The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1880-03-09 00:00:00

WHIT! V. FOX AND ANOTHIR -MIT or THE JouNNENT.

Lord Coleridge said : I confeas this has struck Ise Irv:
the beginning as a very clear Mi.'. lam of opinion that
the fustiera were wrong, and that they have June-lidos
and that their decbion must be reversed. This is a
perfectly tirople matter. Two persons assault another
Person. and it is not gainsay,' they had any right to do
what they did. They assault him, they beat him, they
break his hat and tear his clothes, and take away from
him some of his property that he had an undoubted right
to posses. on his own land, and take away from him alto
some rabbits, which I really do not wish to give. as
opinion Oh—the matter is not Mature nie—anii, therefore.
which I will assume for the purpose of my decision, we*
the propetty of e3mehody else—the property of the land-
lord perhaps, though Ido not know. That may admit st
quevtion ; but assume thy were. This comes before the
rot/tethers", and the ru,nistrates do not decide the caw,
hut they nay they hay o no right to decide the es,: hecausg
the two men who heat the third man thought thev had
right to beat him, and the magistrates think they
honestly thought they had a right to beat him. nu
appears to me t i he • ranst astounding contention—tbst
under circumstances of that sort the jurisdiction of the
magistrates is ousted. We have been engaged in a veil
ingenious discussion upon various' provisions of various
ststutes, and in questions of WKS rm. and questions el
this and questions of that, which it may be very imp**
bent hi decide when they arise' but which do not in tbe
etslightest degree, as it seems to me, arise hire. This is t
' proceeding under the 42nd section of the 24th and 25tel
Vintoria, chapter 100, which gives jurisdiction to No
magistrates when a per-on or persons shall unlswfolt
assault or beat any other person. Now, it is cot desiel
that these ;snots have unlawfully beaten and ;awaited
another person, and the 45th section raplain• under eirP,
circumstsners the jurisdiction is ousted—" Provide' elm
that nothing herein contained shall authorise alth
to hear and determine any (ass of athault ii,
„eatery
which any qnestion shall arias as to the lithe t , any leek
tenements, or I, reditam-nts,' and nu a on of this
$Oll arisesin iii We are da ttailitr•
juriwitction and the statutory etew ption froni a &isnot/
jurisdiction. The juriadietioth
clearly attaches, and theexemption clearly dose no% be to Me W
be about as plata case. itch and it 'em' . . wee
ever I saw, certainty
ab;tamis.helht:taktdumwthat P -
.. atas put m far ' that anY n"ati°B
live in • v•r? strange country if that were 110--,.
Matrati. dould ousted f good and weal
ousted the juyindh,.....cmghthf he had
ma
merigishttratotelow‘vhset boos: d.serl:
•jorif4ilt°rdo It
whatthe leaa did,saido
—an he hood
otherefore,vfiMe
they would b
their bawds. It has been suggested there are expellee.",
I.,:idensotothldere are, about magistrates holding their u•""_.i.e
what any
saPror
ef,tefryoOltheinetuitAin question.myhveWeittmout rod
bic.9
soy and every statute may have taken away.... eal
thiociple la the title to property, and that Is title to
PrOtorty—land. That is the old view, and this._,t is
view b•hate Palsy to have taken in the Plthaals_.....,"":
believed he
been cited tons' when he speaks of title to 01,0,..”•_..iai
mesas Ws to lead, and it ban been always held • ww.—
when title to property is in sanction the summary
diction by Justices of the Peaft is ousted. Gsetam..,
cases are cited, which, for fear of misapprehension, I I. ,
lo°4l'd at attain, cases in B.llteld and Lord Raymond. st:
there it was a distinct and bong fide question I.ool_ e
magistrates rto land—real property. There wist
ease of Williams is. Adams, in the 2ad Rest and Sm..,
which this very point was taken, that where a man
had land on both sides of a highway, contended 04=
debt to remove or not to remove certain rubbish ulica;
highway was not • matter for this Justices, becal'oen
U tle of land cam "e in question, the court of Q.. 11 el
held (and I may assy obviously Hathuyi that no goestiole..._,
tithe to land erase at all, nobody doubted whose the !fir,
was at all. The goesties ae to what should bedews ina,
acesithiag ea the had arose, but that was not yid&
"Ile all alba the heirlidkas et the suelsitelel