know what she was about :-Held, that this was not an assault, and that the conviction was wrong. Reg. v. Read, 2 C. &. K. 957; 1 Ďen. C. C. 377; T. & M. 52; 3 New Sess. Cas. 405; 13 Jur. 68; 18 L. J., M. C. 88.

It is an assault to point a loaded pistol at any one; but not an assault to point a pistol at another which is proved not to be so loaded as to be able to be discharged. Reg. v. James, 1 C. & K. 530-Tindal. Attempting to carnally know and abuse a girl between the ages of ten and twelve is not an assault, if the girl consents to all that is done, but is a misdemeanor. Reg. v. Martin, 9 C. & P. 213; 2 M. C. C. 123; S. P., Reg. v. Johnson, L. & C. 632; 10 Cox, C. C. 114.

The person making such attempt, with the consent of the girl, is not indictable for an assault, but is indictable for the misdemeanor of attempting to commit the misdemeanor of carnally knowing and abusing her. Ib.; S. P., Reg. v. Neale, 35 L. J., M. C. 60.

Where a medical practitioner had sexual connection with a female patient of the age of fourteen, who had for some time been receiving medical treatment from him: Held, that he was guilty of an assault, the jury having found that she was ignorant of the nature of his act, and made no resistance, solely from a bona fide belief that he was (as he represented) treating her medically, with a view to her. Reg v. Case, T. & M. 318; 1 Den. C. C. 580; 4 New Sess. Cas. 347; 14 Jur. 489; 19 L. J., M. C. 174; 4 Cox, C. C. 220.

Where a master of a union inflicts personal chastisement on a female pauper in an indecent manner, he is guilty of an assault, even though the extent of the correction is within the limits of moderation. Reg. v. Miles, 6 Jur. 243-Gurney. A. put cantharides into rum, and gave it to B. to drink; B. drank it,

not knowing that the cantharides was in the rum, and became ill :Held, that A. was neither indictable for an assault, nor for a misdemeanor at common law. Reg. v. Hanson, 2 C. & K. 912 Williams; S. P., Reg. v. Walkden, 1 Cox, C. C. 282; Reg. v. Dilworth, 2 M. & Rob. 531.

C. was delivered of a child at the house at which A. and B. resided, they telling her that the child was to be taken to an institution to be nursed. A. & B. took the child, and put it into a bag, and hung it on some park-palings at the side of a foot-path, and there left it: Held, that this was an assault on the child. Reg. v. March, 1 C. & K. 496-Tindal.

If a party is turning towards the wall in the street, at night, for a particular occasion, a watchman is not justified in collaring him to prevent him so doing. Booth v. Hanley, 2 C. & P. 288. See 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47.

A party struck at may strike again, to prevent a repetition. Anon., 2 Lewin, C. C. 48-Parke.

A person may, under particular circumstances, justify laying hands on another in order to serve him with process. Harrison v. Hodg

son, 10 B. & C. 445; 5 M. & R. 392.

A police constable is not justified under 10 Geo. 4, c. 44, s. 7, in laying hold of, pushing along the highway, and ordering to be off, a person found by him conversing in a crowd with another, merely because the person with whom he happens to be conversing is known to be a reputed thief. Stocken v. Carter, 4 C. & P. 477 Gaselee. See 2 & 3 Vict. c. 47.

Upon an indictment under 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 20, for unlawfully and maliciously wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm, a verdict for a common assault may be returned. Reg. v. Taylor, Reg. v. Conwell, 20 L. T., N. S. 402; 17 W. R. 623;

A constable and his assistants who take a bailiff into custody during an affray to rescue his prisoner, in which the bailiff struck one of the assailants, and the prisoner was rescued, are guilty of an assault and a rescue, as the bailiff was authorized by his warrant. Anon., 1 East, P. C. 305-Heath.

One of the marshals of the city of London, whose duty it was, on the day of a public meeting at Guildhall, to see that a passage was kept for the transit to their carriages of the members of the corporation and others, directed a person in the front of a crowd at the entrance to stand back, and, on being told by him that he could not for those behind him, struck him immediately on the face, saying that he would make him :-Held, that in so doing the marshal exceeded his authority, and that he should have confined himself to the use of pressure, and should have waited a short time to afford an opportunity for removing the party in a more peaceable way. Imason v. Cope, 5 C. & P. 193-Tindal.

