« PreviousContinue »
Lord's day. By the 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 38, s. 12, where the term of imprisonment
- of a prisoner in gaol expires on a Sunday, the prisoner shall be discharged Discharge of prisoners in gaols on
Son on the preceding Saturday. See tit. “Gaols," Vol. III.
By the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 31, intituled, " An Act to enable the Electia 3 & 4WDI. IV.c. 31. of Officers of Corporations and other Public Companies now required to be
held on the Lord's Day to be held on the Saturday next preceding, or on the Monday next ensuing,” (24th July, 1833), reciting, “Whereas the proba nation of the Lord's day is greatly increased by reason of certain neetings which are usually or occasionally held thereon: and whereas it is
the duty of the legislature to remove as much as possible impediments Elections of off to the due observance of the Lord's day:" it is enacted, “ That every cers of corpora
meeting or adjourned meeting of any vestry or corporation, whether ections and other public companies clesiastical or civil, or of any public company, for the nomination, elec now required to be tion, appointment, swearing in, or admission of any officer or officers, ar held on a Sunday shall be held on for the transaction of any other secular affair of such vestry, corporation, the Satunay pre
or company, and every other meeting of a public and secular nature, ceding or the Monday following which, according to any act of Parliament, or according to any charter,
grant, constitution, deed, testament, law, prescription, or usage whatsoever, is or shall be required to be held on any Lord's day, or on any day which shall happen to be on a Lord's day, shall be held on the Saturday next preceding or on the Monday next ensuing, at the like hour, with like form and effect as if the same had been held on such Lord's day; and every matter transacted at any such meeting or adjourned meeting
held upon any Lord's day shall be absolutely void and of none effect, a If election does not all intents and purposes whatsoever: Provided always, that, when no take place on the Saturday, the *** such nomination, election, appointment, swearing in, or admission shall person holding have taken place on such Saturday, every person whose term of office office to continue so to do until the
would, according to any such act, charter, grant, constitution, deed, tesMonday.
tament, law, prescription, or usage, have expired on any such Lord's day, shall continue in office, and exercise and enjoy all the powers and privileges annexed or relating to such office, until and on such Monday next ensuing, in the same manner as if such Monday had been the customary day of nomination, election, appointment, swearing in,
admission.” Elections not
Sect. 2. “Whenever the nomination, election, appointment, swearmade on such Saturday or Monday.
ing in, or admission of any such officer or officers as before mentioned shall be taken to shall not take place on such Saturday or Monday, or shall berate be within the 11 Geo. I. c. 4.
void, the case shall be and is hereby declared to be within the provisian of an act made and passed in the eleventh year of his late Majesty King George the First, intituled, An Act for preventing the Isacon seni arising for Want of Elections of Mayors or other Chief Magistrates of B roughs or Corporations being made upon the Days appointed by Charter Usage for that Purpose, and directing in what Manner such Elections ska be afterwards made, as fully and effectually as if such officer or officers
had been expressly named in the said act." Warrant on stats. County of — , To the constable of — , in the said county, and to the 3 Car. I. c. 1, and to wit. I churchwardens of the parish of — , in the said county. 29 Car. II. c. 7. to levy 204, on car
Forasmuch as A. O., of — , in the county of — , carrier, is duly commited rier for travelling before me, J. P., esquire, one of her Majesty's justices assigned to keep the on Lord's day; peace in the said county, and also to hear and determine divers felosies, tres. which same will do, mutatis mu
passes, and other misdemeanours, in the said county committed, for that be the tandis, for other said A. O., on the day of — , in the year of the reign of de penalties under ¿his title.
ing the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday, with his horses into and thered
and eightpence, part of the said sum of twenty shillings, to A. I., of — [yeo. man), toho informed me of the said offence, and that you see the remaining sum of thirteen shillings and fourpence employed to the use of the poor of your said parish of — , returning to him the said A. 0. the overplus upon demand, the reasonable charges of taking, keeping, and selling the said distress, being first deducted. And you are to certify to me, with the return of this precept, what you shall have done in the execution thereof. Herein fail you not. Given under my hand and seal at , in the said county, the day of
Lost Instrument, Proof in Case of, see “ Evidence," Vol. II. pp.
