« EdellinenJatka »
13. Goods, &c. of a local board of health, in their corporate name
(38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 7):
administration granted, in the name of the judge of the Court
(26 & 27 Vict. c. 65, s. 25): 16. A party indicted for felony or misdemeanor may be found The offenders.
guilty of an attempt to commit the same, and be liable to the
attempt only (14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 9):
with intent to rob (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 41): 18. A person tried for misdemeanor is not to be acquitted if the
offence turn out to be a felony, unless the court so direct
(14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 12): 19. Persons guilty of separately receiving property may be in
cluded in the same indictment (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 94; and
see s. 96 as to receivers) :
indictment with substantive felonies in the absence of the
be indicted jointly, or each separately, except for perjury or
p. 58): 22. In murder and manslaughter, it is not necessary to state the Statement of manner in which the death was caused (24 & 25 Vict. c. 100,
describing 8. 6):
property. 15 23. In forgery of any instrument, no copy or facsimile need be set
forth, but its usual name sufficient (24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 42): 24. In indictments for engraving, &c. any instrument, &c., a de
scription of instrument only necessary (24 & 25 Vict. c. 98,
8. 43): 25. In all other cases, in averments in indictments as to any instru
ment, &c. its usual name or designation is sufficient (14 & 15
Vict. c. 100, s. 7):
defraud, it is sufficient to allege the act to have been done
15 Vide Oke's " Formulist,” 6th ed. pp. 511-514, for the various modes of describing technically different descriptions of articles and property.
tended to be defrauded (24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 44; 24 & 25
Vict. c. 96, s. 88): 27. In charges of embezzlement, three acts of embezzlement within
six calendar months may be charged in one indictment (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 71); and if the offence on the evidence appear to be a larceny, the offender may be found guilty of simple
larceny, or of larceny as clerk or servant (Id. s. 72). 28. Three larcenies from the same person within six months may
be included in the same indictment (Id. s. 5; and see s. 6); 29. In charges of larceny against clerks or servants, if upon
the evidence it appear to be embezzlement, they may be found guilty of the embezzlement (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 72; and
see paragraph No. 28): 30. In charges of obtaining money, &c. by false pretences, if the
offence turn out to be larceny, the offender may notwithstanding be convicted of the false pretences (Id. s. 88; and see
paragraph No. 26): 31. Bank, or other notes and money, may be described as “money"
without specifying the coin or notes (14 & 15 Vict. c. 100,
8. 18): 32. Counts for stealing and receiving property may be joined in
the same indictment (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 92): 33. Where local description is necessary to the offence, it must
still be inserted in the indictment (14 & 15 Vict, c. 100, s. 23;
and see paragraph No. 38): 34. Where particular words are the gist of the offence, they must
be set forth with particularity: 35. A record must be described to correspond with the record
itself: 36. Personal goods and chattels must be described specifically by
the names usually appropriated to them: 37. For a larceny of live animals they need not be stated to be
alive; if dead they must be stated to be so : 38. With reference to the special venue allowed in certain cases
(see Vol. I., pp. 21—25), the offence may be laid in the summons or warrant to have been committed within the jurisdiction of the examining justice, except in cases abroad or at sea; and see paragraph No. 33.
FORMS. [Vide B, C, and D, Nos. 6, 7, 9, Oke's "Formulist,” 6th ed., pp. 475, 476, and K, Id. p. 7.]
2. For Offences at Sea or Abroad. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 2, enacts," that in all cases of in- 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 42. “ dictable crimes or offences of any kind or nature whatsoever
For offences " committed on the high seas, or in any creek, harbour, haven at sea or " or other place in which the Admiralty of England have or abroad.
. " claim to have jurisdiction,-and in all cases of crimes or Sect. 2. " offences committed on land beyond the seas, for which an “indictment may legally be preferred in any place within " England or Wales,-it shall be lawful for any one or more " of her Majesty's justices of the peace for any county, &c., " within England or Wales in which any person charged with " having committed, or with being suspected to have committed, "any such crime or offence shall reside or be, or shall be
supposed or suspected to reside or be, to issue his or their “ warrant (E), to apprehend the person so charged, and to
cause him to be brought before him or them, or some other “justice or justices of the peace for the same county, &c. to
answer to the said charges, and to be further dealt with according to law." 16
16 As to all of the offences referred to in this section, 11 & 12 Vict. C. 42, s. 17, pp. 945, 946, relates to the examination of offenders, and sect. 25, post, to the gaol to which they must be committed if not bailed, which will be the ordinary gaol to which offenders are sent by the examining justices. It may be further observed, that any justice in England will have jurisdiction to inquire into these offences whenever the offender appears or is brought before him, as will appear by the sect. 17. As to offences at sea (for which see infra), formerly these must have been tried only at the Central Criminal Court under 4 & 5 Will. 4, e. 36, 8. 22; but by 7 & 8 Vict. e. 2, s. 1, authority is given to her Majesty's judges of assize and commissioners of oyer and terminer under any commission, to hear and determine these offences without a special commission; but this does not affect the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court in that respect to determine these offences at any one of their twelve sessions in the year, and persons accused of these offences are now sent to her Majesty's gaol of Newgate, London, if the assizes for the county where the offender is taken are not holden till after the Central Criminal Court sessions. See Note 17, p. 905, as to jurisdiction of the quarter sessions to try offences at sea. With respect to the offences committed on land abroad for which indictments may be preferred " in any place" in England, here referred to, see the enactments, pp. 909–911, from which it will be seen that some of these offences are to be tried in the Queen's Bench, and not at the assizes or sessions. In Ex parte Eyre, late Governor of Jamaica (37 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 169; 8. C., Reg. v. Vaughan, 9 B. & S. 329), in a prosecution of this class under the Colonial Governors' Acts, 11 & 12 Will. 3, c. 12, and 42 Geo. 3, c. 85, post, pp. 911, 912, it was held that the words "any place" in the section in the text did not restrict the jurisdiction of justices to a case in which a prosecutor must proceed in one particular place, but that the section applied to every case, and in this as well as in any other; and that a commitment might be made under sect. 25 of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, to the ordinary gaol, notwithstanding the offender
11 & 12 Vict. With reference to offences at sea referred to in the above enactc. 42.
ment, it may be stated, that the Admiralty have exclusive jurisdicWhat offences tion of all indictable crimes and offences committed on the high at sea are punishable
seas, or within the harbours, creeks and havens of foreign countries here.
(see the recent case of Reg. V. Anderson, 38 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 12; 19 Law T., N. S. 400, confirmatory of this statement of the law); but within the harbours, creeks and havens of this country the courts of common law, and not the Admiralty, have jurisdiction: as for instance, if an imaginary line were drawn across the mouth of such creek, &c., from one point of land to the other, the common law would have jurisdiction of all offences committed within such line; the Admiralty, of all offences committed without it. As to the seashore below low water mark, the Admiralty have exclusive jurisdiction; above high water mark the courts of common law have exclusive jurisdiction; and between high and low water mark, the courts of common law and the Admiralty have alternate jurisdiction; the courts of common law have jurisdiction of all offences committed on the strand when the tide is out, the Admiralty, jurisdiction of offences committed on the water when the tide is in (see 1 Russell on Cr., 4th ed. p. 153; Arch. Cr. Pl. by Welsby, 15th ed. pp. 25, 26, 27, 365, 366). In the Criminal Law Acts, 1861, and other acts there are provisions as to the nature and trial of these offences in England when committed on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty by British subjects, by which they are deemed to be offences of the same nature and subject to the same punishments as if committed on land in England or Ireland, and may be dealt with in the place where the offenders are apprehended or are in custody, 17 viz. offences against the person, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 10, post, p. 912, and s. 68;-offences relating to the coin, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 36; -offences relating to the post office, 1 Vict. c. 36, s. 39;—larceny and other similar offences, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 115;-malicious injuries to property, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s. 72; forgery, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, s. 50;—piracy at common law and by statute (for which see Note under title “Piracy,” Chap. II, of this Part, post);-all treasons, murders, felonies and conspiracies, 28 Hen. 8, c. 15 (see R. v. Serva, 2 Car. & K. 53)—and generally all other offences committed on the high seas, out of the body of any county, 39 Geo. 3,
was to be tried in the Court of Queen's Bench. Although the section in the text speaks of the issue of a warrant only, a summons may be issued under the provisions of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 1, ante, p. 894, if that process will suffice.
17 In Reg. v. Peel (32 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 65; 1 Leigh & Cave, C. C. 231), it was held that a court of quarter sessions has, by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 115, jurisdiction over the offence of larceny when committed upon the high seas, if the offender is apprehended within the jurisdiction of such court.
C. 37; 7 & 8 Vict. c. 2, ss. 1-4 (see Reg. v. Cunningham and others, What offences
-271. against property or person committed in or at any place, either ashore or afloat, out of her Majesty's dominions, by any master, seaman or apprentice, who at the time when the offence is committed is, or within three months previously has been, employed in any British ship, shall be deemed to be offences of the same nature respectively, and be liable to the same punishments respectively, and be inquired of, heard, tried, determined and adjudged in the same manner, and by the same courts, and in the same places, as if such offences had been committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England.” Provision is then made by ss. 268—271, for the consular officer taking the depositions of the witnesses to the offence and sending the accused to England to be proceeded against, the master of the ship bringing him being required on arrival to hand the accused to a constable to be taken before a justice; and the depositions taken by the consular officer are to be received in evidence here when authenticated and taken in the presence of the accused if the witnesses cannot be produced (as to evidence of their not being in the United Kingdom, see Reg. v. Conning, 11 Cox, C. C. 134; Willes, J., and Reg. V. Anderson, Id. 154, Lush, J.). Also by sect. 275 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1853, 16 & 17 16 & 17 Vict. Vict. c. 107, “where any offence shall be committed in any place c. 107, s. 275. upon the water not being within any county of the United Kingdom, or where the officers have any doubt whether such place is within the boundaries or limits of any such county, such offence shall, for the purposes of this act, be deemed and taken to be an offence committed on the high seas;--and for the purpose of giving jurisdiction under this act, every offence shall be deemed to have been committed, and every cause of complaint to have arisen, either in the place in which the same was actually committed or arose, or in any place on land where the offender or person complained against may be or be brought.” But these enactments do not appear to extend to foreigners committing offences on board foreign ships. In Reg. v. Lewis, 26 L. J. (N. S.) M. C. 104; 1 Dears. & Bell, C. C. 182, it was held, that where one foreigner inflicts a blow on another foreigner in a foreign ship on the high seas, and the person so struck in a few days afterwards lands in England and dies there, the homicide is not cognizable by the courts of this country by virtue of the statute 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, ss. 7 or 8 (now repealed, but its corresponding provision is 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 9,
0.9. VOL. II.