stock, and appropriates a cheque enclosed in the letter, may be convicted under 2-1 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 75. R. V. Griflaths and Williams, 16 Cox, 46. Justices, in preliminary inquiries, have no discretion to prohibit the prisoners' solicitors from cross-examining the witnesses for the prosecution. R. V. Norton, 16 Cox, 59. An indictment under the Corrupt Practices Act, 1883, which merely charges the defendant with being guilty of a corrupt practice at an election, but does not specifically allege against him what that corrupt practice was, is bad for generality. 13G APPENDIX. R. V. The Inhabitants of Lordsmere, 10 Cox, G.5. Wlioro a liij^lnvay is su})|)()rtod by a wall, and sucli wall becomes dangerous by reason of non-repair, the inliabitants of tbe place in which such highway is situiito, if liable to repair the highway, can be convicted upcjn an indictment for non-repair, it being a question for the jury wliether the wall fonns part of the liigliway or not. R. V. Lord Mayor of London, and Stubbs and Irving, IG Cox, 77. Where a prosecutor bond Jidc prefers before a justice, and within his jurisdiction, a charge or complaint in respect of an offence within the Vexatious Indictments Act, 1859, and the justice dismisses it for want of evidence, such dismissal is equivalent to a refusal to commit, and the prosecutor is entitled to require the justice to take his recognizance to prosecute the charge or complaint by way of indictment. R. V. Shurmer, IG Cox, 94. The depositions of a deceased witness are not admissible in evidence against a prisoner under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6, unless it be proved that, at a reasonable time previously to/ the taking of such depositions, the prisoner was served with written notice of the intention to take them. R. V. Finkelstein and Truscovitch, 16 Cox, 107. , The indictment in this case was for uttering forged by^nds which were sent abroad, and questions of j urisdiction yarose which were decided against the prisoners. R. V. The Inhabitants of the County of Southampton/ 16 Cox, 117 aiKl 271. This was an interesting case, involving the liability to repair a bridge crossing the Eiver Itchcn, in Hampshire. The de- fendants were successful, as there was no evidence of acquies- cence by the county in the building and dedication of the bridge, and the bridge was not a bridge " broken in a high- way," within the meaning of the Statute of Bridges, 22 Hen. 8, c. 5. Osborne v. Milman, 16 Cox, C. C. 138. A person who is committed to prison under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73, 8. 32, and 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 2G, fin- acting as a solicitor ArPENDTX. 137 wliile being iinqiialifiefl, is not a criminal prisoner or a. person convicted of crime within 28 & 29 Yict. c. 12G, s. 4, so as to be subjected to the treatment resulting from being placed on the criminal side of the prison. He must be treated as a misdemeanant of the first division within the meaning of 28 & 29 Yict. c. 12G, s. 67. R. V. Gunnell, 16 Cox, 1,5 L Evidence of the fact of a rumour is no evidence of the knowledge of a particular individual, and is not within any of the exceptions to the rule which excludes the reception of hearsay evidence. R. V. Juby, 16 Cox, 160. The offence of obtaining credit to the extent of 20/. or upwards, by an undischarged bankrupt, is committed where the bankrupt receives and keeps goods of the value of 20/. or upwards without paying for them, or informing the creditor of the fact of his being an undischarged bankrupt, or repu- diating the contract, although the goods were sent in execution of an order for goods of a less value than 20/. R. V. Burns and others, IG Cox, 195. Where several prisoners are indicted jointly, some of whom call witnesses, and others do not, the Crown has a richt of reply on the counsel for those prisoners who call witnesses ; but the counsel for the prisoners who call no witnesses has the right to address the jury last. R. V. Regan, 16 Cox, 203. Where, in a criminal case, it is sought to give in evidence the contents of a telegram sent by the prisoner to a witness, it is absolutely necessary that the original message handed in at the post oflB.ce should be produced, or proof given that it is destroyed, and the copy received by a witness cannot be given in evidence till it is proved that the original cannot be pro- duced. R. V. Pierce, 16 Cox, 213. In an indictment for incurring a debt or liability whereby credit was obtained under false pretences, or by means of fraud, under sect. 13, sub-s. 1, of the Debtors Act, 18G9, it is 138 APPENDIX, unnocossary to specify tlio false pretences or fraud under or Ly means of ■\vLiclitlio credit was obtained ; sect. 19 of tlie act rendering it sufficient to state the substance of the offence in the words of the act, or as near thereto as circumstances admit. R. V. Stubbs, 16 Cox, 219. "Whore a criminal prosecution has been instituted, under- taken, or carried on by the j)ublic prosecutor, he stands, by virtue of 42 & 43 Yict. c. 22, s. 7, in the same position witli rog-ard to costs as a private prosecutor. R. V. Johnston, 16 Cox, 221. The defendant was charged under the 147th section of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, with sujiplying a seaman to a merchant ship in the United Kingdom, he not being a person holding a licence from the Board of Trade for that purpose, and it was held that, proof having been given of the supply of the seaman by the defendant, the onus of proving that he held a licence from the Board of Trade rested with him. ReDillet, 16 Cox, 211. In this case (before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on appeal from the Supreme Court of British Hon- duras) a conviction for perjury was quashed on the ground that the charge of the judge to the jury was "grievously unjust to the defendant, and in many instances outraged the proprieties of judicial procedure." Dillon V. O'Brien and Davis, 16 Cox, 245. "When a person is arrested for committing a felony or mis- demeanour, any property in his possession believed to have been used by him for the purpose of committing the offence may bo seized and detained as evidence in support of the charge ; and, if necessary, such property may Ije taken from him by force, provided no unnecessary violence is used. R. V. Garvey, 16 Cox, 2-52. In order to sustain a conviction for personation, it is not necessary to state in the indictment, or to prove at the trial, that the presiding officer at the booth where the offence was committed was duly appointed. APPENDIX. 1:39 R. V. "Woodfield, 16 Cox, 314. "NVlicro a person is indicted under 9 Goo. 1, c. 09, s. 1, for night poacliing after two previous convictions, tlio previous convictions should not be proved until the jury find a verdict on the facts of the case immediately before the court. "R. V. "Webster, 15 Cox, 77j. Under sect. 6 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, a mother can be convicted of knowingly suffering her dauglitor, of the age mentioned in the section, to be in or upon premises for the purpose therein specified, notwithstanding the fact that such premises are those in which the mother and daughter live together, having no other home. R. V. Cox and Railton, 15 Cox, Gil. A communication between a solicitor and liis client, which was a step preparatory to the commission of a criminal offence, is admissible as evidence in the prosecution of the client for such offence. R. V. Butt, 15 Cox, 5G4. A man may be convicted under sect. 1 of the Falsification of Accounts Act, 1875, although he did not personally make the false entry, if it be shown that ho authorised or concurred in its being made. R. V. Mallory, 15 Cox, 456. The prisoner was indicted for receiving stolen goods. To prove his guilty knowledge, evidence was given that, being asked by the police as to the prices he had given, he said ho did not know then, but his wife would make out a list of them, and next day she, in his presence, produced a list, ■which was received in evidence against him. It was hold that it was admissible. R. V. Labouchere, 15 Cox, 415. "Where an application for a criminal information for a libel upon a deceased person was made by his representative, the court refused in its discretion to grant it. R. V. Holmes, 15 Cox, 343. A false pretence was made by letter at Nottingham, and posted in that town to, and received by, a person in France. 140 APPENDIX. In consequence of the letter tliat person drew a cheque in Franco, payable at Notting'liam, and sent it to tlio j)risonor at Nottingham, who cashed it there. It was held (11. r. Burdott, 4 B. & Aid., and R. v. Cooke, 1 F. & F., being followed) that the in-isoncr was proporl}' tried at Nottingham. R. V. Deasy and others, 15 C'ux, 331. The prisoners were charged under the Treason Felony Act, 1848, with being in possession of explosives, &c., and it was held that evidence might be given of the existence of a treasonable conspiracy without showing that the prisoners were connected witli it. R. V. Shimmin, 15 Cox, 122. A prisoner on his trial defended by counsel is not entitled to have his explanation of the case to the jury made through the mouth of his counsel, but may, at the conclusion of his counsel's address, himself address the jury and make such statement, subject to this, that what he says will be treated as additional facts laid before the court, and entitling the prose- cution to a reply. Per Cave, J. : This is the rule of practice now approved of by the judges of the lligh Court {a). (rt) See also E,. v. Reiglchutli, by counsel has any right (apart Cent. Grim. Ct. Sess. Papers, vol. from the discretion of the presiding' 103, p. 4G0, and R. v. Doherty, judge) to address the jury, and IG Cox, 306. The later pi-acticc declined to accede to the a^jplica- appears to be for the prisoner to tion of the prisoner's counsel (Mr. address the jury before, and not Lockwood, Q.C.) to that eliect. after, his counsel does so. In the Whatever may be the correct prac- recent case, however, of R. v. tice, it is obviously a reproach to Borrowes, tried at the Middlesex the administration of justice in a Sessions on March 10th, 1888, and civilized country that there should reported in the Tunes of March be any loiccrtaiiiti/ about so simple rith, the Assistant Judge denied a matter, altogether that a prisoner defended INDEX. PAGE ABANDONING BABIES 29 ABDUCTION, of g-irls under sixteen ....... 2G of girls under eighteen with criminal intent ... 28 stealing children under fourteen ..... ib. ACCOMPLICES, necessity for corroboration ...... 99 duty of judge . ih. ACCUSE, THREATENING TO 66 ADDRESS to jury by defended prisoner . . . . . . 140 ADMINISTERING POISONS, etc .53 ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION 116 AIDERS AND ABETTORS . . . . . .8, 101, 119 AMENDMENT OF INDICTMENT 120 ARREST 115 ARSON 96 ASPORTATION IN LARCENY 61 ATTEMPT to steal .......... 74 to incite . . . . • . • • • • 114 AUTOMATONS, STEALING FROM 62 AUTREFOIS ACQUIT 119 BAILEE, LARCENY BY 70 BIGAMY, the seven years' rule 15 R. V. Jones . . . • • . • • • • 16 invalidity of second marriage 17 invalidity of first marriage ib. BISHOP COMMITTING CRIME 119 BRIDGES, REPAIRING • 136 BURGLARY 95 BURNING DEAD BODIES 32 112 INDEX. PAOE CHANGES, RINGING THE 69 CHARACTER of prosecutrix iu rape case 56 of witnesses . . . . . . . . . 