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/ssactsengr0537 and id is 1 raw text is: REGINA V. RICHARD BENT
of opinion, that the conviction was wrong, on the ground of want of jurisdiction
in an English Court to try an offence committed on board the Felicidade ; and
that if the lawful possession of that vessel by the British Crown, through its officers,
would be sufficient to give jurisdiction, there was no evidence brought before the
Court at the trial to shew that the possession was lawful.
Tindal C. J., Pollock C. B., Parke B., Alder-[155]-son B., Patteson J., Williams J.,
Coltman J., Maule J., Rolfe B., Wightman J., and Erle J., held the conviction to
be wrong.
Lord Denman C. J., and Platt B., held the conviction to be right.
Lord Denman's opinion was as follows.
I thought the conviction right. It appeared to me that the possession of the
Brazilian vessel by the British officers, was a lawful possession, under a seizure
made by them of the said ship while employed by Brazilian subjects in the Slave
Trade ; and I thought that the vessel so in possession of British officers under a
general authority from the Crown was a British vessel for the purpose of founding
the jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty, and of course, since the late Act, of the
Court of Oyer and Terminer and gaol delivery at Exeter, to try crimes committed
on board of such vessel.
Mr. Baron Platt's opinion was as follows.
The 22nd section of the stat. 4 & 5 Win. IV. c. 36, gave to the Justices of Oyer
and Terminer and general gaol delivery at the Central Criminal Court, and a sub-
sequent statute to the Judges, before whom the Assizes at Exeter were holden,
jurisdiction to try the prisoners, if the alleged offence had been committed within
the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral. The question therefore, was whether,
the act, which caused the death of Mr. Palmer, was committed within that juris-
diction.
Upon this subject I have always thought and still think, that as Captain Usher
commanded her Majesty's ship of war the Wasp, and was stationed with that
vessel off the coast of Africa for the prevention of the Slave [156] Trade, the compact,
entered into between the British and Brazilian government by the then subsisting
Brazilian treaty, justified him in directing, and Lieutenant Stupart in effecting under
such direction of his superior officer, the capture of the Felicidade and of the
Echo, and their detention during such time as might be necessary for the purpose
of submitting the circumstances attending their capture to the judgment of the
Mixed Court ; and that during such detention of the Felicidade, she was in the
lawful possession and dominion of her Majesty, and her deck as much within her
Majesty's Admiralty jurisdiction, as was the deck of the Wasp.
[157] WINTER ASSIZES, 1845.
REGINA v. RICHARD BENT.
(The statute 5 & 6 Win. IV. c. 76, s. 34 (Municipal Corporation Act), makes it a
misdemeanour for a burgess wilfully to make a false answer to any of the ques-
tions therein specified. The indictment charged (in the four first counts), that
the defendant falsely and fraudulently answered, &c. Held bad, for omitting
wilfully. In the two last counts, that the defendant falsely, fraudulently,
deceitfully, and contrary to, and in fraud of the said statute, did personate one
J. H. Held:-l. That this was no offence under the statute, no offence so
described being specified therein. 2. That it was no offence at common law,
either in itself; or as a violation (in effect) of a statutory prohibition, because
(if it were) the statute in the same clause created the offence and provided
the penalty.)
[S. C. 2 Car. & Kir. 179.]
[This case was furnished to the Editor by the kindness of the late Mr. Justice
Williams, who reserved the points mentioned in the judgment for further con-
sideration. After consulting with Mr. Justice Patteson, the following judgment
was delivered by the latter learned Judge at the Spring Assizes, 1846.]
The defendant was convicted before the late Mr. Justice Williams at the Winter
Assizes, holden at Liverpool, A.D. 1845, upon an indictment containing six counts,
of which the four first were framed upon [158] the Municipal Corporation Act (5 & 6
Win. IV. c. 76), and especially upon the 34th section, which authorizes, under certain
circumstances, three questions to be put to every voter at a borough election, and the
1 DEN. 155.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0537&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)