CULPABLE HOMICIDE-continued.

panel having left his horse on the street without a person in
charge of it, whereby it ran off and knocked down and killed
a person. Objection to the relevancy of the indictment, in so
far as it set forth that the panel was aware that on an occasion
shortly before the crime charged, the horse had run off, in con-
sequence of its having been left without a person in charge
thereof, repelled. George Fleming, Dundee, Sept, 13, 1866.
p. 289.

See INSANITY, No. 3, p. 466.

RECKLESS DISCHARGE OF LOADED Firearms, p. 482.
DATE OF OFFENCE.

See AMENDMENt of Libel, No. 2, p. 409.

DAMAGES FOR EJECTION FROM A TRAIN.
See APPEAL, No. 9, and RAILWAY, No. 1, p. 237.
DECLARATION.

1. Objection to the admissibility of a declaration, in respect that
it did not contain all the panel had said, repelled. Andrew
Brown, High Court, Jan. 8, 1866, p. 215.

2. A panel was tried and convicted of assault. He was thereafter
charged with assault to the danger of life, on the same species
facti, and emitted a declaration. He was then tried for Mur-
der, the person assaulted having died. Opinion that the de-
claration could not be used as evidence against him. James
Stewart, Ayr, Sept. 11, 1866, p. 310.
See PRECOGNITION, No. 2, p. 300.

STATUTE 15TH AND 16TH VICT. c. 27 (Evidence Act), p. 229.
DECLARATION, PROOF OF.

Held that a prisoner's declaration is sufficiently proved by the
evidence of the magistrate who took it, and of a police con-
stable who was present when it was taken. Helen Foster,
Jedburgh, April 16, 1867, p. 370.

DELAY.

See STATUTE 17TH GEO. III. c. 56, SECTS. 10 AND 14, p. 415.
DELAY IN BRINGING TO TRIAL.

See STATUTE 17TH AND 18TH VICT. c. 102, No. 1, p. 317.
ELECTION.

See STATUTE 17TH AND 18TH VICT. c. 102, No. 2, p. 265.
No. 1, p. 317.

ENGRAVERS.

It is competent in a trial for forgery and uttering to adduce as
witnesses engravers who have examined the signatures upon
the productions, and compared them with the signature
alleged to be forged, and to examine them as experts. John
Porteous, High Court, July 2, 1867, p. 456.

EVIDENCE.

1. A Question proposed to be put to a witness disallowed by the
Court, as comprehending an enquiry into what the witness had
stated on precognition. E. W. Pritchard, High Court, July
3-7, 1865, p. 88.

2. Objection to a certain line of examination as involving hearsay
evidence, repelled. E. W. Pritchard, High Court, July 3-7,
1865, p. 88.

3. In a charge of Murder by the Panel of his wife and her
mother, it was proposed by the prosecutor to ask a witness, a
female servant in the house, whether during the time stated
the wife had seen the Panel use any familiarities with witness-
Question objected to, as leading to a separate line of enquiry
of which no notice had been given, but allowed under the cir-
cumstances. E. W. Pritchard, High Court, July 3-7, 1865,
p. 88.

4. In a trial of a panel for the murder of his wife, one of the
witnesses, a female servant in the house, having deponed, that
she had been with child to the Panel, and that she had a mis-
carriage Held incompetent to ask whether the Panel gave her
anything to produce the miscarriage, there being no notice in
the indictment of any such charge. E. W. Pritchard, High
Court, July 3-7, 1865, p. 88.

5. In a case of wilful fire-raising, evidence of an insurance effected
by the panel over goods in his shop admitted, without objec-
tion, to prove motive, although no notice was taken of it in
the indictment. Peter Grieve, High Court, June 18, 1866,
p. 263.

6. Where a witness for the Crown was asked without objection,
in cross-examination whether he had at a certain time and place
made to the agent of the panel a statement differing from his
evidence, and where he deponed he had not, the Court, over-
ruling objection by Advocate-Depute, allowed the agent for
the panel to be examined as to what the witness had said on
precognition on the occasion referred to. Peter Luke, Dundee,

Sept. 13, 1866, p. 293.

7. Held inadmissible to prove by the evidence of the Procurator-
fiscal what a witness, since deceased, said when examined on
precognition. Bridget Kenny or Lynch, Dundee, Sept. 13,

1866,
p. 300.

SEE CHILD-MUrder, p. 202.

WITNESS, No. 1, P. 226.

EVIDENCE-continued.

See WITNESS, No. 2, p. 229.

No. 3. p. 232.

See Quarns v. Hart, High Court, June 4, 1866, p. 251.
EXPENSES.

See STATCTE 27TH AND 28TH VICT c. 53 (Summary Procedure
Act, 1864), p. 382.

EXPERTS.

See ENGRAVERS, p. 456.

FIRST OFFENCE.

See SENTENCE, p. 437.

FINDING AND APPROPRIATION.
See SHEEP STEALING, p. 53.

FISHING WITH ROD AND LINE.

See STATUTE 7TH AND 8TH VICT. c. 95, p. 499.
FOREIGN.

