master, for instance, is bound to supply his apprentice or servant with food and does not do so, or if he inflicts any bodily harm on him, to his permanent injury or the danger of his life, he is guilty of a misdemeanour punishable with five years' penal servitude. So, too, there are various statutes which make it a misdemeanour for any one who has charge of a lunatic to neglect or ill-treat him.2

But the persons least able to take care of themselves are, of course, children. The Children Act, 1908,3 has consolidated the law on the subject and introduced several entirely new provisions. It applies to "children" up to the age of fourteen, and to "young persons " up to the age of sixteen. The main section of that Act runs as follows:

"If any person over the age of sixteen years, who has the custody, charge or care of any child or young person, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes such child or young person, or causes or procures such child or young person to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause such child or young person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health (includ ing injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. For the purposes of this section a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he fails to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for the child or young person, or if, being unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he fails to take steps to procure the same to be provided under the Acts relating to the relief of the poor."

4

On the trial of an indictment under this section the prosecution must prove four things:

(i.) That the prisoner had the custody, charge or care of a child or young person.

1 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 26.

2 23 & 24 Vict. c. 75, s. 13; 53 & 54 Vict. c. 5, s. 322; and see Buchanan v. Hardy (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 486.

3 8 Edw. VII. c. 67.

4 S. 12 (1). See ante, pp. 293, 294, and also the indictment in the Appendix, No. 8, and R. v. Tonks, [1916] i K. B. 443.

(i.) That the prisoner assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed such child or young person.

(iii.) That he did so wilfully.

(iv.) That he did so in a manner likely to cause such child or young

person unnecessary suffering or injury to his health.

It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the child or young person has actually suffered or that injury has, in fact, been caused to his health. Still less is there any need for the prosecution to prove that the prisoner intended or desired any such result. It is sufficient if the child or young person was assaulted or neglected in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to his health. Lord Russell, L. C. J., in his judgment in the case of R. v. Senior, thus defined the meaning of the phrase "wilfully neglects" which occurred in a preceding statute dealing with the same subject: "Wilfully' means that the act is done deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence, but so that the mind of the person who does the act goes with it. Neglect is the want of reasonable care—that is, the omission of such steps as a reasonable parent would take, such as are usually taken in the ordinary experience of mankind."

This offence is punishable on indictment with fine not exceeding £100 and [or] imprisonment not exceeding two years with or without hard labour, or on summary conviction with fine not exceeding £25 and [or] imprisonment not exceeding six months with or without hard labour. Severer penalties are imposed by section 12 (5) of the Act where the offender is interested in money payable on the death of the child.

The new provisions of the Children Act, introduced to protect children from the dangers of suffocation, fire and intoxication, are as follows:

"Where it is proved that the death of an infant under three years of age was caused by suffocation (not being suffocation caused by disease or the presence of any foreign body in the throat or air-passages of the infant) whilst the infant was in bed with some other person over sixteen years of age, and that that other person was at the time of going to bed under the influence of drink, that other person shall be deemed to have neglected the infant in a manner likely to cause injury to its health."2

"If any person over the age of sixteen years who has the custody, charge or care of any child under the age of seven years allows that child to be in any room containing an open fire grate not sufficiently protected to guard against the risk

[1899] 1 Q B. at pp. 290, 291; and see the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 41), s. 1.

28. 13.

of the child being burnt or scalded, without taking reasonable precautions against that risk, and by reason thereof the child is killed or suffers serious injury, he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.":

"If any person gives, or causes to be given, to any child under the age of five any intoxicating liquor, except upon the order of a duly qualified medical practitioner, or in case of sickness, or apprehended sickness, or other urgent cause, he shall, on summary conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding three pounds." 2

But the Children Act has not repealed the old section of the Offences against the Person Act, 1861, as to the abandonment or exposure of a child by any one who is under a legal obligation to take charge of it. "Whosoever 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 misdemeanour," and may be sent to penal servitude for five years.*

