« PrejšnjaNaprej »
WESTERN SPRING CIRCUIT,
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK AND MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
Rex v. EDWARDS and WARREN. ROBBERY. The prisoners were indicted for robbing Obtaining money from a won the wife of Philip Abraham.
man, by threatening to accuse her husband of an indecent assault, is not robbery.
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 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 Ho. tham says: “In the case put in argument, of one man walking with his child, who delivered his money
to another, upon a threat, that,
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK.
March 9th. DEBT for penalties under the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, s. A diploma of 20 (a), for practising as an apothecary without a certificate. University of
The APOTHECARIES' COMPANY v. COLLINS.
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.
APOтн. СоМР. .
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, although no such provision was Sir J. Mansfield, C. J., says- made, it has been generally under“ Though there might be some stood, that, in consequence of the difficulty in instituting a prosecu- clause alluded to, a diploma granttion against a person for practis- ed by one of the Scotch Universiing physic unlawfully, it is by no ties gives the same right to pracmeans impossible: the stat. of tise physic, as a degree at one of Hen. 8 having confirmed the char- the English Universities, and dister relating to the practice of phy- penses with the necessity of being sicians, which provides, that no examined by the College of Phyone shall practise physic without sicians, and obtaining letters teshaving been examined by the Col- timonial from thence. This right lege of Physicians, and obtained of examination is not very likely letters testimonial, with an excep- to be exercised upon persons praction of persons who have taken tising physic, when it is in their degrees in Oxford or Cambridge. power,
for about 141., to obtain a Since the union with Scotland, it diploma from a Scotch Universihas been considered, though I do ty. But a person practising phynot exactly know upon what sic without any authority is liable ground, that a degree conferred to a prosecution at the suit of any by a Scotch University is of the person; for, as the prohibition is same effect as a degree conferred general, and no particular mode by the University of Oxford or of punishment is pointed out, it Cambridge, though, in looking follows, that he who offends against through the articles of union, I the provision is liable to an indictfind nothing upon the subject, ex- ment. There is, indeed, a good cept, that the four Scotch Univer- reason why such prosecutions are sities shall subsist as before, with not instituted, arising from the the same rights. Had the matter difficulty of ascertaining whether been attended to at the union, a degree of diploma has been obsome express provision would tained or not. But the proof, probably have been made; but, though difficult, is not impossible.” no defence in this action; indeed, I think, that even a di. 1833. ploma from one of the English Universities would not ex
APOTH. COMP. empt a party from the penalties of this act (a). However, I
COLLINS. will give you leave to move to enter a nonsuit.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for one penalty,
with leave to move.
Coleridge, Serjt., and Gambier, for the plaintiffs.
Barstow, for the defendant.
In the ensuing term, Barstow moved, pursuant to the leave given; but the Court of King's Bench refused a rule.
(a) By stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, sicians and Surgeons; but we bes. 29, there is a saving of the rights lieve none of those learned bodies heretofore vested in, exercised, ever authorized persons to pracand enjoyed by the English Uni- tise as apothecaries. versities, and the Colleges of Phy
Rex v. PEGLER. INDICTMENT for arson. A witness for the prosecu- On the trial of tion, who was in custody on a charge of felony, to be tried for arson, a witat these Assizes, was asked by the counsel for the pri
ness for the pro
secution was soner- “ Have you not said that you committed the of himself in cus
tody on a charge fence for which you are now in custody?”
of felony. The counsel for the
prisoner wished Mr. Justice Park (having conferred with Mr. Justice
to ask him, LittleDALE).—My learned brother is clearly of opinion said that you
not that the question ought not to be put; and I am, myself, committed the
offence for which entirely of the same opinion.
you are now in Verdict-Not Guilty.
not to be put. Bingham and Erle, for the prosecution.
Coleridge, Serjt., and Crowder, for the prisoner.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
Rex v. ELLICOMBE. A prisoner, tried ARSON.—The prisoner was charged with setting fire to at the assizes for arson on Wed- his own house in which he lived. The first count charged nesday the 20th the offence to have been committed with intent to defraud of March, was, on Monday the the Sun Fire-office; and a second count charged an intent 18th, served at the prison to defraud John Tothil, who had a mortgage on the house. with a notice to
The commission day at Exeter was on Friday the 15th produce a policy of insurance. of March, and this case came on to be tried on WednesThe commission day was Friday, day, the 20th. the 15th, and the prisoner's home was ten The counsel for the prosecution called for the policy of miles from the assize town:
insurance under a notice to produce, which had been servHeld, that the
ed on the prisoner at the gaol on Monday, the 18th of notice was served too late. March. The prisoner's home was ten miles from Exeter. Held also, that the intent to defraud an insur- Moody, for the prisoner, objected that this service was ance office being charged in the too late ; and that the notice ought to have been served indictment, was before the commission day. not such notice to the prisoner as would make
John Greenwood and Sewell, contrà.-As the prisoner's a notice to produce the policy residence is only ten miles distant, there was ample time to unnecessary.
have procured the policy.
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE (having conferred with Mr. Justice Park).—Both my learned brother and myself are of opinion, that the notice was served too late. It cannot be presumed that the prisoner had the policy with him when in custody; and the trial might have come on at an earlier period of the assize. We therefore think, that secondary evidence of the policy cannot be received (a).
(a) See the case of Hargest v. Fothergill, ante, p. 303.