HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0327 and id is 1 raw text is: REGINA V. YOULE
Cur. adv. vult.
MARTIN, B., now said,-We have considered this matter, and are all of opinion
that the rule ought to be discharged.
The action is for a libel, published in a book called The Diary of an Ex-l)etective,
in which it was alleged that the defendant had imputed to the plaintiff some grave
offence. It was proposed to administer to the defendant a number of interrogatories
as to whether he composed the article complained of, whether he knew who composed
it, whether the name on the title page was real or fictitious, whether he had been, or
expected to be, indemnified ; with other questions of that kind.
We are all of opinion that, in the exercise of the authority and discretion
given to us by the 51st section of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, such inter-
rogatories ought not to be allowed. It was scarcely contended that the defendant
was bound to answer them; but it was urged that the interrogatories ought to be
administered, leaving the defendant to refuse to answer if he thought fit.
Without laying down any general rule on the subject, we [753] think that, in
cases of this kind, it would be unfair to submit questions which a party is clearly not
bound to answer; the object being either to compel him to answer when not bound,
or to refuse, and so create a prejudice against him. We therefore think that these
interrogatories ought not to be allowed.
It may be that some of them are free from objection, but the Lord Chief Baron,
in delivering judgment in a case in this Court,(a) said that the parties must come
with proper interrogatories, and not require the Court to select from a large number
those which ought to be allowed; the practical effect of such proceeding being that
the party generally gets much more than he is entitled to.
Rule discharged.
THE QUEEN, on the Prosecution of Mappin and Another, Respondents, YOULE,
Appellant. April 29, 1861.-By memorandum in writing Y. agreed to serve M.
as a cutler for three years, and M. agreed to employ him and pay him for his
work according to a schedule of prices. Having quitted his service during the
term, he was convicted under the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34, and imprisoned for twenty-one
days, for unlawfully absenting himself from his service. After his discharge from
prison he did not return to the service of M., but went and worked elsewhere.
On a second information laid against him for unlawfully absenting himself from
the service, it was proved to the satisfaction of the justices that on the first
occasion he absented himself on account of a difference with his master as to the
scale of prices; that when, after his discharge from prison, he refused to return,
he was advised by his attorney that he was not boun.d to do so ; and the justices
stated that they thought it very probable that he bonh fide believed what his
attorney told him. The justices convicted him under the 6 Geo. 3, c. 25, for
unlawfully absenting himself, and sentenced him to one month's imprisonment.
On a case stated by the justices under the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43 : Held, that the
conviction could not be sustained.-Per Pollock, C. B., and Bramwell, B., dubitante
Martin, B., because the defendant in refusing to return appeared to have been
acting bonA fide in the exercise of a supposed right.-Per Pollock, C. B., and
Martin, B., dubitante Bramwell, B., because the provisions of the 6 Geo. 3, c. 25,
s. 4, relating to this matter, are repealed or superseded by the 4 Geo. 4, c. 34.-
Per Pollock, C. B., and Martin, B., dissentiente Bramwell, B., because the defen-
dant having been once convicted for a departure with intent to leave his service
altogether, could not be convicted a second time under the 6 Gee. 3, c. 25, s. 4.
[S. C. 30 L. J. M. C. 234; 9 W. R. 637; 4 L. T. 299. Referred to,
Unwin v. Clarke, 1866, L. R. 1 Q. B. 424.]
This was an information by E. Mappin and J. C. Mappin, of Sheffield, cutlers,
agaiist Robert Youle; for that [754] he did, on the 19th of December last, by
memorandum in writing, contract to serve E. Mappin and J. C. Mappin, as a journey-
man in the business of a spring-knife cutler, for three years from the 19th of December
last, at and for wages, at certain prices referred to in the said memorandum; and
(a) Robson v. Crawley, 2 H. & N. 766.
6 HI. & N. 753.
311](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0327&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)