son came by his death, shall have been given by the medical man who attended such person, or who examined the body after death.

Sec. 10. It shall be lawful for any member or fellow of any college of physicians or surgeons, or any graduate or licentiate in medicine, or any person lawfully qualified to practise medicine in any part of the United Kingdom, or any professor, teacher, or student of anatomy, medicine, or surgery, having a licence from his Majesty's principal secretary of state or chief secretary as aforesaid, to receive or possess for anatomical examination, or to examine anatomically, the body of any person deceased, if permitted or directed so to do by a party who had at the time of giving such permission or direction lawful possession of the body, and who had power, in pursuance of the provisions of this Act, to permit or cause the body to be so examined, and provided such certificate as aforesaid were delivered by such party together with the body.'

By sec. 11, such persons are to receive a certificate with the body, and transmit it and a return of the time the body was received, and other matters, to the inspector of the district; and by sec. 12, notice is to be given to the secretary of state of places where anatomy is intended to be practised.

By sec. 13, bodies are to be removed in a decent coffin or shell, and after undergoing anatomical examination are to be decently interred in consecrated ground, or in some public burial-ground, in use for persons of that religious persuasion to which the person whose body was so removed belonged.

Sec. 14. No member or fellow of any college of physicians or surgeons, nor any graduate or licentiate in medicine, nor any person lawfully qualified to practise medicine in any part of the United Kingdom, nor any professor, teacher, or student of anatomy, medicine, or surgery, having a licence from his Majesty's principal secretary of state or chief secretary as aforesaid, shall be liable to any prosecution, penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for receiving or having in his possession for anatomical examination, or for examining anatomically, any dead human body, according to the provisions of this Act.'

By sec. 15, the Act is not to prohibit any post mortem examination directed by competent authority.

Sec. 18. Any person offending against the provisions of this Act in England or Ireland shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, being duly convicted thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or by a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, at the discretion of the Court before which he shall be tried; and any person offending against the provisions of this Act in Scotland shall, upon being duly convicted of such offence, be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or by a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, at the discretion of the Court before which he shall be tried.'

The prisoner, the master of a workhouse, was indicted for disposing of the dead bodies of some of the paupers who died in the workhouse, for the purpose of dissection, and for gain and profit to himself. He had in collusion with an undertaker caused the bodies of several paupers to be shown to their relatives in coffins, and every

appearance of regular funerals to be gone through, and the relatives followed to the cemetery what they supposed to be the body of the deceased, when in reality just before the funeral left the workhouse, other coffins were substituted for those the relatives had seen, and the bodies were in the evening taken to Guy's Hospital for dissection, all the necessary formalities required by the 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 75, having been duly complied with. In no case did the relatives of the deceased persons in terms require that their bodies should be buried without anatomical examination; and indeed they appeared to have believed that the bodies were buried without any such examination. It did not appear that the prisoner made any regular charge to the hospital or surgeons in respect of the bodies supplied to them; but in 1856 he received £19 10s., and in 1857, £26 from Guy's Hospital, as gratuities for his trouble in going through the formalities, giving the notices, and obtaining the certificates required by the Anatomy Act, and the amount paid him was in proportion to the number of bodies supplied. These payments were in contravention of the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 101, s. 31. The jury found that the prisoner caused the dead. bodies of four paupers to be delivered to the undertaker, and that he delayed the burial of them for an unreasonable length of time, in order that they might be dissected in the mean time, and that he did so for gain and profit for himself; and that he caused the appearance of a funeral of dead bodies to be gone through, with a view to prevent their relatives requiring the bodies to be interred without being subject to anatomical examination, and that, but for such supposed funeral, the relatives would have required the bodies to be buried without anatomical examination. It was objected that the prisoner having lawful possession of the bodies as master of the workhouse, might lawfully do what he had done, as no relative. had required the bodies to be buried without anatomical examination; and upon a case reserved it was held that this objection was valid, as all that was done by the prisoner was done according to law, for he had legal possession of the bodies, and he did with them that which the law authorised him to do. And though he fraudulently prevented the relatives from requiring the bodies to be buried without anatomical examination, yet that did not take away the protection given to him by the statute. (t)

Bodies cast ashore. Provision has been made by statute for the suitable interment of such dead bodies as may be cast on shore from the sea. The 48 Geo. 3, c. 75, enacts, that the churchwardens and overseers of parishes in England, in which any dead body shall be found thrown in, or cast on shore from the sea, shall upon notice