366, 369; “ Larceny" of Lost Property, ante, p. 1105.
Lotteries. See “ Gaming," Vol. III.
“ Art Unions,"_“ Gaming."
See the Addenda, tits.
I. How far liable for Crimes. Prosecution and Treatment of
[39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 94 ; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 54, s. 3.]
r9 Geo. IV. c. 40; 1 Vict. c. 14; 3 & 4 Vict. c. 54; 5 & 6
Vict. c. 87; ss. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38; 7 & 8
Vict, c. 101, s. 27.]
[2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 107; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 64; 5 & 6 Vict.
As to the incompetency of lunatics as witnesses, see tit. “ Evidence,"
(a) The Queen is the general guar. dian of idiots and lunatics. (17 Edw. II. st. 1, c. 9 & 10). But the custody of lunatics is generally committed to the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, or lords commissioners for the custody of the great seal, by the Queen's sign manual. All matters, therefore, touching luna. tics are within the peculiar jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery.
Surety of the peace cannot be grant. ed to or required from a person of non sane memory upon his own request; but yet, if there be cause, the justice ought to provide for his safety. (Dalt.
c. 117. See as to the apprehension and Miscellaneous
points as to luna. confinement of lunatics at common law, biasa post, 1262.
The stats. 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 36, and 5 & 6 Vict. c. 84, relate to commissions in the nature of writs de lunatico in. quirendo, and to the practice and course of proceeding under them, and the care and treatment of persons found lunatic under such commissions.
A person of non sane memory shall not avoid his own act, by reason of this defect; but his heir or executor may. (Beverley's case, 4 Rep. 123 b).
If an idiot, or a lunatic, not being in
1. How far
liable for crimes, &c.
Four kinds of lunacy
I. How far liable for Crimes. Prosecution and Treatment
of Ensane Criminals. Non compos mentis is of four kinds :
First, Idiots; who are of non sane memory from their nativity, bys perpetual infirmity. (1 Inst. 247 ; Bac. Ab. Idiot (A.)).
Secondly, Those that lose their memory and understanding by the visitation of God, as by sickness or other accident.
Thirdly, Lunatics; who have sometimes their understanding, and sometimes not.
Fourthly, Drunkards (a); who, by their own vicious act, for a time
a lucid interval, take a wife, the marri. whether an act was premeditated or
A lunatic may surrender a lease in used a different kind of weapon; best the Court of Chancery, in order to re. where a dangerous instrument was used, new the same. (Stat. 11 Geo. IV. & which, if used, must produce grievous 1 Will. IV. c. 65). Also, by the di. bodily harm, drunkenness could bare rection of the Lord Chancellor, be may no effect on the consideration of the accept a surrender of such lease, and malicious intent of the party. (RT. execute a new one. (Ib.) The com- Meakin, 7 C. & P. 297; R. v. Crve mittee of a lunatic cannot make a lease. 8 C. & P. 546). It may also be taken (Knipe v. Palmer, 2 Wils. 130). into consideration, in cases where what
For provisions to authorize the sale the law deems sufficient provocation bas or mortgage of the estates of persons been given, because the question is, is found lunatic by inquisition, in Eng. such cases, whether the fatal act is to land or Ireland respectively; and for be attributed to the passion of anger granting leases of the same; see stats. excited by the previous provocation, Il Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 65, and and that passion is more easily excita. 1 & 2 Geo. IV. c. 114.
ble in a person when in a state of inTo make a will, it is not sufficient toxication than when he is sober. (R that the testator have memory to answer v. Thomas, 7 C. & P.817; R. v. Petr to familiar and usual questions, but he son, 2 Lewin, 144). If, indeed, there ought to have a disposing memory, so is really a previous determination to as to be able to make a disposition of resent a slight affront in a barbarous his estate, with understanding and rea. manner, the state of drunkendess in son. (6 Rep. 23). But a will made which the prisoner was ought not to during a lucid interval is valid. (1 Phil. be regarded. (10.) Ec. Ca. 90).
