Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

1865. Prisoner lodged there from the time I went, and never was absent more than a night or two, or three at most, at a time. I went out of the kitchen into the room where the clock is to see the time. I do not know why.

"Richard Kemp saith-I am a warder at the House of Correction at Wandsworth. Prisoner was in Wandsworth Prison from March, 1865, to March, 1866.

"Certificate of conviction of Sullivan for robbery produced, dated March, 1865, sentenced twelve calendar months and hard labour, at the House of Correction at Wandsworth.

"Guilty-seven years penal servitude. "I ordered the witness, Thomas Tyson, to be taken into custody on a charge of perjury."

No counsel appeared for the prisoner. Metcalfe, in support of the conviction. It is admitted that the evidence on which the prisoner was convicted of perjury did not directly bear on the question of the guilt or innocence of Sullivan on the charge of robbery, but it was material as a test of the truth of Tyson's evidence.

[WILLES, J.-It is in answer to a question from the Judge.]

In 1 Hawk. P.C. c. 27. s. 8. p. 434. it is said: "If it appear plainly that the scope of the question were to sift him as to his knowledge of the substance, by examining him strictly concerning the circumstances, and he give a particular and distinct account of the circumstances which afterwards appear to be false, surely he cannot but be guilty of perjury, inasmuch as nothing can be more apt to incline a jury to give credit to the substantial part of a man's evidence than his appearing to have an exact and particular knowledge of all the circumstances relating to it."

[BRAMWELL, B.-Suppose A. is indicted for robbing B. at D. C. says, I was at X. and A. was there; does it not become material to shew that C. was at Y?]

Yes.

[LUSH, J.-The substantial part appears to me to be whether the prisoner was at that house at the time and on the night in question. Then did not the statement to the Judge, that the prisoner was not in the habit of being out, and had not been out of the house more than two or three times for NEW SERIES, 37.-MAG. CAS.

two years, incline the jury more readily to give credit to the substantial part of the man's evidence, namely, that Sullivan was at the house on the night and at the time of the robbery. BRAMWELL, B.-It was not material, in the first instance; but the witness makes it so by making it authenticate the part of his evidence which was before material. This brings it within the case mentioned by Hawkins as to the sheep-marks (1). LUSH, J.-It thus becomes material to the issue.]

It is submitted that the scope of the questions put by the Judge on Sullivan's trial to the prisoner in this case was to sift him as to his knowledge of the substantial part of his evidence, and his answers were therefore material, and perjury assigned upon them was rightly assigned, and this conviction should therefore be sustained.

KELLY, C.B.-The question is whether upon this indictment for perjury the two statements upon the assignments of which the prisoner has been convicted were material. We are all agreed that they were material, upon the ground that they tended to render more probable the truth of the other allegation upon which the prisoner has not been convicted, viz., that he saw Sullivan at this lodging-house on the night of the 13th of April, between the hours of eight and ten o'clock. It tends to render that statement more probable that Sullivan lodged there for two years and that he was never out of the house for more than a night or two at a time during that period. That makes the other statement that he was not out on the night in question more probable. It was therefore material to the question of the probability or improbability of the witness speaking the truth in saying that the prisoner was at his house on the night of the 13th of April. We are all of opinion that the conviction should be affirmed.

BRAMWELL, B.-The question is whether the answers were material, for if material on any ground it is sufficient. If the witness had said that he was at such a house at a quarter past ten o'clock on such a night, his evidence would have been less trustworthy if he could give no reasons for saying so. Then he is asked what enables (1) 1 Hawk. P.C. c. 27. §. 8. p. 434. с

[blocks in formation]

An indictment for neglecting to provide sufficient food and sustenance for a child of tender years, whereby the child became ill and enfeebled, averred that it was the duty of the prisoner to provide for, give and administer to the said child wholesome and sufficient meat, drink and clothing for the sustenance, &c. of the said child, and that he unlawfully, and contrary to his said duty in that behalf, did omit, neglect and refuse to provide for, &c., the child-Held, by the majority of the Court, that the indictment sufficiently alleged the breach of duty, and that the prisoner had the ability to provide but omitted to exercise it.

The Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for Surrey reserved the following

CASE.

At the General Quarter Session of the Peace, holden at Guildford, in and for the county of Surrey, on Tuesday, the 2nd of July, 1867, Henry Blucher Ryland was tried and convicted upon the following count of an indictment: "The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath preCoram Kelly, C.B., Willes, J., Bramwell, J., Byles, J. and Lush. J.