An innkeeper, having an escaped felon in his house, to the policemen, who had remarked, "You scoundrel, how dare you harbour a felon ?" said "You had better go and find him;" but he did nothing, and the policemen went up stairs and saw the felon make his escape from the window, is no evidence of an obstructing of the felon's apprehen

policeman in the execution of his duty. It appeared that the policeman had gone into a public-house where the defendant was having high words with the landlady. The defendant tried to go into a room in the house in which a guest was, and the policeman, without being desired to do so, collared him, and prevented him from going into the room, and A. struck the policeman, and several blows passed on both sides:-Held, that if the jury was satisfied that no breach of the peace was likely to be committed by the defendant on the guest in the room, it was no part of the policeman's duty to prevent the defendant from entering it; but, assuming that to be so, if the defendant used more violence than was necessary to repel the assault committed on him by the policeman, the defendant would be liable to be convicted of a common assault. Reg. v. Mabel, 9 C. & P. 474-Parke.

A constable (out of the limits of the Metropolitan Acts) when he is clearing a public-house, is not acting in the execution of his duty unless there is a nuisance or a disturbance of the peace. Reg. v. Prebble, 1 F. & F. 325-Bramwell.

A. committed an assault upon a constable, who, two hours afterwards, having obtained assistance, and when there was no danger of any renewal of the assault, attempted. to apprehend him, and was wounded in the attempt: - Held, that his apprehension at that time was unlawful; and that he was improperly convicted of wounding the constable with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension. Reg. v. Walker, 6 Cox, C. C. 371; 23 L. J., M. C. 123.

A police constable, whilst standing outside the defendant's house, saw him take up a shovel and hold it in a threatening attitude over his

wife's head, and heard him say at the same time, "If it was not for the policeman outside, I would split your head open." In about twenty minutes' time the defendant left his house, after saying that he would leave his wife altogether, and was taken into custody by the constable, who had no warrant, when he had proceeded a short distance in the direction of his father's residence; he resisted the constable, and was tried and convicted upon an indictment charging him with assaulting the constable whilst in the execution of his duty:-Held, that the constable was justified in apprehending the defendant, and that the conviction therefore was right. Reg. v. Light, Dears. & B. C. Č. 332; 7 Cox, C. C. 389; 3 Jur., N. S. 1130; 27 L. J., M. C. 1.

An indictment against a person for refusing to aid and assist a constable in the execution of his duty, and prevent an assault made upon him by prisoners in his custody on a charge of felony, with intent to resist their lawful apprehension, is sufficient, without stating how the apprehension became lawful; and it is enough if it states a refusal to assist, without the further allegation that he did not, in fact, aid and assist. Reg. v. Sherlock, 10 Cox, C. C. 170; 1 L. R., C. C. 20; 12 Jur., N. S. 126; 35 L. J., M. C. 92; 14 W. R. 288; 13 L. T., N. S. 623.

486; L. & C. 64; 7 Jur., N. S. 1040; 4 L. T., N. S. 559.

An excise officer gave the defendant a search warrant to look at, who then refused to deliver it up, and a scuffle ensued on an indictment for an assault, the question left to the jury was, whether the officer used more force than was necessary to recover possession of the warrant. Rex v. Milton, M. & M. 107; S. C., nom. Rex v. Mitton, 3 C. & P. 31-Tenterden.

The defendant was convicted in a penalty with costs, or to be imprisoned seven days, the penalty not having been paid, a warrant was issued, under 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 25, for his apprehension, addressed "To the constable of G." It was given to a county policeman to execute. While he was attempting to apprehend the defendant, the defendant resisted and wounded the constable : Held, that a county policeman had no authority to execute it, it being addressed to the parish constable; and that the apprehension was therefore illegal. Reg. v. Sanders, 10 Cox, C. C. 445; 36 L. J., M. C. 87; 1 L. R., C. C. 75; 16 L. T., N. S. 331; 15 W. R. 752.

To support a charge of assault on a constable in the execution of his duty, it is not necessary that the defendant should know that he was a constable then in the execution of his duty; it is sufficient that the constable should have been actually in the execution of his duty and then assaulted. Reg. v. Forbes, 10 Cox, C. C. 362-Russell Gurney, Recorder.

constables, when he found that the prisoner had retired into his house, the door of which was closed and fastened; after another interval of