FACTORY. See Master and Servant. FALSE PRETENCES - evidence of obtaining other sufficiency of pretence alleged: evidence of On FISHERY-penalties under the Thames Conservancy GAME - selling out of season]—The 4th section of See Jurisdiction of Justices. Night Poach- GAMING-Conviction for keeping a betting-house on a See Lottery Acts. GENERAL DISTRICT RATE-kinds of property rate- GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. See Assault. GUARDIANS OF THE POOR-Appointment of. See HABEAS CORPUS-on application of prisoner's father]-The prisoner had been convicted by Justices, under 9 Geo. 4. c. 31. and 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, of an aggravated assault, upon the information and complaint of a woman, charging that he did unlawfully assault and abuse her. It appeared, on affidavits, that upon the evidence the charge was one of rape. Upon a rule nisi for a habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, it was held, per Pollock, C.B. and Wilde, B., that the offence charged was not an assault of an aggravated nature, within 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, but an assault involving a statutory offence of a distinct character, over which the Justices had no jurisdiction; and that the writ ought to issue. Per Bramwell, B. and Channell, B., that there was nothing in the information and complaint to prevent the Justices entertaining a charge of assault, and that the charge being within their jurisdiction, they were at liberty to exercise it, and convict of an aggravated assault, if they thought upon the evidence that offence, and not a felony, had been committed; and that the writ ought not to go. The Court granted a rule nisi for a habeas corpus to bring up a prisoner (access to whom was denied by the gaoler) on the application of the prisoner's father. In re ThompSOR, 19 See Parent and Child. HIGHWAY-discretion of Justices to order indictment for non-repair]—An alleged highway being out of repair, the surveyor of the parish in which it was alleged to be situate was summoned before Justices in petty sessions, under 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50. s. 94, when he denied the liability, on the ground that an indictment had been already preferred against the parish, and recently tried, and a verdict of not guilty returned. On this, the Justices refused to make an order directing an indictment against the parish, under section 95; and on application to the Court of Queen's Bench to rule the Justices to make the order, the Court refused to interfere. Ex parte Bartlett, 65 obstructing rights of way] -- By the Great Yarmouth Haven Improvement Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. xlix. s. 76, any person who shall place, &c. on any space of ground immediately adjoining to the said haven, and within the space of 10 feet from high-water mark, any goods, materials, or articles whatsoever, so as to obstruct the free and commodious passage through and over the same, shall forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding, &c. The appellant placed three boats on the space of ground immediately adjoining the haven, and within the space of 10 feet from high-water mark, so as to obstruct the free and commodious passage through and over the same. There was no public right of passage over the space of ground; and it was occupied by the appellant. It was held, by Cockburn, C.J., Crompton, J. and Blackburn, J., that the appellant could not be convicted, as the provision could only apply to cases where a public right of passage existed. And, by Wightman, J., that by the express terms of the act, and the apparent intention, the provision extended to such a case, and that the appellant was liable to be convicted under the above section. Harrod v. Worship, 165 allowance of surveyor's accounts]-By the General Highway Act, 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 50. 8. 111, the surveyor may charge in his account the law expense incurred in defending any appeal which the inhabitants of any parish shall agree at a vestry to defend, after the same shall have been agreed to by inhabitants at a vestry, and allowed by two Justices of the Peace within the division where such highway shall be; which expenses when so agreed to or allowed shall be paid by such parish. It was held that "and" in that section is by mistake put for "or," and that the surveyor may charge such expenses after they have either been agreed to at a vestry, or allowed by two Justices. Quare-whether an allowance of the surveyor's accounts by Justices in special Sessions, under section 44. of that act, be a sufficient allowance by two Justices within the meaning of section 111. Townsend v. Read, 245 INDICTMENT. See Assault. Larceny. Night Poaching. INFORMATION-Summary conviction of aggravated assault on charge of rape. See Habeas Corpus. Jurisdiction of Justices. INNKEEPER. See Sunday Trading Act. JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES-sea-shore between high and low water-mark]-That part of the sea-shore which lies between high and low water-mark is within and part of the adjoining county, so that the Justices of the county have jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences committed thereon, whether the land be covered with water or not at the time the offences shall be committed. Embleton v. Brown, 1 to convict of aggravated assault upon a charge of rape]-Where a complaint of a criminal nature is made before Justices, which, upon the evidence, amounts to an offence not within their jurisdiction to determine, it is their duty either to dismiss the complaint or commit the person charged for trial by a jury. And where an information charged a man with unlawfully assaulting and abusing a woman, and the only evidence was that of the woman, who swore to a rape, it was held, the Justices ought either to have committed for trial or, if they disbelieved