sent, that before the time of committing the offence hereinafter in this count mentioned, Henry Blucher Ryland was the father of a certain male child of tender age, to wit, of the age of seven years, called and known by the name of Frederick George Ryland, and that Hannah Ryland, before the time of the committing the offence and during all the time hereinafter in this count mentioned, was the wife of the said Henry Blucher Ryland, and as such wife living with the said Henry Blucher Ryland, and during all that time the said child was living under the care and control of the said Henry Blucher Ryland and the said Hannah Ryland, and during all that time it was the duty of the said Henry Blucher Ryland and the said Hannah Ryland to provide for, give and administer to the said child wholesome and sufficient meat, drink, food and clothing for the sustenance, support, nourishment and healthful preservation of the said child, the said child by reason of his tender age being then wholly

incapable of providing for himself. And the jurors aforesaid, upon their oath aforesaid, do further present that the said Henry Blucher Ryland and the said Hannah Ryland, on the 5th day of March, in the year of our Lord 1867, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the taking of this inquisition, and whilst the said child was of such tender age as aforesaid, and wholly incapable of providing for himself as aforesaid, unlawfully and contrary to the said duty of the said Henry Blucher Ryland and the said Hannah Ryland in that behalf, did omit, neglect and refuse to provide for, give and administer to the said child clothing, meat, drink and food in any sufficient quantity for the sustenance, support, nourishment and healthful preservation of the said child, by means whereof the said male child became and was weak and ill, and greatly disordered and debilitated in his body, to the great damage of the said child, and against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity."

After the jury were sworn and the defendant given in charge to them, his counsel objected that the indictment was bad, as it did not allege that the defendant had the means of providing his child with wholesome and sufficient meat, drink, food and

clothing for the sustenance, support, nourishment and healthful preservation of the said child. It was replied that such allegation was unnecessary in the indictment, and that it was sufficient to prove such ability at the trial; but that even if such allegation were necessary, the objection was too late, as, being for a formal defect apparent on the face of the indictment, it ought to have been taken by demurrer before the jury were sworn, as provided for by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100. s. 24. The Court overruled the objection, and, proof having been given of the ability of the said Henry Blucher Ryland to provide the necessary food and clothing for his child, left the case to the jury, who found the said Henry Blucher Ryland guilty; but the Court reserved the two points above mentioned for the determination of the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved, viz., first, whether an allegation of the ability of the said Henry Blucher Ryland to provide the necessary food and clothing for his child was requisite in the indictment; and, secondly, whether the objection to the indictment was not too late.

The Court respited judgment upon the defendant, and admitted him to bail till the decision of the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved should be known.

J. Thompson, for the prisoner. — The defect is not a formal one within 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100.

[BRAMWELL, B.-It has been decided that this Court can take cognizance of defects apparent on the face of the record when reserved at the trial.-See The Queen v. Webb (1)].

Then the indictment is bad for omitting the allegation that the prisoner had the means and ability to provide food and sustenance for his child. In The Queen v. Chandler (2) the indictment contained the allegation that the prisoner had the ability and means to maintain her child; but the evidence failed to satisfy that allegation, and the conviction was quashed. In The Queen v. Hogan (3) one objection taken to

(1) 1 Den. C.C. 338; s. c. 18 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) M.C. 39.

(2) 1 Dears. C.C. 453; 8. c. 20 Law J. Rep. (5.8.) M.C. 109.

(3) 2 Den. C.C. 277; s. c. 24 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 219.

the indictment, which was held bad, was that there was no allegation that the parent had the means to support the child. In The Queen v. Vann (4) it was held, that the parent was not bound to incur a debt in order to provide burial for his child, and is only bound to incur such expense if he has the means, without contracting a loan and rendering himself liable to be proceeded against and lose his liberty and be deprived of the means of maintaining his family.

[KELLY, C.B.—The question here is, can it be implied or collected from the indictment that the parent here had the ability and neglected his duty therein? Is it necessary that there should be a direct allegation?]

The prisoner ought to have notice that ability to provide is alleged against him, and of the time when.

Lilley, in support of the conviction.It is the duty of the parent to provide sustenance and food for his children, whether he has the means himself or not; if he has not present means, it is his duty to resort to the poor laws or to private charity-The Queen v. Mabbett (5), The Queen v. Friend (6) and The Queen v. Ridley (7).

[WILLES, J., referred to The Queen v. Pelham (8)].

Thompson, in reply.

[ocr errors]

KELLY, C.B. The majority of the Court think that the indictment sufficiently alleges the breach of duty in this case, in the statement that the prisoner "unlawfully and contrary to his said duty in that behalf, did omit, neglect and refuse to provide food, &c." The special matter of the ability to provide is included within the meaning of the word "neglect," and it is, at all events, satisfactory to feel that upon this indictment the prisoner was duly convicted on the merits of the case, inasmuch as the jury have found that, in fact, the prisoner had the ability to maintain which he neglected to exercise.

Conviction affirmed.

(4) 21 Law J. Rep. (N.s.) M.C. 39.
(5) 5 Cox, C.C. 339.
(6) Russ. & R. 20.
(7) 2 Campb. 650.

(8) 8 Q.B. Rep. 959; s. c. 15 Law J. Rep. (N.8. M.C. 105.

[blocks in formation]

Judges'

Poor-rate Assize Courts Lodgings - Public Purposes - Beneficial Occupation.

