788; and the Judge has no right to insert an explanation of it on the record. (Earl of Glasgow v. Hurlet Alum Company, 3 H. of L. Cas. 25, 8. And though the Judge's report of the terms of his direction is conclusive, not so as to its effect, which is the very question the Superior Court may have to determine. And, if they think it was likely to mislead, they may set aside the verdict. (Mitcheson v. Oliver, 25 L. J., Q. B. 41.) And it is a misdirection, sufficient at all events for a new trial if the Judge, in leaving to the jury a question partly depending on the construction of an Act of Parliament, does not give them a sufficient explanation of the terms of the statute. (Elliott v. South Devon Railway Company, 2 Exch. Rep. 725.) And the meaning of terms in an Act of Parliament, as is a matter of law. Gourling, 7 C. B., N. S. 105.) Now the scope of the LORD CHIEF BARON's direction was, that a ship might be built for a belligerent, and, by the same argument, it should seem that it might be equipped, and even armed, in our ports, provided that the object of the builder or owner was, not to assist the belligerent, but merely to sell her, and receive the price. And that, at all events, if there was no intent to equip or arm in this country, but merely to build the ship, however much fitted for equipment, and although knowingly so fitted and built for a belligerent, that would not be an offence within the act. If such was not the scope of the direction, building," (Stevens v. then it is difficult to discover any sufficient direction on the two points on which the question must turn, viz., what is knowingly assisting to equip and fit out? and what is intent that the vessel shall be employed by a belligerent? As to the former, the words were not noticed in the summing up. As to the latter question of intent, the direction of the LORD CHIEF BARON seemed to resolve it into object or motive. But might there not be the intent that the vessel should be employed by the belligerent for war, if the vessel was being built for a belligerent, and built for warlike equipment, although the object of builder and owner was, not to aid the belligerent, but to receive his money? It is a principle of law, that a man must be taken to intend the consequence of his own act; and though mere knowledge is not enough either at common law, or under the statute, to fix a party with an illegal purpose, is not knowingly assisting the object sufficient? That is, doing an act which it is known will assist the illegal object, and doing it for the party who has such object. That is the scope of these notes. And in Hilary Term, Sir Roundell Palmer, A.-G., moved for a rule for a new trial, and the court granted a rule nisi, on the grounds of non-direction, misdirection, or insufficient direction, on the points thus presented. The court affirmed that, as the terms of the statute are in the disjunctive, the offence of equipping, &c., is distinct from arming; and of course it would follow that the offence of assisting 1863. ATTORNEYGENERAL v. SILLIM and Others. MIDLAND CIRCUIT. Coram Willes, J. REGINA v. GARNER AND WIFE. 1863. Lincoln Spring MURDER. The prisoners were indicted for the murder On the trial of of Garner's mother by poison. a man and his wife for the murder of his J. Fitzjames, Stephens, Chandos Leigh and Mellor for mother by the prosecution. poison, the female prisoner having lived as servant in the family during the life of her husband's for mer wife; evi dence admitted of the circum O'Brien, Serjt., Flowers and Huish for the defence. The prisoner Garner had been previously married, and his former wife had died in March, 1861; his present wife then living with them as servant. The prisoner's mother of had resided with him after his second marriage. Her death took place in December, 1861, and it was clearly proved that she died of arsenic. The male prisoner sold stances under mer wife had which the for died of poison. But there arsenic for agricultural purposes. He also sold milk. being evidence from which it sible that the been not wilful, of culpable negligence was left to the jury There was evidence of administration by the prisoners of appeared posarticles of diet in which arsenic might be contained-as administration arrowroot, &c.—and of arsenical symptoms following. of poison in the present case There was, however, evidence that three horses (one of might have them the prisoner's own), had been accidentally poisoned the hypothesis by arsenic, that some of his customers and persons against whom he was not suspected to have any feeling, had suffered from arsenical symptoms, evidently arising from some accident. To prove the wilful administration in this particular case, it was proposed, on the part of the prosecution, to give in evidence the circumstances which had attended the death of the male prisoner's former wife, and to show that she had died of arsenic. as justifying a verdict of manslaughter. 682 1863. REGINA บ. GARNER and Wife. CASES ON THE MIDLAND CIRCUIT. WILLES, J., after consulting POLLOCK, C. B., as his colleague in the commission, admitted the evidence (a). At the close of the case, WILLES, J., left it to the jury whether the death of the deceased had been caused by arsenic administered by the prisoners; and, if so, whether it was administered wilfully or by culpable negligence, directing them that in the latter case they might find them guilty only of manslaughter. Verdict, guilty of manslaughter. Sen tence, penal servitude for life. (a) See the very similar case of Reg. v. Geering, 18 L. J., M. C. 215, where evidence was held rightly admitted of a similar nature. And POLLOCK, C. B., in delivering the judgment of the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, said, "The domestic history of the family during the period that the four deaths occurred is receivable in evidence to show that during that time arsenic had been taken by four members of it, with a view to enable the jury to determine as to whether such taking was accidental or not. These latter words show that the learned Judge, in the present case, was right in leaving to the jury the theory of accident, though it was, of course, for them to say whether it was the more probable one. On the main question, perhaps, there is none of greater nicety, and sometimes of greater difficulty in our law, which, unlike that of France, does not allow the whole history of the prisoner to be gone into, by way of showing the probability of his commission of the crime in question; on the contrary, seeks to shut out as much as possible evidence extraneous to the case, by way of avoiding prejudice. (See Stephen's Criminal Procedure for a contrast of the two systems.) In the case cited, the great argument against the admissibility of the evidence was, that its necessary tendency would be to create a prejudice against the prisoner; but then, of course, the evidence being legally admissible could not, per se, exclude it. The same question sometimes arises in civil cases; see Roupell v. Haws, post, citing Prescott v. Flinn, 9 Bing. 27. The principle is always the same, is the evidence sufficiently connected with the matter in question? HOME CIRCUIT. Kingston, coram Cockburn, C. J. PAGET v. BIRKBECK. 1863. Surrey Spring by a farmer was member, DECLARATION, that the defendant by himself, his In an action agents and servants, broke and entered the lands and farm against a of the plaintiff, and with horses and dogs trampled, trod gentleman, who down, damaged, and destroyed the grass, herbage, and not master, of a crops, and the hedges and fences, and turned and let loose and placed upon the lands divers foxes, hares, rabbits, pheasants, and other animals, to the great damage of the plaintiff. Pleas 1. Not guilty. hunt, who had taken the shooting, &c. on the plaintiff's farm, for trespass in hunting and also for laying down rabbits, &c., there 2. Justification under an agreement for the shooting, being evidence &c. up to the 1st of March, 1862. 3. As to trespass after that date, an equitable plea justifying under the lease granted in accordance with the decree in equity from and dated on that day. 4. As to damage up to that date, that the alleged damage was done by him as a member of the Surrey and Burstow Hunts, and that on their behalf a sum of 81. had been paid to and received by the plaintiff in satisfaction of the alleged injuries. Issue and new assignment: that the action was brought for other injuries than those covered by the pleas of justification, and which excess also, on the other hand, was denied. Shee, Serjt., and Patchett, for the plaintiff. of a licence to lay down some : held, that the defendant was not liable for bers of the liable for da mage done by rabbits or birds, unreasonable number. sition made on his behalf in a suit in Chancery between himself and the plaintiff as to Bovill, Hawkins and Sir George Honyman, for the de- the same sub fendant. ject matter, The plaintiff was tenant of a farm (it did not appear for sible against him. Sed quære. |