the woman, to have dismissed the case; and that they were not justified in convicting the man, under 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, of an aggravated assault. In re Thompson, 19 ousted by claim of title)—The jurisdiction of Justices to convict summarily, under 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 32. s. 30, for trespass in pursuit of game is ousted when a question of right to be on the land is bona fide raised between the complainant and defendant. Legg v. Pardoe, 108 JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES (Continued)-ousted by claim of title]-A person charged with trespassing in pursuit of game, in the daytime, on land in occupation of a tenant to A, set up a claim of right to shoot over the land, on the ground that he and every one who chose had always shot there till some recent acts of interruption, and declared his readiness to try the right with A. This mere assertion of a general right in himself and every one else, though he really believed it, without shewing any such claim of right as would be a defence to an action of trespass, was held not to oust the jurisdiction of the Magistrates to convict. Leatt v. Vine, 207 as to costs. See Quarter Sessions. And see Ale and Beer House. Church Rate. JUSTICE OF THE PEACE-Precedence of Mayor of a Borough. See Municipal Corporation. LARCENY property dropped in a shop]-On an indictment for stealing a 101. note, the jury found that the prosecutor had dropped the note in the prisoner's shop; that the prisoner had found it there; that the prisoner, at the time he picked it up, did not know, nor had he reasonable means of knowing, who the owner was; that he afterwards acquired knowledge of who the owner was, and after that he converted the note to his own use; that the prisoner intended, when he picked up the note in the shop, to take it to his own use and deprive the owner of it, whoever that owner might be; that the prisoner believed, at the time he picked up the note, that the owner could be found. It was held, that the prisoner was guilty of larceny. R. v. Moore, 77 alleging ownership of property]-It is suffi cient in an indictment for stealing the property of a joint-stock banking company to allege the stolen property to belong to one of the partners named and others, under the 7 Geo. 4. c. 64. s. 14. R. v. Pritchard, 169 bailee of money]--A person who holds money for another, under the obligation to give back the amount deposited at a specified time, but who is not bound to return the specific coins which he has received, is not indictable as a bailee. R. v. Hassall, 175 LICENSED VICTUALLER. See Ale and Beer House. Sunday Trading Act. LOCAL GOVERNMENT-order of local board to repair street]-Where a local act required the consent of Commissioners to new streets becoming highways to make the inhabitants liable to repair them, an order of the local board under the Public Health Act, on owners to repair a street in respect of which such consent had not been given, is a valid order. Wallington v. White, 209 new buildings and dwelling-house adjoining back street] Construction of 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98. 8. 34, and by-laws made under that section, as to sufficiency of open space around buildings erected and used as dwelling-houses; also with reference to buildings adjoining a back street; what is a "back street"; also as to what is a "new building." Shiel v. the Mayor of Sunderland, 215 See General District Rate. LOTTERY ACTS-keeping a lottery a misdemeanour] -By section 1. of 10 & 11 Will. 3. c. 17. and 42 Geo. 3. c. 119, the keeping a lottery is declared a common and public nuisance; and, by other sections, a person who keeps a lottery is liable to a heavy penalty, or to be treated as a rogue and a vagabond. It was held, that such person is also liable to an indictment as for a misdemeanour. If a man sells a ticket for a lottery and states that he knows the lottery is to be drawn for on a certain day, but that he does not know where, and afterwards delivers a sum of money to the purchaser of the ticket as a prize won in the lottery, evidence of these facts will justify a jury in convicting the seller of the ticket on an indictment for keeping a lottery. R. v. Crawshaw, 58 LUNATIC PAUPER-costs of maintenance in asylum] -A boy, eighteen years of age, having resided, unemancipated, with his father, for more than five years in A, a parish in the S. Union, became insane, and was removed as a lunatic pauper to an asylum, the expense of his maintenance, &c. being paid by the S. Union. After three years, the lunatic still being in the asylum, the father removed altogether from A, upon which an order of Justices was made, under section 97. of 16 & 17 Vict. c. 97, adjudging the lunatic to be settled in the parish of G. (the place of his father's settlement), and directing that parish to pay the costs of his maintenance, &c.; but it was held, the order was invalid, and that the costs of maintenance ought still to be borne by the S. Union, under section 102. R. v. the Overseers of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, 12 MAINTENANCE-costs of, after the order; and limitation of time for recovering]-An order for the removal of a woman having been made, notice of chargeability, &c. served on the parish of settlement, and no notice of appeal given, the pauper, being pregnant (though not unable to travel at the making of the order, was not removed until after her delivery, about six months from the service of the notice of chargeability, &c.; and it was held, the removing parish could recover from the parish of settlement, under 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. s. 84, only the costs of maintenance for the twenty-one days next after service of the notice of chargeability. Section 35. of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, which enacts that nothing in the act shall