Slike strani




that can be must

with statement of act

In reset, the time of the theft being set forth, the time
of the reset need not be stated particularly (1), but
some statement is indispensable (2), although it may

be sufficient to say that the time is unknown. The Sufficient in

holds in cases of forgery, as regards the forgery if time of uttering forging (3), but the time of the uttering must be specific. Extra latitude specifically libelled (4). Unusual latitude is only only on cause.

admiited from necessity, and any excess will be All specification checked (5). Where a schoolmaster was charged with be given. improper conduct towards female pupils for a long

period, it was held that latitude might be allowed, but
that the period applicable to each pupil should be

separately specified (6).
Time connected The time specified must be applicable, by the gram-

matical construction of the narrative, to the offence to
be charged, and not merely to a preliminary part of the
narrative (7), or to a part of the charge which, with-
out a subsequent part, would not constitute a com-

plete offence (8).
Latitude hy Extra latitude is sometimes taken by an alterna-

tive: “or at some other time between the first day
“ of September 1846 and the thirty-first day of May

· 1847, the particular time being to the prosecutor
“unknown.” It is only in certain cases that extreme
latitude will be allowed in the alternative, such as
theft of a found article (9); reset (10); subornation
of perjury (11), and the like.

1 Hume ii. 221.-Alison ii. 255, 257. Alex. Wilson, Aberdeen,
and cases of Johnston and Wylie : April 22d 1856; 2 Irv. 409 and 28
and Boug there.

S. J. 389.
2 Rob. Wyllie and Agnes Rich- 6 Hume ii. 224, and case of Bell
ardson, Glasgow, April 26th 1820 ; there.--Alison ii. 256.
Shaw 49.

7 Angus M‘Pherson, H.C., June 3 Hume ii. 222, and cases of 30th 1845 ; 2 Broun 447. Campbell: Harris : M‘Haffie : and 8 John Speirs and others, H.C., Reid there.-Alison ii. 255, 256.-- March 25th 1836; 1 Swin. 163 and Alex. Humphreys or Alexander, Bell's Notes 206. April 29th, 30th, and May 1st 1839; 9 John Smith, H.C., March 12th 2 Swin. 356 and Special Report. 1838 ; 2 Swin. 28 (Indictment).

4 John Jerdon, Jedburgh, May 10 Hume ii. 221. 3d 1837; 1 Swin, 502 and Bell's 11 Rob. Walker, H.C., March 19th Notes 217.

1838; 2 Swin. 69 and Bell's Notes 5 Hume ii. 224.-Alison ii. 256, 197.



Time of inci

The time of the act which forms the true basis of TIME. the charge is all that it is necessary to specify (1). dental matters. Where previous malice is libelled, the time when this was evinced need not be specified. But where it was stated in a libel for careless conduct of a dangerous operation, that the accused had received repeated warnings, the clause was struck out, as there was no notice of the time when they were given (2). In bigamy, the time of both marriages must be set forth (3), but where the first marriage is not recent, considerable latitude is allowable (4). Where a great Inventory of number of acts have been committed at different times, the particular times may be referred to as set forth in inventories.


The place of the offence must be set forth (5) correctly (6). Locus

1 Hume ii. 224, and case of Couts there.

2 Jas. Finney, H.C., Feb. 14th 1848; Ark. 432.-Such a statement seems, however, to have passed in a subsequent case, and to have been made one of the grounds of determining the amount of punishment following on a plea of guilty.— Elizabeth Hamilton, H.C., Nov. 9th 1857; 2 Irv. 738.-But in that case no objection was taken.

3 John Braid alias John Baird, H.C., Feb. 24th 1823; Shaw 98.

4 John Armstrong, H.C., July 15th 1844; 2 Broun 251.-The following occurs in Lord Moncreiff's MSS. in Jas. Cameron and Helen George or Doll, Aberdeen, Sept. 24th 1835:"Objection to rele"6 vancy of indictment that too 66 'great latitude is taken as to one "of the marriages; it being stated "to be on the 16th April in the 86 year 1816 or 1817, or one or "other of the days of that month, "or of March immediately preced"ing, or of May immediately fol"lowing, in one or other of said "years. "Explained by prose"cutor that there was a difficulty

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


It is not sufficient that it is given as the accused place essential. described it in his declaration, nor that it is described

in the same terms as those of the accused's designa

tion, under which he has pleaded, if that description Incidentat irate. be wrong (1). But where the libel set forth a house curacy fatal

“in or near the Old Wynd of Glasgow, occupied by

Nancy Campbell, lodging-house keeper there," and the fact was that “Sarah or Sally Campbell” occupied the house, the Lord Justice-Clerk Hope directed the jury that Nancy Campbell being an occasional lodger in the house, and the prisoner describing it in his declaration as "the house of Nancy Campbell,” the presumption was that Nancy Campbell was living there at the time, and that therefore she was an occupant of the house (2). The objection here went not so directly to the description of the locus, as to an inci

dental part, namely, the exact name of a person Misleading de- residing there (3). But where a house was set forth scription fatal.

as occupied by Peter Donegan, whereas the house was that next to Donegan's, this was held fatal, as it amounted to a statement of the locus, as being Donegan's house, whereas the offence was not in his house at all (4). Again, a theft being charged as committed “ within' a certain house, whereas it was committed from a closet in a passage leading to the house, the

discrepancy was held fatal (5). Bad arrangement of words may be Even bad arrangement of words may make the

Swin. 524 and Bell's Notes 208.- Nov. 23d 1840; 2 Swin 524 and
Jas. Wilson, Perth, Oct. 3d 1853; Bell's Notes 208.
1 Irv. 300.-It may be doubted 2 Rob, · Macdonald and John
whether the decision in Whitton or Kilpatrick, Glasgow, May 6th 1842;
Stormonth v. Drummond, H.C., 1 Broun 244 and Bell's Notes 208.
March 12th 1838 ; 2 Swin. 62 and 3 See observations by Lord Jus-
Bell's Notes 152 (where a convic- tice-Clerk Inglis in Maxwell v.
tion was sustained, though no locus Black and Morrison, H.C., June 1st
was set forth) would now be fol- 1860 ; 3 Irv. 592 and 32 S. J. 517.

