DOCSLIB.ORG

The Law of Crimes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Law of Crimes THE Law of Crimes. By JOHN WILDER MAY, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT, AND LATE PROSECUTING OFFICER FOR BOSTON. BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY. 1881. T M Copyright, 1880, By John Wilder Mat. 3332- 2_3 University Press : John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. PREFACE. In the following pages the author has endeavored to state briefly the general principles underlying the Criminal Law, and to define the several common- law crimes, and such statutory crimes — mala in se, and not merely mala prohibita or police regulations 1 — as may be said to be common statute crimes. The brevity of this treatise did not admit of a history of what the law has been, nor a discussion of what it ought to be ; but only a statement of what it is. In the cases cited will be found ample learning upon the first of these points. Digressions upon the second would be out of place in a book designed as a lawyer's and student's hand-book. The alphabetical arrangement has been adopted in the second chapter, as, on the whole, more convenient for the practising lawyer. The student, however, will perhaps find it to his advantage, on first peru- 1 On the question of the limitation of this power of police regu- lation, see 2 Kent's Com. 840; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 63; Thorp v. R. & B. Railroad Co., 27 Vt. 149 ; Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 36. IV PREFACE. sal, instead of reading consecutively, to pursue the more scientific method of grouping the titles ; taking first, for instance, crimes against the person, — as Assault, Homicide, and the other crimes where force applied to the person is a leading characteristic ; then crimes against property, — as Larceny, Embezzle- ment, Cheating, False Pretences, and the like, where fraud is a leading characteristic ; to be followed by Robbery, Burglary, Arson, Malicious Mischief; and concluding with such crimes as militate against the public peace, safety, morals, good order, and policy, — as Nuisances generally, Treason, Blasphemy, Libel, Adultery, and the like. If the author has succeeded in his design, the prac- tising lawyer may readily find within the compass of these few pages the law which he seeks, and the authorities in its support. J. W. M. TABLE OF CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PAGE Of the Definition of Crime, and of certain General Principles applicable thereto ... 1 CHAPTER II. Of Particular Crimes 48 TABLE OF CASES. SECTION SECTION Bird v. Jones 59, 106 Adams v. People 31,41 Bishop v. State 30 Alexander v. State 36,74 Biswell v. Com 20 Allen v. State . 74 Blackburn v. State 16, 29, 129, 193 Ambrose v. State . 40 Blake v. Barnard .... 60 Amour v. State . Bloomer v. People .... 207 Anderson t;. Com. 86, 126 Bloss v. Tobey 61 Ann v. State . 139 Blower v. State 106 Anonymous . 206 Bodwell v. Osgood .... 173 Antelope, The . 191 Boggus v. State 67 Arden v. State . 187 Bohannon v. Com. 63, 143 Ashbrook v. Com. 183 Bollman, Ex parte .... 213 Ashburn v. State . 184 Bowles v. State 138 Atkinson v. State . 131 Bowman v. Blythe .... 105 Att'y-General v. Stewart . 182 Boyce v. People .... 209 Branch v. State 178 Breese v. State ... 30, 35, 73 B. Britt v. State 207 Brittain v. Bank of London 123 v. State 169 Baalam v. State . .... v. Ins. Baden v. State . 106 Brown Union Co. 65 Bryam v. State 40 Baker v. People . 67 Buckland v. 123 v. State . 