113 CHILDREN, CRIMES COMMITTED BY .... 102 COERCION OF WIFE BY HUSBAND 104 COMBOITNDING CRIMES, compounding felonies ....... 14 comi")ouncling' misdemeanours ...... ih. hclpintr person to recover stolen goods .... 15 advertising reward ........ ib. misprision .......... ib, CONCEALING TREASURE TROVE 19 CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH 30 CONFESSIONS MADE UNDER INDUCEMENTS ... 106 CONSPIRACY, act done innocently by individuals may make several guilty of 20 rameH's " No Rent " manifesto ..... ih. lucid judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald . . . . 21 must be of two at least ....... 22 husband and wife 23 CO -PARTNERS, STEALING FROM 73 COJirUS DELICTI 60 COUNTERFEIT COIN, UTTERING 17 DAMAGE TO PROPERTY 97 DEAD BODIES, concealment of birth ........ 30 burning .......... Zi stealing 58 DELIRIUM TREMEXS 100 DISORDERLY HOUSE, KEEPING, proof requisite ......... 35 reward obtainable ........ 36 Act of 1885 {^^ DOGS, STEALING 60 DRUNKENNESS AS AN EXCUSE FOR CRIME ... 99 DYING DECLARATIONS 108 INDEX. 143 EMBEZZLEMENT, " clerk or servant " commercial traveller ..... occasional emplojTiient .... treasurer of friendly society assistant overseer ..... unregistered friendly society ENDURANCE OF PUNISHMENT, EFFECT OF EVIDENCE, character of prosecutrix in rape case of " other property stolen" of previous conviction of previous false pretences . necessity for corroboration of accomplice confessions under inducements . dj-ing declarations exclamations as part of the res (jcsite notice to produce secondary evidence character of ■witnesses effect of niisrecej)tion of evidence of contents of telegram EXTORTION. See Laecent. 79 80 ih. 81 129 5G 77 78 92 99 106 108 110 111 112 113 115 137 FALSE PRETENCES, "existing fact" ...... the sham undergraduate . . . . , worthless chec^ues and flash notes word competitions ...... promissory false pretences .... the man who was " going to pay" his rent the intent to defraud ...... ' ' puffing ' ' not indictable for false pretences misrepresenting value of business prosecutor not deceived . . . . , remoteness in false pretences . . . . obtaining board and lodging . . . , intervention of contract .... how Mr. Earner won a swimming handicap hiring horse by false pretences . . . , obtaining railway ticket .... previous false pretences . . . " . FALSIFICATION OF ACCOUNTS . FINDING, larceny by FOREIGN ENLISTMENT FOREIGN PRINCES, libels on FORGERY, subscribing with fictitious name not necessarily FRIGHTENING, EXTORTION BY . 82 83 ill. 84 ib. 85 ib. 86 87 88 89 90 ib. ib. 91 92 ib. 139 69 2 94 65 141 INDEX. PAGE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM, INFLICTING .... 50 HEARSAY 110, 113 HIGHWAY, REPAIR OF 136 HOMICIDE, necessity .......... 37 the old plank story 38 self-defence »i. death from operation, or refusing to undergo operation . 39 frightening infant in arms ...... 40 causing person to jump into river ..... ih. " constructive murder " ....... ib. by correction ......... 42 provocation ......... 43 manslaughter by negligence ...... 45 football ib. parent neglecting duty ....... 46 attempt to murder ........ 48 conspiracy to murder ....... 49 soliciting to murder ....... ih. threatening to murder ....... ib. agreement to commit suicide ...... 60 INCITE, ATTEMPT TO 114 INDECENCY, PUBLIC 34 INDECENT ASSAULT, communicating venereal disease ..... 57 rape 54 consent and submission . 55 stripping female patient naked ..... 66 INDICTMENT, amendment of ........ . 120 defect cured by verdict 122 setting out material passages ...... ■ 123 the counts of an ........ 125 misjoinder of counts ....... 127 R. V. Norton ......... 135 INFAMOUS CRIME, threatening to accuse of an 66 INFANT, may be guilty of larceny as bailee 72 INSANITY, as a defence 101 ill-treatment of lunatics 24 JURY, prisoner defended by coimsel addi'essing .... 140 LARCENY, value of property stolen 58 stealing corpses ib. INDEX. 145 LARC EWZ—coutin ued. PAGE stealing wild animals ....... o9 stealing dogs ......... GO case of nothing missed ....... ib. " aspoi'tation " ......... Gl stealing from automatons ....... 62 larceny by tric;k ......... G3 extortion by frightening ....... G5 extortion by threat of accusation ..... G6 lender mistaking sovereign for shilling .... G7 l)ost office clerk hautling over too much money ... G8 larceny by finding ........ G9 larceny by bailee . -. . . . . . 10 ct set/. stealing from CO -partners ....... 73 attempt to steal .......... 74 receiving stolen goods . . . . . . To ct scq. restitution of property on conviction ..... 93 LUNATICS, ill-treatment of ........ . 24 insanity as a defence . . . . . . . . 101 MANSLAUGHTEE. See Homicide. MISPEISION 15 MISRECEPTION OF EVIDENCE 113 MISTAKE, as to object of attack ........ 51 sovereign mistakeu for shilling ...... G7 of post office clerk ........ GS MURDER. See Homicide. NEW TRIALS 131 NOTICE TO PRODUCE Ill NOXIOUS THINGS, ADMINISTERING 53 NUISANCES 34 OBSTRUCTING TRAINS 25 PARTRIDGES, STEALING GO PEERS OF THE REALM 119 PERJURY, competent Jui'isdiction ....... 9 materiality . 12 R. V. DiBet 138 PERSONATING HUSBAND 55 POACHING, armed, by night ........ 8 " offensive weapons " ....... 9 after two previous convictions . . . . . . 139 PRESENCE AT PRIZE FIGHTS 7 S. L 146 INDEX. PREVENTION OF CRHIES ACT, 1871, evidence of " other property stolen " . . . . 77 evidence of previous conviction ...... 78 PREVIOUS MISDEEDS OF ACCUSED, previous fal.se pretences ....... 92 previous conviction ........ 78 PRIZE FIGHTING 6 PUNISHMENT, EFFECT OF ENDURANCE OF . . 128 RAPE 54 RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, trap for receiver ........ 75 receiver denying gnilt of thief ...... 76 R. r. Malloy 139 " RECENT POSSESSION," doctrine of ........ . 76 REMOTENESS IN FALSE PRETENCES 89 liES GESTAE, EXCLAMATIONS AS PART OF . . . 110 RESTORATION OF PROPERTY ON CONVICTION . . 93 ROBBERY . . 65, 66 STOCK-BROKER APPROPRIATING CHEQUE 135 TORTS AND FELONIES, suspension of civil remedy till felony has been prosecuted for TRAINS, OBSTRUCTING TRAVEL, WITNESS UNABLE TO TREASON-FELONY, direct and constructive war pulling down chapels and houses TREASURE TROVE, CONCEALMENT OF TRICK, LARCENY BY ... . 132 25 105 19 03 UNDISCHARGED BANKRUPT OBTAINING CREDIT . 135, 137 UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLIES, Beatty v. Gillbanks 4 R. r. Vincent ......... 5 public meeting.s on highways ...... ib. " monster meetings " ....... 6 political meetings near Westminster Hall .... ib. futility of proclamations ....... ib. O'Kelly V. Harvey ib. INDEX. 147 PAOE UTTERING BAD MONEY 17 VALUE OF PROPERTY STOLEN .-jS VEmRE BE NOVO 131 VENUE 139 VEXATIOUS INDICTMENTS ACT 136 WARRANT, ARREST WITHOUT 11-5 "WELSHING" 64 WIFE, protected by doctrine of coercion 104 prosecuting husband 129 WILD ANIMALS, STEALING 59 WITNESS, inability to travel 105 character of ........ . 108 WOUNDING • . . 51 LONDON : POINTED liY C. F. ROWORTH, GREAT NEW STREET, FETTER LANE. Jditiiart/, 1891. OF LAW WORKS PUBLISHED BY STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, (And at 14, Bell Yard, Lincoln's hin). Telegraphic Address— " RHODRONS, L ondon." A Catalogue of Modern Law "Works, together uith a complete Chronological Lid of oil tJie EnglisJi, Lrish, and Scotch Reports^ an Alphabetical Table of Abbreviations used in reference to Law Reports and Text Books, and an Index of Subjects corrected to end of 1890. Demy 8ro . (114 pages), limp binding. Post free, 6d. Acts of Parliament. — Public and Local Acts from an early date may be had of the Publishers of this Catalogue, who have also on sale the largest collection of Private Acts, relating to Estates, Enclosures, Railways, Roads, 8(c.j 8fc. ACCOUNT STAMP DUTY.— Gosset.— Fif^e ""stamp Duty." ACTION AT LAW,— Foulkes' Elementary View of the Proceed- ings in an Action in the Supreme Court, with a Chapter on Matters and Arbitrations. — (Founded on "Smith's Action at Law.") By W. D. I. Fotjikes, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition. Demy 12mo. 1884. 7s. 6d. ADMIRALTY. — Roscoe's Admiralty Practice. — A Treatise on the Jurisdiction and Practice of the Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice, and on Appeals therefrom, with a chapter on the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the Inferior and the Vice- Admiralty Courts. With an Appendix containing Statutes, Rules as to Fees and Costa, Form-J, Precedents of Pleadings and BUls of Costs. By E. S. RoscOE, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Demy Bvo. 1882. 1/. 4s. ADVOCACY. — Harris' Hints on Advocacy.— Conduct of Cases Civil and Criminal. Classes of Witnesses and Suggestions for Cross- examining them, &c., &c. By Richaed Haeeis, one of her Majesty's Counsel. Ninth Edition (with a new chapter on "Tactics"). Royal 12mo. 1889. 7.?. 6d. "The work is not merely instructive, it ia exceedingly interesting and amusing. . . . . We know of no better mode at present of learning some at least of aa advocate's duties than in studying this book and the methods of the most dis- tinguished advocates of the day." — The Jurit:t. "Full of good sense and just observation. A very complete Manual of the Advo- cate's art in Trial by Jury." Sol icitnrs' Journal. " A book at once entertaining and really instructive. . . Deserves to be carefully read by the young barrister whose career is yet before him." — Law Ulagazhif " We welcome it as an old friend, and strongly recommend it to the would-be advo- cate." — Law Student's Journal. *»* All Standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other Inndhiffs. STE\'EXS AND SONS, LIMITED, AGRICULTURAL LAW.— Beaumont's Treatise on Agricultural Holdings and the Law of Distress as regulated by the Agri- cultural Holdings (England) Act,1883, with Appendix containing Full Text of tlic Act, and PreccdentH of Notices and Awards. By JosKrn Bkaumoxt, Esq., Solicitor. lioyal r2ino. 1883. 10s. Crf. Cooke's Treatise on the Law and Practice of Agricultural Tenancies. — New edition, in f^reat part ro-writton with especial reference to UncxhaiLsted Improvements, with Modem Forms and Precedents By G. rraoE Goldney and "W. Kussell Geiffiths, Esqs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1882. 1/. Is. Dixon. — Vir/r "Farm." Griffiths' Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, containing an Introduction ; a Summary of tlie Act, with Notes ; the complete text of the Act, with Forms, and a specimen of an Award under the Act. By W. Russell Geiffiths, Esq., of the Midland Circuit. Demy 8vo. 1883. ,5s. Spencer's Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1883, with Explanatory Notes and Forms ; toff ether with the Ground Game A( t, 1880. Fonninga Supplement to "Dixon's Law of the Farm." By Aubrey J. Spencer, B. A., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 6s. ALLOTM E NTS.— Hall's Allotments Acts, 1 887, with the Regulations issued by the Local Govcminent Board, and Introductory Chapters, Notes, and Forms. By T. Haxl Hail, Barrister-at-Law. Author of " The Law of Allotments." Royal 12mo. 1888. 7s. Gd. ANNUAL DIGEST.— Mews'.— riffc "Digest." ANNUAL PRACTICE (THE). — The Annual Practice for 1890-91. Edited by 'Thomas Snow, Barrister-at-Law; Chables BuEXEY, a Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty, Editor of "Daniell's Chancery Forms" ; and F. A. Steingee, of the Central Office. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. II. Is. " A book wliich every practising Enp-lish lawyer must have." — Law Quarterly Tte.viev;. " Ever>- member of the bar, in practice, and every London solicitor, at all events, finds the last edition of the Annual Practice a necessity." — Solicitors' Journal, Dec. 6, 1890. ANNUAL STATUTES.— Lely.-Fif/e "Statutes." ARBITRATION,— Russell's Treatise on the Power and Duty of an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards; with an Appendix of Forms, and of the Statutes rehiting to Arbitration. By Francis Russkll, Esq., M.A., Ban-ister-at-Law. Sixth Edition. By the Author and Herbert Russell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1882. 36s. " Tliis edition may be commended to the profession as comprehensive, accurate and practical." — Solicitors' Journal. ARCHITECTS,— Macassey and Strahan,— Fm/c "Civil Engineers." ARTICLED CLERKS.— Rubinstein and Ward's Articled Clerks' Handbook, — Being a Concise and Practical Guide to all the Steps Necessary for Entering into Articles of Clerkship, passing the Pre- liminary, Intermediate, Final, and Honours Examinations, obtaining Admission and Certificate to Practise, with Notes of Cases Third Edit. By J. S. Rubinstein and S. Waed, Solicitors. 12mo. 1881. 4s. "No articled clerk should be without \t."~-f,nw Times. ASSETS, ADMINISTRATION OF.— Eddis' Principles of the Administration of Assets in Payment of Debts.— By Aethue SiiKi.LY EiiDis, one of Her ]\r:ijesty's Counsel. Demy 8vo. 1880. 6s. AVERAGE. — Hopkins' Hand-Book of Average, to which is added a Cljajiter on Arbitration. — Fourth Edition. By Manley Hopkins, Esq. Demy 8vo. 1884. 1/. Is. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. ". AVE RAG E — continued. Lowndes' Law of General Average. — English and Forciprn- Fourth Edition. Bv Kiciiaiid Lowxdes, Averairc Adjuster. Author of "The Law of Marine Insurance," &c. Royal 8vo. 1883. 1/. lO*. "The book is one which shows a mastery of its subject "—SnUrliors' .Jnurnnl._ "The author has worked in with that skill wliicli lias privcn him his n-putation the recent cases which arc by no means easy to deal with, and present dithculties to the lawyer." — Law Times. " It may be conlidently asserted that, whether for the purpo.ses of the adjuster or the lawjer, Mr. Lowndes' work presents (in a stylo which is a model of clear and Kracc- ful Engrhsh) the most complete store of miiterials rclatinpr to the subject in every pai- ticular, as well as an excellent expositiim of its principles." — /mw Quarterbj Hevkw. BALLOT.— Fitzgerald's Ballot Act.— With an Introduction. Forming a Guide to the Procedure at Parliamentary and Municiiial Elections. Second Edition. By Gerald A. 11. Fitzgerald, Esq., Barrister- at-Law Fcap. 8vo. 1S7G. 5s. 6rf. BANKING.— Walker's Treatise on Banking Law.— Second Edition. By J. D. Walker, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1885. 15.?. BANKRUPTCY.-^Chitty's Index, Vol. \.— Vide "Digests." Lawrance's Precedents of Deeds of Arrangement between Debtors and their Creditors ; including Forms of Resolutions for Compositions and Schemes of Arrangement under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Third Edition. With Introductory Chapters ; also the Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1887, with Notes. By G. W. Laweance, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1888. Is.&d. " The new edition of Mr. Lawrance's work is as concise, practical, and reliable as ite predecessors." — Laiv Times, Feb. 11, 18S8. Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy.— Comprising the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, the Bankruptcy Rules, 1886, the Debtors Acts, 1869, 1878, and the Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882. Fourth Edition. By R. Vauohan Williams. W. Vaughan Williams, and EdwajidWm. Hausell, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Roy. Svo. 188G. 28s. "A safe and useful guide to practitioners." — Law Quarturli/ Jlevicw. January, 1887. "Is a work of authority, and it expounds the principles atfectinij bankruptcy jurisdiction, lays down the law, and supports all propositions by decided cases, which are digested with neatness and accuracy. In this foiu-th edition the author and editors have broup-ht everythinor up to the date of publication, and the edition will sustain, if. not increase, the reputation of its predecessors." — Law Timfs. BILLS OF EXCHANGE.— Chalmers' Digest of the Law of Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes, and Cheques. Third Edition. By His Honour Judo-e Chalmers, Draughtsman of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, &c. Demy Svo. 1887. 16s. " This excellent work is unique. As a statement and explanation of the law, it will be found sinarularly useful." — Solicitors' Journal, October S, 1887. BILLS OF SALE.— Fithian's Bills of Sale Acts, 1878 and 1882. With an Introduction and Explanatory Notes, together witli an Appendix of Precedents, Rules of Coiu-t, Forms, and Statutes. Second Edition. By Edward William Fituia^i, Esq., Ban-ister-at- Law. Royal 12mo. 1SS4. 6s. BLACKSTONE'S ELEMENTS OF LAW,— 71(fc "Common Law." BOOK-KEEPING,— Matthew Hale's System of Book-keeping for Solicitors, containing a List of all Books necessary, with a coinpre- hensive description of their objects and uses for the piu-pose of Drawiug Bills of Costs and the rendering of Cash Accounts to clients ; also showing how to ascertain Profits derived from the business ; with an Appendix. Demy Svo. 1884. 5.s. 6d. " TVe thinlc this is by far the most sensible, useful, practical little work on solicitors' book-keei)]!!^ that we have seen."— /.aw Students' Journal. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. A 2 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, BRITISH GUIANA. -Pound's Supplement to "The Magisterial Law of British Guiana'' pubhshed in 1877. Witli a cDiuhiucd Index to both works. By Alfki;!) John 1'ound, BiirriHtcr-at-Law, and formerly a Stipendiary Magistrate in and for the Colony of Britisli Guiana. Demy 8vo. 1888. Xct, 21. 10s. BUILDING SOCIETIES.— Wurtzburg on Building Societies.— Tlu' Acts rt'latiiifj: to Building- yocictios, conii)risiu approve of the general plan and execution of this work The general arranfrement of the book is good." — Solicitors' Journal, March 9, 1889. " Should find a place in the libraiy of all railway men. The work is written in a terse, rle.ar style, and is well ;iiTan2-0il for speedy reference." — l.'nilimi/ Xetrn, Dec. 8, Is-^S. CHAMBER PRACTICE.— Archibald's Practice at Judges' Cham- bers and in the District Registries in the Queen's Bench Division, High Court of Justice ; with Forms of Summonses and Orders. Second Edition. By W. F. A. Aechibald, Esq., Bar- rister-at-Law, and P. E. Vizard, of the Summons and Order De- partment, Royal Courts of Justice. Royal r2mo. 1886. los. -CHANCERY, axd Vide "Eqrnty." Danieil's Chancery Practice. — Tlie Practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on appeal therefrom. Sixth Edit. By L. Field, E. C.Dunn, andT. Ribton, a.ssisted by W. H. Upjohn, B;irri>ters-at-Law. 2 vols, in 8 parts. Demy Svo. 1882-84. G/. 6.s. Danieil's Forms and Precedents of Proceedings in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal there- from. Fourth Edition. With Summaries of the Rules of the Supreme Court, Practical Notes and References to the Sixth Edition of ♦'Danieil's Chancery Practice." By Chaeles Bttenet, B.A. Oxon., a ChicfClerkof the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty. Royal Svo. 188.5. '21.10s. Morgan's Chancery Acts and Orders,— The Statutes, Rules of Court and General Orders relating to the Practice and Jurisdiction of thi. Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice and the Court of Apj)tal. With Copious Notes. Sixth Edition. By the Right Hon. George Osboene Moeoan, one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and E. A. Wuetzbueo, Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 188.5. 1/. 10s. *^* ^11 ttandard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 6 CHANCE RY—conii>wed. Peel's Chancery Actions. — A Concise Treatise on the Practice and Procedure in Chancery Actions under the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883. Third Edition. By Sydxey Peel, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 8s. Gd. CHARITABLE TRUSTS.— Mitcheson's Charitable Trusts.— The Jurisdiction of the Charity Commission ; being- the Acts conforrinfr such jurisdiction, 1853 — 1883, with Introductory Essaj-s and Notes on the Sections. By Riciiakd Edmund Mitcueson, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Demy 8vo 1887. 18.v. "A very neat and serviceable haxid-book of the Law of the Charity Commissioners." — Law Journal. "We can congratulate Mr. Mitcheson on his valuable production." — Law Times. CHARTER PARTIES.— Carver.— FiWe "Carriers." Wood.— Tirfe " Mercantile Law." CIVIL ENGINEERS,— Macassey and Strahan's Law relating to Civil Engineers, Architects and Contractors, — Primarily in- tended for their own use. By L. Livingstox Macassey and J. A. Steahan, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. 10s. Gd. COAL MINES,— Chisholm's Manual of the Coal Mines Regulation ACT, 1887, — With Introduction, Explanatory and Practical Notes and References to Decisions in England and Scotland, Appendix of Authorized Forms, Particulars as toExaminations for Certificates, &c. , and a copious Index. By John C. Chisiiolji, Secretary to the Midland and East Lothian Coalmasters' Association. Dcmy8vo. 1888. 7s. 6d. COLLISIONS, — Marsden's Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea, — "With an Appendix containing Extracts from the Merchant Shipping Acts, the International Regulations for preventing Col- lisions at Sea ; and local Rules for the same purpose in force in the Thames, the Mersey, and elsewhere. Second Edition. By Regi- nald G. Maesden, Esq., Bamster-at-Law. Demj' 8vo. 1885. 1/. l.«. COMMERCIAL LAW,— The French Code of Commerce and most usual Commercial Laws, — With a Theoretical and Practical Commentary, and a Compendium of the Judicial Organization and of the Couise of Procedure before the Tribunals of Commerce ; to- gether with the text of the law ; the most recent decisions, and a glossary of French judicial terms. By L. Goieand, Licencie en droit. "Demv Svo. 1880. 2/. 2s. COMMON LAW,— Ball's Short Digest of the Common Law; being the Principles of Torts and Contracts. Chiefly f oimded upon the Works of Addison, with Illustrative Cases, for the u.se of Students. By W. Edmund Ball, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. 16s. Blackstone's Elements of Law, (feCi-with Analytical Charts, Tables. and Legal Definitions, arranged and displayed by a systematic and attractive method. By W. Blickensdeefee, Attomey-at-Law. Royal Svo. 18S9. 20s. Chitty's Archbold's Practice of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom to the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Civil Proceedings, Fourteenth Edition. By Thomas Willes Chitty, assisted by J. St. L. Leslie, Barristers-at-Law. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 188o. 3/. 13s.6rf. Napier's Concise Practice of the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions and of the Court of Appeal, witli an Appendix of Questions on the Practice, and intended for the use of Students. By T.Bateman Napiee, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1884. 