sai Tvision, J., it is a private matter, and the party ought to ring is action." So 3. Private Abuse. -One does not commit a common-law crime who merely goes often to the house of another, and in words so a’uses ") s tam:'v as to render their lives uncomfortable, — the pury be ng only evil? We have States wherein there are statites making this sort of conduct indictable.3 $589, Peace endangered.—I lay the foundation for a crimimal prosecurion the peace need not be actually broken. The conrrty is disquieted by any act tending to the breach, of such sort and proximity as to create disturbing apprehensions in the minds of the lookers-on. Thereupon the law interferes and prenowices what's done indictable. Thus, — $54 1. Challenge to Duel. - Sending a challenge, verbal or written, to fight a del, is a disquiet-ereating act in the nature of attempt: therefore, though no duel is fought, it is indictable at the common law 3 Agath 2. Going about armed. armed, with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is a disturbance to the public tranquillity, consequently a common-law crime. So, S. Riotously Driving—a horse and carriage through the streets of a populous city, to the seeming hazard of the safety of the inhabitants, is in like manner punishable. And to extend and render specific this common-law offence, we have various statutes and particularly elty ordinances limiting the speed of vehicles either generally or under stated circumstances, and providing penalties for a breach. 4. Label and Slander. — The publishing of a Fbel," or even in some extreme circumstances the uttering of slanderous words," S. Handly, 3. Ire. 418, 40 Am. D. 415. Sir Jean Knight's Case, 3 Mod. 117, Com, 38. US Hart, Pet. C. C. 390. * Bishop Non-Con Law, § 38, 1025. 9 Stat. Crimes § 20, C. r. Worcester, 3 Pics 462 C. r. Rəy, 140 Mass 432. C#. Clap, 4 Mass., 163, 168, 169, 3 Am. D. 212: C. r. Chapman, 13 Met. 68 ; Rex. Tepham, 4 T. R. 126. Reg. r. Collias 9 Car. & P. 436; Rex r. Kinnersley, 1 W. B. 294. Reg. r. Lovett, 9 Car. & P. 462; Rexr Fain, Comb. 358. S. r. Burnham. 9 N. H. 34. 31 Am. D. 217. Reg. r. Taylor, 2 Ld. Raym 879 is a crime at the common law. And the reason whereon in most of the cases the offence is said to rest, is the tendency to a breach of the peace; or, otherwise expressed, the liability to stir up resentments and quarrels. 5. Eavesdropping, an old common-law offence, consisting of one's hanging about the dwelling-house of another, hearing tattle, and repeating it to the disturbance of the neighborhood,2 is indictable on the same principle of endangering the public tranquillity. So likewise, 3 6. A Common Scold - is under the common law punishable, because of the tendency of the continual scolding to public disquiet.1 7. Why? - The reason already in a measure appears. Partly to repeat, the criminal law is as well preventive as vindictive; 5 and a threatened danger demands correction the same as an actual one. Moreover, the community is disturbed when it is alarmed. Attempts are indictable, and the before-mentioned acts are in the nature of attempt. Substantially within the same principle, 6 § 541. 1. Barratry Maintenance Champerty. A triangle of analogous offences are barratry,7 maintenance, and champerty. They are rather actual than attempted disturbances of the repose of the community, as embroiling men in lawsuits and other like quarrels. Blackstone defines barratry to be the "frequently exciting and stirring up of suits and quarrels between his Majesty's subjects, either at law or otherwise; "9 maintenance, "an officious intermeddling in a suit that no way belongs to one, by maintaining or assisting either party with money or otherwise to prosecute or defend it; " 10 champerty, "a bargain with a plaintiff or defendant to divide the land or Ex parte Marlborough, 1 New Sess. Cas. 195, 13 Law J. N. s. M. C. 105, 8 Jur. 664; ante, § 470. 1 Post, § 591, 734; Vol. II. § 907-909. 2 Post, § 1122. 3 S. v. Williams, 2 Tenn. 108; 4 Bl. Com. 168; C. v. Lovett, 4 Pa. Law Jour. Rep. 5. 44 Bl. Com. 168; Rex v. Cooper, 2 Stra. 1246; Reg. v. Foxby, 6 Mod. 11; James . C. 12 S. & R. 220; U. S. v. Royall, 3 Cranch C. C. 620; C. v. Mohn, 52 Pa. 243, 91 Am. D. 153; post, § 943, 1101 et seq. 6 Ante, § 210. 6 Ante, § 434, 435; post, § 723 et seq. 7 Vol. II. § 63 et seq. 8 Vol. II. § 121 et seq.; Thompson v. Reynolds, 73 Ill. 11. 94 Bl. Com. 134; Case of Barretry, 8 Co. 36 b, 87 b; Rex v. - 3 Mod. 97; S. v. Chitty, 1 Bailey, 379; C. v. McCulloch, 15 Mass. 227. For more of this offence, see Vol. II. § 63-69. 10 4 Bl. Com. 134; Brown v. Beau. champ, 5 T. B. Mour. 413, 17 Am. D. 81. of matter sued for between them, if they prevail at law, upon the champertor is to carry on the party's suit at his vwa expense."1 As to how far "Champerty and Maintenance" 4: offences with us the reader is referred to this title in the second volume. Practically they are limited almost entirely to their civil effects on 2. Selling Land in Adverse Possession. The sale of real estate, of which another holds an adverse seisin, is usually a species of champerty, rendering the title of the purchaser void.3 2 - 6 § 542. Disturbing Meetings. When people assemble for worship, or in their town or other like meetings, or probably always when they come together in an orderly way for a purpose not unlawful, the common law makes it a crime to disturb their meeting. In England, statutes were passed to protect dissenters in their worship,' said to be necessary because their assembling was unlawful. In this country, where all forms of worship are favored, it is admitted that such statutes are not required. And opposed to this view even of the English law is a strong dictum by Lord Mansfield, who said: "I would have it understood in general that Methodists have a right to the protection of this court, if interrupted in their decent and quiet devotions; and so have dissenters from the Established Church likewise, if so disturbed." 