Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

(Barry v. Harding, 1 J. & Lat. 475); (3) the Government stocks (Bescoby v. Pack, 1 S. & S. 500). C. will be entitled to (1) bank stock and (2) railway shares and stocks. (Ogle v. Knipe, supra; Watson's Compendium of Equity, vol. 2, 1228-30.)

As to the cheques mentioned in the question, if they are immediately convertible into money at the death of the testator, A. will be entitled to them; if not, they will go to B. (See Byrom v. Brandeth, supra.)

PART II.

THE LAW, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN CRIMINAL CASES; IN THE PROBATE, DIVORCE, AND ADMIRALTY DIVISION;

AND IN ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

CRIMINAL LAW.

1. Assume an act to have been committed which would, primâ facie, constitute a crime. What exceptions, attaching either to the person by whom, or the circumstances under which, it was committed, may deprive it of the character of a criminal offence?

A. in a fit of delirium tremens, the immediate result of drunkenness, kills B., mistaking him for a wild animal. Has A. committed a crime?

:

To constitute a crime there must be two elements present, viz. (1) A criminal intention or malice, and (2) will. It follows that the absence of either or both of these will deprive a prima facie offence of its character of being a criminal offence, and form the exceptions above referred to.

These may be classified as follows:

1. Absence of criminal intention or malice, including :

Insanity: Infancy: Ignorance (mistake).

2. Absence of will, i.e., the act is purely involuntary :

Misfortune, &c.: Physical compulsion.

3. Instant and well-grounded fear, stronger than the fear naturally inspired by the law :

Fear of excessive unlawful harm. Coercion of married women.

4. When an act under ordinary circumstances criminal is denuded of that character, inasmuch as it is directly authorised by the law :

In pursuance of a legal duty, e.g., the sheriff hanging a criminal. In pursuance of a legal right, e.g., slaying in self-defence. Here, as in the first class, there is no criminal intention. (Harris' Criminal Law, 19, 20.)

Drunkenness, sometimes termed dementia affectata-acquired madness-is, when voluntary, no excuse for a crime committed in that state. It is, however, sometimes an index of the quality of the act done. When it is involuntary, as, for example, if it be by the contrivance of the prisoner's enemies, he will not be accountable for his actions while under that influence. (Harris' Crim. Law, 25 and 26.) Accordingly, in the above case, if A. has voluntarily made himself drunk, he is guilty of the manslaughter of B. Otherwise he will be acquitted. Even if guilty he will not be guilty of murdering B. unless the circumstances prove the necessary" malice aforethought."

2. Force is used by A. against the person of B. in obedience to orders given to A. by a civil or military superior. Upon what considerations will the question whether or not A. has been guilty of a criminal offence depend? Illustrate your answer by an example.

To constitute an act a criminal offence, the law of this country requires, as stated in the preceding answer, the presence of both criminal intention, or malice, and the will. If either of these is wanting in any given act, no crime has been committed. A., in the above case, will not be guilty of a crime if he can show a defect of the will on his part on the ground of his obligation to civil subjection to his civil or military superior, and coming within a general class of acts committed by A. from compulsion and inevitable necessity. A. must also be ready to show that the injury done to B. was in strict compliance with his superior's orders. An instance of such a case would be when the legislature establishes iniquity by a law, and commands the subject to do an act contrary to religion or sound morality. Obedience to the laws in being is undoubtedly a sufficient extenuation of civil guilt before the municipal tribunal. The sheriff who burnt Latimer and Ridley in

the bigoted days of Queen Mary was not liable to punishment from Queen Elizabeth for executing so horrid an office, being justified by the commands of that magistracy which endeavoured to restore superstition under the holy auspices of its merciless persecution.

As to persons in private relations the principal case, where constraint of a superior is allowed as an excuse for criminal misconduct, is with regard to the matrimonial subjection of the wife to her husband, for although neither a son nor a servant is excused for the commission of any crime, whether capital or otherwise, by the command or coercion of the parent or master, yet, in some cases, the command or authority of the husband, either express or implied, will privilege the wife from punishment; and, therefore, if a woman commit theft, burglary, or other civil offences against the laws of society by the coercion of her husband, or even in his company, which the law construes a coercion, she is not guilty of any crime, being considered as acting by compulsion and not of her own will. This doctrine is at least a thousand years old in this kingdom. But no impunity is given to servants, who are as much free agents as their masters; and, even with regard to wives, this rule admits of an exception in the case of treason, murder, man slaughter, or robbery, these offences being of a deeper dye. In misdemeanours also we may mention another exception, that a wife may be indicted with her husband for keeping a brothel; for this is an offence touching the domestic economy or government of the house in which the wife has a principal share, and is also such an offence as the law presumes to be generally conducted by the intrigues of the female sex; and in all cases where the wife offends alone, without the company or coercion of her husband, she is responsible for her offence as much as a feme sole. (4 Stephen's Commentaries, 104, et seq.; Harris' Criminal Law, 12, et seq. ; Broom's Commentaries on Common Law, 869.)

3. Enumerate the different acts which constitute the offence of an accessory after the fact to felony. Of what degree of offence is such an accessory guilty, and to what punishment does he render himself

liable?

A. commits a felony, and is afterwards received and assisted to escape from justice by his wife and brother, both of whom are aware

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »