Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1902-01-27
SOME LEGAL FREAKS

0OmI ALU AL IhUh1AS
CURIOUS TWISTS THAT OBTAIN IN
ENGLISH CRIMINAL LAW.
4 Person May De Guilty Of Perjury
Though He swears to the Truth-No
such 0nense ~ TresRass - Points
About Forgery. ~
In no branch Of the law, as II, is. dis
pen4ad in Great Tsritain are such curl
Gus points to be. found or a greater
number of anomalies to be met with
than in the criminal branch thereoE.
1t may be news to some people, for
instance, to know that there are a num-
Der of things in existence which can
not be stolen. such: as a corpse, animals
ferm naturm-i. e.. animals wild in a
state Of nature with certain excep-
tons created by statute)-soil of the
earth, etc. To attempt to steal nothing
would appear on the face Of it to be
an impossibility, much less a crime,
but a man indicted for attempting to
pick a lady's pocket which was subse-
quently found to be empty was found
guilty Of an attempt to commit theft"
though, in fact, there was nothing in
the pocket to steal.
Any one lucky enough to pick up a
sovereign lying in the road will be glad
to hear that, if at the, time Of finding
it he had no reasonable means Of dis
covoripp tho. ou1nor NJ II opd oIeo ~ no
did not at the same time conceive the
idea of appropriating it to himself, he
will not be guilty Of stealing if he
keeps his lucky find, even If the right
full owner discovers and claims it.
Most people walking in the country
must have noticed on numerous occa-
sions boards or placards posted up in
woods, fields, ETC., notifying in large
letters that "trespassers will be prose-
cuted." but few are aware that such
notices are utterly useless and no one
need feel the least alarm thereat, there
being no such offense Known in crimi-
nal law as such a trespass, and a per-
son could never be prosecuted for such
an ofense. They are, in fact, in the
words of that eminent jurist, Sir Fred
erick Pollock, in his well known work.
pollock on Torts," a wooden false
hood"
1t is a common fallacy to imagine
that the crime Of forgery consists in
signing another's name. though in fact
committing forgery consists in making
and uttering any false instrument in
writing with attempt to defraud: thus
it may be a forgery to omit a word
from a document, and it will be a mat
ter Of considerable surprise to many to
learn that it is possible for a person to
forge his or her own name. A person,
however. who fraudulently inserts an
others name on a picture. thereby SELL
ing 1t as the work of some other artist,
is not guilty of forgery. as picture is
not an INSTRUMENT in writing"
The crime of perjury also does not
quite 'ft in" with the generally &C
cepted idea, which is that if q person,
after being sworn on oath to speak the
truth, swears falsely, he is guilty of
such ohense.. This is correct with the
important qualification that the fact
the witness has sworn to must be ma
terial to the case. Thus. II. a witness
on being duly sworn gave a false ad-
dress on being asked where he lived,
this, though untrue, would not amount
to perjury, us the place where the wit
ness lived would be quite immaterial.
That a person may be guilty of per-
jury though speaking the truth may
seem a curious anomaly, but such new
eTtheless is the fact, as thestest Of per-
jury is not whether a person is speak
ing what he believes to be the truth;
so, If a witness, for instance. on being
asked. what colored tie was the pris-
oner wearing when you met him?" re-
| piled red" when in fact he did not
really notice, he would be guilty of
perjury, even though the prisoner was
in reality wearing a red tie when the
witness met him. S.
Numerous other instances of crimes
which present similar curious points to
the above might be given, and. in pass
ing, persons taking out assurances
against burglary might note that this
crime can only be committed between
the hours Of Q p. RI. and 6 a.. M; that
breaking into a house by means Of an
open door or window is not burglary,
although entering a house by sliding
down the chimney is.
We must not conclude this article
without a short reference to a compar-
atively recent case in which q, man not
possessing the means to pay entered a
restaurant, where he ordered and ate a
good dinner. AS, however. he was un-
able to pay for the same he was given
in charge and subsequently indicted
for obtaining goods by false pre-
lenses" The case resulted in the pris,
oner's acquittal on the ground that he
had not been guilty Of any false pre-
lenses.
This indiYidtal therefore had a good
meal on the cheap. but we should not
advise any enterprising reader to emu
late his example, as, although he could
not indeed be prosecuted for obtaining
goods by false pretenses, It seems that