Upon an indictment for stabbing, the (a) Drunkards, where the drunken. jury may take into consideration, amon ness is voluntary, shall have no privi- other circumstances, the fact of them lege by their want of sound mind; but soner being drunk at the time, in order shall have the same judgment for their to determine whether he acted under a crimes as if they were in their right bona fide apprehension that his person senses. (1 Inst. 247; 1 Hawk. c. 1, or property was about to be attacked. s 6; 1 Hale, 32). It was held by (R. v. Marshall, 1 Lerin, 76; R. v. Holroyd, J., that where, as on a charge Goodier, Id.; 1 Russ. C. & M. by of murder, the material question is, Greaves, 8).
deprive themselves of their memory and understanding. (See Wheller 1. How far v. Alderson, 3 Hagg. 602).
crimes, &c. Idiots and lunatics, who are under a natural disability of distinguish. ing between good and evil, are not punishable for their crimes. (1 Hawk. crime
i Liability of, for c. 1, s. 1; 4 Coke, 125 ; Co. Lit. 247. a.)
But if a lunatic, or other person who wants discretion, commit a trespass against the person or possession of another, he shall be compelled, in a civil action, to give satisfaction for the damage. (1 Hawk. c. 1, s. 5.) As to his liability for contracts, and that he is liable for necessaries, see Bagster v. Earl Portsmouth, 5 B. & C. 170 ; 2 C. & P. 178; 7 D. & R. 614, S. C.; Wentworth v. Tubb, 1 Young & C.; N. C. 171 ; and see Brouon v. Jodrell, 3 C. & P. 30; 1 M. & M. 105, S. C.; and Levy v. Baker, 1 M. & M. 106, n.
He who incites a madman to do a murder or other crime is a principal offender, and as much punishable as if he had done it himself, (1 Hawk, c. 1, s. 7.)
It is said, per Tracy, J., in R. v. Arnold, (16 Howell's St. Tri. 764), that it is not every frantic and idle humour of a man that will exempt him from justice and the punishment of the law. When a man is guilty of a great offence, it must be very plain and clear before a man is allowed such an exemption ; therefore, it is not every kind of frantic humour, or something unaccountable in a man's actions, that points him out to be such a madman as to be exempted from punishment. It must be a man that is totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute, or a wild beast; such an one is never the object of punishment.
And per Yorke, Solicitor-General, in Lord Ferrers's case, (19 Howell's St. Tri. 947, 948). If there be a total permanent want of reason, it will acquit the prisoner. If there be a total permanent want of it, when the offence was committed, it will acquit the prisoner. But, if there be only a partial degree of insanity, mixed with a partial degree of reason; not a full and complete use of reason, but (as Lord Hale carefully and emphatically expresses himself) a competent use of it, sufficient to have restrained those passions which produced the crime; if there be thought and design ; a faculty to distinguish the nature of actions, to discern the difference between moral good and evil; then, upon the fact of the offence proved, the judgment of the law must take place.
Where, on an indictment for murder, it appeared that the defendant laboured under a notion that the inhabitants of Hadleigh, and particularly the deceased, were continually issuing warrants against him with intent to deprive him of his life and liberty, Lord Lyndhurst, C. B., told the jury that they must be satisfied, before they could acquit the prisoner on the ground of insanity, that he did not know when he committed the act what the effect of it, if fatal, would be with reference to the crime of murder. The question was, did he know that he was committing an offence against the laws of God and nature?” (R. v. Offord, 6 C. & P. 168).