10s. Shirley, — Vide "Leading Cases." %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, COMMON LAV^—co>iii)iufd. Smith's Manual of Common Law. — For Tract itionors and Studonta. (J'onl]lI•it^iug■ the Fuiidiiinental Principles, with useful Pructic^il Rules and Decisions. By Josiah W. Smitu, B.C.L., Q.C. Tenth lOdition. By J. TEtrsTRAM, LL.M., Esq., Barrister-at-Luw. 12mo. 1887. 14«. Chitty's Forms. — J'tde " Forms." Fisher's Digest of Reported Decisions in all the Courts, with a Selection from the Irish ; and references to the Statutes, Rules and Orders of Courts from 17o6 to 1883. Compiled and arranged by JoHX Z^Iicws, assisted Ly C. M. Chapman, IIaeuy H. W. Spaeilasi and A. H. Todd, Ban-isters-at-Law. In 7 vols. Royal 8 vo. 1884. 12/. I2«. Mews' Consolidated Digest of all the Reports in all the Courts, for the years 1884-88, inclusive. By John Mews, Barrister-at- Law. Royal 8vo. 1889. 11. Us. 6d. The Annual Digest for 1889. By Joknt Mews. 15«. *^* The above works bring Fisher's Common Law and Chitty's Eqnitj Digests dowTi to end of 1889. COMMONS AND INCLOSU RES.— Chambers' Digest of the Law relating to Commons and Open Spaces, including Public Parka and Recreation Grounds. By Gkoege F. Ciiambees, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Imperial 8vo. 1877. 6«. Gd. COMPANY LAW. — Palmer's Private Companies, their Formation and Advantages ; being a Concise Popular Statement of the Mode of Converting a Business into a Private Company, and the Benefit of so doing. With Notes on "Single Ship Companies." Eighth Edition. By F. B. Paihee, Esq., Bamster-at-Law. Timo. 1890. H'et 2«. Palmer. — Tide "Conveyancing" and "Winding-up." Palmer's Shareholders' and Directors' Legal Companion. — A Manual of Every-day Law and Practice for Promoters, Shareholders, Directors, Secretaries, Creditors and Solicitors of Companies under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1890, with an Appendix on the Con- version of Business Concerns into Private Companies, and on the Directors Liability Act, 1890. 11th edit. By F. B. Palmee, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 12mo. 1890. ^'t/, 2s. 6d. Street's Law relating to Public Statutory Undertakings: com- prising Railway Companies, Water, Gas, and Canal Conipaidos, Har- l)Ours, Docks, Ate, with special reference to Modem Decisions. By J. BamfieldSteeet, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy8vo. 1890. lOs.Gd. " This book oont:uiis in a .small (!onipass a large amoimt of useful information : its .■style id clear and its arranfrtment good." — Solicitors' Journal, November 1, 18'J0. Thring. — ]'ule "Joint Stocks." COMPENSATION.— Cripps' Treatise on the Principles of the Law of Compensation. Second Edition. By C. A. Ceipps, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 188-4. 16«. " A complftf trf'Mti.se on the subject in •wliich it professes to deal." — Law Times. COMPOSITION DEEDS.— Lawrance.— TiWe" Bankruptcy." CONTINGENT REMAI NDERS.— An Epitome of Fearne on Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises. Intended for the Use of Students. By W. M. C. Post 8vo. 1878. 6s. Q>d. CONTRACTORS (Macasseyand Strahan).— nMW. Prideaux's Precedents in Conveyancing — With Dissertations on its Law and I'ractice. Fourtcentn Edition. By Fkkdkrick Pei- DEAUX, late Professor of tlie Law of Real and Personal Property to the Inns of Court, and Joun Wiutcombe, Esqrs., Barristera-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1889. 3^ 10«. •' The most useful work out on Conveyancinf?." — Lnto Journal. " This work is urciuiite, roncise, flear, and comprehensive in scope, and we know ol no treatise upon conveyancing' which is so generally useful to the practitioner." — Law Timea. Turner's Duties of Solicitor to Client as to Partnership Agree- ments, Leases, Settlements, and Wills, — By Edwaed F. Turner, Solicitor, Lecturer on Real Property and Conveyancing, Author of " The Duties of Solicitor to Client as to Sales, Purchases, and Mortgages of Land." (Published by permission of the Council of the Incorporated Law Society.) Demy 8vo. 1884. 10s. 6rf. " The work has our full approval, and will, we think, be found a valuable addition to the student's library." — Law SluiUnls' Journal. CONVICTIONS,— Paley's Law and Practice of Summary Con- victions under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, 1848 and 1879; including Proceedings preliminary and subsequent to Con- victions, and the responsibility of convicting Magistrates and their Oflficers, with Forms. Sixth Edition. By W. H. Macnamara, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1879. 1/. 4«. COPYRIGHT.— Slater's Law relating to Copyright and Trad© Marks, treated more particularly with Reference to Infringe- ment; foi-ming a Digest of the more important English and Ameri- can decisions, together with the Practice of the English Courts, &c. By John Herbert Slater, Esq., Barrister- at- Law. 8vo. 1884. IBs. CORONERS, — Jervis on the Office and Duties of Coroners. — The Coroners Act, 1887. AVith Forms and Precedents. By R. E. Melsheimer, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Being the Fifth Edition of '*Jerius on Coroners." Post 8vo. 1888. \Qs. Qd. "The present edition will hold the place of that occupied by its predecessors, and will continue to be the standard work on the subject." — Laiv Tinxru. COSTS, — Morgan and V\/urtzburg's Treatise on the Law of Costs in the Chancery Division, — Second Edition. With Forms and Precedents. By the Rt. Hon. George Osborne Morgan, Q.C, and E. A. WURTZBURG, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. DemySvo. 1882. I/.IO*. Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents of Bills of Costs in the Chancery, Queen's Bench, Probate, Divorce and Ad- miralty Divisions of the High Court of Justice; in Conveyancing; the Crown Office ; Bankruptcy ; Lunacy ; Arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act ; the Mayor's Court, London ; the County Courts ; the Privy Council ; and on Passing Residuary and Succession Accounts ; with Scales of Allowances and Court Fees ; Rules of Court relating to Costs ; Forms of Affidavits of Increase, and of Objections to Taxation. By Wm. Frank Summeriiats, and Thornton Toogood, Solicitors. Sixth Edition. By Thornton TooGOOD, Solicitor. Royal 8vo. 1889. 1/. 8s. Summerhays and Toogood's Precedents of Bills of Costs in the County Courts. Royal 8vo. 1889. 5s. Scott's Costs in the High Court of Justice and other Courts. Fourth Edition. By John Scott, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. II. iis. Webster's Parliamentary Costs. — Private Bills, Election Petitions, Appeals, House of Lords. Foiu-th Edition. By C. Cavanagh, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1881. 20«. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Slock, in law calf and other bindings^ 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 9 COUNTY COUNCILS,— Bazalgette and Humphreys, Chambers. — J'idc "Local and Municipal Government." COUNTY COURTS.— Pitt-Lewis' County Court Practice.— A Complete Practice of the County Courts, includinq' that in Admiralty and Bankruptcy, embodying the County Courts Act, 1888, and < ther existing Acts, Rules, Forms and Costs, with Full Alphabetical Index to Official Forms, Additional Forms and General Index. Fourth Edition. By G. Pitt-Lewis, Esq., Q.C., M.P., Recorder of Poole. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1890. 2/. 10*. "A complete I'riictice of the County Courts."— T^nio Journal, March 22, 1S90 " The present edition of this work fully m.aintains its reputation as the standard County Coui-t rructice."— ^'w;(c-i(or.v' Journal, Miirch 29, 1S90. Pitt-Lewis' County Courts Act, 1888.— With Introduction, Tabular Indices to consolidated Legislation, Notes, and an Index to the Act. Second Edition. By George Pitt-Lewis, Esq., Q.C., Author of "A Complete Practice of the County Courts." Imperial 8vo. 1889. 5.s. %* The above, with The County Cotjet Rules, 1889. Official copy. Limp binduig. 10s. Qd. " A singularly comprehensive and exhaustive introduction, -which is, indeed, a treatise in itself on County Court jurisdiction and procediu-e. . . . The annotation is excellent and the general ' get up ' admirable." — Law Times. Summerhays and Toogood. — rif/u " Costs." COVENANTS.— Hamilton's Law of Covenants.— A Concise Treatise on the Law of Covenants. By G. Baldwin Hamilton, of the Inner Temple, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1888. 7s. 6^. " A handy volume written with clearness, intelligence, and accuracy, and will be useful to the profession." — Law Times. CRIMINAL LAW.— Archbold's Pleading and Evidence in Criminai Cases. — With the Statutes, Precedents of Indictments, &c., and the Evidence necessary to support them. Twentieth Edition. By William Beuce, Esq., Stipendiary Magistrate for the Borough of Leeds. Royal Timo. 1886. \l. Us. M. Mews' Digest of Cases relating to Criminal Law from 1756 to 1883, inclusive.— By John Mews, assisted by C. M. Chapman, Haeey H. W. Spaeham, and A. H. Todd, Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1884. 1/. 1*. Phillips' Comparative Criminal Jurisprudence. — Vol. I. Penal Law. Vol. II. Criminal Procedure. By H. A. D. Phlllips, Bengal Civil Service. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1889. U. 4«. Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence in Crimmal Cases. — Eleventh Edition. By Horace Smith and Gilbert George Ken- nedy, Esqrs., Metropolitan Magistrates. DemySvo. 1890. 1/. ll.s.6f^. " To the criminal lawyer it is his guide, philosopher and friend. 'What Iloscoe says most judges will accept without question. . . . Every addition has been made necessaiy to make the digest efficient, accurate, and complete." — Law Times, June 2'^, 1890. Russell's Treatise on Crimes and Misdemeanors. — Fifth Edi- tion. By Samuel Prentice, Esq., one of Her Majesty'.s Counsel, 3 vols. Royal 8vo. 1877. bl. lo.?. M. " What better Digest of Criminal Law sould we possibly hope for than ' Russell on Crimes ' !" — Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Speech on Codijicatinn. Shirley's Sketch of the Criminal Law.— By W. S. Shirley, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. By Charles Stephen Hunter, Esq., Barri.ster-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. Is.Qd. As a primary introduction to Criminal Law, it will be found very acceptable t*» students." — Law Students' Journal. Shirley. — Vide " Leading Cases." Thring. — Vide "Navy." *»* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 10 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, DECISIONS OF SIR GEORGE JESSEL— Peter's Analysis and Digest of the Decisions of Sir George Jessel ; with Notes, &c. By Apslky rKTitE I'etkr, Solicitor. Dciiiy f. 1HS3. 16*. DIARY.