150 Com Balkom v. State 69 Burr's Trial 81 v. State 108 Barker v. Com. 182 Burrow v. State 60 Barnes v. State . 5 Burton % Buster v. Newkirk 161 Barratry, Case of . 66 .... Barronet, Ex parte . 6, 10 Barthelemy v. People 171 Bass v. State . 36 Bayard v. McLean . 66 Beauchamp v. Morris 119 Calder v. State . Bell v. Mallory . 204 v. State . 168 Benedict v. Cowden 124 v. Hart 118 Bennett v. State 38 Bentinck v. Franklin 66 Beverley's Case . 21 Biles v. Com. 124 Binney v. State . 6 VLL1 TABLE OF CASES. Caulkins v. Whistler . TABLE OF CASES. IX Commonwealth v. Hunt . TABLE OF CASES. Commonwealth v. Webster 7,8, Duncan v. State .... 178 130 Dunn v. People 45 v. Whitcomb 111 Durham v. People .... 40 v. White 41, 59, 159 i\ Whitehead 29 v. Wilgus . 108 E. v. Williams 80, 178 Eckels v. State . 149 v. Wood 45 Edward's Case . 82 v. Wright 170 Elliot v. McClelland 66 v. Wyman 99 Ellis v. State . 183 v. York 132 Elsmore v. St. Briacels 52 v. Young Emmott v. Lyne 58 Cook v. People 209 Empson v. Bathurst 105 v. State 39 , 46, 126 Ennis v. State . 153 Coomb's Case . 122 Erwin v. State . 142 Cooper v. Greeley . 170 Estes v. Cartin . 70 v. Slade . 69 Evans v. People 45, 128 v. Stone . 170 Evers v. People . 62 Cornwell v. State . 23 Cothrun v. State . 187 Coward v. Wellington . 173 Cowen v. People . 113 Croghan v. State . 194, 209 Crozier v. People . 209 Fairman v. Ives . 173 Cunningham v. People . 122 Farell v. People . 154 Curry v. Walter . 173 Farrer v. State . 19 Farwell v. State 70 Fay v. Com. 114 D. Felix v. State 136 Felton v. United States 178 Danforth v. Streeter ... 66 Fennell v. State . 211 Danville, &c. R. R. Co. v. Com. 182 Ferguson v. State 89 Darby, Matter of 92 Ferris v. People 40 Darling v. Williams . 143 Fifty Associates v. Howland 118 Davis v. State . 211 Fisher v. Com. , 40 v. Whittredg . 118 v. State . 78 Davis's Case . 206 Fisherman's Case 208 Dawes v. State . 133 Fizele v. State . 195 Dawley v. State . 36 Flanagan v. People 16,20 135 De Bouillon v. People . 170 v. State Defrese v. State . 154 Fletcher v. People 106 Delaney, Ex parte . 43, 53 Flynn v. State . 165 Delaware Canal Co Com. 15 Fouville v. McNease 172 Dillard v. State . 169 Fowler v. State . 169 Dinkey v. Com. 209 Fox v. Ohio . 41,94 Dishon v. Smith . 69 Fralick v. People 135 Doanv. State . 35 France v. State . 77 . 89 Don Moran v. People . 194 Frank v. State Donnally's Case . 207 Frazer v. People 45 Douglas v. State . 183 Freeman v. People 16 Duncan v. Com. 61 Fulghaui v. State 56 .. TABLE OF CASES. XI G. Hood v. State • . ( iallagher v. State 62 (ialvin v. State . 187 Gardner v. State 66 Gathercole's Case 170 Gibbs v. Dewey 103 Gibson v. State . 187 Giles v. State 170 Godfrey v. I'eople 180 Goforth v. State. 178 Golden v. State . 56 Goodspeed v. Fuller 66 Gorman v. State 56 Gosha v. State . 195 Gower v. No well 176 Greenough, In re 113 Gregory v. Hill . 118 Griffin v. State . 29 Guenther v. State 40 Gunn v. State 134 H. Habersham v. State 201 Hadden v. People . 147 Hall v. State . 158 Hamilton v. State , 157 v. People 36 v. Eegina 109 Harman's Case . 206 Harrison v. People 149 Hart V. Albany . 183 Hartung v. State 39 Hawkins v. State 47 Hayes v. People 67 Hays v. People . 61, 195 Hazen v. Coin. 87 Hedley, Ex parte 100 Henderson v. State 123 Hendrix v. State 63 Henslow v. Faucett 69 lliscott's Case . 105 Eigginbotham o. State 55 Hildebrand v. People 154 Hill v. State . 82, 181 Hines v. State . 40 Hitchcock v. Baker 201 Hodges v. State . • 172 Holly v. State . 134 Holmes v. Com. 31 Holsou v. State . 