Common Law

Source: The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol. 7, No. 11 (Sep., 1859), pp. 703-704
Published by: The University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3302048
Accessed: 24-02-2017 06:02 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

The University of Pennsylvania Law Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The American Law Register (1852-1891)

This content downloaded from 201.208.243.169 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:02:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 COMMON LAW. 703

An
Anoffence
offencewas was
committed
committed
on boardon
an board
American
anship
American
anchored in
ship
th
Penarth
Penarth Roads,
Roads,
in the
inBritish
the British
Channel, Channel,
three quarters
three
of a quarters
mile from of
th
coast
coastofof
Glamorganshire,
Glamorganshire,
at a spot
atnever
a spot
left never
dry by left
the tide,
drybut
bywithi
th
aa quarter
quarterof a
ofmile
a mile
from from
the landthe
which
land
is left
which
dry. The
is left
placedry.
in questio
Th
was
wassituated
situated
between
between
the shore
theofshore
the county
of the
of Glamorgan
county of andGlamorga
two island
which
which had
had
always
always
been treated
been treated
as part ofas
the
part
county
of of
theGlamorgan.
county I
was
wasalso
also
about
about
ten miles
ten miles
from the
from
opposite
theshore
opposite
of Somersetshire.
shore of So Th
Penarth
Penarth Roads
Roads
are ninety
are ninety
miles from
miles
thefrom
mouth the
of the
mouth
Channel.
of The
t
venue
venue was
washeld
held
to beto
properly
be properly
laid in Glamorganshire.
laid in Glamorganshire.
Reg. vs. Cunning
R
ham,
ham,5 5
Jur.,
Jur.,
N. S.,
N.part
S., 1,
part
p. 202.
1, p. 202.
Reg.
Reg.vs.
vs.Webster,
Webster,
5 Jur.,
5 N.
Jur.,
S., part
N. 1,
S.,p.part
604, is1,a decision
p. 604, as
ist
whether,
whether, in an
in indictment
an indictment
for perjury
for alleged
perjuryto have
alleged
been committed
to have beby
the
thedefendant,
defendant,in swearing
in swearing
that a certain
that person
a certain
signed
person
a receipt,
sign
in
the
thepresence
presenceof the
of defendant,
the defendant,
at the foot
at of
the
a bill
footof account,
of a bill
theof
billaccount,
of account
was
wasstated
stated
with
with
sufficient
sufficient
certainty.
certainty.
Rape.-The
Rape.-The prisoner
prisoner
had carnal
had knowledge
carnal knowledge
of a girl, thirteen
of a girl,
years' th
old
by
byforce.
force.TheThe
girl girl
was incapable
was incapable
of giving of
consent
giving
from
consent
defect offrom
unde
standing,
standing, andand
it was
it not
wasshown
not that
shownthe act
thatwasthe
doneact
against
washer
done
will.a
conviction
conviction waswas
sustained.
sustained.
Reg. vs.Reg.
Fletcher,
vs. 5Fletcher,
Jur., N. S.,5part
Jur.,
1, p.N.
179
Receiving.-The
Receiving.-The prisoner
prisoner
H. was walking
H. was by
walking
the side by
of the
theprosecutrix
side of
and
andthe
theprisoner
prisoner
E. wasE.seen
wasjust
seen
previously
just previously
following behind
following
her. The
prosecutrix,
prosecutrix, felt felt
a tug aattug
her at
pocket,
her found
pocket,
her purse
found gone,
her and,
purse
on lookin
gon
round,
round, saw
saw
H. behind
H. behind
her, walking
her, walking
with E., and
with
saw H.
E.,hand
andsomethin
saw H.
to
toE.E.The
Thejury
jury
werewere
directed,
directed,
that if they
thatdid
ifnot
they
think,
didfrom
notthe
thin
ev
dence,
dence, that
that
E. was
E. participating
was participating
in the actual
in the
theft,
actual
it was thef
open
them,
them, upon
upon
the the
aboveabove
facts, to
facts,
convict
tohim
convict
of receiving.
him of Thereceivin
court hel
that
thatthis
this
direction
direction
was right.
was Reg.
right.
vs. Hilton
Reg. vs.
and Another,
Hilton and
5 Jur.,
Anoth
N. S
part
part1,1,
p. p.
47. 47.

COMMON LAW.1

Attorney and Client.-An attorney who compromises

the express directions of his client is liable to an action f
suit of his client. The client, and not the attorney, is
Fray vs. Vowles, Q. B. 232.
Easement.-In an action by a reversioner, one count allege
and land in fact received lateral support from, and were
land adjoining, yet defendant wrongfully and negligen
excavations in the said land so adjoining, and without suf

'London Law Magazine.

This content downloaded from 201.208.243.169 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:02:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
704 COMMON LAW.

propping or otherwise protecting the said messuage and land from the
effects thereof, and thereby deprived the messuage and land of their said
support, whereby the land and messuage sank. Another count stated that
plaintiff was, by reason of her said interest in the messuage and land,
entitled to have the messuage supported laterally by certain land adjoining,
yet the defendant wrongfully and negligently dug and made divers exca-
vations in the land adjoining, and without sufficiently shoring, propping
or otherwise protecting the said messuage and land, and thereby deprived
the said messuage of the support to which the plaintiff was so entitled as
aforesaid, whereby the messuage and land sank. On demurrer, both
counts were held to disclose a right of action, as well in respect of the
injury to the house as to the land. Bibby vs. Carter, Ex. 182.

?Nuisance.-To a declaration complaining of trespasses to plaintiffs'

landing-stage or dummy, the same being a barge moored to a wharf along-
side a river, defendant pleaded that he had a right to land at a quay
upon the banks of such river, which was a public navigable river, and that
plaintiffs permanently moored their dummy there so as to obstruct and
prevent defendants approach to the quay, and so that it was impossible for
him to land without passing over the dummy; and thus the plea justified
passing over it and so committing the trespasses complained of, doing no
unnecessary damage to plaintiffs in that behalf. This was a good plea, as
defendant was, under the above circumstances, justified in exercising his
right of landing by so passing over the dummy. At the trial, it appeared,
that defendant committed the trespasses of landing upon the dummy both
when the tide was so high that but for the dummy being there, he could
have landed at the quay, and also when the tide was so low that, if the
dummy had not been there, he could not have landed. The plea was held
a sufficient answer to the declaration, for if plaintiffs complained of tres-
passes committed upon occasions of low tide, when the dummy did not
interfere with the right to land, they ought to have new assigned in respect
of such occasions. There was evidence at the trial of a custom to justify
passing over a barge which, when alongside a wharf for the purpose of
loading, interfered with another vessel having a right also to load or unload
at such wharf. Plaintiffs' dummy was a covered barge permanently fixed
to the wharf for the convenience of passing passengers to and from the
plaintiffs' vessels at any state of the tide. It was held, the custom did not
apply to the case of such dummy, and that the evidence did not, there-
fore, support a plea justifying under such custom the passing over the
dummy. Eastern Counties Rail. Co. vs. Dorling, C. P. 202.

This content downloaded from 201.208.243.169 on Fri, 24 Feb 2017 06:02:49 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms