66 of, shall be liable, at the discretion | sovereigns to buy him a horse, and "of the court, to be kept in penal B. put them into his pocket. B. re"servitude for life, or for any term fused to give the eleven sovereigns "not less than five years (27 & 28 back, and A. and the prisoner, who "Vict. c. 47), or to be imprisoned was in his company, assaulted him, "for any term not exceeding two but could not get the money from "years, with or without hard la- him. On the next day the prisoner bour, and with or without solitary asked B. for the eleven sovereigns; "confinement." (Former provision, and, at L. fair on a subsequent day, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 3.) the prisoner, having seen the prosecutor receive seven sovereigns, demanded the eleven sovereigns of him, and then knocked him down, and tried to get the seven sovereigns out of his pocket:-Held, that there was such a semblance of a claim of right, that this was not an assault with intent to rob. Reg. v. Boden, 1 C. & K. 395-Parke. A. was decoyed into a house and chained down to a seat, and compelled to write an order for the payment of money and an order for the delivery of deeds. The paper on which he wrote remained in his hand half an hour, but he was chained all the time :-Held, that this was not an assault with intent to rob within 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, s. 6. Rex v. Edwards, 6 C. & P. 521 -Patteson. Assaulting and threatening to charge with an infamous crime with intent to extort money, was an assault with intent to rob under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87, s. 3. Reg. v. Stringer, 2 M. C. C. 261. It must be proved that the assault was made on the person intended to be robbed. Rex v. Thomas, 1 Leach, C. C. 330; 1 East, P. Where prisoners were indicted C. 417. And see Rex v. Trusty, 1 for robbery under aggravated cirEast. P. C. 418. cumstances, it is competent for the Therefore an assault on a post-jury, under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. boy, with intent to rob the traveller, is not sufficient. Ib. There must be a demand of money or other property, as well as an assault, to constitute the offence. Rex v. Parfait, 1 Leach, C. C. 19; 1 East, P. C. 416. A. and B., on a concerted plan to obtain money from C., threatened to accuse him of an indecent exposure of his person, and A. (B. being present) seized C. by the collar, and A. and C. went to a station-house, and there A. made the threatened charge:-Held, that, on these facts, A. and B. might be convicted of an assault with intent to rob C., although the threats used did not come within the terms of 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 29, ss. 7, 9, or of 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87, S. 4. Reg. v. Stringer, 1 C. & K. 188. A., at C. fair, came up to B., the prosecutor's father (being a stranger to him), and gave him eleven 11, to find the prisoners guilty of an aggravated assault with intent to rob, the assault following the nature of the robbery charged; and prisoners found guilty of such aggravated assaults were liable to transportation, under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 87, ss. 3, 10. Reg. v. Mitchell, 3 C. & K. 181; 16 Jur. 506; 21 L. J., M. C. 135; 2 Den. C. C. 468; 5 Cox, C. C. 541. Indictment.]-An indictment for an assault with intent to rob, which charges that the prisoner in and upon R. B. feloniously did make an assault, "with intent the monies, goods and chattels of R. B., from the person and against the will of R. B., then and there feloniously and violently to rob, steal, take and carry away, against the form of the statute," is good. Reg. v. Huxley, Car. & M. 596-Patteson, A. was indicted in one count for 66 feloniously assaulting the prosecutor" thereof, direct that the offender, with intent to steal his monies and "if a male, be once or twice or goods, and in another count for the "thrice privately whipped, subject misdemeanor of attempting to steal" to the following provisions; (1), the same monies and goods. He" that in the case of an offender was found guilty on the first count; whose age does not exceed sixteen whereupon his counsel moved in ar- years, the number of strokes at rest of judgment, on the ground" each such whipping do not exceed that the indictment was bad, by "twenty-five, and the instrument reason of a misjoinder