178 Xll TABLE OF CASES. Levi v. Levi .... TABLE OF CASES. Xlll Parsons v. State . XIV TABLE OF CASES. People, The, v. Thomas . 110 Begina v. Barrett 194 v. Thompson . 154 v. Barrow 194 v. Tomlinson . 122 v. Beecham 156 v'. Travis . 185 v. Beechey 100 v. Tyler ... 41 v. Benge 141 v. Van Blarcom 51 v. Best . 86 v. Vanderbilt . 182 v. Bingley 162 v. Warren . 40 v. Bird . 8, 38, 163 v. Whalley . 11, 105 v. Blake 86 v. Wiley . 162, 196 v. Bowers 98 v. Williams 23, 131 v. Britton 58 v. Wilson . 92 v. Brown 86 v. Yslas . 55, 59 v. Bryan 108 Perine v. Dunn 176 v. Bunce 109 Phillips v. People .... 40 v. Bunn . 85 Pike u. Hanson 58 v. Burdett 41 Pistorious v. Com 143 v. Case . 56, 61, 194 Pleasant v. State .... 194 v. Caspar 196 Points v. State 133 v. Caton 30 Polk v. State 20 v. Champlin 194 Pond v. People .... 63, 143 v. Chapman 29 Powell v. Com 124 v. Chappie 35 Powers v. Dubois .... 170 v. Clinton 160 Pratt v. Hutchinson . 104 v. Closs . 82, 121 v. Price 186 v. Codringt 114 Preester v. Angley .... 146 v. Collins 29 Preston v. State .... 134 v. Conde 138 Price v. State 136 v. Copeland 109 Putnam v. Putnam .... 67 v. Coulson us3, 125 v. Danger 111 t;. Davis . 109 Q. v. Day . 195 v. Doody 29 Queen v. Kenny .... 197 v. Driscoll 62 v. Mayor, &c. 5, 11 v. Duffin 70 v. Eagleton 115 v. Fairie . 183 R. v. Faulkner 53 v. Firth . 149 Bafferty v. People .... 21 v. Fletcher 56, 61, 184 Banney v. People .... 108 v. Gallears 161 Bead v. Com. 132, 134 v. Gayler 33 Beanes's Case 207 v. Giles . 109 Redfield v. State .... 106 v. Godfrey 157 Reed v. State 149 v. Gompertz 87 Beese v. Wyman .... 108 i>. Goss 108 Regina v. Abbott .... 114 v. Green 160 v. Allen .... 67, 70 v. Greenwood 30 v. Ardley .... 108 v. Haigh 159 v. Aston 100 v. Haines 72, 145 v. Bailey .... 157 17. Halford 158 v. Baker .... 79 v.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Extent to Which the Common Law Is Applied in Determining What
    THE AMERICAN LAW REGISTER, APRIL, 1867. THE EXTE'N"IT TO WHICH THE COM ON LAW IS APPLIED IN DE- TERMINING WHAT CONSTITUTES A CRIME, AND THE NATURE AND DEGREE OF PUNISHMENT CONSEQUENT THEREUPON. PART III. (Concluded from the January.umber.) 1. Subject of Third. Part stated. 2. Statement by .Mr. Wheaton on tie question. 3. Exceptional states as to common-law application. 4-6. With what qualifications the common law has been adopted. 7-9. Felonies provided for by statute. Reasoning in relation thereto. 10, 11. Early and important case on the question. 12-18. Acts of public evil example; acts tending to breach of peace; con- -piracy, &c., indictable at common law. 19-21. Offences against Christianity; against the marital relation; obscenity, &c., also been held indictable. 22-24. Cases peculiar to this country also brought within common-law influence. 25, 26. 'Numerous acts of malicious mischief that are punishable at common law. 27-30. Also nuisances ; disturbing the peace; acts tenxding to defeat public justice. and various miscellaneous offences. 31, 32. Other instances named of common-law influence. 33-36. Brief review of the treatise; and 38. Conclusion. 1. IF a satisfactory conclusion has been reached in reference to the vexed question which has now been considered, and which has given rise to such strongly-conflicting opinions, by jurists of the highest eminence and ability, the remaining question, where, with one or two narrow exceptions, the eases and opinions are in VOL. XV.-21 (321) APPLICATION OF THE COMMON LAW almost perfect accord, cannot be attended with much difficulty.