10 What amounts to disturbance varies with the nature and objects of the meeting."1 14 Bl. Com. 135, Thurston v. Percival, 1 Pick. 415; Rust v. Larue, 4 Litt. 411, 417, 14 Am. D. 172; Douglass v. Wood, 1 Swan, Tenn. 393; Knight v. Sawin, 6 Greenl. 361; Byrd v. Odem, 9 Ala. 755; Key v. Vattier, 1 Ohio, 132; McMullen v. Guest, 6 Tex. 275; Lathrop v. Amherst Bank, 9 Met. 489; Holloway v. Lowe, 7 Port. 488. Vol. II. § 136-140; Cockell v. Taylor, 15 Eng. L. & Eq. 101; Hoyt v. Thompson, 1 Seld. 320; Van Dyck v. Van Beuren, 1 Johns. 345, 363; Whitesides r. Martin, 7 Yerg. 384; Williams r. Hogan, Meigs, 187; Wellman r. Hickson, 1 Ind. 581; Michael P. Nutting, 1 Ind. 481; Truax v. Thorn, 2 Barb. 156; Tuttle r. Hills, 6 Wend. 213, 224, 21 Am. D. 306; Anderson r. Anderson, 4 Wend. 474. Whether Stat. 32 Hen. 8, c. 9, is common law in this country, see Brinley v. Whiting, 5 Pick. 348, 353; Hall r. Ashby, 9 Ohio, 96, 34 Am. D. 424; P. v. Sergeant, 8 Cow. 139; Sessions v. Reynolds, 7 Sm. & M. 130; Vol. II. § 137, 138. 3 More particularly as to which, see Vol. II. § 136-140. 4 Bell v. Graham, 1 Nott & McC. 278, 280, 9 Am. D. 687; S. v. Jasper, 4 Dev. 323. 5 C. v. Hoxey, 16 Mass. 385. Rex . Hube, Peake, 132, 5 T. R. 542. S. v. Jasper, 4 Dev. 323. 10 Rex v. Wroughton, 3 Bur. 1683. 11 As to religious meetings, see 1 Russ Crimes, 3d Eng. ed. 299. As to the rights of an audience at a theatre, Rex v. Forbes, 1 Crawf. & Dix C. C. 157; Vol. II. § 308, note. And see the subject of this section further explained, Vol. II § 301-310 a 547-564. Offences against Personal Preservation and Comfort. 591. Against Personal Reputation. 592, 593. Combinations to commit Private Injuries. § 543. How Chapter divided. We shall consider, I. Some Preliminaries; II. Offences against the Right of Personal Preservation and Comfort; III. Offences against the Right of Acquiring and Retaining Property; IV. Offences against Personal Reputation; V. Combinations to commit Private Injuries. I. Some Preliminaries. § 544. Already we have seen something of the principles. whereon, and to what extent, the criminal law casts its protection over the individual.1 This Chapter is to conduct the same topic into minuter detail, in connection with a general survey of the part of the criminal field to which it relates. The principles are chiefly two. Thus, § 545. Fair Ground. The more prominent of these two is that while a person occupies what the law deems fair ground in his relations with another, assuming no unequal position toward him in any controversy or fraud, he is not indictable for what he does, however deep the wrong he inflicts. And, on the other hand, he is indictable if he assumes unfair ground, and from it deals an injury to the individual. The other proposition is that, descending to a minuter survey of the subject, § 546. Two Kinds of Force -(Mental - Physical). - There are two kinds of force known among men, mental and physical. The physical force has its just uses, but it should never be Ante, § 231-233, 250-253. wielded aggressively by one private individual against the person of another. If one, therefore, does wiell it thus to another's detriment, he disturbs the order of the community, and violating its repose, assumes toward his victim an unfair ground. But it is otherwise with mental force. Though through it one private person wrongs another, the public, which is the party azzrieved by a crime, may on the whole be rather benefited than harmed, because of its strengthening effect, already explained. Still, in the exercise even of this force there is an unfair ground: and one who with it injures another from such ground is indictable. To express the whole idea in a different form, the employment of physical force against another's person to his detriment is of itself an assumption of unfair ground toward him: but the use of mental force is not such of itself, yet it may become such from the manner of its use, or from the special circumstances of the particular instance. Carrying these distinctions in our minds, — II. Offences against the Right of Personal Preservation and Comfort. § 547. 1. Homicide. The heaviest offence against the individual is the unjustifiable taking away of his life, called felonious homicide. The common law divides it into murder and manslaughter; that is, what in this country is termed the common law does, though the division proceeded from an early English statute. And there are in many of the States other divisions also, introduced by statutes.3 We have seen that it is likewise a crime against the public. 2. Mayhem. Another like offence, yet not so heavy, is mayhem. It is an injury to a man's body rendering him less able, in fighting, to defend himself or annoy his adversary. § 548. 1. Assault and Battery. - Two offences against the person and personal security, in the facts of most cases existing together, and practically regarded as one, are assault and battery. A battery is any unlawful beating, or other wrongful 1 Ante, § 250, 251. 2 Vol. II. 623-628; Crim. Pro. II. § 498 et seq. Ante, § 409: Vol II § 723-731. 4 Ante, § 510. Ante, § 257, 259, 513. Vol. II. § 70 et seq. |