See PREVIOUS CONVICTION, No. 2, p. 308.
FORGERY.

See STATUTE 45TH GEO. III., c. 89, P. 375.
,, WARRANT TO Search for Papers, p. 456.

FORM, DEFect of.

See WARRANT OF CITATION, p. 561.

FORTHCOMING.

See APPEAL, No. 13, p. 322.

FRAUD.

The 'putting away, carrying off, or secreting, by an insolvent or
other debtor, of his funds or effects, with intent to defraud his
creditors,' sustained as a relevant charge. John M‘Rae, Perth,
Sept. 17, 1867, p. 463.

GAME.

See APPEAL, No. 1, p. 1.

GESTATION, FULL PERIOD OF.

See CONCEALMENT OF PREGNANCY, p. 367.
GROUND OF ACTION.

Objection that the ground of action had not been stated in the
body of the summons, repelled, in respect the informality, if it
was one, had not caused substantial injustice. Alexander v.
Melvin, Glasgow, Sept. 28, 1866, p. 324.

HEARSAY.

See EVIDENCE, No. 1, p. 88.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY.

See STATUTE 29th and 30th VICт. 273, p. 506.
IMPRISONMENT.

In a suspension of a conviction for a contravention of the Master
and Servant Act, objection that the citation served on the

IMPRISONMENT-continued.
complainer, which summoned him to appear on 16th Septem-
ber 1867,' was not conform to the warrant of citation which
was to cite the complainer to appear on 16th September
'current,' while neither the complaint nor the concurrence of
the Fiscal specified the year; repelled as an objection to form
excluded by the 10th section of the Act. (2.) That the 19th
section of the Summary Procedure Act, authorising immediate
imprisonment as a means of enforcing recovery of penalties in
certain cases, applies also to recovery of compensation under
the Master and Servant Act. Holland v. The Gauchalland
Coal Company, High Court, Dec. 24, 1867, p. 561.

See STATUTE 17TH GEO. III. c. 56. SECTS. 10 AND 14, p. 415.
INDICTMENT.

1. Objections to relevancy of an indictment charging fraudulent
concealment of property by a bankrupt, &c., in respect (1.)
that no locus was mentioned; and (2.) that the subjects put
away were not ipsa corpora but nomina debitorum-repelled.
John M'Kay, High Court, Nov. 26, 1866, p. 329.

2. Objection to an indictment charging a bankrupt with perjury,
that it (1.) was entirely abstract in its terms, and (2.) charged
him with failure to deliver up the whole books, documents, and
'other papers' in his possession without stating that such ex-
isted-repelled. John M'Kay, High Court, Nov. 26, 1866,
p. 329.

LIST OF WITNESSES, p. 326.

PANY, p. 363.

STATUTE 45TH GEO. III., c. 89, SECTS. 1 AND 6, p. 375.

RECKLESS DISCHARGE OF LOADED FIREARMS, p. 482.

INSANITY.

1. Statement of the law as to insanity as a defence. Andrew
Brown, High Court, Jan. 8, 1866, p. 215.

2. Circumstances in which a plea of Insanity in bar of trial re-
pelled. John Caldwell, Glasgow, May 3, 1866, p. 241.
3. Circumstances in which, the panel objecting, the Court declined
to sanction the presence of the medical witnesses to hear the
evidence. (2.) Objection repelled that medical witnesses only
could be examined as to insanity. (3.) Question disallowed
whether an uncle and granduncle and two aunts of the panel,
whose names were specified, had been insane. (4.) Definition
of insanity as a defence against a charge of murder or culpable
homicide. (5.) The state of a panel's mind may be an element
in the question between murder and culpable homicide where
not warranting acquittal on the ground of insanity. Alexander
Dingwall, Aberdeen, September 19 and 20, 1867, p. 466.
See WITNESS, No. 1, p. 226.

INSOLVENT, SECRETING EFFECTS BY AN.
See FRAUD, p. 463.

INSTANCE.

See COMMON INFORMER, p. 439.
INTEREST IN THE CRIME.

See WILFUL FIRE-RAISING TO DEFRAUD AN INSURANCE COM-
PANY, p. 363.

JURISDICTION.

1. Circumstances in which an objection to a charge in an indictment
of concealment and away putting by a bankrupt that the Court
had no jurisdiction, in respect that the away putting took place
in England, repelled. John M Kay, High Court, Nov. 26,
1866, p. 329.

2. In a suspension of a conviction and sentence pronounced in
the Justice of Peace Court, under the Customs Consolidation
Act, 1853, on the ground that the information and summons
on which conviction proceeded, did not specify time and place
of offence charged. Held, that the Court of Justiciary had no
jurisdiction, and that the Court of Exchequer was the proper
Court of Review. Alexander v.
Alexander v. Lindsay, High Court, Nov.

39

No. 8, p. 251.

STATUTE 25TH AND 26TH VICT. C. 35, SECT. 1, 371.

p.

STATUTE 27TH and 28th Vict. c. 53, (Summary Procedure

Act, 1864), p. 382.