    [Show full text]
  • Vania Is Especi
    THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIME IN PROVINCIAL PENNSYLVANIA HE history of the punishment of crime in provincial Pennsyl- vania is especially interesting, not only as one aspect of the Tbroad problem of the transference of English institutions to America, a phase of our development which for a time has achieved a somewhat dimmed significance in a nationalistic enthusiasm to find the conditioning influence of our development in that confusion and lawlessness of our own frontier, but also because of the influence of the Quakers in the development df our law. While the general pat- tern of the criminal law transferred from England to Pennsylvania did not differ from that of the other colonies, in that the law and the courts they evolved to administer the law, like the form of their cur- rency, their methods of farming, the games they played, were part of their English cultural heritage, the Quakers did arrive in the new land with a new concept of the end of the criminal law, and proceeded immediately to give force to this concept by statutory enactment.1 The result may be stated simply. At a time when the philosophy of Hobbes justified any punishment, however harsh, provided it effec- tively deterred the occurrence of a crime,2 when commentators on 1 Actually the Quakers voiced some of their views on punishment before leaving for America in the Laws agreed upon in England, wherein it was provided that all pleadings and process should be short and in English; that prisons should be workhouses and free; that felons unable to make satisfaction should become bond-men and work off the penalty; that certain offences should be published with double satisfaction; that estates of capital offenders should be forfeited, one part to go to the next of kin of the victim and one part to the next of kin of the criminal; and that certain offences of a religious and moral nature should be severely punished.
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency
    International Law Research; Vol. 6, No. 1; 2017 ISSN 1927-5234 E-ISSN 1927-5242 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Crime of Public Nuisance and Modernising That of Public Indecency Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: November 20, 2016 Accepted: February 19, 2017 Online Published: March 7, 2017 doi:10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ilr.v6n1p1 1. INTRODUCTION Prior articles have asserted that English criminal law is very fragmented and that a considerable amount of the older law - especially the common law - is badly out of date.1 The purpose of this article is to consider the crime of public nuisance (also called common nuisance), a common law crime. The word 'nuisance' derives from the old french 'nuisance' or 'nusance' 2 and the latin, nocumentum.3 The basic meaning of the word is that of 'annoyance';4 In medieval English, the word 'common' comes from the word 'commune' which, itself, derives from the latin 'communa' - being a commonality, a group of people, a corporation.5 In 1191, the City of London (the 'City') became a commune. Thereafter, it is usual to find references with that term - such as common carrier, common highway, common council, common scold, common prostitute etc;6 The reference to 'common' designated things available to the general public as opposed to the individual. For example, the common carrier, common farrier and common innkeeper exercised a public employment and not just a private one.
    [Show full text]
  • Old-Time Punishments
    Presented to the UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY by the ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE LIBRARY 1980 (\V\ 7- OLD-TIME PUNISHMENTS. WORKS BY WILLIAM ANDREWS, F.R.H.S. Mr. William Andrews has produced several books of singular value in their historical and archaeological character. He has a genius for digging among dusty parchments and old books, and for bringing out from among them that which it is likely the public of to-day will care to read. Scotsman. Curiosities of the Church. A volume both entertaining and instructive, throwing much light on the manners and customs of bygone generations of Churchmen, and will be read to-day with much interest. Nftitbery House Magazine. An extremely interesting volume. North British Daily Mail. A work of lasting interest. Hull Kxaminer. Full of interest. The Globe. The reader will find much in this book to interest, instruct, and amuse. Home Chimes. We feel sure that many will feel grateful to Mr. Andrews for having produced such an interesting book. The Antiquary. Historic Yorkshire. Cuthbert Bede, the popular author of "Verdant Green," writing to Society, says: "Historic Yorkshire," by William Andrews, will be of great interest and value to everyone connected with England's largest county. Mr. Andrews not only writes with due enthusiasm for his subject, but has arranged and marshalled his facts and figures with great skill, and produced a thoroughly popular work that will be read eagerly and with advantage. Historic Romance. STRANGE STORIES, CHARACTERS, SCENES, MYSTERIES, AND MEMORABLE EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF OLD ENGLAND. In his present work Mr. Andrews has traversed a wider field than in his last book, "Historic Yorkshire," but it is marked by the same painstaking care for accuracy, and also by the pleasant way in which he popularises strange stories and out-of-the-way scenes in English History.