Thus, where a mother packed up her baby comfortably in a hamper and sent it by train to its father, it was held that she had committed an offence under this section, although the clerk at the station was told to be particu larly careful with the hamper, and although the child did not suffer at all by travelling in such an unusual way. It is, moreover, not necessary that the defendant should have had the actual custody of the child if he, being bound by law to provide for it, knowingly allowed it to be "abandoned or exposed." 5

So, too, the Children's Dangerous Performances Acts, 1879 and 1897, still remain in force, and forbid the employment of any boy under sixteen or any girl under eighteen in any dangerous public exhibition or performance, under a penalty not exceeding £10; and this fine is recoverable on summary conviction from the person who causes the child to take part in the performance, and also from the parent or guardian or

1 S. 15.

2 S. 119.

8 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 27. See R. v. White (1871), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 311. 4 R. v. Falkingham (1870), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 222.

See R. v. Connor, [1908] 2 K. B. 26.

642 & 43 Vict. c. 34; 60 & 61 Vict. c. 52.

any custodian of the child who aids or abets him. Moreover, if the child is injured in such performance, the employer is indictable for assault, and the Court at the trial may award compensation not exceeding £20 for the bodily harm which the child has sustained. The consent of the child or of its parents is no defence.

A. hires B., a boy of fifteen, to wheel C., a girl of seventeen, in a barrow along a tight-rope at a great height from the ground. D., the father of B. and C., is a member of the same troupe, and had persuaded A. to engage his children. A. and D. can both be summarily convicted and fined under this section; if B. or C. sustain any injury in the performance, A. can be indicted for assault, and for manslaughter if the injury results in death.

2

Many other acts which endanger human life have been dealt with in previous chapters. Thus, sending a challenge to fight a duel is a misdemeanour,1 and should the encounter end fatally, the fact that the deceased consented thus to risk his life will afford no defence to his opponent. Any one who sends diseased meat to market to be sold for human food is guilty of a misdemeanour and, if death results, of manslaughter. Any serious surgical operation involves risk to the patient's life; the utmost care is therefore required from the surgeon operating.*

Numerous other statutes besides those mentioned above deal with acts endangering human life. Thus, "where any person wilfully and maliciously breaks a contract of service or of hiring, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the probable consequences of his so doing, either alone or in combination with others, will be to endanger human life or cause serious bodily injury," he is liable to be fined twenty pounds or to be imprisoned for three months with or without hard labour. Again, "any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury

See ante, pp. 41, 289.

4 See ante,p. 303.

The Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 86), s. 5.

to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be guilty of felony, and on conviction shall be liable to penal servitude for life." Many such acts are covered by the Malicious Damage Act, 1861, such as destroying or rendering dangerous. in the use any bridge, viaduct or aqueduct, placing obstructions on a railway line, masking or altering any light or signal with intent to endanger any ship, &c.3

The Factory Acts, which are now consolidated in the Act of 1901, contain numerous provisions insisting on the fencing of dangerous machinery, the proper ventilation of workrooms, &c. Ample provision for the safety of miners is made by the Coal Mines Act, 1911.5

Similarly the sale of poisons is regulated by the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908.7

6

So again, "if any person sends or attempts to send, or is party to sending or attempting to send, a British ship to sea in such an unseaworthy state, that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered," or "if the master of a British ship knowingly takes the same to sea in such an unseaworthy state, that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, unless he proves that her going to sea in such an unseaworthy state was under the circumstances reasonable and justifiable." 8

Again any one, who sends or attempts to send through the post a packet containing any explosive or dangerous substance, any sharp instrument not properly protected, any living creature or other thing which is likely to injure either other postal packets in course of conveyance or an officer of the Post Office, commits a misdemeanour."

Lastly, the Pistols Act, 1903,10 contains several useful

1 The Explosive Substances Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 3), s. 2.

3 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97.

3 lb. ss. 33, 35, 36, 47. And see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, ss. 32 and 33.

4 1 Edw. VII. c. 22.

6 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 50,

6 31 & 32 Vict. c. 121, ss. 1, 15-17.

78 Edw. VII. c. 55.

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60), s. 457. As to overloading ships, see s. 459.

The Post Office Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. c. 48), s. 63.

10 3 Edw. VII. c. 18.