The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1874-01-31 00:00:00

THE DEATH OF DR. LIVINGSTONE.

The Chairman of the Eastern Telegraph Company,
received the following message on Monday morning
torn the Cotopithy's sent at Aden :—" Uvingstone
died of dysentery while travelling from Lake limb%
to Unyanyembe ; body embalmed and preservel in
salt by Ms Nmsick boys who are conveyiug it to
Zmaibar, en route for England."

The ttliowlng telegram, dated Aden, the 27i2 hat , has
beset reedited at the Foreign °Mee from tier Me. 3 ety's
Acting CortsulGeneral at Z o Attar :
" The report of Livingstone's death it unarmed
by letters received from Cameron, dated if nyauyembs,
October 20. He died of dysentery after a fortnight's
111nete shortly after leaving Lake Pemba for east-
ward lie had attempt ci to crots the lake from the
north, and failing in tnis had doubled back and rounded
the lske, crossing the Chambize and the (steer rivers
11 iwing from it ; had then crossed the Luapula, and
die Ito Lobisa, after barmy ciossed a marshy country
with the water for three hours at a time above the
waist ; ten of his men had ded, and the remainde-,
consisting of 79 men, were marching to toyanyembe.
They had disembowelled the body and had filled it
with salt, and had put brandy into the mouth to pre-
serve it. His servant Chumas went on asead to pro-
cure provisions, as the party was destitute, and gave
intelligeece to Cameron, who expect- d the body in a
few days. Cameron and his party had suffered greatly
from fever and ophthalnela, but hoped to push on to
Uj.ji. Llviugstone's body may be . zp-cted at 7. as-
zioar in Februsry. Please t lecrspli ortleas as t • dts•
posal. No leaden shells procurahle here."

AN APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION
UNDER THE LICENSING ACT.
In the Court of Qaeun's Bench, hefore Juetices
Blackburn, Quain, and Archibald, the came of
"Mullins v.Collins' has born heard, and was an
appeal from the deolsion of a bench of magistrates, on
an information Laid by the superintendent of police
against the appellant. William under section
of the Licensing Act of 1872, charginx him with
having supplied a glass of brandy to a police-constable,
Robert George lloynt, while the latter WAS on duty.
As the house was as a rule very respectably d minuted,
sitid the magistrates were somewhat inclined to think
that the offence complained of had been committed
without the knowledge of the landlord himself, they
at first determined to inflict only a nominal fine of 63.,
but alter wards finding that they could not inflict a lees
sum than 205., they accoadingly decreed the appellant
to pay that amount.
Mr. Poland, for the appellant, now argued that
he'ore the appellant could he convicted it must be
proved that the offence complained of had been com.
mirted by him personally, or within his knowledge ; he
mutt be pre-ent at the time the brandy was supplied
and when the constable drank it, or have knowledge
that it was so supplied and drank. Secondly, it mutt
be proved that he knew that the constable was on
duty when he got the drink. Tidrilly, it Was contended
by appellant that the °dicer deserted his duty by en-
tering this tavern, aid cone' not, therefore, be said to
be on duty. It should be remembered that the justicee
themselves found that the appellant himself was not a
part' to the rale.
Mr. Justice Blackburn : But is he not liable for the
acts of his servants?
Mr. Poland thought not.
Mr. Justice Blackburn: Then every constable could
get drunk in a publidhouse and the landlord would be
exempt from the consequences, because the intoxicating
drink was supplied by his servante, with or without
his knowledge.
Mr. Poland said the question was a very important
one. For instance, • constable in plain clothes might
go into the house and be served with drink, and how
was the landlord, or his barmaid, or whoever eupplied
the drink over the counter to know that the man was
on duty or not?
Mr. Justice Blackburn re; Led that iMght be en,
tent in the present instance the constable was in
unif.ere.
M. ISlMit.t.ri that the oilierr wa4 in his
policeman's clothes, hut hhw were the prthliee,..4 par-
vats to know that he was on duty. He urged that
there way no evidence to show knr.wlPdge on the part
of the barmaid that she was aware the constable Was in
the execution of his duty when he we anoplied with
the drink. Therefore, the landlord, who might len
away from his house for a temporary purpose ought
not to be convicted fir an act done by his servant, the
offeecie being one which involved a guilty mind on the
part of the pen= who did it.

_
Mr. Jun** Blaokburn : It may have been done to
Ignoran, be law.
Mr. Poland: But as your lordship knows ignorance
of the law won't excuse him. I contend, howevrr, what
hae been done has been done in ignorance of the fact
718 to the man being on duty or not. My argument is
that it must be proved that the landlord knew that
thie rum was a con.table, and that if he were such,
that he was on duty at the time.
" •

Mr. Justice Blackburn: So that according to your
theory all the landlord has to do is to get out of the
way to evade the Act, and, in his absence, his servants,
by conduct similar to that pursued in this case, may
get the police into as much blame and as much trouble
as possible.
Mr. Poland again urged it wou'd be • groat hard.
ship on licensed victuallers n cases where their houses
might be entered by :casts:tiles in plain clothes. It
often happened that these officers, who were unknown
to the publican, visited his house in search of Inspected
characters (which certainly was part of their duty),
and if they were supplied with drink would it bd just
to hold the landlord liable for this?

-------- --
Mr. J:ptice Blackburn: But no such care occurred
here. The barmaid must and did know thoroughly well
that she was eery In.; • policeman en duty with drink.
The point you now advance was not raised at the trial
before the magistrates. The contention then was that
the offence must have been committed by the landlord
himself or with his knowledge. Whereas here it was
shown that the ant complained of had been done by his
servant.
Aft .1. further Argument,

The Court unaoirnoitsly held toat the conviction
must be affirmed. The barmaid Forced the liquor over
the counter in the ordinary performance of her duty to
a policemonstahle without questioning him wtether he
was on duty at the time or trot. If he had tricked her
into doing no by any wiere,mesentation as to hie calling
or duty at the time, t tat would have been a different
thing, and in reason the publican could not be held
liable. Here however, she had the exercise of he own
arid no attempt was made to deceive her. She
knew the man WAB a covetable and on duty, and her
master must bear the constipences of her aot.
Ceuviction therefore uph..,d.