— Lawyer's Companion (The), Diary, and Law Directory for 1891. — Fur the iiso of the Lctr"! Profcs.siou, Public Coinpauics, Justices, ]^rcrchiints, Estate Aufeuts, Auctioneers, &c., &c. Edited by J. Trustrajj, LL.M., of Liucolii's Inn, Barrister-at-Law ; and contains Tables of Costs in C'onveyancin«w Quarterly lii'view. " "We think that we owe it to Mr. Hii-st to say that on eacli occ ision when a volume of his book comes before us we exert some diligence to try and tind an omission in it, and we apply tests which are generally successful with ordinary tcxt-writei-s, but not so -with Ml'. Hirst. At present we have not been able to find a flaw in his ai-mour. We conclude, therefore, that he is an unusually accurate and diligent compiler." — Law Times. " Mr. Hirst has done liis work with conspicuous ability and industry, and it is almost unnecessai-y to add that the modem cases are digested with the perspicuity and conciseness which have always been features of Chitty's Equity Index." — Laiv Journal. Dale and Lehmann's Digest of Cases, Overruled, Not Followed, Disapproved, Approved, Distinguished, Commented on and specially considered in the English Courts from the Year 1 756 to 1886 inci usive, arranged according to alphabetical order of their subjects ; together -with Extracts from the Judgments delivered thereon, and a complete Index of the Cases, in which are included all Cases reversed from the year 1856. By Chas. Wm. Mitcaxfe Dale, and R-CTDOLF Chambers Lehmann, assisted by Chas. H. L. Neish, and Heebeet H. Child, Barristers-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1887. 21. Ids. (Forms a Supplement to Chitty' a Hquity Index and Fisher' s Common Law Dig.) " One of the best works of reference to be found in any library." — Laiv Times. *' The work has been carefully executed, and is likely to be of much service to the practitioner." — Solicitors' Journal. "So far as we have tested the work, it seems very well done, and the mechanical execution is excellent. As for the utUity of such a book as this, it is too obvious to be enlarged upon. One could wish that there had been a ' Dale & Lehmann' some years sooner." — Law Quarterly lieview. " The book is divided into tn'O parts, the first consisting of an alphabetical index of the cases contained in the Digest presented in a tabular form, showuig at a glance how, where, and by what judges they have been considered. The second ijortion of the book comprises the Digest itself, and bears marks of the great laboiu' and research bestowed upon it by the compilers." — Law Journal. Fisher's Digest of the Reported Decisions of the Courts of Common Law, Bankruptcy, Probate, Admiralty, and Divorce, together with a Selection from those of the Court of Chancery and Irish Courts from 1756 to 1883 inclusive. Founded on Fisher's Digest. Ey J. Mews, assisted by C. M. Chapman, H. H. W. Spaeham, and A. H. Todd, Barristers-at-Law. 7 vols. Roy. Svo. 1884. 12/. 12*. " To the common la-wyer it is, in our opinion, the most useful work he can possess. — Lata Times. Mews' Consolidated Digest of all the Reports in all the Courts, for the Years 1884-88 inclusive. — By John Mews, Barrister-at- Law. Royal Svo. 1889. II. i\s. Gd. " This work is an indispensable companion to the new edition of Chitty's Digest, which ends -with 1883, and also Fisher's Digest ending with the same year The -work appears to us to be exceedingly well done."— Solicitom' Journal, Nov. 2, 1889. The Annual Digest for 1889. By John Mews. 15s. %* The above Works bring Fisher's Common Law and Chitty's Equity Digests down to end of 1889. %* All standard law Works are kept in Stock, in laiv calf and other lindingt. b2 12 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, D\GESTS— continued. Notanda Digest in Law, Equity. Bankruptcy, Admiralty, Divorce, and Probate Cases. — By E. W. D. Manson, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Sixth Series, for 1885, ISSG, 1887 and 1888, with Index. IJttch, net, II. Is. DISCOVERY.— Hare's Treatise on the Discovery of Evidence. — Second Edition. By Sueulocz Haee, Barrister-at-Law. Post 8vo. 1877. 12*. Sichel and Chance's Discovery. — ^The Law relating to Interroga- tories, Production, In.spection of Documents, and Discovery, as well in the Superior as hi the Inferior Courts, together with an Appendix of the Acts, Forms and Orders. By Walter S. Sichel, and Willlah Chance, Esqrs., Barristcrs-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 12». DISTRESS.— Oldham and Foster on the Law of Distress. — A Treatise on the Law of Distress, with an Appendix of Forms, Table of Statutes, &c. Second Edition. By Autiiue Oldham and A. La Tbobe Foster, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 18«. "This is a usofiil book, becaiise it embraces the whole rarif^e of the remedy by dis- tress, not mfiely distress for rent, but also for dnmnr/p. feasant, tithe.s, poor and highway rates and taxes, and many other matters." — Solicitors' Journal. DISTRICT REGISTRIES.— Archibald.— Ftrfe " Chamber Practice." DIVORCE,— Browne and Powles' Law and Practice in Divorce and Matrimonial Causes. Fifth Edition. By L. D. Powles, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 1/. Gs. "The practitioner's standard work on divorce practice." — Law Quarterly Itevifw. " Mr. Powles' edition cites all the necessary information for bringing the book down to date, supplies an excellent index, on which he has spent much pains, and maintains the position which Browne's Divorce Treatise has held for many years." — Law Journal. Winter's Manual of the Law and Practice of Divorce.— By Duncan Clekk Winter, Solicitor. (Reprinted from " The Jurist.") Crown 8vo. 1889. Net, 2s. Qd. DOGS.— Lupton's Law relating to Dogs.— By Feedeeick Lupton, Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1888. 6a. " Within the pages of this work the reader will find every subject connected with the law relating to dogs touched upon, and the information given appears to be both exhaustive and correct." — Law Tivies. DOMICIL.— Dicey's Le Statut Personnel anglais ou la Loi du Domicile. — Ouvrage traduit et complete d'apres les demiers arrets des Cours de Justice de Londres, et par la comparaison avec le Code Napoleon et les Diverses Legislations du Continent. Par Emilb Stocquart, Avocat a la Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles. 2 Tomes. Demy 8vo. 1887-88. U. 4s. EASEMENTS.— Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements.— By John Letbourn Goddaed, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. Demy 8vo. 1891. {Nearly ready.) " An indispensable part of the lawyer's library." — Solicitors' Journal. "The Viook is invaluable : where the cases are silent the author has taken pains to ascertJiin what the law would be if brought into question." — Law Journal. "Nowhere has the subject been treated so exliaustively, and, we may add, so scientitically, as by Mr. Goddard. We recommend it to the most careful study of the law student, as well as to the library of the practitioner." — Law Tinn-a. Innes' Digest of the English Law of Easements. Third Edition. By Mr. Justice Innes, lately one of tlio Judges of Her Maje-sty's High Court of Judicature, Madras. Royal 12mo. 1884. 6ff. ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. -Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. With Supplement. By the Right. Hon. Sir Rohkrt Phillimore, D.C.L. 2 vols. 8vo. 1873-76. (Published at 3/. 7*. 6(/.) Reduced to net, U. 10s. %♦ AU standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 13 ELECTIONS. — Loader's The Candidate's and Election Agent's Guide; for Piirliaracutary and Municipal Elections, witli an Ap- pendix of Forms and Statutes. By John Loader, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Deray 12mo. 1885. 7». Qd. " The book is a\horoughly practical one." — Solicitors' Journal. Rogers on Elections, — In two parts. Part I. Registeation, includinp: the Practice in Rc79. \l. 6s. " It is impossible not to be struck with the extraordinary research that must have been used in the compilation of such a book as this." — Law Journal, FIXTU RES. — Amos and Ferard on the Law of Fixtures and other Property partaking both of a Real and Personal Nature. Third Edition. By C. A. Feeaed and W. Howland Robeets, Esqrs., Bar- risters-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1883. 18s. "An accurate and well written work." — Saturday Review. FORMS.— Allen.— ri«^e "Pleading." Archibald. — Vide " Chamber Practice." Bullen and Leake, — Firfe " Pleading." Chitty's Forms of Practical Proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. Twelfth Edition. ByT. W. Chitty, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1883. 1/. 18s. " The forms themselves are brief and clear, and the notes accurate and to the point. — Law Journal. %* All standard Law Works are kept in Slock, in law calf and other bindings. 16 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, FORMS— continued. Daniell's Forms and Precedents of Proceedings in the Chan- cery Division of the High Court of Justice and on Appeal therefrom. — Fourth Edition, with Sunmiaries of the Kuhs of the Supreme Court, Practical Notes and Kefcrencps to the Sixth Edition of "Daniell's Chancery rracticc." By Charles Bueney, B.A. (Oxen.), aCliief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty. Royal 8vo. 1885. 21. lOs. " Mr. IJumoy appears to have performed the laborious task before him with great success. " — f.nrc JnurnnJ. " Tlic slaiidiinl work cm Chancery Procoduro."— 7>(Jk» Quarter!;/ Ttniexv. GOLD COAST,— Smith's Analytical Index to the Ordinances Re- gulating the Civil and Criminal Procedure of the Gold Coast Colony and of the Colony of Lagos. By Smalman Smith, Esq., Barri.ster-ut-Law, Judpe of the Supremo Court of the Colony of La-.n.s. Royal Svo. 1888. Net, 10«. GOODWILL.— Allan's Lav^ relating to Goodwill.— By Chaeles E. ALLA:i,M.A..LL.B.,EBq.,Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1889. 7s.6rf. "A work of mucli value upon a subject -which is by no means easy The style of tlie book is clear and exact, and it forms a very useful contribution to the lawof good- will." — Snliritnis' Joiininl. HIGHWAYS.— Baker's Lawof Highways in England and Wales, including Bridges and Locomotives. Comprising a succinct Code of the several Provisions under each Head, the Statutes at length in an Appendix ; with Notes of Cases, Forms, and copious Index. By Thomas Bakee, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1880. 15«. Bazalgette and Humphreys. — Vide "Local and Municipal Govern- ment. " Chambers' Law relating to Highways and Bridges, being the Statutes in full and brief Notes of 700 Leading Cases. By Geoege F. Chambers, Es(|.. Barrister-at-Law. 1878. 7«. 6rf. HOUSE TAX.— Ellis Guide to the House Tax Acts, for the use of the Payer of Inhabited House Duty in England. — By Aethtje M. Ellis, LL.B. (Lond.), Solicitor, Author of "A Guide to the Income Tax Acts." Royal 12mo. 188.5. 6s. " We have found the information accurate, complete and very clearly expressed." — Solicitnr/i' Jnurnal. HUSBAND AND WIFE.— Lush's Law of Husband and Wife; within the Jurisdiction of the Queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions. By C. Montaotte Lush, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Svo. 1884. 20*. " Mr. Lush has one thinpr to recommend him most stronply, and that is his accuracy ; therefore his book is one which everyone may consult with the assurance that all the leadinpr rfccnt authorities are quoted, and that the statements of law are supported by .actual decisions." — Law Magazine. INCOME TAX.— Ellis' Guide to the Income Tax Acts.