of counts:— "used shall be a birch rod; (2), Held, that the objection was un- that in the case of any other male founded, and that A. was properly" offender, the number of strokes do convicted. Reg. v. Furguson, Dears."not exceed fifty at each such C. C. 427; 1 Jur., N. S. 73; 24 L. “ whipping; (3), that in each case J., M. C. 61. "the court in its sentence shall spec"ify the number of strokes to be in"flicted and the instrument to be An indictment charged that A. B., in and upon C. D., feloniously did make an assault, and him the" used: provided, that in no case said C. D. in bodily fear and dan- "shall such whipping take place afger of his life did put, and two "ter the expiration of six months pieces of current silver coin, from "from the passing of the sentence; the person and against the will of" provided also, that every such the said C. D. feloniously and vio-"whipping, to be inflicted on any lently did rob, steal, take and carry "person sentenced to penal serviaway; and that A. B. immediately "tude, shall be inflicted on him bebefore, at the time of and immediate-"fore he shall be removed to a conly after such robbery as aforesaid, did" vict prison, with a view to his unfeloniously beat and strike and use "dergoing his sentence of penal other personal violence to said C. servitude." D. contra formam statuti. The jury found A. B. guilty of assaulting and beating C. D., with intent to rob him :-Held, that, as the of fence of assaulting with intent to rob was not expressly stated in the indictment, the prisoner, at common law, could not be convicted; and secondly, as an assault with intent to rob was made felony by statute, the jury was not at liberty, under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 85, s. 11, to find the prisoner guilty of that felonious assault. Reg. v. Reid, 5 Cox, C. C. 104; 2 Den. C. C. 89. 6. Punishment of Whipping. By 26 & 27 Vict. c. 44, s. 1, "where any person is convicted of 66 a crime under s. 43 of 24 & 25 "Vict. c. 96, or under s. 21 of 24 & "25 Vict. c. 100, the court before "whom he is convicted may, in ad"dition to the punishment awarded "by the said sections, or any part XXXIV. SANITARY LAWS. Quarantine.—Disobeying the orders of the Privy Council with respect to the performance of quaran tine is an offence at common law. Rex v. Harris, 2 Leach, C. C. 549; 4 T. R. 202. Infection.]-A person may be indicted for unlawfully and injuriously carrying a child infected with the small-pox along a public highway, in which persons are passing, and near to the habitations of the king's subjects. Rex v. Vantandillo, 4 M. & S. 73. It is an indictable offence in an apothecary unlawfully and injur iously to inoculate children with the small-pox, and, while they are sick of it, unlawfully and injurious ly to cause them to be carried along the territorial waters of Chili, a public street. Rex v. Burnett, near Valparaiso, contracted with the Chilian government to take 4 M. & S. 272. To bring a horse infected with the the prosecutors from Valparaiso glanders into a public place, to the to Liverpool; and they were acdanger of infecting the Queen's sub-cordingly brought on board his jects, is a misdemeanor at common law, and after verdict an indictment for that offence is good without an averment that the defendant knew that the disease was communicable to men. Reg. v. Henson, Dears. C. C. 24. XXXV. SEA, OFFENCES AT. 7 Geo. 4. c. 38; 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, s. 12; 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ss. 267-270, and 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21, "provide for the prosecution "of offences committed on the high "seas and abroad.” An English ship upon the high seas is to be considered as part of the territory of England; and therefore a foreigner, who whilst on board such ship commits an offence against the English laws, is amenable to those laws; and it makes no difference whether he has gone on board voluntarily, or has been taken and detained there against his will. Reg. v. Lopez; Reg. v. Sattler, Dears. & B. C. C. 525; 4 Jur., N. S. 98; 27 L. J., M. C. 48; 7 Cox, C. C. 431. A person is found within the jurisdiction of a court of justice, within the meaning of the 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91, s. 21, when he is actually present there, whether he has come within such jurisdiction voluntarily, or