    [Show full text]
  • Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: the Ed Ath Penalty As Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D
    Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Volume 13 | Issue 4 Article 2 Spring 2018 The onceptC of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo- American Law: The eD ath Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler Recommended Citation John D. Bessler, The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual, 13 Nw. J. L. & Soc. Pol'y. 307 (2018). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol13/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2018 by Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law `Vol. 13, Issue 4 (2018) Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy The Concept of “Unusual Punishments” in Anglo-American Law: The Death Penalty as Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel and Unusual John D. Bessler* ABSTRACT The Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, like the English Bill of Rights before it, safeguards against the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” To better understand the meaning of that provision, this Article explores the concept of “unusual punishments” and its opposite, “usual punishments.” In particular, this Article traces the use of the “usual” and “unusual” punishments terminology in Anglo-American sources to shed new light on the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The Article surveys historical references to “usual” and “unusual” punishments in early English and American texts, then analyzes the development of American constitutional law as it relates to the dividing line between “usual” and “unusual” punishments.
    [Show full text]
  • Critics Duped by Reds' Propaganda WASHINGTON (AP) — Eagleton's Past Psychiatric Is Vietnam, and Nixon In- President Said
    Court Challenge SEE STORY BELOW The Weather THEDAILY FINAL Partly cloudy today, mgn around 80. Fair tonight. Most- ) Red Bank, Freehold ~T~ ly sunny tomorrow and Sun- I Long Branch 1 day, little temperature EDITION change. 24 PAGES Momnoutli Comity's Outstanding Home Newspaper VOL.95 NO.24 RED BANK, NJ. FRIDAY, JULY 28,1972 TENCENTS ' McGann Voids Common-Scold By HALLIE SCHRAEGER "A man might be 'trouble- took a swipe a( New Jersey's carry a pocket edition of for his definition of a common Judge McGann commented S. A. 2A:85-1 purports to make some and angry' and, by his "catch-all" statute (N. J. S; Blackstone with him." scold: "a public nuisance to in a footnote that the specified criminal the common law of- FREEHOLD — Finding the 'brawling and wrangling A. 2A:85-1), which, he said, is Sir William Blackstone her neighborhood, for which penalty constitutes cruel and fense of being a common ancient common law charge among' his 'neighbors, break "all that the average person (1723-1780), the most famous, offense she may be indicted unusual punishment.) scold, it is void because of its of being a "common scold" the' peace, increase discord^ has to guide his conduct." of English jurists, was the au- and, if convicted, shall be sen- "To a die-hard male chau- vagueness and is con- outmoded, unconstitutionally and become a nuisance to the Judge McGann said that thor ofi "Commentaries on the tenced to be placed in a cer- vinist, the public utterances of stitutionally unenforceable," vague and discriminatory, Su- neighborhood,' yet he could statute tells the average per- Laws of England" (1775) still tain engine of correction a dedicated woman's liber- be said.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967
    Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Section 1. Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. 2. Arrest without warrant. 3. Use of force in making arrest, etc. 4. Penalties for assisting offenders. 5. Penalties for concealing offences or giving false information. 6. Trial of offences. 7. Powers of dealing with offenders. 8. Jurisdiction of quarter sessions. 9. Pardon. 10. Amendments of particular enactments, and repeals. 11. Extent of Part I, and provision for Northern Ireland. 12. Commencement, savings, and other general provisions. PART II OBSOLETE CRIMES 13. Abolition of certain offences, and consequential repeals. PART III SUPPLEMENTARY 14. Civil rights in respect of maintenance and champerty. 15. Short title. SCHEDULES : Schedule 1-Lists of offences falling, or not falling, within jurisdiction of quarter sessions. Schedule 2-Supplementary amendments. Schedule 3-Repeals (general). Schedule 4--Repeals (obsolete crimes). A Criminal Law Act 1967 CH. 58 1 ELIZABETH II 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:- PART I FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR 1.-(1) All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are Abolition of abolished.
