of master and apprentice is for the instruction of the child, and there may be an analogy between it and teacher and pupil. But 3. Hired of Father. One who has simply hired a minor from the father is not, therefore, put in loco parentis, with the right of chastisement, where no parental consent thereto has been given.1 And 4. Battery of Apprentice. - A master who beats his apprentice immoderately is indictable for the battery. It was lately said not to be settled "exactly what measure of corporal punishment" is permissible in this case, but it must not be "cruel and merciless." 3 § 888. Neglects. The liability stated under Parent and Child * is incurred by the master who inflicts on an infant servant or apprentice for whom he is under the legal duty to provide, an injury by a neglect of such duty.5 And it is the same with other doctrines there laid down with this one. Sometimes, to create thus a crime in the master, the infant must be of tender years." § 889. Master for Servant's Acts. The master is criminally answerable for the acts of his servants only when done by his command or with his consent.8 But this doctrine, which is not special to domestic servants, is with its limitations more particularly explained in other connections.10 peace or the sessions, to discharge or punish the apprentice, than to take the law into his own hands. The master cannot delegate this authority to another." So Kent says: "The master may correct his apprentice, with moderation, for negligence or misbehavior." 2 Kent Com. 264. And see Rex v. Self, 1 Leach, 137, 1 East P. C. 226; Gates . Lounsbury, 20 Johns. 427; P. v. Phillips, 1 Wheeler, Crim. Cas. 155; Matthews v. Terry, 10 Conn. 455, 458; C. v. Baird, 1 Ashm. 267; C. v. Conrow, 2 Pa. St. 402; In re Ambrose, Phillips, N. C. 91; S. v. Dickerson, 98 N. C. 708. 1 Cooper r. S. 8 Bax. 324, 35 Am. R. 704; Davis v. S. 6 Tex. Ap. 133; Matthews v. Terry, 10 Conn. 455. C. v. Baird, 1 Ashm. 267. 2 Rex v. Keller, 2 Show. 289. And see 8 S. r. Dickerson, 98 N. C. 708, 711. 4 Ante, § 883. 5 Rex v. Friend, Russ. & Ry. 20; Reg. v Gould, 1 Salk. 381; Rex v. Ridley, 2 Camp. 650; Reg. v. Smith, 8 Car. & P. 153; Reg. v. Edwards, 8 Car. & P. 611. See Rex v. Clerke, 2 Show. 193. 6 See also Rex . Meredith, Russ. & Ry. 46; Rex v. Booth, Russ. & Ry. 47, note; Rex v. Warren, Russ. & Ry. 47, note; Hays v. Bryant, 1 H. Bl. 253; Rex v. Wiggs, 1 Leach, 378, note; Rex v. Smith, 2 Car. & P. 449; Orton v. S. 4 Greene, Iowa, 140. V. Husband and Wife. § 890. 1. Coverture, as creating a presumed coercion of the wife, has been considered in a chapter by itself.1 2. Other Questions are explained in other connections in this volume and the second. Still there remains something for this chapter. - § 891. 1. Imprisonment and Chastisement. In "Marriage, Divorce, and Separation," it is stated what authority the husband has to whip or imprison his wife.2 It there appears that a former supposed right of chastisement is entirely abandoned, and the power to imprison is nearly or fully so; while yet, in special circumstances, the husband may exercise over the wife a physical restraint not precisely defined. And 2. Self-defence. assault by his wife.5 On the other hand, The husband may defend himself against an 3. Assault and Battery. By unlawfully beating her, he com mits criminal assault and battery. Provocation from her may be shown in mitigation of his punishment. Among the provocations is undue intimacy with another man. (Liquor-selling). A hus § 891 a. Husband for Wife's Crimes band is not to the same extent answerable for the wife's criminal wrongs as for her civil torts.10 For what she does in his absence and without his knowledge or consent he is not in general criminally liable." But the rule that one's mere presence does not make him guilty of a crime committed by another without the concurrence of his will 12 does not apply to a husband in respect of his wife's criminal conduct. Though he may not whip her,13 he must restrain her from violating the laws. And if, for example, she with his knowledge and in his presence makes a sale of intoxi 1 Ante, § 356 et seq. v. Buckley, 2 Harring. Del. 552; S. v. 2 1 Bishop Mar. Div. & S. § 1619-1625. Mabrey, 64 N. C. 592; Memmler v. S. 75 8 Post, § 891 a. Ga. 576. See also Reg. v. Rundle, Dears. 482, 24 Law J. N. s. M. C. 129, 1 Jur. N. s. 430, 29 Eng. L. & Eq. 555. And see Reg. v. Jackson, 1891, 1 Q. B. 671; Howard v. S. 34 Ark. 433; S. v. Oliver, 70 N. C. 60; Fulgham v. S. 46 Ala. 143; C. v. McAfee, 108 Mass. 458, 11 Am. R. 383; S. v. Craton, 6 Ire. 164; Adams v. Adams, 100 Mass. 365, 1 Am. R. 111; Taylor v. Taylor, 76 N. C. 433. Leonard v. S. 27 Tex. Ap. 186. 7 Robbins v. S. 20 Ala. 36. cating liquor contrary to a statute, and he does not interfere, he is punishable for the sale. More than this, a husband must regulate his own household; and if the wife, contrary to his wishes and remonstrance, persists in selling liquor in the house in violation of law, he is even liable criminally for sales made by her in his absence. Nor is it different though she owns the premises as her separate estate, and the sales are for her sole benefit.2 1 Hensly v. S. 52 Ala. 10. 2 S. v. McDaniel, 1 Houst. Crim. 506; C. v. Barry, 115 Mass. 146; C. v. Carroll, 124 Mass. 30. And see C. v. Kennedy, 119 Mass. 211; C. v. Pratt, 126 Mass. 462; S. v. Colby, 55 N. H. 72; S. v. Roberts, 55 N. H. 483. 7539 CHAPTER LVIII. PERSONAL RELATIONS OTHER THAN DOMESTIC. § 892. 1. Elsewhere. Like the domestic relations, those within the present title are in these volumes treated of in connection with other topics. Yet something may be useful here. Principal and Agent, including Master and Servant other than Domestic: 2. Agent's Liability. An agent or servant who, knowing the facts, does a criminal thing for his principal or master, is answerable to the criminal law precisely as though he had proceeded self-moved, and for his own personal benefit. And it is the same when with the like knowledge he merely assists therein.3 Again, 3. One acting through Agent. The rule of civil jurisprudence, that the act of an agent brings the same liability to the principal as his own act, prevails equally, yet under slightly different modifications, in the criminal law. One employing another to commit a felony in his absence does not thereby become a principal felon, but he is an accessory before the fact.5 In other crimes he and the agent are equally principal offenders. An agent for civil purposes cannot by an unauthorized doing charge his principal with a breach of the criminal law. But for what he does under authority the principal is criminally answerable. And if 529. 1 Ante, § 310; Taylor v. S. 5 Tex Ap. 2 Ante, § 355 (1), 658 (2); S. v. Martin, 31 La. An. 849; S. v. Jackson, 2 Harring. Del. 542; Cutsinger v. C. 7 Bush, 392; Murphy . S. 6 Tex. Ap. 420, 421; S. v. Mercer, 32 Iowa, 405; C. r. Sinclair, 138 Mass 493. And see Gibson v. Kauffield, 63 Pa. 168; Nall . S. 34 Ala. 262; Roberts v. S. 7 Coldw. 359; Tardiff v. S. 23 Tex. 169; S. v. Stucker, 33 Iowa, 395. 8 Anderson v. S. 8 Tex. Ap. 542, 544; Taylor. S. supra; Hannon v. S. 5 Tex. Ap. 549, 550; U. S. v. Rossvally, 3 Ben. 157. Ante, § 218-221, 316 (3), 317, 631; Clay v. P. 86 Ill. 147; Hobbs v. Young, 3 Mod. 313, 316, Holt, 66. Ante, § 651, 673; S. v. Wyckoff, 2 Vroom, 65. 6 Ante, § 682, 685-687. 7 Ante, § 219, 317 (2); S. v. Mahoney, 23 Minn. 181; Lathrope r. S. 51 Ind. 192; Goods v. S. 3 Greene, Iowa, 566; S. r. James, 63 Mo. 570; Thompson v. S. 45 Ind. 495; Anderson v. S. 39 Ind. 553; Hanson v. S. 43 Ind. 550; O'Leary r. S. 44 Ind. 91; Felton v. U. S. 96 U. S. 699. 8 McCutcheon v. P. 69 Ill. 601; Forrester v. S. 63 Ga. 349. the business itself involves a violation of law, the authorization of an agent to conduct it will bring guilt to the principal whenever the thing done therein is a crime.1 § 893. Freedmen : 1. During Slavery, offences by slaves were generally punish able under special codes. After its abolition, it was a question upon which opinions were divided whether the freedman should be prosecuted for a crime committed while a slave, under this special law, under the general law, or under neither.2 2. After Emancipation, the subsequent crimes of negroes became punishable under the laws applicable to freemen.3 § 894. 1. Recognizance by Master. A master entered into a recognizance for his slave's appearance in court; before the appearance-day, the slave was emancipated; lastly, he delivered him to the sheriff, and federal soldiers rescued him. The liability on the bail-bond was held to be, on both grounds, discharged.4 2. The Legitimacy of Children - after emancipation is explained by the author in another work. It was held by the majority of a divided court that where a slave father has a slave child by a slave mother, and they are made free by a constitutional amendment, the father cannot be compelled to support the child as a bastard.6 3. Rights of Freedmen. Under constitutional and statutory laws for securing to freedmen equality with free whites, various questions have arisen, not for this connection.7 1 S. v. Wentworth, 65 Me. 234; Molihan v. S. 30 Ind. 266; Anderson v. S. 22 Ohio St. 305; S. v. Reiley, 75 Mo. 521. See S. v. Berhman, Riley, 92, 3 Hill, S. C. 90; Reg. v. Holbrook, 3 Q. B. D. 60, 4 Q. B. D. 42; Barnett v. S. 54 Ala. 579; Stevens v. P. 67 Ill. 587; Mullinix v. P. 76 Ill. 211; Miller v. New York, 5 Thomp. & C. 219, 3 Hun, 35; Second National Bank v. Curren, 36 Iowa, 555; Gathings v. S. 44 Missis. 343. 2 Gibson v. S. 35 Ga. 224; Burt v. S. 39 Ala. 617; Nelson v. S. 39 Ala. 667; George v. S. 39 Ala. 675; Peters v. S. 39 Ala. 681; Aaron v. S. 39 Ala. 684; Keith v. S. 5 Coldw. 35; Wharton v. S. 5 Coldw. 1,94 Am. D. 214; Brown v. S. 35 Ga. 232; S. v. Brodnax, Phillips, N. C. 41. Tempe . S. 40 Ala. 350; Eliza v. S. 39 Ala. 693; Witherby v. S. 39 Ala. 702; 4 Lewis v. S. 41 Missis. 686. And see 5 1 Bishop Mar. Div. & S. § 670-678. 6 Lewis v. C. 3 Bush, 539. White v. Ross, 40 Ga. 339. The following are among the cases which may be consulted under this head: U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb. U. S. 28; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; Ellis v. S. 42 Ala. 525; Murrell v. S. 44 Ala. 367; Burns v. S. 48 Ala. 195, 17 Am. R. 34; Gaines v. S. 39 Tex. 606; Donnell v. S. 48 Missis. 661; Lonas v. S. 3 Heisk. 287; S. v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 389, 10 Am. R. 42. Other cases are cited under the several minuter titles, particularly in Stat. Crimes. |