has been brought there against his will. Ib. The defendant was convicted on an indictment charging him with assaulting the prosecutors on the high seas, and imprisoning and detaining them. They were Chilian subjects, and had been ordered by the government of Chili to be banished from that country to England. The defendant being master of an English merchant vessel lying in vessel by the officers of the gov ernment, and were carried by the defendant to Liverpool under his contract:-Held, that although the conviction could not be supported for the assault and imprisonment in the Chilian waters, it must be sustained for that which was done out of the Chilian territory, and that although the defendant was justi ed in receiving the prosecutors on board his vessel in Chili, yet that justification ceased when he passed the line of Chilian jurisdiction, and the detention of the prisoners and conveying them to Liverpool was a wrong intentionally planned and executed in pursuance of the contract, amounting to a false impris onment, and triable by English law. Reg. v. Lesley, Bell, C. C. 220; 8 Cox, C. C. 269; 6 Jur.. N. S. 202; 29 L. J., M. C. 97; 8 W. R. 220; L. T., N. S. 452. 1 In an indictment preferred at the assizes for a felony committed on the high seas, it is sufficient to allege that the offence was committed on the high seas, without also averring that the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. Reg. v. Jones, 2 C. & K. 165; 1 Den. C. C. 191. -- Admiralty Jurisdiction. ]- The criminal jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England extends over British ships, not only on the high seas but also in rivers, below the bridges, where the tide ebbs and flows, and where great ships go, though at a spot where the municipal authorities of a foreign country might exercise concurrent jurisdiction, if invoked. Reg. v. Anderson, 38 L. J., M. C. 12; 1 L. R., C. C. 161; 19 L. T., N. S. 400; 17 W. R. 208; 11 Cox, C. C. 198. A foreigner was convicted of and then set out several sentences manslaughter at the Central Crim- as though they had been uttered inal Court, committed on board continuously. The evidence shewed a British vessel, in the river Ga- that they had not been so uttered, ronne, within the boundaries of the | but that the sentences had been seFrench Empire, about thirty-five lected from different parts of the miles from the sea, and at a spot speech, other matter intervening about 300 yards from the nearest between them :-Held, that there shore, within the ebb and flow of was no variance, and that if any the tide :-Held, right, inasmuch as portions of the speech omitted vait was a place within the jurisdic- ried or controlled the sense of those tion of the Admiralty of England, set out, the onus was upon the dewhich that court had jurisdiction to fendant to show it. Reg. v. Crowe, try under 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 36, s. 22. 3 Cox, C. C. 123—Platt. Ib. Offences by British Subjects on Board Ships.]-By 30 & 31 Vict. c. 124, the Merchant Shipping Act, 1867, s. 11, "if any British subject "commits any crime or offence on "board any British ship or on board any foreign ship to which he does "not belong, any court of justice "in her Majesty's dominions which "would have cognizance of such "crime or offence, if committed on "board a British ship within the "limits of the ordinary jurisdiction "of such court, shall have jurisdic"tion to hear and determine the case, as if the said crime or offence "had been committed as last afore"said." 66 A prisoner indicted under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 12, may, after demurring to the indictment, if his demurrer is overruled, plead over to the felony. C. 24. Reg. v. Duffy, 4 Cox, C. But see Reg. v. Hendy, 4 Cox, C. C. 243, and Reg. v. Faderman, 4 Cox, C. C. 385. Where an indictment containing counts for sedition, attending a se-. ditious meeting and a riot, the court refused to quash the indictment, or compel the counsel for the prosecution to elect, although the judgment on the last count might be different from that upon the others. Reg. v. Fussell, 3 Cox, C. C. 291-Wilde, Parke and Maule. The words set out in an indictment for sedition were these, "If the Queen neglects to recognize the people, then the people must neglect to recognize the Queen. It was proved that the word "forget" was used in both instances, and not To prove that a ship is a British ship, it is not necessary to produce the register or a copy thereof; it is sufficient to show orally that she belongs to British owners, and carries the British flag. Reg. v. Allen," neglect "-Held, to be a fatal va10 Cox, C. C. 405-Russell Gur- riance as far as that sentence was ney, Recorder. concerned, and that the passage must be struck out. Ib. Oral testimony as to the position of a ship at a given time is better evidence than the production of the log-book. Ib. 66 XXXVI. SEDITION. XXXVII. SEPULTURE. 