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Funding in Australia and Europe” Dr
    Searle Civil Justice Institute Public Policy Initiative: Third-Party Financing of Litigation: Civil Justice Friend or Foe? “Third Party Funding in Australia and Europe” Dr. George R. Barker Working Paper – Please do not cite December 21, 2011 (c) George Barker – 13 December 2011 All rights reserved Centre for Law and Economics Ltd 2011 Contents INTRODUCTION AND OUTLINE ....................................................................... 3 PART I: ECONOMICS OF LITIGATION FUNDING ............................................ 4 PART II: LITIGATION FUNDING IN AUSTRALIA .............................................7 Section A. The Evolution of Legal Rules on Litigation Funders in Australia ..............7 A. Maintenance, & Champerty ................................................................... 8 B. Lawyers and Contingency Fees ............................................................ 15 C. Adverse Costs Orders .......................................................................... 16 D. Federal Regulation............................................................................... 17 Section B. Litigation Funders in Australia .............................................................. 21 A. Funders ............................................................................................... 21 B. Selection of Cases .............................................................................. 22 C. Commissions & Other Relevant Criteria .............................................. 28 D. Success rates .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abolishing the Common Law Offence of Keeping a Disorderly House
    Journal of Politics and Law; Vol. 8, No. 2; 2015 ISSN 1913-9047 E-ISSN 1913-9055 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Abolishing the Common Law Offence of Keeping a Disorderly House Graham McBain1,2 1 Peterhouse, Cambridge, UK 2 Harvard Law School, USA Correspondence: Graham McBain, 21 Millmead Terrace, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4AT, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Received: December 5, 2014 Accepted: December 22, 2014 Online Published: May 27, 2015 doi:10.5539/jpl.v8n2p17 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v8n2p17 1. Introduction A previous article has reviewed the law in relation to escape, prison breach and rescue1 which, it argues, should now be made statutory offences. This article looks at another common law offence - one of ‘keeping a disorderly house’- which, it is asserted, should be abolished, being obsolete. In medieval times - especially in London - this crime was designed to suppress brothels as well as other sexual conduct (such as adultery and fornication) which it was deemed appropriate for the criminal law to punish. Thus, in respect of the latter, it appears it was a London custom that a constable - on receipt of an information - had the legal right to enter a house where a person was suspected of committing adultery or fornication and ‘carry them to prison.’2 From ‘disorderly house’ being a reference to a place where socially unacceptable sexual activity was carried on, the concept was extended to cover common gaming houses. Also, to play houses (theatres),3 common inns and ‘common’ houses (that is, ones to which the public had access) where cock-fights were held; Since these places also tended to be venues for illicit sexual activity, it is understandable how they came to be embraced within the concept.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law Act 1967
    Criminal Law Act 1967 1967 CHAPTER 58 An Act to amend the law of England and Wales by abolishing the division of crimes into felonies and misdemeanours and to amend and simplify the law in respect of matters arising from or related to that division or the abolition of it; to do away (within or without England and Wales) with certain obsolete crimes together with the torts of maintenance and champerty; and for purposes connected therewith. [21st July 1967] PART IFELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR Annotations: Extent Information E1Subject to s. 11(2)-(4) this Part shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland see s. 11(1) 1Abolition of distinction between felony and misdemeanour. (1)All distinctions between felony and misdemeanour are hereby abolished. (2)Subject to the provisions of this Act, on all matters on which a distinction has previously been made between felony and misdemeanour, including mode of trial, the law and practice in relation to all offences cognisable under the law of England and Wales (including piracy) shall be the law and practice applicable at the commencement of this Act in relation to misdemeanour. [F12Arrest without warrant. (1)The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law or for which a person (not previously convicted) may under or by virtue of any enactment be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years [F2(or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by [F3section 33 of the Magistrates’Courts Act 1980)]] and to attempts to committ any such offence; and in this Act, including any amendment made by this Act in any other enactment, ―arrestable offence‖ means any such offence or attempt.