— For the use of the Engli.sh Income Tax Payer. Second Edition. By Aethtje M. Ellis, LL.B. (Lond.), Solicitor. Royal 12mo. 1886. Is. Cd. '' Contains in a convenient form the law bearing upon the Income Tax." — Law Timof. ' With Mr. Ellis' book in their hands the taxpayers arc not so completely at the mercy of assessors and collectors as they otherwise mifrht be." •iNLAND REVENUE CASES.— Highmore's Summary Proceed- ings in Inland Revenue Cases in England and Wales.— Second Edition. By N. J. Hiohmore, E.sq., Barrister-at-Law, and of the Solicitors' ])cpartment. Inland Revenue. Roy. 12mo. 1887. Ts.6d. ' Is verj' complete. Every possible information is piven." — Law Tivus. INSURANCE.— Arnould on the Lawof Marine Insurance.— Sixth Edition. By David Maclachlan, E.sq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal Svo. 1887. 3/. "As a textbook, 'Arnould' is now all the practitioner can want."— /-a»^ Times. Lowndes' Practical Treatise on the Lawof Marine Insurance. — By RiCHAED Lowndes. Author of " The Law of General Average," &c. Second Edition. Demy Svo. 1885. 12s. 6rf. *,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 17 \NS\JHANCE-co»tiiined. Lowndes' Insurable Interest and Valuations. — By RicnAiin Lowndes. Demy 8vo. 1884. 5-t. McArthur on the Contract of Marine Insurance. — Second Edition. By Charles McAethite, Avoriiufe Adjuster. Domy 8vo. 1890. 16*. INTERNATIONAL LAW.— Kent's International Law.— Kent's Com- meutary on International Law. Edited by J. T. Abdy, LL.D., Judge of County Coiu'ts. Second Edition. Cro-mi 8vo. 1878. 10«. Gd. Nelson's Private International Law. — Selected Cases, Statute.s, and Orders illustrative of the Principles of Private International Law an Administered in England, with Commentary. By Horace Nelson, M.A., B.C.L., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. Svo. 1889. 21s. *'Mr. Nelson's mode of treatment is to give a report of the case, and follow it by notes, much as other series of leadintj cases have been cited. He deals with Acts of Parliament in the same way. Tlie notes are full of matter, and avoid the vice of dis- cursiveness, cases being cited for practically every proposition. Mr. Nelson is to be conaratulated upon the production of a very useful work." — f.niv Timi-.'i. Wheaton's Elements of International Law; Third English Edition. Edited with Notes and Appendix of Statutes and Treaties. By A. C. BoTD, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1889. 1/. 10s. " A handsome and useful edition of a standard work." — Law Quarterly Review, April, 1890. " Wheaton stands too high for criticism, whilst Mr. Boyd's merits as an editor arc almost as well established." — Law Times, November 30, 18S9. INTERROGATORIES.— Sichel and Chance— Vide "Discovery." JOINT STOCKS.— Palmer.- 71rfe "Company Law," "Conveyanc- ing," and "Winding-up." Thring's Joint Stock Companies' Law. — The Law and Practice of Joint Stock and other Companies, including the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1886, with Notes, Orders, and Rules in Chancery, a CoUectiou of Precedents of Memoranda and Articles of Association, and other Forms required in Making and Administering a Company. Also the Partnership Law Amendment Act, the Life Assurance Companies Acts, and other Acts relating to Companies. By Loed Thetng, K.C.B., formerly the Parliamentary Counsel. Fifth Edition. By J. M. Rendel, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1889. U. 10s. " The highest authority on the subject." — The Times. " The book has long taken its place among the authoritative expositions of the law ■of companies. Its very useful forms are a special feature of the book, which will be of great value to practitioners." — Law Journal, September 14, 1889. JUDGES' CHAIVIBER PRACTICE.- Archiba!d.— ri«/« "Chamber Practice." JUDICATURE ACTS.— Wilson's Practice of the Supreme Court of Judicature : containing the Acts, Orders, Rules, andRegulations relating to the Supreme Court. With Practical Notes. Seventh Edition. By Chaeles Btjeney, a Chief Clerk of the Hon. Mr. Justice Chitty, Editor of "DanieU's Chancery Forms;" M. Muie Mackenzie, and C. A. White, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Roy. Svo. 1888. 11. " A thoroughly reliable and most conveniently arranged practice guide."— Lntv Timej JURIST (The). — A Journal for Law Students and the Profession. Edited by Richaed M. Stephenson, LL.B. Lond., Barrister-at-Law. Vols. I., II. and III. 4to. 1887-89. Each, net, 7s. 6d. Issued Monthly ; from January, 1890, price Zd., per post, 4d. Annual Subscription for 1891, post free, tiet, 3s. 6d. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.— Stone's Practice for Justices of the Peace, Justices' Clerks and Solicitors at Petty and Special Sessions, in Summary matters, and Indictable Offences, with a list of Summary Convictions, and matters not Criminal. With Forms. Ninth Edit. ByW.H.MACNAiLAEA, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1882. 1/.5*. *^* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 18 STE\T2NS AND SONS, LIMITED, JUSTICE OF THE PEACE— continued. Wigram's Justice's Note Book. — Containinjr a short account of the Jurisdictiou and Dutks of Justices, aud au Epitome of Criminal Law. By the late W. Knox Wioram, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, J. P. Mid- dlesex and Westminster. Fifth Edition. Revised by Waltee S. Shirley, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1888. Us. Qd. " The style is clear, and the expres.sion always forcihle, and sometimes humorous. The book will repiiy pi-rusal liy many besides those who, as justices, will find it aa indi.spensiible oompiinion.'' — I-. ^/lARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY,— Lush's Married Women's Rights and Liabilities in relation to Contracts, Torts, and Trusts, By Montague Lush, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law, Author of "TheLawof Husband and Wife." Royal 12mo. 1887. 5*. ^'Wcll arranffed, clearly written, and has a good index." — Jjnw Times. Smith's Married Women's Property Acts, 1882 and 1884, with an Introduction and Critical and Ex[)lanatory Notes, together with the Married Women's Property Acts, 1870 and 1874, &c. 2nd Edit. Re- vised. Byll. A. Smith, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law. Roy. 12mo. 1884. 6«. MASTER AND SERVANT,— Macdonell's Law of Master and Servant. Part I. Common Law. Part II. Statute Law. By Johm Macdonell, M.A., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. 1883. 1^. 5«. " A work which will be of i-cal value to the practitioner." — Law Times. MAYOR'S COURT PRACTICE,— Candy's Mayor's Court Prac- tice, — The Juri.sdiction, Process, Practice and Mode of Pleading in Ordinary Actions in the Mayor's Court in London. By GEOEaB Candy, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Demy Svo. 1879. 14«. •,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CILVNCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 21 MERCANTILE LAW,— Russell's Treatise on Mercantile Agency. Second Edition. 8vo. 1873. 14«. Smith's Compendium of Mercantile Law. — Tenth Edition. By John Macdonell, Esaw." — Law Times. "A very complete and excellent giiide to rarish Law." — Solicitors' Journal. "Every subject that can be considered parochial is, we Uiink, continued in this volume, and the matter is brought down to date. It is a compendium which is really compendious." — Imw Journal, Jan. 21, 1888. PARTNERSHIP.— Pollock's Digest of the Law of Partnership; incorj^oratitig the Partnership Act, 1890. Fifth Edition. By Sir Feedeeick Pollock, Bart., Barristcr-at-Law. Author of "Principles of Cou tract," "The Law of Torts," &c. Demy Svo. 1890. 8s. 6rf. " Of tlie execution of the work we can speak in terms of the highest praise. The lanpruage is cimple, concise and clear." — /^aw Mnnnzinr.. " Mr. Pollock's work appears eminently satisfactory .... tho book is praise- worthy in design, scholarly and complete in execution."— .S'aiurrfay Jleview. Turner. — Vide "Conveyancing." PATENTS, — Aston's (T.) Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, with Notes and Index to the Act, Rules and Fonns. By Thkodoee Aston, Q.C. Royal 12mo. 1884. 6.v. Edmunds' Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Acts, 1883 to 1888, Consolidated, with an Index. By Lewis Edmunds, D.Sc, LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Imp. Svo. 1889. ^''et 2s. 6d. *,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCEEY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 23 PAT E N TS— continued. Edmunds on Patents. — The Law and Practice of Letters Patent for Inventions ; with the Patents Acts and Rules annotated, and the International Convention, a full collection of Statutes, Forms, and Precedents, and an Outline of Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws, &c. By Lewis Ediittnds, assisted by A. Wood Rentox, Esqrs., Barris- ters-at-Law. Royal Svo, (992 pp.). 1890. 1/. 125. " We have nothinfr but commendation for the hook. Conceived in a large and com- prehensive spirit, it is well and thoroughly carried out. . . . The statement of the existing law is accurate and clear. . . . The book is one to be recommended." — SoHcitors' Journal, June 14, 1890 " We have no hesitation in sayina: that the book is a useful and exhaustive one, and one which could not have been produced witliout much labour and considerable re- .xearch. It describes the law of Ictter.s patent and its history, including proceedings in the Privy Council, international arrangements, and an abridgment of foreign laws on the subject. It would be difficult to make it more complete, and it is printed on good paper." — Laiv T'nnes, June 21, 1890. '■ Taking the book as a whole, it is undoubtedly the most comprehensive book that has yet been written upon the special branch of law, and, having examined it in some detail, we can commend it as answering well to the many tests wo have applied." — Law Journal, June 21. 1890. Johnson's Patentees' Manual. — A Treatise on the Law and Practice of Patents for Inventions. With an Appendix of Statutes, Rules, and Foreign and Colonial Patent Laws, International Con- vention, and Protocol. Sixth Edition. By James Johnson, Esq., Barrister-at-Law ; and J. Heney Johnson, Solicitor and Patent Agent. Demy Svo. 1890. 10s. dd. Morris's Patents Conveyancing. — Being a Collection of Precedents in Conveyancing in relation to Letters Patent for Inventions. Arranged as follows : — Common Forms, Agreements, Assignments, Mortgages, Special Clauses, Licences, Miscellaneous ; Statutes, Rules, &c. With Dissertations and Copious Notes on the Law and Practice. ByRoBEETMoEEis, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1887. U.6s. " Mr. Morris' forms seem to us to be well selected, well arranged, and thoroughly practical." — Law Times. " The dissertations contain a large amount of valuable and accurate information. The Index is satisfactory." — Solicitors' Journal. Munro's Patents, Designs and Trade Marks Act, 1883, witli the Rules and Instructions, together with Pleadings, Orders and Prece- dents. By J. E. Ceawfoed Muneo, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1SS4. 10s. 6d. Thompson's Handbook of Patent Law of all Countries. — By Wm. p. Thompson, Head of the International Patent Office, Liver- pool. Eighth Edition. 12mo. 1889. Net, 2s. 6d. PERPETUITIES. — Marsden's Rule against Perpetuities. — A Treatise on Remoteness in Limitation ; with a chapter on Accumu- lation and the Thelluson Act. By Reginald G. Maesden, Esq., Barrister-at Law. Demy Svo. 1883. IGs PERSONAL PROPERTY.