1. Desecration. (See the Anatomy Act, 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 75.) An indictment for sedition alleged that the defendant, amongst Removing Dead Bodies.]-Taking other words and matter, uttered up dead bodies, even though for the words and matter following," the purpose of dissection, is an in dictable offence. Reg. v. Lynn, 2 T. | 4, c. 75, s. 7, and the relatives had R. 733; 1 Leach, C. C. 497. Selling the dead body of a person capitally convicted for dissection, where dissection was no part of the sentence, was a misdemeanor at common law; and in order to support an indictment for such offence, it was not necessary that there should be direct evidence that the defendant sold the body for lucre and gain, and for the purpose of being dissected. Rex v. Cundick, D. & R. N. P. C. 13-Graham. It is an indictable offence against decency to take a person's dead body with intent to sell or dispose of it for gain and profit. Rex v. Gilles, R. & R. C. Č. 336, n. b.Bayley. And see Rex v. Duffin, R. & R. C. C. 365. made no request that the bodies should be interred without anatomical examination. Reg. v. Feist, 8 Cox, C. C. 18; Dears. & B. C. C. 590; 4 Jur., N. S. 541; 27 L. J., M. C. 64. It is a misdemeanor at common law to remove, without lawful authority, a corpse from a grave in a burying-ground belonging to a congregation of Protestant dissenters, and it is no defence to such a charge that the motive of the person removing the body was pious and laudable. Reg. v. Sharpe, Dears. & B. C. C. 160; 3 Jur., Ñ. S. 192; 26 L. J., M. C. 47; 7 Cox, C. C. 214. 66 66 ITY. A master of a workhouse, after XXXVIII. SODOMY AND BESTIALshewing the bodies of deceased paupers in coffins to their relatives, caused the relatives to follow other By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 61, coffins to the graves, and the ap- "whosoever shall be convicted of pearance of a funeral to be gone "the abominable crime of buggery, through. The relatives had not re- "committed either with mankind quired that the bodies should be in- " or with any animal, shall be liaterred without anatomical examina-"able, at the discretion of the court, tion, according to 2 & 3 Will. 4, c." to be kept in penal servitude for 75, s. 7. The master of the work-" life, or for any term not less than house then sent the bodies to Guy's ten years." (Former provision, 9 Hospital for dissection, and received Geo. 4, c. 15, s. 15.) therefor sums of money in propor- By s. 62, "whosoever shall attion to the number of bodies sent. tempt to commit the said abomiAfter dissection the bodies were "nable crime, or shall be guilty of buried. The jury found that the 'any assault with intent to commit master of the workhouse had caused "the same, or of any indecent asthe appearance of funerals to be "sault upon any male person, shall gone through, with a view to pre-"be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, vent the relatives requiring the bod-"being convicted thereof, shall be ies to be interred without anatomical “ liable, at the discretion of the examination :-Held, that an indict-"court, to be kept in penal serviment charging the master of the "tude for any term not exceeding workhouse, in one count, with selling "ten years, and not less than five the bodies, in another with taking years (27 & 28 Vict. c. 47), or to away the bodies for gain to delay the "be imprisoned for any term not burial with intent to have them dis-" exceeding two years, with or withsected, and in a third with intent" out hard labour.” " 66 to sell and dispose of them, could By s. 63, "whenever, upon the not be sustained, as the master of trial, it may be necessary to prove the workhouse had lawful posses- "carnal knowledge, it shall not be sion of the bodies within 2 & 3 Will." necessary to prove the actual emis |