By act of parliament, the Justices of the county of L. were empowered to provide courts, Judges' lodgings, offices, &c. necessary and convenient for carrying on the civil and criminal business usually transacted at Courts of Aszize. They were further empowered to permit the use of the buildings for any lawful purpose for such consideration as they might think proper, but so as not to interfere with the use of such buildings and premises for the purposes primarily contemplated. They did allow the corporation of M. to use part of the buildings for the city Quarter Sessions, and for the city Court of Record, and they received 9001. a year in respect of such use. This sum of 9001., together with all sums received for the use of the buildings, was insufficient to defray the average annual expenses of maintenance and management:-Held, that the Justices were rateable to the poor-rate in respect of the part so let off to the corporation.

[merged small][ocr errors]

By the 21 Vict. c. xxiv. (local and personal) ("The Manchester Assize Courts Act, 1858"),-after reciting that it had been recommended to Her Majesty that a separate civil and criminal assize should be granted to Manchester, for that city and the borough and hundred of Salford, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, and after reciting an act of the 38 Geo. 3. c. lviii. (local), whereby the business of the said county concerning the general county rate was and is trans

acted at the annual General Session of the Peace holden at Preston, and at the adjournments thereof, and at special Sessions holden at Preston according to the said act, but the General Quarter Sessions of the county are held, by adjournments from place to place, for the transaction of business arising within the several divisions of the county, and (amongst other places) are so held in the hundred of Salford for the transaction of business arising within the said hundred, by section 2, the Justices of the Peace for the County Palatine of Lancaster assembled at any Quarter or General Sessions, holden originally or by adjournment within the hundred of Salford, were empowered to provide in or near Manchester, within the hundred, commodious courts, lodgings for Her Majesty's Judges, offices, lock-ups, and all other accommodations necessary or convenient for carrying on the civil and criminal business usually transacted at Courts of Assize.

By section 4, any lands or buildings acquired by the Justices under the act might be conveyed, assigned or demised to the Justices of the County Palatine of Lancaster, and their successors; and such Justices and their successors were thereby empowered to take and hold in the nature of a body corporate, in trust for the purposes of that act, the lands or buildings so conveyed, assigned or demised to

them.

By section 5, all the expenses incurred in carrying into effect the purposes of the act, including any expenses incurred in making such temporary arrangements as were authorized by the said act, should be defrayed out of the special rate thereinafter authorized to be laid, imposed, assessed and levied from time to time, as the case might require, upon and from the hundred of Salford.

By section 11, the Justices assembled as aforesaid were to have the sole and entire control, repair, management and use of all buildings and premises acquired for the purposes of that act; and it was to be lawful for them to use or permit the use of any such buildings and premises for any lawful purpose, at such times, in such manner, upon such conditions and for such consideration as the same Justices might think proper, but so as not to interfere with the use of such buildings and premises

[blocks in formation]

There are, in addition, other rooms for the grand jury, witnesses, for the county officials, for the accommodation of the Judges, the Magistrates, and counsel attending the Assizes and Quarter Sessions, and also refreshment-rooms.

The Judges' lodgings adjoin the main buildings, but are under a separate roof, and are connected with the central hall and courts by a covered corridor. They comprise the necessary accommodation for the Judges and their suite at the Assizes. The Judges' dining-room is also occasionally used for luncheons by committees of county Magistrates, when they assemble in a room attached to the Assize Courts, for the transaction of county business.

The courts are all under one roof, and are used at the County Assizes for the hundred of Salford and the city of Manchester, and at the county sessions for the hundred; and, by special agreement with the city of Manchester, as hereinafter mentioned, for the city Court of Record.

For the purchase of one portion of the site of the Courts, the Justices have paid 4,070.; the rest of the site was purchased by them in fee, subject to yearly chief rents, amounting together to the sum of 620/. 68. 10d. a year. The erection of the building has cost 131,3127.

The money borrowed to the present time amounts to the sum of 68,500l., and the interest paid thereon last year (1866), was 3,6901. 3s. 5d.

The recited act provides that the money borrowed shall be repaid within twenty years, the period limited by "The Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847." The expenses of maintenance and management for the year ending on the 31st of May, 1866, amounted to 1,8237. 78. 11d., which sum it is estimated may be considered as the average of those expenses.

The sum raised by the special rate authorized to be raised by the above-recited act during the year ending the 31st of May, 1866, was 12,705l. 58. 2d., which was applied partly in paying the current expenses and the interest on loans.

The residue has been expended in completing, decorating and furnishing the Courts and Judges' house, and in providing the sinking fund for paying off the mortgage debt as required by the Commissioners Clauses Act, 1847. The rest of the cost of the buildings and furniture has been paid for out of the special rate authorized to be laid on the hundred of Salford by the said

act.

There is a quantity of plate, linen, china, &c., kept in the building, which is the pro

« ZurückWeiter »