4 Mary Wilson or Smith, H.C., 1 Arch. M'Quilkin, H.C., Nov. Nov. 11th 1836; Bell's Notes 207. 26th 1838 ; 2 Swin. 212 and Bell's 5 Elizabeth Thomson, Glasgow, Notes 208.—John Mackenzie, H.C., Oct. 3d 1857 ; 2 Irv. 722 and 30

S. J. 1.



[ocr errors]

specification too uncertain. Where the locus was set Locus.
forth as “a field or park called Bannaty-mill park, on
“ the farm of Bannaty-mill,

possessed by Geo. Swan, farmer, in the parish of Strathmiglo, and

county of Fife, the objection was sustained, that there was no specification of the position of the park, the words “in the parish, &c.," being so placed as to appear to be only the designation of Geo. Swan, and not to refer to the park (1). Again, where a theft was said to have been "from a hedge, at the end of a “ house then occupied by Geo. Hare, labourer at Dal“ housie Mains,” &c., the objection was sustained, that the specification did not state the place of Hare's house, as the words “at Dalhousie Mains," &c., appeared to be connected with the word “labourer,' and to mean only that he was a labourer there (2). And where the libel specified the locus as “a field or park “commonly called or known as Wester South Park, forming part of the land of Housebill, in the parish of Dunipace aforesaid, the property of the trustees of

the late Sir Gilbert Stirling of Mansfield, and in the “parish of Larbert and county of Stirling," the objection was held fatal, that the locus was described as being in two different parishes (3).

If a place be set forth which has no existence, as Locus which has for instance, " in the town of Bathgate in the county Though part “ of Fife,” the libel is irrelevant. And even if part of ry, magnetist the description be wrong, although the description would be complete without it, this will be fatal (4). But a difference of pronunciation, as where some wit- Difference of

pronunciation. called à place Straiton Dean, and others Struckon Dean, the place being sufficiently described otherwise, will not found an objection (5).

no existence.

sarybe fatal.

1 John Buchanan, Perth, April 4 Hume ii. 208, case of Gordon 20th 1824 ; Shaw 121.

in note 1.-Alison ii. 261, 262.2 Alison ii. 266, case of Nisbet Maxwell v. Black and Morrison,

H.C, June 1st 1860; 3 Irv. 592 3 Mitchell 0. Campbell, H.C., and 32 S. J. 517. Jan. 5th 1863 ; 4 Irv. 257 and 35 6 Jas. Corbet, H.C., 13th March

1828 ; Syme 339.



S. J. 159.



[ocr errors]

It is not indispensable that the parish in which an Parish need not offence is committed should be specified, if the locus Country parish. be otherwise sufficiently described (1); but if the .

; parish be incorrectly given in a case where the offence

was not committed in a town, this will be fatal (2). Town parish. But it will not necessarily vitiate an indictment for a

crime in a town, that the parish is incorrectly stated, if the description be otherwise sufficient, the arrangement of parishes being arbitrary and often temporary

in towns (3). Description must · The specification of the locus must not be vague (4)

by naming a street without town or place (5), or a name such as Wigtown, which might be either the town, parish, or county (6), or by naming a locality such as "a young fir plantation on the east side of the “market muir of Forfar,” there being more than one plantation and there being no specification of county, parish, or property (7). But where the locus was described as “in or near Haddington," and in “the "shop occupied by A. B.," it was held that though it was not expressly said whether “Haddington ” meant town or county, still the statement as to the shop gave “all reasonable and proper information to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 Hume ii. 210, case of Gordon 4 This rule is more strictly in note 1.

attended to now than formerly. 2 Hume ii. 208, case of Gordon Hume mentions cases (ii. 211, 212), in note 1.-Maxwell v. Black and in which the statement of the locus Morrison, H.C., June 1st 1860; was held sufficient, but which un3 Irv. 592 and 32 S. J. 517, over- questionably would be decided ruling Elspeth Robertson, Hume ii. differently at the present day. 208, 209.

Some of them are marked by the 3 Alison ii. 260, case of Auld late Lord Justice Clerk Hope there.-In Lord Wood's Indict- thus :-"Bad judgment." ments, the following has been found 6 Thos. Pearson, H.C., March in reference to this case :-“At- 15th 1821 ; Shaw 27.

tempted by panel to prove that 6 Jas. Bodan, Ayr, May 26th “Elder Street not in St Cuthbert's 1823 ; Shaw 100 and Hume ii. 210,

Court expressly stated note l. (Hume differs from Shaw “ that objection bad, even if it as to the reading of the judgment.)

In the case of a town 7 Thos. Cuthbert and Alex. " where parishes divided by magis- Cuthbert, Perth, April 16th 1830; “ trates sufficient that street cor. Bell's Notes 210. “rectly named.”

“ parish.

were 30.

« PrejšnjaNaprej »