Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal712
Tottenham, J.1. It seems to me that the Judge is wrong in his law throughout.2. The Deputy Magistrate did expressly sanction a complaint under Section 211, and even took bail for the appearance of the accused. The sanction was none the less valid because the person to whom it was given did not avail himself of it, and sanction having been given, the Magistrate of the district was competent, under Section 142, Code of Criminal Procedure, to take up the case without a complaint.3. As to the change from Section 211 to Section 192, the sanction in respect of one offence covers also one under the other on the same facts (ss. 470 and 450, Code of Criminal Procedure).4. But, after all, it would appear that the Judge would acquit the prisoners on the merits also. It will be sufficient, therefore, to point out to the Judge that his view of the law is erroneous.5. His attention should also be called to the fact that he has omitted to sign the depositions recorded by him as required by para. 2, S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal699
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Two points have been raised in this appeal:2. First.--That, as the plaintiff claimed to set aside the order made under Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code in favour of the defendant, and to have possession of the property by virtue of an ancient debutter title, he was bound to prove, not only that he had been in possession for upwards of twelve years, but also to prove the debutter title which he set up.3. Secondly.--That the learned Judge in this Court was wrong in supposing that there was some evidence of the debutter title upon which the Court below had acted.4. In the view which we take of the first point it is not necessary to decide the second.5. The first point we consider should be decided in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of Gossain Dass Chunder v. Issur Chunder Nath (I.L.R., 3 Cal., 223).6. The plaintiff there claimed possession of certain land under a deed said to have been executed in the year 1857, and he also stated in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal374
Ainslie, J.1. We decline to interfere with the order of the Magistrate. It is not for a Magistrate to determine the question who is the lawful guardian of a child. The provisions of chap. xli of the Criminal Procedure Code only enable him to make an order for the maintenance of his wife or child on its appearing to the satisfaction of the Court that he has neglected or refused to do so, although in the possession of sufficient means.2. The child in this case is an illegitimate one in the custody of its mother, and there is nothing in the Code which warrants the Magistrate making an order for her surrendering it to the father. Her refusal to surrender it is no ground for stopping the allowance previously ordered. The father's right to the custody of the child, if any, must be determined elsewhere, and not in the Magistrate's Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal668
Richard Garth, C.J.1. After fully considering the judgments of the Special Court upon this point, we have no doubt that the conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Commissioner is subject to appeal to that Court.2. We entirely agree with the learned Recorder, that the words 'any original jurisdiction' must hear the ordinary natural signification which he puts upon them, and we think it clear that whenever the Judicial Commissioner exercises original jurisdiction, from whatever source derived, in criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Special Court from his decision.3. Were the law otherwise, we consider that the fair administration of criminal justice might be seriously imperilled, and that the case would call for the immediate interference of the legislature. The Judicial Commissioner would then have the power, by transferring any case to his own Court, for any reason which might seem sufficient to himself, to exercise an entire control over the proceedings, and to deprive the p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal650
Ainslie, J.1. On the 23rd February 1878 the Extra Assistant Commissioner of Goalpara, from proceedings before him, was led to the belief that there was a likelihood of a breach of the peace in consequence of a dispute about certain lands between Rajah Kunund Narain Bhoop on one side, and Puddo Kishore Burmah and another on the other side. He consequently directed that proceedings should be held under Section 530 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and recording a proceeding reciting the existence of this dispute, he caused notice to be given to the parties above named.2. Those persons in the end came to an amicable settlement of their dispute; but, in the meantime, shortly before this settlement was effected, another party, Gopinath Chuckerbutty, came in on 9th May, and put forward a claim to the possession of a portion of the land covered by the Magistrate's notice.3. Eventually an order was made by the Magistrate on 24th June declaring Gopinath to be the party in possession.4. The Rajah ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Virginia - 100 U.S. 339 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1879) Ex Parte Virginia 100 U.S. 339 1. A., a judge of a county court in Virginia, charged by the law of that State with the selection of jurors to serve for the year 1878 in the circuit and county courts of his county, was, in the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, indicted for excluding and failing to select as grand jurors and petit jurors certain citizens of his county of African race and black color, who, possessing all other qualifications prescribed by law, were excluded from the jury lists made out by him as such officer, on account of their race, color, and previous condition of servitude, and for no other reason, against the peace, &c.;, of the United States, and against the form of the statute in such case made and provided. Being in custody under that indictment, he presented to this court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a wri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Tennessee v. Davis - 100 U.S. 257 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U.S. 257 (1879) Tennessee v. Davis 100 U.S. 257 CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION IN THE OPINION BETWEEN THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE Syllabus 1. Sec. 643 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which declares that "When any civil suit or criminal prosecution is commenced in any court of a state against any officer appointed under or acting by authority of any revenue law of the United States now or hereafter enacted, or against any person acting under or by authority of any such officer, on account of any act done under color of his office or of any such law or on account of any right, title, or authority claimed by such officer or other person under any such law, . . . the said suit or prosecution may, at any time before the trial or final hearing thereof, be removed for trial into the circuit court next to be holden in the district wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Dow v. Johnson - 100 U.S. 158 (1879) U.S. Supreme Court Dow v. Johnson, 100 U.S. 158 (1879) Dow v. Johnson 100 U.S. 158 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE Syllabus 1. On the trial of an action at law, when the judges of the circuit court are opposed in opinion on a material question of law, the opinion of the presiding judge prevails; but the judgment rendered conformably thereto may, with out regard to its amount, be reviewed on a writ of error, upon their certificate stating such question. 2. An officer of the Army of the United States, whilst serving in the enemy's country during the rebellion, was not liable to an action in the courts of that country for injuries resulting from his military orders or acts; nor could he be required by a civil tribunal to justify or explain them upon any allegation of the injured party that they were not justified by military necessity. He was subject to the laws of war, and amenable only to his own go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal648
1. The order of the 8th November is illegal, because the Magistrate had no power to order the case to be retried; he ought to have referred the case to the High Court, under Section 296 of Act X of 1872, for final orders. The case, being one under Sections 143 and 352 of the Penal Code, was triable by a Magistrate only; and the District Magistrate had not the power to direct the order of discharge to be re-opened-Kistoram connected system of irrigation for what are now the plaintiff's and defendant's mouzahs, beneficial to both states, was by these means provided. The fact that this lower reservoir, which seems to have acquired the name of the Chahul Tal, was built mainly on the defendant's mouzah, leads irresistibly to the conclusion that it was constructed by, or with the consent of, the then owner of that mouzah; and it is evident from its situation, that its main, if not only, use was to store water for the convenient irrigation of the plaintiff's mouzahs. Then it is proved that th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1879)ILR4Cal696
Morris, J.1. The confession made by the prisoner on the 17th November 1878 must, I think, be treated as a confession recorded under the provisions of Section 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prisoner was arrested by the Police on the afternoon of the 16th, and carried early the next morning before the Deputy Magistrate, Mr. White, who was then at a place (Bankipore) outside the limits of the division which he had charge. Mr. White recorded the prisoner's confession, and attached to it the certificate required by Section 122. It is clear from this that Mr. White considered himself to be acting under the terms of that section. Subsequently Mr. White returned to Barh, within the limits of his own division, and, having power to do so, took up the case against the prisoner, conducted the preliminary enquiry, examined the prisoner as prescribed by Section 346, and finally, on the same date, the 20th November, committed him for trial before the Court of Session.2. The confession of the...
Tag this Judgment!