« PrejšnjaNaprej »
WESTERN SPRING CIRCUIT,
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK AND MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE LITTLEDALE.
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.
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
to another, upon a threat, that,
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PARK.
The APOTHECARIES' COMPANY v. COLLINS.
DEBT for penalties under the stat. 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, 8.
20 (a), for practising as an apothecary without a certificate.
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.
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."
no defence in this action; indeed, I think, that even a di ploma from one of the English Universities would not exempt a party from the penalties of this act (a). However, I will give you leave to move to enter a nonsuit.
Verdict for the plaintiffs for one penalty,
Coleridge, Serjt., and Gambier, for the plaintiffs.
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, s. 29, there is a saving of the rights heretofore vested in, exercised, and enjoyed by the English Universities, and the Colleges of Phy
sicians and Surgeons; but we be-
REX v. PEGler.
INDICTMENT for arson. A witness for the prosecution, who was in custody on a charge of felony, to be tried at these Assizes, was asked by the counsel for the prisoner- "Have you not said that you committed the of fence for which you are now in custody?"
Mr. Justice PARK (having conferred with Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE).—My learned brother is clearly of opinion that the question ought not to be put; and I am, myself, entirely of the same opinion.
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
on Monday the
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, the Sun Fire-office; and a second count charged an intent to defraud John Tothil, who had a mortgage on the house. The commission day at Exeter was on Friday the 15th of March, and this case came on to be tried on Wednesday, the 20th.
18th, served at the prison with a notice to produce a policy of insurance. The commission
day was Friday,
the 15th, and the prisoner's home was ten miles from the assize town:Held, that the
notice was served too late. Held also, that the intent to defraud an insur
ance office being charged in the indictment, was
not such notice to the prisoner as would make
a notice to pro
The counsel for the prosecution called for the policy of insurance under a notice to produce, which had been served on the prisoner at the gaol on Monday, the 18th of March. The prisoner's home was ten miles from Exeter.
Moody, for the prisoner, objected that this service was too late; and that the notice ought to have been served before the commission day.
John Greenwood and Sewell, contrà.-As the prisoner's duce the policy residence is only ten miles distant, there was ample time to 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.