Page images
PDF
[graphic][merged small]

they have in this case exceeded their power. There must, therefore, be a verdict of guilty entered against Train and his foreman, reserving leave to move on all points of law to enter a verdict of not guilty.

JBovill desired to know if he could bring a bill of exceptions.

Erle, C. J., thought not, for a criminal case.

Lush thought it could be so in a case of misdemeanor like the present.

Finlason, amicus curia-, suggested that the rule, that there could not lie a bill of exceptions in a criminal case, only applied in a case really criminal, and not in a case in which, though the Crown was a party, the proceeding was in substance civil («).

EnLE, C. J.—At all events, if a bill of exceptions will lie, it may be taken that there are materials for it.

Verdict of guilty.

(a) Vide Vol. II., p. 498(a); et

post, p. 29 (a). It is conceived that an indictment for an obstruction to a highway is in substance a civil proceeding. It would be so in the case of an individual suing for a particular damage. The Crown may have claims or suits of a civil nature, just as the subject may have (Co. Inst.); and the Crown may also have such suits cither on its own behalf, as in some cases of quo warranto, (those relating to royal franchises, or the like,) or relating to the Crown in its character as guardian of the public rights; as in cases of mandamus, or such indictments as relate to matters not really criminal, but in which the Crown prosecutes on behalf of the public. All crimes concern the Crown and the public; but many matters concern the pub

lic and the Crown which are not crimes. The criterion whether an indictment will lie is not whether the offence or misdemeanor is a crime (for every trespass is a misdemeanor), but whether it concerns the public. Hence an indictment will not lie for a mere private trespass (Hex v. Atkins, 3 Burr. 1706); and what is not of public concern is a mere civil injury; R. v. Stoic, 3 Burr. 1698. It is only when actual force is used by a number of persons that a trespass becomes indictable; R. v. Johnston, 1 Wils. 315. The non-repair of a private road, even by a public body, is not indictable, because it does not concern the public; Rer v. Richards, 8 T. R. 634. When it was laid down that, in a criminal case, a person, who is present in Court, where called as a

witness, is bound to be sworn and to give his evidence, although lie has not been subpoenaed; and that an indictment for stopping a way is a criminal case for this purpose (Rex v. Sadler and others, 4 C. & P. 218, Littledale, J.); the real meaning was, that it was a matter in which the Crown, on behalf of the public, prosecuted. But in the case of a public highway, where an action would lie at the suit of an individual for a particular damage, it was held, that, "consequently, an indictment will lie where the act affects the public;" R. v. Trafford, 1 B. & Adol. 874. Thus the indictment in such cases, so far from being of a criminal nature, only lies in consequence of the injury

Train and Others.

being of a civil character, but such 18C2.

as concerns the public. The true ^■^■v^te'
criterion of a criminal proceeding The Queen
is, in the language of Lord Den-
Man, C. J., "whether it sounds in
crime ami leads to punishment;"
In re Douglas, 3 Q. B. Rep. 825.
In a later case, Coleridge, J., ex-
pressed an opinion, after argument,
and in opposition to an opinion, or
rather a doubt, of Campbell, C. J.,
that an indictment for a nuisance
to a highway was not a criminal
proceeding; Queen v. Russell, 3
E. & B. 942. The mere fact that
the defendants can have a new trial
seems to show that it is not so. In
this very case the defendant moved
for a new trial; why should he not
have had a bill of exceptions?

Coram Wightman, J.

THE QUEEN v. PAGET.

INDICTMENT for obstructing a highway.
First count, for inclosing it hy iron hurdles.
Second count, for erecting thereon fences and inclosures.
Third count, for laying stone, &c. thereon.
Plea: not guilty.

Denman, Foot and Henniher for the prosecution.

Honyman for the defence.

On the opening of the case it appeared that, since the indictment was found, the defendant had removed the obstructions; whereupon

Wightman, J., said, there is now, substantially, nothing to try (a).

(a) The fine being assessed by for obstruction, and being merely the Court, not by the jury, whether nominal, where the repair has been the indictment is for non-repair or or will be done, or the obstruction

Spring Assizes.

On an indict-
ment for ob-
structing a
highway,
where it ap-
pears that the
obstruction has
been removed,
that is substan-
tially an end of
the proceeding,
its object hav-
ing been at-
tained.

[ocr errors]

It was proposed that the defendant should plead guilty, and a nominal fine be imposed; but to this he objected, as he had acted under a notion that the part of the highway inclosed was his own, it being an open space, between the footway and the metalled road (opposite some cottages of his), but over which it now appeared that the public had the right of highway; and eventually, on an undertaking on his part not to renew the obstructions, the prosecution agreed to a verdict of

has been or will be removed (/{.
v. LuKombe, 2 Cliitty, 214; K. v.
Loughton, 3 Smith, 575); whence
it is conceived that in either case
the proceeding is substantially of a
civil and not a criminal character,
the distinction taken in the most
ancient and approved authorities
being, not whether the Crown is a
party (for so it is in mandamus and
quo warranto), but whether the real
end or object of the proceeding is
punishment or reparation. See

Not guilty.