be construed to extend to any order of removal, does not exempt from the operation of the act an order (under 4 & 5 Will. 4. c. 76. ss. 84. and 99.) upon the parish of settlement for the payment of the costs of maintenance of a pauper incurred between service of the order of removal, &c. and actual removal; and the information for the non-payment must, therefore, be laid within six months, under the general limitation of section 11. Hill v. Thorncroft, 52 MARKET — infringing rights of sale of horses by auction]-By a local act, for establishing a market, power was given to the proprietors of the market to take tolls on horses brought into the market-place; and by one of its clauses it was enacted that every person who should sell at any place within the limits of the act (other than in the market-place, or in his own dwellinghouse, or in any shop attached to and being part of any dwelling-house) any article in respect of which tolls were by the act authorized to be taken, other than eggs, butter and fruits, should forfeit a sum not exceeding 40s., provided that nothing therein should restrain any person from crying or selling from door to door, within the limits of the act, any such article as aforesaid, provided such person should have first paid for such articles the regular market tolls, and provided such articles should first have been brought into the market for inspection there. It was held, that a horse was an article within the meaning of such clause, and that a sale of horses, within the limits of the act, by a licensed auctioneer, in a yard which formed part of the dwelling-house and premises of a third person, subjected the auctioneer to the penalty of 408., the place of sale not being within the exception contained in such clause. The Llandaff and Canton District Market Company v. Lyndon, 105 See Nuisance Removal Act. MASTER AND SERVANT-breach of contract of hiring under a supposed right]—The respondents, potters, engaged the appellant to work for them, at specified work, in their manufactory, for a year, at daily wages. The same day the respondents engaged R. to work for them by piecework for the same period. The work which the appellant had to do was, in fact, included in the piece-work of R; and R. paid the appellant's wages out of the amount paid by the respondents to R. for the piece-work. It was held, the contract of master and servant subsisted between the respondents and appellant, notwithstanding the fact of the payment of his wages by the hands of R, and that the appellant was liable to be convicted, under 4 Geo. 4. c. 34, for neglecting his service with the respondents. Although if a servant leaves his employment or refuses to perform his contract under a bona fide belief that he has a right to do so, he cannot be convicted under the statute, yet, to entitle the servant to a judgment on that ground, the facts must reasonably shew that the desertion or neglect complained of was in pursuance of that supposed right. Willett v. Boote, 6 servant in husbandry]--A person engaged by the owner of a farm to keep the general accounts belonging to such farm, to weigh out the food for the cattle, to set the men to work, to lend a hand to anything if wanted, and in all things to carry out the orders given to him, is not a servant in husbandry within section 3. of 4 Geo. 4. c. 34, so as to be liable to conviction under that section for refusing to obey an order given to him by the owner of the farm. Davies v. Berwick, 84 threat of unlawful combination]· A threat made by a workman in conjunction with others, that they will all cease work immediately unless the master discharge certain other workmen who are in his employ under particular terms, is a threat of carrying out an unlawful combination, and is, therefore, a threat within the 6 Geo. 4. c. 129. s. 3, which makes it unlawful by "threats" to endeavour to force a master to limit the description of his workmen. Walsby v. Anley, 121 forfeiture of wages by absence without notice] -One of the rules of a cotton-mill was, "Any person absenting himself on account of sickness or any other cause must immediately give notice to the overlooker; in default thereof all wages then earned will be forfeited." A weaver in the mill, in the middle of the day, asked leave of absence for half a day, promising to return to work the next morning at six. The weaver did not return the next day till half-past one in the afternoon; and it was held, the weaver did not forfeit her wages under this rule, for she could not be said to be absent without notice merely by continuing her absence longer than the period for which she had mentioned. Taylor v. Carr, 201 neglecting service]-The appellant agreed to work for the respondents, as a journeyman cutler, for three years, by piece-work, and was subsequently convicted and committed to the house of correction for twenty-one days for absenting himself from his masters' service, such absenting arising from some dispute as to the description of work on which he was employed. On coming out of prison he went to work elsewhere, and said he was earning more money, and should not return to the respondents. The latter again summoned him for absenting himself without leave or lawful excuse, and on that occasion he was advised by his attorney not to return to his employment. The Justices thereupon convicted him, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment. The second conviction, which was expressly founded on the 6 Geo. 3. c. 25, was held bad; the 6 Geo. 3. c. 25. s. 4. being quoad this offence impliedly, although not expressly, repealed by the 4 Geo. 4. c. 34. It was held, also, by Pollock, C.B. and Martin, B. (Bramwell, B. dissentiente), that the second conviction was bad, on the ground that it appeared the first conviction was for leaving the service absolutely, and the appellant ought not, therefore, to be convicted a second time. And by Pollock, C.B. and