In R. v. Oxford, for shooting at the Queen, Lord Denman, C. J., told the jury, “ Persons primâ facie must be taken to be of sound mind till the contrary is shewn. But a person may commit a criminal act, and not be responsible. If some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power within him which he could not resist, then he will not be responsible. It is not more important than difficult to lay down the rule by which you are to be governed.” “On the part of the defence it is contended, that the prisoner was not compos mentis, that is, (as it has been said), unable to distinguish right from wrong, or, in other words, that, from the effect of a diseased mind, he did not know at the time that the act he did was wrong.” “Something has been said about the power to contract and to make a will. But I think that those things do not supply any test. The question is, whether the prisoner was la
1. How far bouring under that species of insanity which satisfies you that he was
liable for quite unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act be crimes, &c. was committing, or, in other words, whether he was under the influence
of a diseased mind, and was really unconscious, at the time he was committing the act, that it was a crime?" (Reg. v. Oxford, 9 C. & P. 525).
The other principal cases in which the question as to what amount of insanity would excuse a crime, are those of R. v. Parker, Collisos en Lunacy, 477; R. v. Bowler, Id. 673; R. v. Bellingham, Id. Addenda, 636; R. v. Hadfield, Id. 480; 1 Russ. C. & M., by Greaves, 12.
It is observed in 1 Russell on Crimes and Misdemeanours, by Mr. Greaves, p. 13, that “the application of the rules and principles laid down in these cases to each particular case as it may arise will necessarily, in many instances, be attended with difficulty; more especially with regard to the true interpretation of the expressions which state that the prisoner, in order to be a proper subject of exemption from punishment on the ground of insanity, should appear to have been unable
to distinguish right from wrong,' or to discern that he was doing a wrong act, or should appear to have been totally deprived of his understanding and memory;' as, even in Hadfield's case, his expressions, when apprehended, that he was tired of life,' that she wanted to get rid of it,' and that he did not intend any thing against the life of the King, but knew that the attempt only would answer his purpose, seem to shew that he must have been aware that he was doing a wrong act, though the degree of his criminality might have been but imperfectly presented to him through the morbid delusion by which his senses and understanding were affected. But it is clear that idle and frantie bemours, actions occasionally unaccountable and extraordinary, mere de jection of spirits, or even such insanity as will sustain a commission of lunacy, will not be sufficient to exempt a person from punishment who has committed a criminal act. And it seems that, though, if there be s totally temporary want of it when the offence was committed, the prisoner will be entitled to an acquittal, yet, if there be a partial degree of reason, a competent use of it, sufficient to have restrained those passions which produced the crime ; if there be thought and design, a faculty to distinguish the nature of actions, to discern the difference between moral good and evil; then, upon the fact of the offence proved, the judgment of the law must take place." (Per Yorke, Solicitor-General, ix Lond Ferrers's case, 19 Howell's St. Tri. 947, 948; et per Lawrence, J., R. F.
Allen, Stafford Lent Assizes, 1807, MS.) Becoming insane If one who hath committed a capital offence become non conpos bebefore trial.
fore conviction, he shall not be arraigned; and if after conviction, he shall not be executed. (Hali's Sum. 10; 1 Hauk, c. 1, s. 3; 4 Bla.
Com. 24). How tried whether
By the common law, if it be doubtful whether a criminal, who, at defendant insane.
his trial, in appearance is a lunatic, be such in truth or not, it shall be tried by the jury who are charged to try the indictment, (Bac, 45. “ Idiot,” (B); Ř. y. Ley, 1 Levin, 239; 1 Russ. C. & M. 14), by a inquest of office, to be returned by the sheriff of the county wherein the Court sits; (Id., 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 1, s. 4); or, being a collateral issue, the fact may be pleaded and replied to ore tenus, and a venire awarded, returnable instanter, in the nature of an inquest of office. (Fost. 46, 1 Lev. 61; 1 Russ. C. & M., by Greaves, 14). If it be found by the jory that the party only feigns himself lunatic, and he still refuse to answer, he was, before the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 2, dealt with as one who stood mute, and as if he had confessed the indictment; but now, by virtue of that enactment, (which see, tit.“ Mute," Vol. V.), a ples of not guilty may be pleaded. The principal point to be considered by the jury would be, whether the defendant was of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings on the trial, so as to be able to make a proper defence. (See R. v. Pritchard, 7 C. & P. 303, 305; 1 Leopis, 84, S. C.)