Mirror of Justice, c. 11, sect. 3; 3 Co. Inst., and 1 Reeve, Hist. Eng. Law, 32. The mere fact ofafine no mure shows that an indictment is a criminal proceeding than the ancient fine in trespass. Vide H. v. Chorley, 12 Q. B. 515; new trial allowed on such indictments. And see Queen v. Russell, 3 E. & 13. 912, where, semble, the dictum of Coi.eiudoe, J., is the better opinion. Et vide Vol. II., p. 498(a).

Coram Erie, C. J.
MILDRED v. WEAVER.

Spring Assizes, f-ry

The occasional J-RESPASS, for breaking down plaintiff's gates, and

user of a farm , • • , 1 • 1 i

road by stran- driving carts over his land.

gers, chiefly for p]eas: that the road was a public highway, and also a

purposes of Iow

pleasure, is way by prescription. Issues.

evidence of a

public rather Bovill, Lush and Ilurrdl for the plaintiff.

than a private

way, and may M. Chambers, Petersdorff, Sent., and J. T. Clark, for

be evidence of

a dedication to the defendant.

the public as a

highway, but The plaintiff' was lessee of land and premises, occupied

must be well , , . , , . 1 ■ ,? 1 c

weighed with by him as a gentleman s residence, but formerly a farm

reference to

permission, repair, and all other circumstances, tending to show whether the owner ever intended such a dedication, especially if it leads to a place of resort for mere purposes of pleasure.

[graphic]

■ belonging to Archbishop Whitgift's Hospital, near Croydon. 1862.

The defendant was a farmer, who had a farm on one side of the plaintiff's ground, and had a field on the other side of it, and to which he claimed a right of access with carts over the plaintiff's land by the road or way in question; a road leading from Croydon to the plaintiff's house, at the entrance to which gates had been put up by a former lessee of the plaintiff's farm. It was not, on the part of the plaintiff', disputed that this road was a footway or a bridleway; but the defendant had claimed a right to use it with heavy carts, for carriage of lime to his farm, and, in the assertion of this supposed right, had broken open the gates, which had been shut to exclude them.

A former lessee of the farm had made the road for his own use. Persons had been allowed to pass along it on foot or with horses, but heavy carts had always been stopped and turned back, and gates had always been there. In 1838, when one Wood was tenant, permission had been asked to use the road; and in 1848, one Church being tenant, the defendant had agreed to pay something yearly for leave to use it (as was alleged), but, as he said, only to repair it. The parish had never repaired the road.

The warden of Whitgift's Hospital was then called and examined in support of the plaintiff's case. He produced the old plan alluded to, but

Chambers objected to its admissibility.

Erle, C. J., thought that might depend on the object with which it was put in, or the use which was to be made of it. If it was not put in with a view of showing that there was not the road in question, so as to disprove the right asserted by the defendant, it could not be admissible; but for some purposes it might be admissible.

Chambers said he objected to its use for any purpose whatever, whether to refresh the witness's memory or otherwise.

[graphic][merged small]

Lush examined the witness, so as to elicit that lie had the plan from a former tenant of the farm; but this was only eight years ago, and it did not appear who made the plan, nor from what custody it came originally. It was not put in.

Witnesses were called and examined at great length in support of the case for the plaintiff', in order to disprove the alleged user.

The plaintiff had not had the properly for more than two years, and since he had it had desired to improve it as a gentleman's residence, and with that view had hardened the road and put it in good condition.

M. Chambers for the defendant, opened that the way was a highway, and called many witnesses in support of the alleged right of way with carts and carriages to a place called Croham Hurst.

It should be mentioned that "Croham Hurst" is an eminence which commands a pleasant prospect, and is therefore a place of resort for parties of pleasure; and, therefore, it was suggested, on the part of the plaintiff in cross-examination, that the use of the road thereto by such parties was permissive only, and with light vehicles, and no evidence of a right, any more than the usual resort to the parks of the archbishop, or of any peer or gentleman of property, for the purposes of pleasure, would prove a legal right to go there, not only on foot, but with carriages and carts.

The defendant was called, and admitted the payment, to the plaintiff', but explained it as having been only as a contribution for the expense of repairs; not as a rent, or acknowledgment, for the user of the way.

The strongest evidence for the defendants, in support of the alleged right, was that of the bailiff's of former tenants (going back fifty or sixty years), which went to prove the user of the right and the absence of all obstruction. On

« PreviousContinue »