    [Show full text]
  • 516134 George Mason JLEP 8.3 R3.Ps
    Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 EDITORIAL BOARD 2011-2012 Larry Pounders Editor-in-Chief Shannon Minarik Daniel J. Wisniewski Executive Editor Managing Editor John Buckley Katie Barnes Mike DeRita Senior Articles Editor Senior Notes Editor Senior Research Editor Melissa Alfano Graham Dufault Daniel Glynn Elyse Dorsey Rachel Fertig Brendan Mullarkey Andrew Galle Articles Editors Notes Editors Research Editors Dallin Glenn Laura A. Lieberman Melissa Alfano Articles Submissions Editor Publications & Outreach Editor Symposium Editor MEMBERS Jarred Bomberg Malaikah Choudhry Kay Teng Corey Carpenter Benjamin Nelson William Wiegand Christina Newton CANDIDATE MEMBERS Peter Anderson Anthony Peter Kanakis Adam Park Emily Barber Hollie Kapos Alex Payne David Brodian Juan Kassar Tom Randall Michael Brody Jason Malashevich Adam Schneider Kylie Caporuscio Louise Martin Morgan De Ann Shields Benjamin Charlton Jacob Merrill Mark Stevens Nathaniel Harris Genevieve Miller Robert Strange Carolyn Head Elizabeth Newell Mark Weiss Jennifer Johnston Lauren Wynns i 1 Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 BOARD OF ADVISORS Lisa E. Bernstein Francesco Parisi James M. Buchanan Eric Posner Judge Guido Calabresi Judge Richard A. Posner Lloyd R. Cohen Roberta Romano Robert D. Cooter Hans-Bernd Schäfer Robert C. Ellickson Steven M. Shavell Richard A. Epstein Henry E. Smith Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg Vernon L. Smith Mark F. Grady Gordon Tullock Bruce H. Kobayashi Thomas S. Ulen Henry G. Manne W. Kip Viscusi A. Douglas Melamed Todd J. Zywicki ii Journal of Law, Economics & Policy VOLUME 8 SPRING 2012 NUMBER 3 Contents 405 THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN EUROPE Cento Veljanovski 451 THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING IN AUSTRALIA AND EUROPE Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Legislation in Criminal Law
    JUDICIAL LEGISLATION IN CRIMINAL LAW IAN BROWNLIE and D. G. T. WILLIAMS* Oxford 1. The Scope of the .Inquiry. The decision of the House of Lords in Shaw v. D.P.P.1 has raised issues of wider significance than the particular forms of conduct to which the case related. The essay which follows -is not an exam- ination of all the points raised by the decision and is concerned solely with the implications of the findings of the Court of Crim- inal Appeal and the House ofLords on the first of the three counts 2 in the indictment Conspiracy to corrupt public morals. Particulars of offence . con- spired with certain persons who inserted advertisements in issues of a magazine entitled "Ladies' Directory" numbered 7, 7 revised, 8, 9, 10 and a supplement thereto, and with certain other persons whose names are unknown, by means of the said magazine and the said ad- vertisements to induce readers thereof to resort to the said advertisers for the purposes of fornication and of taking part in or witnessing other disgusting and immoral acts and exhibitions, with intent thereby to debauch and corrupt the morals as well of youth as of divers other liege subjects of Our Lady the Queen and to raise and create in their minds inordinate and lustful desires. The prosecution proceeded on the basis that the form of con- spiracy was a conspiracy to commit an unlawful act and not a conspiracy to commit a lawful act by unlawful means. Counsel for the prosecution reserved the right to contend that a conspiracy to corrupt the morals of a particular individual was an indictable offence by reason of the conspiracy, even if such corruption would not be an offence if done by one person.
    [Show full text]