made for his relief, seems doubtful (ƒ); but there is no doubt that he would be indictable for refusing to do so in cases of pressing emergency; or for neglecting to provide necessary food and medical attendance for the paupers in his actual charge (g). And where an overseer received money from the reputed father of a bastard child, born within the parish, as a composition for the maintenance of the child, he was held liable to an indictment for fraudulently omitting to give credit for this sum in his accounts, although the contract was wholly illegal, and the money might have been recovered back in an action by the party who paid it (h).

Indictment against a Constable for neglecting to execute a Justice's Warrant for the Apprehension of a Person.

That heretofore, to wit, on, &c. W. N. esquire, then and still being one of the justices assigned, &c. did make (i) a certain warrant in writing under his hand and seal, bearing date on, &c. directed to the constable of the parish of G. in the county of D. thereby in her majesty's name charging and commanding the said constable that, &c. [here set forth the warrant], which said warrant, afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. aforesaid, was duly indorsed for execution by and in the name of X. Y. esquire, then being mayor and one of her majesty's justices of the peace in and for the borough of D. in the said county of D. and which said warrant so indorsed, afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. was delivered to T. O. late of, &c. then and still being constable of the said parish of G. in the county aforesaid, in due form of law to be executed; and the said T. O. was then and there required to execute the same by bringing the body of the said E. R. before the said W. N. at the time and place and for the purpose in the said warrant mentioned. And the jurors, &c. that although the said T. O. could and might and ought to have executed the said warrant accordingly, the said T. O. so being constable of the said township of G. in the county of D. aforesaid, not regarding the duty of his said office, did not, nor would, execute the said warrant as aforesaid, or otherwise howsoever, but unlawfully, wilfully, obstinately, and contemptuously neglected and refused so to do, and therein failed and made default; to the great hinderance of public justice, in contempt, &c. to the evil, &c. and against the peace, &c. (k),

Indictment against a Headborough for refusing to convey a Person to Gaol committed by a Justice of the Peace.

That on, &c. one A. B. at, &c. was brought before O. D. esquire, then and yet one

(f) R. v. Meredith and Turner, Russ. & Ry. 46.

(g) R. v. Booth, Russ. & Ry. 47, n. (a).

(h) R. v. Martin, 2 Campb. 268.

(i) This should be positively stated, and not by way of recital after a "whereas," R. v. Crowhurst, Ld. Raym. 1363; see Reg. v. Wyatt, id. 1196, that a convic

tion on which a warrant of distress is founded, need not be set out in this indictment.

(k) The 33 G. III. c. 55, gives a summary jurisdiction to justices to punish parish officers for neglect of duty, but that remedy does not supersede the ancient one by indictment. See ante, p. 310.

of the justices of our said Lady the Queen aforesaid, to keep the peace in the county aforesaid, and also to hear and determine divers felonies, trespasses and other misdemeanours committed in the same county, and the said A. B. was then and there charged before the said O. D. the said justice aforesaid, upon the oath of one F. G. for violently assaulting and beating her, against the peace of our said Lady the Queen, and thereupon and because the said A. B. did then and there refuse to find sureties before the said O. D. the justice aforesaid, for his personal appearance at the then next general quarter session of the peace to be holden in and for the said county, to answer the said offence, he the said O. D. did then and there in due form of law make a certain warrant under his hand and seal, bearing date the day and year aforesaid, directed, &c. [here recite the material part of the commitment], which said warrant afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. was delivered to one L. M. then being one of the headboroughs of the said parish, then and there having the said A. B. in his custody for the said cause, and the said L. M. was then and there required and commanded by the said O. D. the justice aforesaid, immediately to convey the said A. B. to the said gaol, and to deliver the said A. B. to the keeper thereof, together with the said warrant. Nevertheless the said L. M. late of, &c. the duty of his said office of headborough in nowise regarding, afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. unlawfully, obstinately, and contemptuously did neglect and refuse to convey the laid A. B. to the said gaol, and to deliver him, together with the said warrant, to the keeper thereof, as he the said L. M. by virtue of his said office according to law should and ought to have done; to the great hinderance of public justice, and against the peace, &c.

Indictment against a Township for burying a Corpse, after violent Death, without Notice to the Coroner (1).

That on, &c. one W. D. died at the township of C. in the county of N. a violent

(1) In some of the earlier editions an indictment was here inserted, framed against the churchwardens of a parish, for not sending notice to the coroner to take an inquest on the body of a man who came to a violent death. As that form did not seem sustainable in point of law against those defendants, even if it would lie against the constable of a township which has one, or against the township itself, the present is inserted from 2 Chit. Cr. L. 256.

