Slike strani
PDF
ePub

WELCH SPRING CIRCUIT.

1833.

BEFORE MR. BARON BAYLEY AND MR. JUSTICE PATTESON.

CARMARTHEN ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PATTESON.

1833.

REX v. WOOLCOCK and Another.

If an indictment INDICTMENT on the riot act, 1 Geo. 1, st. 2, c. 1, s. 1, for a capital felony, in remaining together one hour after the making of proclamation under that statute.

on the riot act 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, c. 1, s. 1, for remaining assembled one hour after proclamation, in setting out the proclamation omit the words "of the reign of," which were contained in the proclamation

It appeared, that, on the 1st October, 1832, which was the day on which Mr. Phillips was sworn in Mayor of Carmarthen, there was a large assemblage of persons in front of the Six Bells Inn, in that town, at which Mr. Phillips was dining, and that some stones were thrown. It was proved that the proclamation contained in the riot gistrate-this is act was read by him from a book which was produced, a fatal variance. but the words of the proclamation contained in the book If the procladiffered from the statement of the proclamation in the first count of the indictment, by containing the additional words "of the reign of."

read by the ma

mation be read

several times, the hour is to be computed from the first reading.

If there be such an assembly, that there would have been

a riot if the par

ties had carried their purpose into effect-this

is within the

PATTESON, J., held this to be a variance, and that the counsel for the prosecution must go upon the other counts of the indictment, to which this objection did not apply.

It appeared that the proclamation was read by Mr. stat.; and whe- Phillips a second and a third time before an hour had elapsed from the time of his reading it the first time. The

ther there was

a cessation or not, is a question for the jury.

defendants were proved to have been present at the first reading.

The counsel for the defendants submitted, that the second and third readings must be considered as new warnings, and as if the former readings were abandoned; and that, therefore, the persons assembled were not guilty of a capital felony, in so remaining together till the expiration of an hour from the third reading.

PATTESON, J.-I am of opinion, that the second, or any subsequent reading of the proclamation, does not at all do away with the effect of the first reading, and that the hour is to be computed from the time of the first reading of the proclamation.

Mr. Thomas, one of the defendants, in his defence, submitted that there was no riot, and that it was at most an unlawful assembly, and cited the case of Rex v. Birt (a).

PATTESON, J.-I am of opinion, that if there was such an assembly, that there would have been a riot if the parties had carried their purpose into effect, it would be within the act; and whether there was a cessation or not is a question for the jury.

Verdict-Not guilty.

Wilson and Herbert Jones, for the prosecution.

Chilton, J. Evans, Whitcombe, E. V. Williams, and

James, for the defendant Woolcock.

The defendant Thomas, in person.

1833.

REX

v.

WOOLCOCK.

[blocks in formation]

WESTERN SPRING CIRCUIT,

1833.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK AND MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.

WINCHESTER ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.

1833.

Obtaining money from a woman, by threatening to accuse her husband of an indecent assault, is not robbery.

REX v. EDWARDS and WArren.

ROBBERY. The prisoners were indicted for robbing the wife of Philip Abraham.

It was opened by Missing, for the prosecution, that the prisoner, under a threat of charging Philip Abraham with an indecent assault on one of them, obtained money from his wife.

LITTLEDALE, J.-Have you any case deciding this to be robbery.

Missing. The nearest cases were those on the special commission in 1831.

C. Saunders, for the prisoners.-Those were cases where rioters came to the house of the husband and obtained money from the wife, the husband not being at home.

Littledale, J.-I think this is not such a personal fear in the wife as is necessary to constitute the crime of robbery. If I were to hold this a robbery, it would be going beyond any of the decided cases. His Lordship directed an acquittal.

Missing, for the prosecution.
C. Saunders, for the prisoners.

In many cases, where money was obtained from a person by threatening such person with an accusation of an unnatural offence, it has been held robbery. So, where money has been obtained by rioters, under a threat of burning a person's house. But, we believe, that the only instances put of robbery, where the money was obtained from one, and the injury threatened to be done another, are the following-In Donolly's case, 2 East, P. C. 718, Mr. Baron Hotham says: "In the case put in argument, of one man walking with his child, who delivered his money

Verdict-Not Guilty.

to another, upon a threat, that,
unless he did so, he would destroy
the child, he had no doubt it was
sufficient to constitute robbery;"
and, in the case of Rer v. Reane,
Id. 735, Lord Chief Justice Eyre
says: "A man might be said to
take by violence, who deprived
the other of the power of resist-
ance, by whatever means he did it;
and he saw no sensible distinction
between a personal violence to the
party himself, and the case put by
one of the Judges, of a man hold-
ing another's child over a river,
and threatening to throw it in, un-
less he gave him money."

1833.

REX

บ.

EDWARDS.

SALISBURY ASSIZES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK.

The APOTHECARIES' COMPANY v. COLLINS.

DEBT for penalties under the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, s.

20 (a), for practising as an apothecary without a certificate.

March 9th.

A diploma of
University of

M.D. from the

St. Andrew's,

in Scotland,is no

defence to an action for penalties under the 55 Geo.3, c. 194, s. 20, for practising as an apothecary, without having obtained a certificate from the Apothecaries' Company. And, semble, that a similar diploma from an English University would not be so.

(a) Set forth, ante, Vol. 1, p. 539.

1833.

АРОТН. СОМР.

v.

COLLINS.

It appeared that the defendant had dispensed medicines; but that, previously to his having so done, he had obtained the diploma of a doctor of physic from the University of St. Andrew's, in Scotland.

Barstow, for the defendant, submitted, that this diploma was an answer to the present action; and he cited the case of Smith v. Taylor (a).

Mr. Justice PARK.-My opinion is, that this diploma is

(a) 1 N. R. 202. In that case, Sir J. Mansfield, C. J., says"Though there might be some difficulty in instituting a prosecution against a person for practising physic unlawfully, it is by no means impossible: the stat. of Hen. 8 having confirmed the charter relating to the practice of physicians, which provides, that no one shall practise physic without having been examined by the College of Physicians, and obtained letters testimonial, with an exception of persons who have taken degrees in Oxford or Cambridge. Since the union with Scotland, it has been considered, though I do not exactly know upon what ground, that a degree conferred by a Scotch University is of the same effect as a degree conferred by the University of Oxford or Cambridge, though, in looking through the articles of union, I find nothing upon the subject, except, that the four Scotch Universities shall subsist as before, with the same rights. Had the matter been attended to at the union, some express provision would probably have been made; but,

although no such provision was made, it has been generally understood, that, in consequence of the clause alluded to, a diploma granted by one of the Scotch Universities gives the same right to practise physic, as a degree at one of the English Universities, and dispenses with the necessity of being examined by the College of Physicians, and obtaining letters testimonial from thence. This right of examination is not very likely to be exercised upon persons practising physic, when it is in their power, for about 147., to obtain a diploma from a Scotch University. But a person practising physic without any authority is liable to a prosecution at the suit of any person; for, as the prohibition is general, and no particular mode of punishment is pointed out, it follows, that he who offends against the provision is liable to an indictment. There is, indeed, a good reason why such prosecutions are not instituted, arising from the difficulty of ascertaining whether a degree of diploma has been obtained or not. But the proof, though difficult, is not impossible."

« PrejšnjaNaprej »