to shoot at, maim or wound in the execution of his duty any officer of the army, navy, marines, coastguard, customs or excise, duly employed for the prevention of smuggling.1 By the Poor Law Amendment Acts, 1850 and 1851, it is a misdemeanour to assault or obstruct any poor law officer in the exercise of his duty. It is also a criminal offence to assault or obstruct any person aiding or assisting the officers above mentioned. Various other public officers are protected by other statutes. To burn a dead body in order to prevent the coroner holding an inquest upon it has been held to be obstructing him in the discharge of his duty. Cremation is however a perfectly lawful method of disposing of a dead body, provided that it is not resorted to in order to avoid a coroner's inquest, and provided also that the process is so conducted as not to be a nuisance.1 Escape and Rescue. It is a misdemeanour to escape from lawful custody; and any officer who permits an escape is also indictable. If such officer has permitted the escape voluntarily, he is guilty of the same crime (whether treason, felony or misdemeanour) as the prisoner whom he has allowed to escape; if negligently, he is guilty of a misdemeanour. Aiding a prisoner to escape, or taking into prison any mask or disguise or any other article to help his escape, is a felony punishable with two years' imprisonment. Aiding a prisoner of war to escape is punishable with penal servitude for life. If a prisoner in attempting to escape breaks out of prison, he is guilty of felony or misdemeanour, according to the crime of which he happens to have been convicted. But a prisoner detained for treason commits felony only by breaking out. As to what constitutes a breach of prison, the mere getting over a wall or through a window would not be sufficient. But it was held a sufficient breach, where a prisoner in getting over a wall 139 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 193; and see 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1. 213 & 14 Vict. c. 101, s. 9; 14 & 15 Vict. c. 105, s. 18. 5 R. v. Price (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 247; R. v. Stephenson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 331. See the Cremation Act, 1902 (2 Edw. VII. c. 8), s. 8. See indictment, No. 23, in the Appendix. 552 Geo. III. c. 156; 54 & 55 Vict. c. 69, s. 1 (2). accidentally dislodged some loose bricks placed there for the purpose of impeding escape and giving alarm.1 Rescue consists in forcibly freeing another from lawful custody. The rescuer is guilty of the same offence as the rescued, but it is necessary that the principal should be convicted of it; otherwise the offence is only a misdemeanour. The rescuing, or attempted rescuing, of murderers is a felony punishable with penal servitude for life. Maintenance and Champerty. 3 Every Court has inherent jurisdiction to prevent any abuse of its proceedings; it has power, for instance, to stay or dismiss any action before it which it deems to be frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The common law, with the same object, made criminal certain cases of wanton and officious intermeddling in the disputes of others, which are known as maintenance and champerty. "Maintenance is where any man giveth or delivereth to another that is plaintiff or defendant in any action any sum of money or other thing for to maintain his plea, or maketh extreame labour for him, when he hath nothing therewith to do." It is immaterial whether the action maintained is or is not successful.5 It is not maintenance to assist another in a criminal prosecution. Champerty is one degree worse than maintenance; for to constitute this offence there must be a prior agreement between the parties that the person who assists the litigant shall, if the proceedings are successful, receive as his reward a portion of the lands recovered (champ parti-a field divided) or a share of the damages or proceeds of the suit, and it must be from this motive that he assists the litigant. These offences are common law misdemeanours. Various enactments, dating from the First Statute of Westminster," have been passed from time to time dealing with these offences, but they are 1 R. v. Haswell (1821), R. & R. 458. 2 See 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 88; 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 91, s. 1. 3 Logan v. Bank of Scotland (No. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 141; and see R. S. C. Order XXV. r. 4, and the Vexatious Actions Act, 1896 (59 & 60 Vict. c. 51). 4 Termes de la Ley, p. 202. Neville v. London "Express" Newspaper, Ltd., [1919] A. C. 368, approving Oram v. Hutt, [1914] 1 Ch. 98. 63 Edw. I. c. 25; 1 Rich. II. c. 4; 32 Hen. VIII. c. 9. merely declaratory of the common law, and prescribe additional penalties. Although these enactments still remain on the statute book, a prosecution under them very seldom occurs; and were it not for occasional declarations by the judges that the law of maintenance still lives and is effective,' the criminal character. of the offences might be deemed a thing of the past. But the question of maintenance not infrequently arises in civil cases, generally as a defence to an action upon a contract under a plea of illegality. The law however permits a man to assist the litigation of another when he himself has, or bona fide believes that he has, a common interest with him in the result of the proceedings. Such interest may be present or future, vested or contingent, but it must be a pecuniary interest in the actual subject-matter of the action, and not merely a sentimental one. Thus neighbours may combine to protect a right of way; and generally "where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one cause or matter, one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may be. authorised by the Court or a judge to defend in such cause or matter, on behalf or for the benefit of all persons so interested." 