— Shearwood's Concise Abridgment of the Law of Personal Property ; showing analytically its Branches and the Titles by which it is held. By J. A. Sheaewood, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 1882. ,5s. Qd. " Will be acceptable to many students, as giving them, in fact, a ready-made note book." — Indermaur's Laiv iStuilents' Journal. Smith. — Vide " Real Property." PLEADING. — Allen's Forms of Indorsements of Writs of Sum- mons, Pleadings, and other Proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division prior to Trial, pursuant to the Rules of tha Supreme Court, 1883; ^vith Introduction, &c. By Geoege Baugh Allen, Esq., Special Pleader, and Wilfeed B. Allen, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1883. 18s. •„* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindinffs. 24 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, PLEADING— continued. Bullen and Leake's Precedents of Pleadings, with Notes and Iluks relating' to rioiuliuf,'. Fourth Edition. By Tiiomab J. Bullen, Esq., Special Pleader, and Cybil Dodd, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Part I. Statements of Claim. Royal I'imo. 18vS2. 1/. 4». Part II. Statements of Defence. By Thomas J. Bullen and C. W. Clifford, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal r2mo. 1888. H.4«. •' A ven- larfre number of precedents are collected together, and the notes are full andcleiir." — Larv Times. POISONS. — Reports of Trials for Murder by Poisoning; by Prussic Acid, Strychnia, Antimony, Arsenic and Aconitine; including the trials of Tawell, W. Palmer, Dove, iladeline Smith, Dr. Pritchard, Smethurst, and Dr. Lamson. With Chemical Introductions and Notes. By G. Latham Browxe, Esq., Barrister- at-Law, and C. G. Stewart, Senior Assistant in the Laboratory of St. Thomas's Ho.spital, &c. Demy 8vo. 1883. 12s. M. POWERS, — Farwell on Powers. — A Concise Treatise on Powers. By Geoeqe Farwell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1874. \l. 1*. PRINTERS, PUBLISHERS, &c.— Powell's Laws specially affect- ing Printers, Publishers and Newspaper Proprietors, By Arthur Powell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 4s. PROBATE, — Browne's Probate Practice: A Treatise on the Prin- ciples and Practice of the Court of Probate, in Contentious and Non- Contentious Business. By L. D. Powles, Barrister-at-Law. In- cluding Practical Directions to Solicitors for Proceedings in the Rofristry. ByT. W. H. Oakley, of the Principal Registry, Somerset House. 8vo. 1881. II. 10s. PUBLIC HEALTH,— Bazalgette and Humphreys.— Fitfe "Local and Mimicipal Government." Chambers' Digest of the Law relating to Public Health and Local Government. — With Notes of 1,2G0 leading Cases. The Statutes in full. A Table of Offences and Punishments, and a Copious Index. Eighth Edition (with Supplement corrected to May 21, 1887). Imperial 8 vo. 1881. 16s. Or, the above with the Law relating to Highways and Bridges. 1 1. Smith's Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1890.— With Intro- duction, Notes, and References to Cases; also an Appendix, containing all the Material Sections of the Public Health Act, 1875 ; The Public Health (Rating of Orchards) Act, 1890 ; and The Infectious Diseases (Prevention) Act, 1890: and a Copious Index. By BovillSmith, M.A., of the Inner Temple and Western Circuit, Barrister-at-Law. Royal 12mo. 1891. 6s. PUBLIC MEETINGS.— Chambers' Handbook for Public Meet- ings, including Hints as to the Summoning and Management of them. Second Edition. By George F. Chambers, Esq., Barrister- at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1880. Net, 2s. Qd. QUARTER SESSIONS,— Archbold.-rirfe" Criminal Law." Leeming & Cross's General and Quarter Sessions of the Peace. — Their Jurisdiction and Practice in other than Criminal matters. Second Edition. By Horatio Lloyd, Esq., Judge of County Courts, and H.F. Thtjblow, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1870. \l. Is. Pritchard's Quarter Sessions,— The Jurisdiction, Practice and Pro- cedure of the Quarter Sessions in Criminal, Ci\'il, and Appellate Matters. By Tuos. Sirrell Pritchard, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1875. (Publi.shed at 21. 2s.) Reduced to 7iet 12j. *,* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 25 RAILWAYS.— Browne and Theobald's Law of Railway Com- panies. — Being a Collection of the Acts and Orders relating to Railway Companies in England and Ireland, with Notes of all the Cases decided thereon, and Appendix of Bye-Laws and Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Second Edition. By J. H. Baifoue Browne, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, and H. S. Theobald, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1888. 1/. 15s. " Contains in a very concise tonn the whole law of railways." — The Times. " The learned authors seem to have presented the profession and the public with the most ample infoj-raation to be found whether they want to know how to sturt a rfiil- ■way, how to frame its bye-laws, how to work it, how to attack it for injury to person or property, or how to wind it up." — Law Times. Macnamara. — Tide " Carriers." Street. — J'ide " Company Law." RATES AND RATI NG.— Castle's Practical Treatise on the Law of Rating. — Second Edition. By Edwaed James Castxe, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel. Demy 8vo. 1S8G. 25s. " A correct, exhaustive, clear and concise view of the law." — Lniv Times. Chambers' Law relating to Local Rates; with especial reference to the Powers and Duties of Rate-levying Local Authorities, and their OfiBcers ; comprising the Statutes in full and a Dige.st of 718 Cases. Second Edition. By G. F. Chambees, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. Royal 8to. 1889. 10.«. 6rf. "A complete repertory of the statutes and case law of the subject." — Law Jmirna!. REAL ESTATE. — Foster's Law of Joint Ownership and Partition of Real Estate. — By Edwaed John Fostee, M.A., late of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. 8vo. 1878. 10s. %d. REAL PROPERTY.— Greenwood's Real Property Statutes; com- prising those passed during the years 187-1 — 1884, inclusive, consolidated with the earher statutes thereby amended. "With copious notes. Second Edition. By Haeey G-eeenwood, assisted by LeesKjnowles, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1881. M.bs. " The second edition of this useful collection of statutes relating to real property will be heartily welcomed by conveyancers and real property lawyers. In referring; to it as a collection of statutes, however, we do not fully describe it, because the method adopted by the author of groiipinar together the provisions of the various Acts, which are in pnri mnleri'i, combined with the fullness and accuracy of the notes, entitles the book to rank hish amongst treatises on the law of real property." — Lmv Journal. Leake's Elementary Digest of the Law of Property in Land. — Containing : Introduction. Part I. The Sources of the Law. — Part II. Estates in Land. By Stephen Maetii^ Leaee, Barrister- at-Law. Demy 8vo. 8vo. 1874. 1/. 2*. Leake's Digest of the Law of Property in Land. — Pai-t III. The Law of Uses and Profits of Land. By Stephen Maetin Leaks, Barrister-at-Law, Author of "A Digest of the Law of Contracts." Demy 8vo. 1888. U. 2s. Shearwood's Real Property. — A Concise Abridgment of the Law of Real Property and an Introduction to Conveyancing. Designed to faciUtate the subject for Students preparing for examination. By Joseph A. Sheabwood, Esq., Banister-at-Law. Tliird Edition. Demy 8vo. 188.5. 8.?. 6rf. " We heartily recommend the work to student's for any examination on real property and conveyancmg, advising them to read it after a perusal of other works and shortly before going in for the examination." — Law Studeyit's Journal. " A very useful little work, particularly to students just before their examination." - Gil'son's Law Xnte.i. " One of the most obvious merits of the book is its good arrangement. The author evidently understands ' the art of putting things.' All important points are so printed as to readilv catch the eve." — Law Times. Shelford's Real Property Statutes.— Ninth Edition. By T. H. Caeson, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {In j}rcparation.) %* All standard Law Works are kept in Stock, in law calf and other bindingi. 26 STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, REAL PROPERTY— continued. Smith's Real and Personal Property. — A Compendium of the Law of Ileal and Personal Property, primarily connected with Con- veyancing. Designeii as a second book for Students, and as a digest of the most useful learning for practitioners. By Josiah W. SiUTH, B.C.L., Q.C. Sixth Edition. By the AuTnoii and J. Teus- TEAM, LL.M., Barri.ster-at-Law. 2 vols. Demy 8vo. 1881. 21. 2s. " A book -nhich he (the student) may read over and over a^ain viith. proflt and plea- gure." — Law Times. " Will be found of very great service to the praetitioner."— ^o^'citora' Journal. " Tlie book will be found very handy for reference purposes to practitioners, and very ustf nl to the industrious student as coverinff a fn-eut deal of pround." — Law Notes. *' A rciiUv usf ful and valuable work on our system of Conveyancing. We think this edition cxc'lliullv done." — Law Sliuieut's Journnl. REGIS! RATION.— Rogers.— r«rfe "Elections." Coltman's Registration Cases.— Vol. I. (1879—1885). Royal Svo. Calf. ^'et. 21. 8«. Fox's Registration Cases.— Vol. I., Part I. (188G), net, 4s. Part II. (1SS7), net, G.i. 6d. Part III. (18SS), ftct, 4s. Part IV. (1889), vet, 4.S. (In continuation of Coltman.) RENTS. — Harrison's Law Relating to Chief Rents and other Rentcharges and Lands as affected thereby, with a chapter on Hestrictivc Covenants and a selection of Precedents. By Wllliam Haeeison, Solicitor. Demy Timo. 1884. 6s. ROMAN LAW.— Goodwin's XII. Tables. — By Feedeeick Goodwin, LL.D. London. Royal 12mo. 188G. [is. 6d. Greene's Outlines of Roman Law. — Consisting chiefly of an Analysis and Summary of the In.stitutes. For the use of Students. By T. WniTCOiiEE Geeene, Barrister-at-law. Fourth Edition. Foolscap Svo. 1884. 7s. 6d. Ruegg's Student's "Auxilium"to the Institutes of Justinian. — Being a complete sjTiopsis thereof in the form of Question and Answer. By Alfeed Heney Rxtego, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. 1879. 5s. SALES. — Blackburn on Sales, A Treatise on the Effect of the Con- tract of Sale on the Legal Rights of Property and Possession in Goods, Wares, and Merchandise. By Lord Blackbuen. Second Edition. By J. C. Geaham, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal Svo. 188.5. 11. Is. " We have no hesitation in saying that the work has been edited with remarkable ability and success, and if we may baz.ard a speculation on the cause, we should say that the editor has so dili^'ontly studied the excellent methods and work of his author as to have made himself a highly competent workman in the same kind." — Law Quartcrl;/ Eevinv. SALES OF LAND, — Gierke and Humphry's Concise Treatise on the Law relating to Sales of Land. By Aubeey St. John Cleeke, and Hugh M. Hujephey, E.sqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Royal Svo. 188.5. U. 5s. Webster's Particulars and Conditions of Sale. — The Law relating to Particulars and Conditions of Sale on a Sale of Land. By Wu. Feedk. Webstee, Esq., Barristcr-at-Law. Royal Svo. 1889. \l. Is. "Characterized by clearness of arrancjcracnt and careful and concise statement; and we think it will be found of much service to the practitioner."