1123 the language is not necessarily retrospective,' but the only intention. is to increase the punishment, then the rule applies. But here the object is not to punish offenders, but to protect the public against public-houses'; 'it is an enactment with regard to public and social order, and the infliction of penalties is merely collateral,' and in this sense the rule is accepted: Craies, p. 358. On the point of punishment it is not easy to reconcile Vine-a case of disqualificationwith F. Austin, where the object of the statute was merely to increase punishment. 4. Sentence. Different statutes sometimes inflict different penalties for the same offence. Thus an officer of the Post Office embezzling a postal packet, not containing money, &c., in the course of transmission by post, is liable under s. 18 of the Larceny A. 1916, to p. s. for seven years (maximum). By s. 55 of the Post Office A. 1908, he is liable for this offence to three years' p. s. (maximum). Strictly the maximum sentence would be regulated by the s. under which the indictment is framed, but the ordinary rule . . . that the lesser punishment should be imposed': per L. Alverstone O.J. in Turner, 1903 (sentence reduced), must not be overlooked. 5. Obsolete statutes. See Barratry, Jesuits, and Petitioning under Tumultuous Disturbance. Common and other law dealing with offices (and institutions) now obsolete is sometimes assumed to apply to the equivalent in use; e.g. peace officer' is replaced by 'constable' or 'police.' 6 6. The date of the 'passing' of an Act is that of the Royal Assent (and not that of the A. coming into force): C. Smith, 79 L. J. K. B. 1; 26 T. L. R. 23; 3 Cr. A. R. 40, 1909. Of. 33 G. 3, 13. PART V. AGENCY. For mercantile and commercial agents, see Agents and Corruption. For election agents, see Bribery and Elections. For conspirers as agents for one another, see Conspiracy. For commission and other agents not servants, see under Embezzlement. Principal's responsibility] Except where otherwise expressly or by necessary implication provided by statute, no principal is criminally liable for any act or omission of his agent unless he authorised or connived at such act or omission': Bowstead on Agency, 6th edn., 1919, Art. 146. The only illustration of indictment he gives is Stephens, 1866, and of information is A.-G. v. Siddon, 1 C. & J. 220; 35 R. R. 701, 1830 (smuggling), which Baty, Vicarious Liability, 1916, thinks only shows that the servant's acts are no more than strong evidence of the master's complicity' (p. 203; it is wrong to include revenue cases among those where the master cannot be excused for the servant's act: ib.). Perhaps the true rule is: The master is indictable when indictment is the only remedy, as it is when there is no proof of special damage (Holbrooke, 1877).' Medley and Stephens are, therefore, merely examples of a very special class of cases, in which a civil liability is enforced by the forms of criminal law. Ib. p. 204. it will be seen that the law is in a state which it is not too much to call discreditable to English jurisprudence. Vicarious criminal liability is imposed haphazard and with an arbitrary hand.' Ib. p. 218. See also Newman v. Jones, 17 Q. B. D. 132, 1886: c. q. See Mens Rea. In practice the point only arises through some act of a servant. The liability of a principal for the acts, negligence, misfeasances, &c. of an agent is confined to those cases where the agent is a servant,' cited by Baty, Preface. A servant, like any one else, may be an innocent agent of his principal's crime; see instances in Index. Servants, of course, may be criminally guilty without involving their masters, and in one case represented by Stephens, above, their guilt may legally involve his (though otherwise he is not guilty). Or they, like any one else, may criminally conspire with their master (Bernard, 1908), or they may execute his criminal behests (Earl of Macclesfield), or yield to his criminal solicitations, in which case both are respectively criminal in their degrees; no doctrine of coercion protects the servant: 1 Hale P. C. 516. No impunity is given to servants who are as much free agents as their masters': 4 Bl. Comm. 29. Possession] of the servant may be the possession of his master even for criminal purposes, but not unless there is evidence that the latter was aware of and consented to it: Pearson (No. 2), 1908: c. q. Agency in Criminal Law. Evidence of representation to agent] See W. Fisher, 1910. Admissions by agents] See Incriminating Statements. 1125 Superior orders] In a criminal case an inferior officer must be held justified in obeying the directions of a superior not obviously improper or contrary to law': per Willes J., Trainer, &c. By s. 19 (3) of the Merchandise Marks A. 1887: Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to render liable to any prosecution or punishment any servant of a master resident in the United Kingdom who bona fide acts in obedience to the instructions of such master, and on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecutor, has given full information as to his master': cf. s. 2 (2). Statute] Note that Stephens was at common law. Each statute must be looked at for its own terms: see, e.g. D. P. P. v. Witkowski: master held not liable; in H. Key, 1908, it seems that if the employer had, as he alleged, forbidden his manager to send the packet, he must have been acquitted. Whether a bookmaker can use a public-house with the knowledge of a servant, but against the landlord's authority, was not decided in I. Moss, 1910: c. q. A master may permit such an user by allowing one of his employees to act as an intermediary between his customers and a bookmaker: Wyton. For cruelty to animals, see Greenwood v. Backhouse, 66 J. P. 519; 20 Cox C. C. 196; 88 L. T. 566, 1902: Q. B. D.: c. q. For the exoneration of sheriffs, see 50-1 V. 55, 34, d, and Escape. False trade descriptions] See Coppen and Moore. Wife] See under Coercion. Libel] See under that title, Constructive Publication and Booksellers. Letters to Principal] See Fisher, 1910. Offences by agents, &c.] See Agents and Employers. Corporations] aggregate can only be criminally liable through acts and defaults of their servants and agents. See that title. Road trustees] See p. 824. ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. P. 58, last 1. but one. For 1913 read 1915. P. 68. For if defendant be unable to attend 'read ‘if deponent,' &c. P. 78. S. 4 (2) of the Criminal Evidence A. is: 6 Nothing in this Act shall affect a case where the wife or husband of a person charged with an offence may at common law be called as a witness without the consent of that person.' It is difficult to see with what object this sub-s. was inserted. P. 79. For Incest Act, 1898,' read 1908. For 3 & 4 Geo. 5, c. 3,' read c. 38. For Section 4 (3),' in margin, read Section 46 (3). For Section fifty' read Section fifty-six. For Section 4 (6),' in margin, read Section 56 (6). P. 97. Add (last par. but one): 6 Averments are preliminary or prefatory or subsidiary statements in an indictment which the prosecutor proposes to verify in support of the charge, as an element in constitution or aggravation of the offence. They are in some cases described as inducements when they merely lead up to the main allegations.' 7 Eneye. Laws Eng. 116. P. 112. For Fisher, 1899,' read 1909.' P. 127, 1. 12. For see rules' read 'see Judges.' P. 141. Add: When a spouse-witness for the prosecution is competent before a petty jury, she or he is competent before the grand jury. P. 146, 1. 20. Read p. 148. P. 173, 1. 33. For 'in proof' read on proof.' P. 174. Add (as par. 3): Larceny A. 1916, s. 43] (2) No person shall be liable to be convicted of any offence against sections 6, 7 sub-section (1), 20, 21, and 22 of this Act upon any evidence whatever in respect of any act done by him, if at any time previously to his being charged with such offence he has first disclosed such act on oath, in consequence of any compulsory process of any court of law or equity in any action, suit, or proceeding which has been bonâ fide instituted by any person aggrieved. (3) In any proceedings in respect of any offence against sections 6, 7 sub-section (1), 20, 21 and 22 of this Act, a statement Additions and Corrections. 1127 or admission made by any person in any compulsory examination or deposition before any court on the hearing of any matter in bankruptcy shall not be admissible in evidence against that person.' P. 175, last 1. but one. For 1889 read 1898. P. 177. It seems that since the Reformation' this point (clergymen) has never been decided. See a letter from L. Coleridge C.J. to Mr. Gladstone in 1890: 2 Life of L. Coleridge, 365. P. 204. Add to first par.: It is stated (Dict. Nat Biog., Dugdale, Sir William) that it was asserted in 1693 that his Monasticon ' (completed in 1673) had been admitted in the courts at Westminster as good circumstantial evidence' when the records transcribed in it could not otherwise be recovered.' Cf. p. 170. P. 212. To iii. add: See also pp. 221, 618, 619-20. P. 219, 1. 6. For 'judged' read 'judges.' P. 233. Add: Offences by children] See 8 E. 7, 67, 94-6. P. 237. Add: About 1565 Sir Thomas Smith wrote in The Commonwealth of England,' B. III. c. 3, 'If I began first to pursue him [accused of felony] by information or denunciation to enditement I am now no partie but the Prince who for his dutie to God and his Commonwealth and Subiects must see Justice executed against all Malefactors and Offenders against the Peace, which is called Gods and his.' P. 240, last par. Read and Stubbs' (not 'v.'); and for 1866, 1886. P. 273. Add under X.: By s. 1 of 9-10 G. 5, 71, Sex Disqualification (Removal) A.: a person shall not be exempted by sex or marriage from the liability to serve as a juror: Provided that(b) any judge, chairman of quarter sessions, recorder or other person before whom a case is or may be heard may, in his discretion, on an application made by or on behalf of the parties (including in criminal cases the prosecution and the accused) or any of them or at his own instance, make an order that the jury shall be composed of men only or of women only as the case may require, or may, on an application made by a woman to be exempted from service on a jury in respect of any case by reason of the nature of the evidence to be given or of the issues to be tried, grant such exemption. Rules of court may be made' -inter alia-exempting from attendance as jurors any women who are for medical reasons unfit to attend by, for criminal courts, the Rule Committee under the Indictments A. 1915. Accordingly, 33-4 V. 77, 5, and 34-5 V. 65, 3, are amended. P. 299. After Intoxication add: and A. Beard, 1920. P. 301, 1. 2. See also s. 5 (5) (a) of the Indictments A., p. 82. P. 340. Add: 10. When at the conclusion of a trial (W. Stone) a spectator applauded, L. Kenyon fined him 207. summarily and refused his check for the sum,' and he was taken into custody. Pp. 485-94. The ss. cited are in the Children A., 8 E. 7, 67, unless it is otherwise stated. |