(t) R. v. Feist, D. & B. C. C. 590, 27 L. J. M. C. 164. This decision seems clearly wrong, as the master of a workhouse is plainly merely the servant of the guardians or parish officers, and the possession of the workhouse is in them. Governors of the poor of Bristol v. Wait, 5 A. & E. 1. And the master of a workhouse has no more possession of the things in the workhouse than any servant of the things in his master's house. The dealing with the dead

bodies by the prisoner was, therefore, a wholly illegal act. The Court intimated that possibly the prisoner and undertaker might have been indicted for a conspiracy to prevent the relatives making the requisition; or that the prisoner might be indicted for preventing the requisition being made. Quare, whether an indictment would have lain for causing the funeral service to be performed over the empty coffins ? C. S. G.

of the body lying within their parishes, cause the same to be forthwith removed to some convenient place; and with all convenient speed to be decently interred in the churchyard or burial-ground of such parishes; and if the body be thrown in, or cast on shore in any extra-parochial place, where there is no church warden or overseer, a similar duty is imposed upon the constable or headborough of such place. (u)

It is further enacted, that every minister, parish clerk, and sexton, of the respective parishes, shall perform their duties as is customary in other funerals, and admit of such dead body being interred, without any improper loss of time, receiving such sums as in cases of burials made at the expense of the parishes. (v) The statute provides also as to the expenses of such burials, and the raising of money to defray them; gives a reward of five shillings to the persons first giving notice to the parish officers, or to the constable or headborough of an extra-parochial place, of any dead body being cast on shore; and imposes a penalty of five pounds on persons finding dead bodies and not giving notice, and on parish officers neglecting to execute the Act. (w) An appeal to the quarter sessions is also given to any person thinking himself aggrieved by anything done in pursuance of the Act. (x)

Preventing burial. The preventing a dead body from being interred has been considered as an indictable offence. Thus, the master of a workhouse, a surgeon, and another person, were indicted for a conspiracy to prevent the burial of a person who had died in a workhouse. (y) And though Hyde, C. J., upon a question how far the forbearance to sue one who fears to be sued, is a good consideration for a promise, (z) cited a case where a woman who feared that the dead body of her son would be arrested for debt was holden liable, upon a promise to pay in consideration of forbearance, though she was neither executrix nor administratrix; (a) yet the other judges are said to have doubted of this; (b) and in one case, Lord Ellenborough, C. J., said it would be impossible to contend that such a forbearance could be a good consideration for an assumpsit. (c) Lord Ellenborough, C. J., continued, 'to seize a dead body upon any such pretence would be contra bonos mores, and an extortion upon the relatives.' And in a subsequent part of the case, his Lordship said, 'As to the case cited by Hyde, C. J., of a mother who promised to pay on forbearance of the plaintiff to arrest the dead body of her son, which she feared he was about to do, it is contrary to every principle of law and moral feeling such an act is revolting to humanity, and illegal.'

A gaoler has no right to detain the body of a person who died in prison for any debts due to himself. (d) If he does so he may be indicted. (e)

An indictment will lie for wilfully obstructing and interrupting a

(u) 48 Geo. 3, c. 75, s. 1.

(v) Id. ibid. s. 2.

(w) Ibid. ss. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14. (x) Id. s. 10.

(y) R. v. Young, cited in R. v. Lynn, 2 T. R. 734.

(z) Quick v. Coppleton, 1 Vent. 161.
(a) The name of the case is not men-

tioned; but it is said that Hyde, C. J., cited
it as a case that occurred in the Court of
Common Pleas when he sat there.

(b) Quick v. Coppleton, 1 Vent. 161.
(c) Jones v. Ashburnham, 4 East, 460.
(d) R. v. Fox, 2 Q. B. 247.
(e) R. v. Scott, 2 Q. B. 248.

clergyman in reading the burial service, and interring a corpse; but such an indictment must allege that the person obstructed was a clergyman, and that he was in the execution of his office, and lawfully burying the corpse; and it must also show how the party was obstructed, as by setting out the threats and menaces used. And it is not sufficient to allege that the party did unlawfully, by threats and menaces, prevent the burial. (f)

Preventing coroner's inquest. There is one case in which the too speedy interment of a dead body may be an indictable offence; namely, where it is the body of a person who has died a violent death. In such case, by Holt, C. J., the coroner need not go ex officio to take the inquest, but ought to be sent for, and that when the body is fresh; and to bury the body before he is sent for, or without sending for him, is a misdemeanor. (g) It is also laid down that if a dead body in prison, or other place, whereupon an inquest ought to be taken, be interred or suffered to lie so long that it putrefy before the coroner has viewed it, the gaoler or township shall be amerced. (h) It is a misdemeanor to burn or otherwise dispose of a dead body with intent thereby to prevent the holding upon such body of an intended coroner's inquest in a case where the coroner has jurisdiction to hold an inquest. A coroner has jurisdiction to hold an inquest if he honestly believes information which has been given to him to be true, which if true, would make it his duty to hold such inquest. (i)

(f) R. v. Cheere, 4 B. &. C. 902. 7 D. & R. 461. See R. v. How, 2 Str. 699. See the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 36, and the 43. & 44 Vict. c. 41, s. 7, ante, p. 655.

(g) R. v. Clark, 1 Salk. 377. Anon., 7 Mod. 10. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, s. 23, note

4.

And see

(h) 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 9, s. 23. an indictment against a township for a misdemeanor, in burying a body without notice to the coroner, 2 Chit. Cr. L. 256.

(i) R. v. Stephenson, 13 Q. B. D. 331.

CHAPTER THE FORTIETH.

OF GOING ARMED IN THE NIGHT-TIME FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF GAME AND OF ASSAULTING GAMEKEEPERS.

BEFORE proceeding to the proper subject of this chapter, it may be well to say a few words as to the property in game. The law of England has never recognised the doctrine of the Roman law, that any trespasser had a right to the game that he caught or killed on any man's land. (a) By the Constitutions of Canute concerning forests, every freeman was entitled to take and dispose of the game on his own land, and no one had a right to enter on the lands of another for such a purpose. (b) And by the common law the owner of land had a possessory property in the game upon his land, so long as it continued upon that land, and he might maintain an action of trespass against any one who entered upon the land, and killed or took any game thereon and carried it away, and recover damages as well for the trespass as for the value of the game. (c) The property in living game was called possessory, because it depended on the possession of the game by reason of the possession of the land whereon it was, and as soon as it quitted the land of its own free will the possessory property ceased. The owner of land has a property in the game started and killed upon it. (d)

The 9 Geo. 4, c. 69, s. 1, reciting the 57 Geo. 3, c. 90, and that the practice of going out by night for the purpose of destroying game has nevertheless very much increased of late years, and has in very many instances led to the commission of murder, and of other grievous offences; and it is expedient to repeal the said recited Act, and to

(a) Just. Inst. L. II. tit. 1, 12.

(b) The law on this subject is stated in different terms in different authors in consequence of different translations having been made of the original Saxon. 4 Inst. 320. The law may be found, Spelm. Glos. tit. Foresta, p. 242. No. 30. Edit. 1687. 4 Inst. 320. 2 Blac. Com. 414, who cites it as chapter 77, and says that it was the ancient law of the Scandinavian continent, citing Stiernhook de jure Sweon. 1. 2, c. 8. Deac. G. L. 40, citing also a licence of Canute to the same effect. In 2 Black. Com. 414, a similar law of Edward the Confessor, chapter 36, is cited. In 4 Inst. 293, a charter of the Empress Maud is cited containing a similar law. From a comparison of these several authorities, the following seems to be substantially correct: Sit quilibet liber homo dignus venatione suâ in silvâ et in agris sibi propriis et in domino suo, sed abstineat

omnis homo a venariis regiis. The following is the statement of Brooke, J., in 12 Hen. 8, 10: If I let my falcon fly in my own land at a pheasant, and he kills the pheasant in your land, you do not gain any property in the pheasant; but I can take the pheasant, and shall not be punished except for the entry into your land; for it was by my industry and labour, and when my falcon had caught it, it was in my possession.' And see Sutton v. Moody, 12 Mod. 145, per Holt, C. J.; Churchward v. Studdy, 14 East,

249.

(c) See Osborne v. Meadows, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 10; Read v. Edwards, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 245.

(d) Lonsdale v. Rigg, 11 Exch. R. 654 ; 1 H. & N. 923. Blades v. Higgs, 12 C. B. (N. S.) 501. Kenyon v. Hart, 11 Law T. 733, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 844, affirmed in the House of Lords, 12 L. T. 615.