« PreviousContinue »
have it in possession, at unseasonable times of the year, or unseasonable hours of the day or night, on Sundays or on Christmas-day, there are various penalties assigned, corporal
the clear yearly value of 1001, or for term of life, &c., or was in any other manner qualified," &c., is not sufficient, without also specifically negativing that he had an estate of inheritance of the clear yearly value of 1001. in right of his wife; but it is sufficient to state that he kept and used a dog called a lurcher, to kill and destroy the game; Rer v. Earnshaw, 15 East,
A conviction of the defendant " as not being the eldest son of an esquire, or of other person of higher degree," is good; Rer v. Utley, 1 T. R. 45, n.
An information for keeping a net, must negative the qualification; Heb. den v. Bluff, 1 Chit. Rep. 607, n.
If is sufficient on a conviction against a carrier for having game in his posses. sion, if the qualifications are negatived in the information and adjudication, without negativing them in the evidence; Rer v. Turner, 5 M. & S. 206.
Such a conviction need not negative the defendant's qualification to kill game; nor aver that he had the game in his possession “knowingly;" Rer v. Marsh, 4 D. & R. 260; 2 B. & C. 717.
A conviction should set out all the evidence, and not merely state the result of it; Rer v. Lovat, 7 T. R. 152; and see Rer v. Clarke, 8 T. R. 222.
A conviction stating in the information that the defendant “killed a hare,” is bad; Rer v. Morgan, 2 Chit. Rep. 563.
Evidence in support of an information before a magistrate under the game laws, cannot be received in the absence of the defendant, at least, where he has not been personally served with a summons to appear to the information. Whether in such case, an attorney is by law entitled to be present, and to act for the defendant before the magistrate, quære; Rer v. Commins, 8 D. & R. 344.
The irformer cannot be a witness ; Rel v. Stone, 2 Ld. Raym. 1545; Rer v. Blaney, 2 Andr. 240.
A magistrate who convicts an unqualified person of killing game, and causes his dog to be brought for the purpose of seizing it, may order the dog to be killed, without any formal adjudication of seizure; Kingsworth v. Button, 5 Taunt. 416, 1 Marsh, 106.
And he may take a gun used by an unqualified person ; Derensk v. Metuas, 7 Mod. 215.
But not the gun of a gamekeeper, though he be not within his own manor ; Rogers v. Carter, 2 Wils. 286.
Semble, that he cannot himself enter a house to search for engines, &c. ; Briggs v. Evrlyn, 2 H. Bl. 114.
Fifthly. The lord of a hundred or wapentake cannot grant a deputation to a gamekeeper ; Earl of Aylesbury v. Pattison, 1 Doug. 28.
Bodies corporate, lords of manors, are not prevented by 3 G. I. c. 11, from appointing unqualified persons their gamekeepers. A deputation to a gamekeeper, who is neither himself qualified, nor is a servant to the lord of the manor, need not state on the face of it that he is appointed to kill game for the use of the lord ; and it will be presumed that the game he kills is for the lord's use, till the contrary is proved; Spurrier v. Vale, 1 Camp. 457 ; 10 East, 413.
The gamekeeper of a lord of a manor may carry a gun any where out of the manor; Rogers v. Carter, 2 Wils. 387.
A gamekeeper authorized by his deputation to seize greyhounds, setting dogs, ferrets, and to do all other things belonging to the office of gamekeeper, has no right to seize hounds ; Grant v. Hutton, 1 B. & A. 134.
A gamekeeper is not empowered to seize game in the possession of an unqualified person, under a general direction from the lord of the manor, E. VI. c. 16, and extending its provisions to Scotland and Ireland, and to all offices in the gift of the crown, &c. ; persons buying or selling, or receiving or paying money or reward for any such office; and persons receiving or paying money for soliciting or obtaining any such office, or any negociation or pretended negociation relating thereto; and persons opening or advertising houses for transacting business relating to the sale of any such office; shall be respectively deemed and adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor: and offences against this Act, committed abroad, shall be tried in the court of King's Bench at Westminster, under the 42 Geo. III. c. 85. Commissions in the East India Company's service are expressly mentioned by the statute, and several instances have occurred, one very recently, of persons convicted and punished for the sale and negotiation of such offices. See two modern decisions bearing upon this subject generally, Ilughes v. Statham, 6 D. & R. 219; 4 B. & C. 187; Waldo v. Martin, 6 D. & R, 364; 4 B. & C. 319: and see the other cases collected in 1 Chit. "Stat. 740, in notis; 3 Chit. Com. L. 98; · Harrison's Digest, Officer; Com, Dig. Officer, K. 1. See the 6 Geo. IV, c. 82 & 83, for abolishing the sale of offices in the courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas. As to bribery at elections, see this work, vol. I., 179, ante, 140, and the statutes 53 Geo. III. c. 89, and 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 37.
and pecuniary, by different statutes ; on any of which, but only on one at a time, the justices may convict in a summary way, or, in most of them, prosecutions may be carried on at the assizes. And, lastly, by statute 28 Geo. II. c. 12, no person, however qualified to kill, may make merchandize of this valuable privilege, by selling or exposing to sale any game, on pain of like forfeiture as if he had no qualification (33) (34).
though the seizure is made within the manor; Bird v. Dale, 7 Taunt. 560; I J. B. Moore, 290.
