Slike strani
PDF
ePub

by Sir James Mansfield, and expressed his complete accordance in the observations of that learned Judge.

The Jury acquitted the prisoner, on the ground
of insanity.

Austin and Palmer, for the prosecution.

Smith, for the prisoner.

[Attornies-Last, and Leech.]

for the murder of the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, and the defence was insanity. According to the statement of the case in Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanors, Vol. 1, p. 10, extracted from Collinson on Lunacy, Addenda 630, the learned Judge, in charging the Jury, told them, "that in order to support such a defence, it ought to be proved by the most distinct and unquestionable evidence, that the prisoner was incapable of judging between right and wrong; that, in fact, it must be proved beyond all doubt, that, at the time he committed the atrocious act with which he stood charged, he did not consider that murder was a crime against the laws of God and nature; and that there was no other proof of insanity which would excuse murder or any other

crime. That, in the species of madness called "Lunacy," where persons are subject to temporary paroxysms, in which they are guilty of acts of extravagance, such persons committing crimes when they are not affected by the malady, would be, to all intents and purposes, amenable to justice; and that so long as they could distinguish good from evil, they would be answerable for their conduct. And that in the species of insanity in which the patient fancies the existence of injury, and seeks an opportunity of gratifying revenge by some hostile act, if such a person be capable in other respects of distinguishing right from wrong, there would be no excuse for any act of atrocity which he might commit under this description of derangement."

1831.

REX

บ.

OFFORD.

[blocks in formation]

An indictment INDICTMENT against the prisoner, as a principal in the second degree in the manslaughter of Richard Dodd.

for manslaugh

ter charged,

that A. gave to the deceased divers mortal blows at P., in the county of M., and that the deceased languished and

died at D. in the county of K.; and that

then and there

The deceased, and another person named Cox, (who had afterwards died), met, on the day laid in the indictment, at Islington, and there commenced a pugilistic contest. Having been interrupted by the interference of the police, they proceeded to the Isle of Dogs, where they recommenced the fight; and the deceased, Dodd, in consethe prisoner was quence of the injuries which he received, died shortly after his removal from the place of combat, on board the hospital ship Grampus, which was then stationed in the Thames, and within the parish of St. Nicholas, Deptford. The indictment stated, that James Cox made an assault on the the word there deceased, at the parish of All Saints, Poplar, in the county of Middlesex, and beat the deceased, giving him divers mortal bruises and contusions, &c.; "of which said bruises and contusions the said Richard Dodd, from &c., until &c., at the parish of St. Paul's, Deptford, in the county of Kent, did languish &c.; and that he there died; and that

aiding in the commission of the felony:Held, that the indictment was good, and that

referred to P., in the county

of M.

Although all persons present

at and sanction

ing a prize fight,

where one of

the combatants

is killed, are guilty of manslaughter, as

the said James Hargrave, together with &c., were then principals in the and there present, aiding, abetting, &c., the said James second degree; Cox in the commission of the said felony."

yet they are not

such accompli

ces as require their evidence to be confirmed, if they are called as witnesses against other partics charged with the manslaughter.

Clarkson, for the prisoner, objected, that the indictment was bad, as it did not with certainty charge the prisoner with the commission of the offence in any particular place; for the word there referred to the two parishes mentioned in the indictment, viz. All Saints, Poplar, and St. Paul's, Deptford.

Mr. Justice PATTESON.-The giving of the blows which caused the death constitutes the felony. The languishing alone, which is not any part of the offence, is laid in Kent; the indictment states, that the prisoners were then and there present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the said felony; that must, of course, apply to the parish of All Saints, Poplar, where the blows, which constitute the felony, were given; and the words then and there refer with sufficient certainty to that parish.

The facts of the case, as to the fight, and the presence of the prisoner at it, together with his conduct upon the occasion, were proved by persons who were present at the boxing match. The surgeon who attended the deceased having also been called to prove the injuries which he had received, the case was closed for the prosecution.

Clarkson submitted, that, as all persons who were present at the fight were, in the eye of the law, principals in the second degree to the offence, their evidence, as in the case of accomplices, required confirmation.

Mr. Justice PATTESON held, that they were not such accomplices as to require any further evidence to confirm them.

The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to fourteen years' transportation.

Bodkin, for the prosecution.

Clarkson, for the prisoner.

[Attornies-Carttar & Son, and Chell.]

1831.

REX

v.

HARGRAVE.

1831.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

First Sitting at Westminster, in Michaelmas
Term, 1831.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK.

(Who sat for the Lord Chief Justice.)

Nov. 10th.

JARMAIN v. EGELSTONE and Another.

A purchaser at THE first two counts in the declaration stated the sale

an auction can

the vendor the

of conveyance of the property,

not recover from by auction to the plaintiff of certain freehold property; expenses of pre- the undertaking of the defendants to make out a good title, paring the deeds &c.; and their failure to do so; and claimed the expenses which the plaintiff had been put to in the investigation of the title, which had become unproductive in consequence; and certain costs he had incurred in an action against the auctioneer, to recover the deposit, &c.

after he has refused to complete the purchase on account

of the non-pro

duction of certain title deeds, though his attorney prepar

ed the convey

ances on the faith of a note written in the margin of the

The third count stated, in substance, that certain objections to the title had been made, which were under discussion; and that, in consideration that the plaintiff would, at the request of the defendants, cause the deeds of conveyance of the property to be prepared, they, the defendants, undertook that those objections should be cleared up; and that the plaintiffs did, in consequence, cause the deeds to deeds were ex- be prepared; but the defendants did not procure the obamined by them on the original jections to be cleared up; whereby the deeds became usethat, if it should less, and the plaintiff was put to expense, &c.

abstract by the

vendor's solici

tors, stating that

all the title

purchase, and

be required, they would apply to the solicitor for the original seller, in whose custody they

were.

There were also the ordinary money counts. Plea-The general issue.

The defendants, who were trustees of certain freehold property, put it up to auction on the 6th of November, 1827; the plaintiff became the purchaser of Lot 1, and

paid 2311. deposit, and 16 guineas for a moiety of the auction duty. The property in question came to the trustees from a person named Bates. When the abstract was sent by the defendants' solicitors to the solicitor of the plaintiff, various objections were raised on the part of the latter, many of which were obviated by explanations, &c.; and the difference between the parties was at last reduced to a question as to the production of certain title-deeds, which were not in the possession of the trustees. On the subject of these deeds, the following memorandum was written by their solicitors in the margin of the abstract:— "If it should be required, Messrs. Secker & Son will apply to Mr. Eade, of Hitchin, on the subject. At the time Bates made this purchase, Secker, sen., examined all the original deeds, then in the hands of Mr. Eade's agent." After this, the plaintiff's solicitor proceeded to draw the conveyance, the draft of which he sent to the defendants' solicitors in January, 1829, and received it back approved, in April. In May, he sent the engrossment, and was, shortly after, informed that it had been executed by the defendants. The title-deeds in question were not produced, and, on that account, the purchase was not completed. The plaintiff brought an action against the auctioneer, in which he recovered back the amount of the deposit and auction-duty which he had paid; and the present action was brought to recover a sum of 170l., being partly for the expenses of investigating the title, partly for costs incurred in the action against the auctioneer, and partly for the costs of preparing and engrossing the conveyances. 1121. was paid into Court on the first two counts and the money counts.

Wilde, Serjt., for the defendants.-The expenses of preparing the conveyance are not recoverable. If the plaintiff meant to insist on the production of the title-deeds, he should have done so before the conveyance was prepared and sent for execution. There has been an excess

1831.

JARMAIN

v.

EGELSTONE.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »