About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

19 Cent. L.J. 129 (1884)
Additional Material

handle is hein.journals/cntrlwj19 and id is 139 raw text is: THE CENTRAL LAW JOURNAL 129 Bruce was indicted for causing the death of a woman by the administration of drugs, for the purpose of procuring an abortion. Every one is familiar with the rule that such evidence is competent only when the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the circumstances or the death, the subject of the declarations. In civil cases, they were once received, no lesser lights than Lords Mansfield. and Ellenborugh sanctioning their admission.' But Baron Parke and Chancellor Kent, looked upon the question in a different light,2 and their opin- ion may be connidered the sound one in Eng. land and this country to-day. . In criminal cases, such declarations were received without regard to the character of the charge until about sixty years ago, when Lord Tenderden declared the rule first quot- ed.3 With regard to two cases in New York and Ohio,' to thr effect that they are admissible only in cases of homicide, Judge Finletter in Com. v. Bruce, says: In the New York case the learned judge is not warranted by the authorities which he cites in saying 'such evidence is admissible in cases of homicide only if he means that the indictment must charge a homicide in the usual direct terms. That this is his meaning is evident when he says: 'Tne charge against the prisoner was not homicide in any degree. The crime charged against him is that of persuading the deceased to submit to, etc.' All that is re- quired by the rule is 'that the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge,' and it matters not, what the charge may be called. The Ohio case seems to be based upon the the New York case which is cited.'' 1 Wright v. Letter, 3 Burr. 1255; Averson v.2.Lord Kinnard, 6Excb. 193. 2 Slatsartv. Dryden, 1 M. &W. 615; Jackson v. Vre- denburg., 1 Johns. 159. A like ruling will be found in Fredonia v. Railroad Co. 7 Phila. 203, and Barfield v. Britt, 2 Jones (N. C.) 41. s Rex v. Reade, 2 B. & C. 605; Rex v. Hutchinson, per Bayley, J. As following this, see Reg. v. Hines 8. ,Cox. C. C. 300, (1860); State v. Shelton, 2 Jones, (N. C.) 360 (1855); Hackett v. People, 54 Barb. 370 (1870); Crookham v. State, 5 W. Va. 510 (871),/aud Binfield v. State, 19 N.W. Rep. 607 (1884). 4 People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 96 (1871); State v. Har- ,per, Ohio St. 78 (1878). 6 The State v. Bohen, 15 Kan. 407 (1875) ; Common- wealth v. Read, 5 Phila. 528; Commonwealth v. Gum- pert, 6 Luz. Leg. Regt. 187, and Commonwealth v. Chauncey, 3 Ash. 90, were cited and commented upon by the court. From this short study of the question it appears that everywhere the declarations are restricted (1) to criminal cases (2) to cases wherein the death of the party making the declarations is the subject of the charge and generally (3) to the act of killing, and the circumstances immediately attending the act and forming a part of the res gestce,. and in New York, to cases of indictments for homi- cide.7 6 State v. Shelton, 2 Jones (N. C.) 36U (1855) ; HIack- ett v. People, 54 Barb. 370 (1870). 7 People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 46 (1876). FALSE IMPRISONMENT-VOID PROCESS- LIABILITY OF JUDGES-LIMITATIONS. VAUGHN v. CONGDON. Supreme Court of Vermont. Where the time for prosecution of a crime is limited and it appears on the face of the complaint that such time has expired, the process issued thereon Is absolutely void, and the justice issuing the same is liable for the arrest and imprisonment of the ac- cused, although it was made to appear to him that the offence was but just discovered. Trespass for false imprisonment. Pleas, gen- eral issue, and special plea in bar. Heard on de- murrer to the special pleas, September Term, 1881, Rutland county. VEAZEY, J., presiding, sustained the demurrer. The plea alleged that, at the time of the trespasses, defendant was a justice of the peace; that the acts were done by him as such justice without malice; that on November 12, 1880, W. H. Bond, grand juror of D.nby, exhib- ited to him as aforesaid, his complaint; that Warren H. Vaughn * * * on September .20, 1874, at * * * took, carried away and stole, etc.; that it being made to appear that the lar- ceny of said * * * by said Vaughn complained of as above, had not been discovered until, to-wit, the day said complaint was made to said defend- ant as justice of the peace as aforesaid, issued his warrant directed to any sheriff, etc., commanding him, etc., to apprehend, etc. It also appeared that the plaintiff was arrested on said warrant by a sheriff; was brought before the defendant, and such proceedings were had that defendant ordered plaintiff to find sureties in the sum of $300 for his appearance before the county court. etc.; that the defendant, on the plaintiff's failure to procure bail, issued a raitti- mus, and that plaintiff was committed to jail thereon. The statutes require all prosecutions for larceny to be begun within six years. Redington & Butler, for plaintiff; W. 0. Dunton and Edward Dana, for defendant.

What Is HeinOnline?

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.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most