To bury the body of such an unfortunate, (or, as it seems, of a person who dies a natural death, if in prison, 1 East's P. C. 378, 383,) before or without sending for the coroner, is a misdemeanour. See R. v. Proby, 1 Lord Ken. 250. The coroner need not go ex officio to take the inquest, but ought to be sent for by the inhabitants of the place while the body is fresh; per Holt, C. J., R. v. Clerk, Salk. 377. See 2 Hawk. c. 9, s. 23;

4 MSS. Sum. 33; 2 Hale, 57; 7 Mod. 10, 16; R. v. Harris, 4 T. R. 202; 3 Leonard, 207; Cro. Car. 252. (Hæc sunt inquirenda coronatoribus domini regis; Imprimis, quum coronatores habent mandatum à ballivis domini regis vel à probis hominibus patrie; 4 Ed. I. st. 1, de Coronatoribus). Under Alfred's institutions, a tithing, town, or vill, sometimes called a decennary or frankpledge, consisted of ten freeholders with their families. These were sureties and free pledges to the king for the good behaviour of each other; and if any offence was committed in their district, were bound to have the offender forthcoming. See 1 Bla. Com. 114, citing Fleta, 1, 47, and the laws of Edward the Confessor, c. 20. Thus towns, hundreds, or counties might be amerced in a leet for concealment of homicide within their boundaries. See Madox's Exchequer, 389; 3 Bla. Com. 379; Com. D. tit. Leet (O 3). In cases of manslaughter, there

death, and not of a natural death, that is to say, the said W. D. then and there died of violent wounds before that time, to wit, on, &c. at the township aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, given to the said W. D. by X. Y. [or some peron or persons to the jurors aforesaid unknown, as the case may be], and that the body of the said W. D. on, &c. at, &c. aforesaid lay dead, and that at the several times aforesaid C. F. and W. S. were coroners of our Lady the Queen for the said county of N. to wit, at, &c. aforesaid, of which said premises the inhabitants of the said township of C. in the said county afterwards, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. aforesaid had notice, nevertheless the inhabitants of the said township of C. in the county aforesaid, well knowing the premises, but not regarding their duty in that behalf, did not, nor did any of them, at any time send or give any notice to or for the said C. F. or the said W. S. or either of them, nor to or for any coroner of our said Lady the Queen for the said county of N. to view the body of the said W. D. so lying dead as aforesaid, but unlawfully, obstinately, and contemptuously omitted and neglected so to do, nor had the said C. F. or W. S. or either of them, or any coroner of our Lady the Queen for the said county, any notice to view the body of the said W. D. so lying dead as aforesaid, nor had the said C. F. or W. S. or either of them, or any coroner of our said Lady the Queen for the said county of N. any notice that the body of the said W. D. was so lying dead as aforesaid, neither did the said C. F. or the said W. S, or either of them, or any coroner of our said Lady the Queen for the said county of N. at any time view the body of the said W. D. so lying dead as aforesaid, nor was any inquisition taken on the view of the body of the said W. D. as by law required in that behalf, but the body of the said W. D. was afterwards, to wit, on, &c. unlawfully and contemptuously buried and interred at the township of C. aforesaid, in. the county aforesaid, without any view being had of the said body of the said W. D. by the said C. F. or W. S. or either of them, or any coroner of our said Lady the Queen, for the said county of N. and without any inquisition being taken on the view of the body of the said W. D. as by law required in that behalf; to the great hinderance of justice, and against the peace, &c.

Indictment against a Coroner for refusing to take an Inquisition. That on, &c. one A. B. at, &c. was drowned and suffocated in a certain pond, and of that drowning and suffocating then and there died; and that the body of the said A. B. at, &c. aforesaid lay dead, of which one C. D. late of, &c. afterwards, to wit, on, &c. then being one of the coroners of our said Lady the Queen for the county aforesaid, at, &c. aforesaid, had notice; nevertheless the said C. D. the

fore, or perhaps of sudden death merely, (though this is very questionable, see ante,) the duty of the township as "good men of the country," and as it seems of their tithingman or constable, is pointed out by stat. 4 Ed. I.de officio coronatoris, which is merely affirmative of the common law, viz. to certify such event to the coroner before the body putrefies or is buried, so as to give him the opportunity of taking an inquisition of the death in the only manner it can be done by him, viz. on such view of the body as

will assist his judgment. See Hawk. B. 2, c. 9, s. 23. For if the body is suffered to lie so long that it putrefies, or is buried, the town shall be amerced on presentment either by the grand jury or the coroner, ibid. See Hale's Summary, 33, 170; 1 East's P. C. 378. The case of Lord Buckhurst and others, in 1 Keble, 278, is, "If one be killed in a vill, and the coroner make no inquest, the vill must be amerced, for probably the coroner had no notice of it."

duty of his office in that behalf not regarding, afterwards, and after he had such notice, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. to execute his said office of and concerning the premises, and to take inquisition for our said Lady the Queen concerning the death of the said A. B. according to the laws and custom of the realm, unlawfully and contemptuously did neglect and refuse, and that the said C. D. no inquisition in that behalf as yet hath taken; to the great hinderance of justice, and against the peace, &c.

A Form of Indictment against a Surveyor of the Highways for not making a Rate on all the Occupiers of Land liable to Repairs to pay for such according to Warrant to him directed, is given in 2 Chitt. Crim. Law, 285.

Indictment against an Innkeeper for not receiving a Guest, he having room in his Inn at the time (m).