Bramwell, B., that the facts did not establish a wilful absenting, and that, therefore, the conviction was improper on that ground also. Youle v. Mappin, 234 MAYOR OF A BOROUGH - Precedence at Petty Sessions. See Municipal Corporation. MEDICAL ACTS-wilfully and falsely pretending to be a physician]-The offence of wilfully and falsely pretending to be or taking or using the name or title of a physician, doctor of medicine, &c., under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90. s. 40, is not established by the mere fact of a wrongful assumption of the title, if it appears to have been done under a supposed right. And where a surgeon, duly registered as such under the act, prefixed the title "Dr." to his name on his door, and upon the hearing of an information under section 40, produced a document purporting to be a grant of a diploma from a German University, it was held, the Justices rightly dismissed the information. But, per Bramwell, B., the wilful and false assumption of the title Doctor of Medicine, by a person duly registered as a surgeon, is an offence within the Medical Act. Ellis v. Kelly, 35 ap METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT pointment of governors and directors of the poor] -The parish of St. John, Southwark, was, previous to the passing of the Metropolis Local Management Acts, governed by certain local acts, by which it was provided that the vestrymen should appoint governors and directors of the poor, who should make out the poor-rates for the said parish; but it was held, that since the passing of the above-mentioned acts, the old vestry had no longer the power of appointing the governors and directors, but that the power of doing so was vested in the new vestry. R. v. Rendle, 135 METROPOLITAN BUILDING ACT-owner liable for expenses of taking down a dangerous structure] -By section 73. of 18 & 19 Vict. c. 122, expenses incurred in taking down, repairing, or otherwise securing dangerous structures shall be paid by the owner of such structure. By section 3. "owner" shall apply to every person in possession or receipt either of the whole or of any part of the rents or profits of any land or tenement, or in the occupation of such land or tenement other than as a tenant from year to year, or for any less term, or as a tenant at will. And where the appellants were seised in fee of a building used as a chapel, and which they had let on lease for twenty-one years, it was held, they were not liable to pay the expenses incurred, but that the lessee was the "owner" within the meaning of the act, and as such owner was the person intended to be liable. Mourilyan v. Labalmondiere, 95 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-right of mayor to precedence at Petty Sessions]-The Municipal Corporation Act (5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76), section 57, which enacts, "that the mayor of a borough shall be a Justice of the Peace for the borough during his year of office and the year after, and that such mayor shall, during the time of his mayoralty, have precedence in all places within the borough," does not confer on the mayor the right to preside and act as chairman at petty sessions and other meetings of the borough Justices. Ex parte the Mayor of Birmingham, Q.B. 2; M.C. 64 NAVAL STORES. See Possession of Naval Stores. NAVIGATION-person not a freeman navigating for hire: western barge] A person, not being a licensed freeman, or apprentice to a freeman, or the widow of a freeman, and who navigates a barge for hire within the limits of 22 & 23 Vict. c. cxxxiii. is liable to the penalty under section 54. of that act, although such barge has started upon its voyage from a place outside the limits, and might, under 7 & 8 Geo. 4. c. lxxv., have been navigated as a "Western Barge" by such person without incurring any penalty. Doick v. Phelps, 2 NIGHT POACHING-third offence: sufficiency of indictment]—An indictinent, under 9 Geo. 4. c. 69. s. 1, alleged that on the 26th of December 1854, C. was convicted before, &c., for that he, within the space of six calendar months then last past, to wit, on &c., by night, after the expiration of the first hour after sunset, and before the beginning of the first hour before sunrise, that is to say, about the hour of &c., did, by night, then and there unlawfully enter a certain close, &c., with a gun, for the purpose of then and there taking and destroying game, contrary &c., and that he was then sentenced to be imprisoned for the period of three calendar months; that afterwards, to wit, on the 27th of November A.D. 1858, he was duly convicted before &c., for that he, within six calendar months next before &c., to wit, on the 24th of November in the year aforesaid, in the night of the same day, at &c., by night, unlawfully did enter and be in and upon certain inclosed land, in &c., with certain instruments, for the purpose of killing, taking and destroying game thereon, this being his second offence, contrary &c., and was then adjudged to be imprisoned for six calendar months, &c. It then alleged a third offence, which by the terms of the statute, is made a misdemeanor. This indictment was upheld, as it sufficiently shewed upon the face of it that two previous convictions of offences within the terms of the act had taken place. Cureton v. Regina, 149 NUISANCE REMOVAL ACT- liability of party using sewer to be assessed for new sewer for several districts]-In the parish of H. four districts (M, M. S, H. and C.) were formed for the purpose of drainage, under the Nuisances Removal Act, 1855. In the year 1855 sewers were made for draining the M. S district, and the house of B. was assessed in respect of the expenses of making the sewers. B. compounded and paid the sum at which he was charged. In the year 1856 the M. district was drained, and the result of the works made in the two districts was to increase a nuisance which before existed |