3 Again, a father can assist his son in bringing an action, a landlord his tenant, a master his servant or a servant his master. So any man may assist his near kinsman-an expression which has received a liberal interpretation. Further, it is not maintenance for a rich man to assist a poor man with money or advice in order to enable him to bring or defend an action, provided such assistance is given out of pure charity, and such assistance is none the less charitable, though induced by common religious belief. But if a rich man advances money to a poor man at an exorbitant rate of interest, or on the terms that the borrower pays him a portion of the damages which he recovers, he can be convicted of maintenance; for his motive in advancing the money is not pure charity, but self-seeking. Lastly, it has been held that, in certain circumstances, it is not maintenance for a tradesman to maintain his customers; for instance, he See the remarks of Lord Coleridge, L. C. J., in Bradlaugh v, 11 Q. B. D. at p. 14. As to common barratry, see post, p. 246. 2 See post, p. 734. Newdegate (1883), It is for this Order XVI. r. 9; and see Bedford v. Ellis, [1901] A. C. 1. reason no doubt that it is not maintenance to assist another in a criminal prosecution, as all are interested in bringing an alleged criminal to trial. Harris v. Brisco (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 504. Holden v. Thompson, [1907] 2 K. B. 489. British Cash and Parcel Conveyors, Ltd. v. Lamson Store Service Co., Ltd., [1908] 1 K. B. 1006. may agree to indemnify them against actions brought against them by reason of their purchase and user of his goods. "It is impossible to be certain that there are not many other exceptions which have equal validity."1 Champerty and maintenance are criminal only in connection with civil proceedings: misprision and compounding, only in connection with criminal proceedings, and not with all criminal proceedings. In the first two cases the offence consists in unlawfully stirring up or promoting the litigation; in the latter two cases, on the contrary, the offence consists in attempting to stifle, or refusing to aid in, the prosecution of a criminal. The King alone can pardon a crime. It is the duty of every subject to assist in bringing to justice any one guilty of a serious offence. If a felony has been committed, any private citizen may arrest any person whom he honestly and reasonably believes to have committed it. If he knows that A. B. has committed treason or felony, he is guilty of misprision if, when opportunity offers, he neither tries to arrest A. B. himself nor gives information to the police. It is a worse offence if for some reward to himself he agrees not to prosecute the offender: this is called "compounding" the crime, and is a misdemeanour. If he rescues or conceals a felon or helps him to escape from justice, knowing that he is a felon, he becomes, as we have seen, an accessory after the fact to the original felony." Misprision. 3 A misprision is the passive omission to do one's duty as distinct from active misbehaviour. Thus, if any one knows of treason and conceals it, though he in no way assents to or approves of it, he is guilty, as we have seen, of misprision of treason. The least degree of assent to it would make him a principal traitor. So any one, who stands by and observes the commission of a felony, and makes no attempt to apprehend the offender, and gives no information to the police, is 1 Per Moulton, L. J., [1908] 1 K. B. at p. 1014. Ante, p. 151. guilty of misprision of felony, which is a misdemeanour. The least act of encouragement or assistance will make him a felon either as principal or accessory. The punishment for misprision of felony is fine or imprisonment for any time not exceeding a year and a day.' It is no crime to misprise a misdemeanour. Compounding. Compounding a felony is a misdemeanour. If a man knows that a felony has been committed and who it was that committed it, and then agrees for valuable consideration not to prosecute the felon or to endeavour to prevent his prosecution by others, he is guilty of compounding the felony. Thus, if the owner of goods which have been stolen receives back his goods or obtains their value by promising not to prosecute, he is compounding a felony. So if a man prefers a criminal charge and then for valuable consideration promises not to proceed with it. But if he merely takes possession of his own property again wherever he can find it, he commits no offence, provided no favour be shown to the thief. A third person, not the owner of the goods stolen, can be guilty of this offence.2 By 18 Eliz. c. 5, it is a misdemeanour for an informer to bring an action under a penal statute and then to compound it without the leave of the Court. By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 101, any person taking money or reward from the owner of goods that have been stolen or obtained by false pretences or embezzled, under the pretence (real or false) of helping him to recover them, is guilty of felony, unless he shall have used all due diligence to cause the offender to be brought to trial. And by s. 102 of the same Act, any person publishing advertisements for the recovery of stolen property, promising that no questions will be asked, &c., is liable to a penalty of £50; and so is the printer and publisher of the paper, but in this case the action must be brought within six months and with the leave of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General. As to compounding a misdemeanour, the law is not clear. There is no case reported in which any one has been convicted 1 Statute of Westminster, 1275, 3 Edw. I. c. 9. The same statute inflicts severer punishment on an officer or constable guilty of such misprision. 2 R. v. Burgess (1885), 16 Q. B. D. 141. B.C.L. 14 |