It is no defence to debt for penalties on the game laws that the defendant acted bona fide as the gamekeeper of a manor, under a deputation from a person claiming a right to appoint the gamekeeper, there being no ground for the claim; Calcruft v. Gibbs, 5 T. R. 19.
Semble, that a deputation is not evi. dence of qualification, without proof of registration with the clerk of the peace; nor admissible as evidence of the existence of a manor, without a foundation being first laid in fact; Rushworth v. Craven, 1 M'Clel. and Y. 417.
(33) It will be seen by reference to the statute 1 & 2 W.IV.c. 32, set out at the commencement of note (32), ante 174, that the buying and selling of game is now legalised under certain regulations and restrictions.
(34) Under the head of offences against the public economy, it may be allowable to mention that of selling public offices. The ancient statutes of 12 R. II. c. 2, " that none shall obtain offices by suit, or for reward, but upon desert,” which Lord Coke says is worthy to be written in letters of gold, but more worthy to be put in due execution, Co. Litt. 234, and that of 5 and 6 E. VI. c. 16, “ against buying and selling of offices,” imposed only civil restrictions upon this offence, and civil disabilities upon offenders. But by the 49 Geo. III. c. 126, reciting tho 5 & 6
sidered both as
In the ten preceding chapters we have considered, first, such or crimes affectcrimes and misdemesnors as are more immediately injurious to God, and his holy religion; secondly, such as violate or transgress the law of nations; thirdly, such as more especially affect the king, the father and representative of his people; fourthly, such as more directly infringe the rights of the public or commonwealth, taken in its collective capacity; and are now, lastly, to take into consideration those which in a more peculiar manner affect and injure individuals or private subjects.
Were these injuries indeed confined to individuals only, which are conand did they affect none but their immediate objects, they public and price would fall absolutely under the notion of private wrongs; for which a satisfaction would be due only to the party injured: the manner of obtaining which was the subject of our inquiries in the preceding volume. But the wrongs, which we are now to treat of, are of a much more extensive consequence; 1. Because it is impossible they can be committed without a violation of the laws of nature; of the moral as well as political rules of right: 2. Because they include in them almost always a breach of the public peace: 3. Because by their example and evil tendency they threaten and endanger the subversion of all civil society. Upon these accounts it is, *that, besides the private satisfaction due and given in 5*1777 many cases to the individual, by action for the private wrong, the government also calls upon the offender to submit to public punishment for the public crime. And the prosecution of these offences is always at the suit and in the name of the king, in whom by the texture of our constitution the jus gladii, or executory power of the law, entirely resides. Thus too, in the old Gothic constitution, there was a threefold punishment inflicted on all delinquents: first, for the private wrong to the party injured; secondly, for the offence against the king by disobedience to the laws; and thirdly, for the
and are of three kinds;
1. Crimes affecting the persons of individuals, as homicide,
crime against the public by their evil example (a). Of which we may trace the groundwork, in what Tacitus tells us of his Germans (6); that, whenever offenders were fined “pars mutcte regi, vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vindicatur vel propinquis ejus, exsolvitur (1).”
These crimes and misdemesnors against private subjects are principally of three kinds; against their persons, their habitations, and their property.
Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most principal and important is the offence of taking away that life, which is the immediate gift of the great Creator; and of which therefore no man can be entitled to deprive himself of another, but in some manner either expressly commanded in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the Creator has given us ; the divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. The subject therefore of the present chapter will be the offence of homicide, or destroying the life of man, in its several stages of guilt, arising from the particular circum
stances of mitigation or aggravation which attend it. which is of three Now homicide, or the killing of any human creature, is of excusuble, and three kinds ; justifiable, excusable, and felonious. The first
has no share of guilt at all; the second very little : but the [*178] *third is the highest crime against the law of nature that man
is capable of committing. 1. Justifiable homicile est, by
I Justifiable homicide is of divers kinds. • 1. Such as is owing to some unavoidable necessity, without
1. Siste any will, intention, or desire, and without any inadvertence or negligence in the party killing, and therefore without any shadow of blame. As, for instance, by virtue of such an office as obliges one, in the execution of public justice, to put a malefactor to death, who hath forfeited his life by the laws and verdict of his country. This is an act of necessity, and even of civil duty; and therefore not only justifiable, but commendable, where the law requires it. But the law must require it, otherwise it is not justifiable: therefore wantonly to kill the greatest of malefactors, a felon or a traitor, attainted
homicide, as, by necessity, or command of law.
(1) “ Part of the fine is paid to the king, or the state, and part to the per
son who is injured, or his relations."
or outlawed, deliberately, uncompelled, and extrajudicially, is
(c) 1 Hal. P. C. 497. (d) Fol. 120.
(e) I Hawk P. C. 70; 1 Hal. P. C. 497.
(1) Burnet in his Life.
(h) Dalt. Just. c. 150.
() Finch. L. 31 ; 3 Inst. 52; 1 Hal. P. C. 501.
(2) “ This homicide, if it be done out of malice, or from an inclination to shed human blood, although the
party may be justly slain, still the slayer is guilty of a capital offence, on account of his corrupt intent."