— .9o;tc!.««7. Sebastian's Digest of Cases of Trade Mark, Trade Name, Trade Secret, Goodwill, &c., decided in the Courts of the United Kinpdom, India, the Colonies, and the United States of America. By Lewis Boyd Sebastian, B.C.L., M.A., Esq., Banister-at-Law. 8vo. 1879. II. Is. " A digest which -will be of very ^eat value to aU practitionen who have to advise on matters connected with trade marks." — Solicitors' Journal. Hardingham's Trade Marks: Notes on the British, Foreign, and Colonial Laws relating thereto. By Geo. Gatton MELircnsH HAEDrNGHAii, Consulting Engineer and Patent Agent. Royal 12mo. 1881. Xet, 2s. 6d. TRAMWAYS. — Sutton's Tramway Acts of the United Kingdom; with Notes on the Law and Practice, an Introduction, including the Proceedings before the Committees, Decisions of the Referees with respect to Locus Standi, and a Siuninary of the Principles of Tramway Rating, and an Appendix containing the Standing Orders of Par- liament. Rules of the Board of Trade relating to Tramways, &c. Second Edition. By Henry Sutton, assisted by Robeut A. Ben- nett, Barristcrs-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1883. 1.5s. " The book is excceding-ly well done, and cannot fail not only to be the standard work on its own subject, but to take a high place among legal text-books." — Law Journal. TRUST FUNDS.— Geare's Investment of Trust Funds. — Incorpo- rating the Trustee Act, 1888. By Edwaed Arundel Geaee, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. Including the Trusts Invest- ment Act, 1889. Royal I'imo. 1889. 7s. 6d. " Tne work is -written in an easy style, it can very well be read by all trustees, ■whether they are law}-ers or not ; and if they will take our advice, and invest their money here before tlicy invest other people's elsewhere, they may be spared much trouble in the future." — The Jurist. TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES. — Godefroi's Law of Trusts and Trustees. — Second Edition. By Henry Godefeoi, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., BaiTister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 1891. [Nearly ready.) Hamilton's Trustee Acts, — Containing the Trustee Act, 1850 ; the Trustee Extension Act, 18.52 ; and the Trustee Act, 1888 ; with Sup- plement of the Lunacy Act, 1890 (-53 Vict. c. .5), so far as relates to Vesting Orders. By G. Baldwin HAiiiLTON, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, 4-uthor of " A Concise Treatise on the Law of Covenants." Demy 8vo. 1890. Qs. " This is a very useful little book. "Wo have perused it with much care, and we have come to the conclusion that it may be .safely trusted to as a ffuide to the compli- cated law to which it relates. We feel certain that Mr. Hamilton's book only requires to be known to be appreciated." — Lniv Quarterly Review. VENDORS AND PURCHASERS, — Dart's Vendors and. Pur- chasers, — A Treatise on thf Law and Practice relating to Vendors and Purchasers of Real Estate. By the late J. Henry Dart, Esq., one of the Six Conveyancing Counsel of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division. Sixth Edition. By ''r'"iLLiAM Barber, Esq., one of Her Majesty's Counsel, Richard Burdon Haldane, and William Robert Sheldon, both of Lincoln's Inn, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. 1888. 3/. I5s. "The new edition of Dart is far ahead of all competitors in the breadth of its range, the clearness of its exposition, and the soundness of its law."— /yow Times. " The extensive changes and numerous improvements which have been introduced are the result of assiduous labour, combin' d with critical acumen, soimd knowledge, and practical experience." — Law Quarterly licview. %* All standard Law Works arekejjt in Stock, in law calf and other bindings. 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON, W.C. 31 VENDORS AND PU RCHASERS— cow^iwKd-^. Turner's Dutiesof Solicitor to Client as to Sales, Purchases, and Mortgages of Land. — By Edwakd F. Tuener, Solicitor, Lecturer on Keal rropcrty and Conveyancing. Demy 8vo. 1883. IQs. 6d. See also Conveyancing. — " Turner." " His lectures are full of thought and accuriicy, they are lucid in exposition, and -what is more, thoug-li unfortunately rare in law works, attractive in tlicir style and composition." — Law Mnr/nzine. " A careful perusal of these lectures cannot fail to he of great advantage to students, and more partipuhirlv, we think, to voung practising solicitors." — Law Times. WAR, DECLARATION OF.— Owen's Declaration of War.— A Survey of the Position of Belligerents and Neutrals, with relative considerations of Shipping and Marino Insurance during War. By DoTTGLAS Owen, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1889. 21s. WATERS. — Musgrave's Dissertation on the Common Law of Waters and its Application to Natural Circumstances other than those of England. — By W. A. B. Musgeave, D.C.L., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Demy 8vo. 1890. Net, 2s. WILLS. — Theobald's Concise Treatise on the Law of Wills. — Third Edition. By H. S. Theobaxd, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. 188.5. 1/. 10s. " A book of great ability and value. It bears on every page traces of care and sound judgment. It is certain to prove of great practical usefulness." — Solicitors' Journal. Weaver's Precedents of Wills, — A Collection of Concise Precedents of Wills, with Introduction, Notes, and an Appendix of Statutes. Bv Charles Weaver, B.A. Post 8vo. 1882. 5.?. WINDING UP.— Palmer's Winding-up Forms.— A Collection of 580 Forms of Summonses, Affidavits, Orders, Notices and other Forms relating to the Winding-up of Companies. With Notes on the Law and Practice, and an Appendix containing the Acts and Rules. By Francis Beaufort Palmer, Esq., Ban-ister- at-Law, Author of " Company Precedents," &c. Svo. 1885. 12.?. WRECK INQUIRIES.— Murton's Law and Practice relating to Formal Investigations in the United Kingdom, British Posses- sions and before Naval Courts into Shipping Casualties and the Incompetency and Misconduct of Ships' Officers. Witli an Introduction. By Walter Murton, Solicitor to the Board of Trade. Demy Svo. 1884. 1^. 4s. WRONGS,— Addison. Ball, Pollock, Shearwood.— nV7e "Torts." REPORTS. — A large Stock, New and Second-hand. Prices on application. BINDING. — Executed in the best manner at moderate prices and with dispatch. The Law Reports, Law Journal, and all other Reports, bound to Office Patterns, at Office Prices. PRIVATE ACTS.— ^''''e Publishers of this Catalogue possess the largest hiown collection of Private Acts of Parliament {including Public and Local), and can supply single copies commencing from a very early period. LICENSED VALUERS for Probate, Partnersliip, &c. LIBRARIES PURCHASE[)~OR EXCHANGED. STEVENS AND SONS, Ld., 119 & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. NEW WORKS AND NEW EDITIONS. Carver's Carriage by Sea : a Treatise on tlio Law rclutiufj^ to the Cam-ia{,''e of Goods by Sea.— Socoiul Edition. By Thomas Gilbeet Cauvku, Ksq., BaiTister-at-Law. Royal 8vo. [In the press.) Fry's Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contracts. — By the llou. Sir Edwaud Eky, a Lord Justice of Appeal. Tliird Edition. By the Author and Edwakd PouTSiiOUXn Eey, Esq., Barrister-at- Law. (In preparation) . Goddard's Treatise on the Law of Easements. — Fourth Edition. By John Leydoxjex Goddard, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. [Nearly ready.) Godefroi's Law of Trusts and Trustees. — Second Edition. By Hknisy Godefkoi, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {Nearly ready.) Hamilton's Manual of Company Law for Directors and Promo- ters. — By Wm. FiiKDK. IIamilton, LL.D.)(Lond.); assisted by Ken- NAED GoLBORNK Metcali'k, M.A., Barristcr.s-at-Law. [In the press.) Kennedy's Law of Civil Salvage. — By William Eann Kennedy, Esq., one of Her Majestj-'s Coun.sel. {In the press.) Marsden's Treatise on the Law of Collisions at Sea. — Third Edition. By Rkginald G. Maiisden, I"]sq., Barrister-at-Law. {In the press.) Moncreiff's Law of Fraud and Misrepresentation. — By the Hon. Fred. Charles Moncreiff, Barrister-at-Law. {In the press.) Palmer's Company Precedents.^Fifth Edition. By Fkancis Beau- fort Palmer, assi.sted by Charles Macnaohten, Esqrs., Barristers -at- Law. Royal 8vo. {In the press.) Phillimore's Ecclesiastical Law of the Church of England. — Second Edition. Edited by Sir Walter Geo. Fr.vnk Phillimoee, Bart., D.C.L., Chancellor of the Diocese of Lincoln. {In preparation.) Roscoe's Admiralty Practice. — Third Edition. By E. S. Roscoe and T. Lambert Mears, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. {In preparation.) Roscoe's Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Actions at Nisi Prius. — Sixteenth Edition. By Maurice Powell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. 2 vols Demy 8vo. {In the press.) Russell's Treatise on the Power and Duty of an Arbitrator, and the Law of Submissions and Awards. — 7th Edit. BythoAuthor and Herbert Russell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {In preparation.) Selwyn's Abridgment of the Law of Nisi Prius. — 14th Edition. By W. H. Macnamaea, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {In preparation.) SerrelTs Equitable Doctrine of Election.— By George Seeeell, M.A., LL.l)., Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Roy. r2mo. {In the press.) Baton's Forms of Judgments and Orders in the High Court of Justice and Courts of Appeal, having especial reference to the Chancery Division, with Practical Notes. Fifth Edition. By C. C. M. Dale, of Lincoln's Inn, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, and W. Clowes, Esq., one of the Registrars of the Supreme Court. {In the press.) Talbot and Fort's English Reports noted, from Michaelmas Term, 1865, to end of 1890, inclusive ; being an Index of all Cases cited in Judgments during that period. — By George John Talbot and Hugh Fort, Barristers-at-Law. {In preparation.) Theobald and Schuster's Lunacy Act, 1890, with Notes. — By H. S. Theobald and E. J. Schuster, Barristers-at-Law. {In preparation.) Whitehead's Church Law. — Being a Concise Dictionary of Statutes, Canons and Regulations affecting the Clergy and Laity. By Benjamik Whitehead, B.A., Esq., Barri.ster-at-Law. {In the press.) Williams' Law of Executors and Administrators. — Ninth Edition. By the Hon. Sir Roland Vaughan Williams, a Justice of the High Court. 2 vols. Royal 8vo. {In preparation.) Williams' Law and Practice in Bankruptcy. — Fifth Edition. By Edward William Hansell, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. {In the press.) STEVENS AND SONS, Ld., UQ & 120, CHANCERY LANE, LONDON. '^ c*^ i-Ti- '7. ^ ^^ ^^ f^^^_^A/, ' A^i.x " III ■ II M^— ^i^^— ^™^P^^^'*' " 7 Ct^ d/^^ KAJLAr-i>TU^^% gal Tenns u^cd in Commercial Business, together witli a Translation of the Latin Maxims, and selected Titles from the CivD, Scotch, and Indian Law. Eu/hth Edition. By J. M. [j^2 LELY, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Super-royal Svo. 1889. Price II. 18s. cloth. -^O *^* ^'A Catulor/ne of Xcic Law Worlcs (1890) gratis on apjillcation.