That before, and at the time next herein mentioned, T. I. late of, &c. labourer, was an innkeeper, and did keep a common inn for the accommodation of travellers, that is to say, a certain common inn, called the Bell Inn, together with certain stables for horses attached to the said inn, and which said inn and stables are situate in the parish and county aforesaid, and that whilst the said T. I. was such innkeeper, and so kept the said inn and stables as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. one S. P. W. then and there being a traveller, came to a certain outer door of the said inn, such outer door then and there being a usual door of entrance into the said inn, for travellers and other persons, and then and there required the said T. I. to suffer and permit him the said S. P. W. to enter, and to stay, and to lodge at the said inn for and during the night of the same day, and to suffer and permit a certain horse, upon which the said S. P. W. then and there rode, to enter and stay, and lodge in the said stables for and during the time aforesaid,† and that the said S. P. W. was then and there ready and willing, and then and there offered the said T. I. to pay him a reasonable sum of money for such lodging for himself the said S. P. W. and his said horse.+* And that neither was the said inn, nor were the

(m) This was the form used in R. v. Juens, 7 C. & P. 213. The defendant was convicted and fined 20s. The marginal note is this :-"An indictment lies against an innkeeper, who refuses to receive a guest, he having room in his house at the time; [and it is not necessary for the guest to tender the price of his entertainment, if his rejection is not on that ground, doubted by Lord Abinger, C. B., Fell v. Knight, 8 M. & W. 276,] and it is no defence for the innkeeper, that the guest was travelling on a Sunday, and at an hour of the night after the innkeeper's family had gone to bed; nor that the guest refused to tell his name and abode, as the innkeeper had no right to insist upon knowing

those particulars; but if the guest come to the inn drunk, or behaves in an indecent or improper manner, the innkeeper is not bound to receive him." Hawk. b. 1, c. 78, s. 2, is full on this point, and adds, "Also it is said, that a person keeping a common inn may be compelled by the constable of the town to receive and entertain as his guest such a person as above, being a traveller. A traveller is entitled to reasonable accommodation, but cannot select a particular room, or insist on sitting up all night in a bed room when a sitting room is offered; an innkeeper must admit all persons who apply peaceably to be admitted as guests, Hawthorn v. Hammond, C. & Kir. 404; see Sunbalf v. Alford, 3 M. & W. 248.

said stables, at the time of such application by the said S. P. W. as aforesaid, fully occupied, but there was then and there sufficient room in the said inn for the accommodation and entertainment of the said S. P. W. therein, and there was then and there sufficient room in the said stable for the accommodation and entertainment of the said horse for and during the time aforesaid ;* but that the said T. I. not regarding his duty as such innkeeper, did not, nor would, at the said time when he was so requested as aforesaid, suffer or permit the said S. P. W. to enter to stay or lodge at the said inn as aforesaid, during the time aforesaid, nor did nor would the said T. I. at the said time when he was so requested as aforesaid, suffer or permit the said horse of the said S. P. W. upon which the said S. P. W. rode as aforesaid, to enter or lodge in the said stables for or during the time aforesaid, but so to do the said T. I. then and there, without any sufficient cause, wholly neglected and refused; to the great damage of the said S. P. W., to the evil example of all persons in the like case offending, and against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her crown and dignity.

Second Count. That whilst the said T. I, was such innkeeper, and so kept the said inn and stables as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. the said S. P. W. then being a traveller, came to a certain outer door, &c. (as in the first count, omitting the words between the † and †*).

[Third Count. Similar to the second, except that it also omitted the allegation between +* and * and all mention of the horse.]

Fourth Count.-That whilst the said T. I. was such innkeeper, and so kept the Isaid inn as aforesaid, to wit, on, &c. at, &c. the said S. P. W. then and there being a traveller, came to the said inn, and then and there required the said T. I. to suffer and permit him the said S. P. W. to enter, and to stay, and to lodge at the said inn for and during a reasonable time for the rest and refreshment of him the said S. P. W. in the said inn, and that the said T. I. not regarding his duty as such innkeeper, did not, nor would, at the said time when he was so requested as last aforesaid, suffer or permit the said S. P. W. to enter or stay, or lodge at the said inn, as last aforesaid, but so to do the said T. I. then and there, without any sufficient cause, wholly neglected and refused; to the great damage, &c. &c. (n).

SECTION XIX.

ORDERS OF JUSTICES-DISOBEYING.

Offence indictable.]-Disobedience to an order of sessions (o), or to an order made by justices out of sessions, in a matter over which they have jurisdiction (p), whether by statute (g) or at common law, is a

(n) This precedent may be classed under neglects of duties imposed by common law.

(0) R. v. Robinson, 2 Burr. R. 799, 800; R. v. Bartlett, 2 Sess. Cas. 176; see Reg. v. Haines and others, Q. B.

Oxford Recorder's case.

(p) R. v. Balme, Cowp. 650; R. v. Fearnley, 1 T. R. 316.

(q) Reg. v. Birmingham and Glouces ter Railway Company, ante.