54
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
VOL. VIII.
1881
case the sessions was right in inferring from the facts that thereThe effect of the husband's break of
res
OVEBSEEBS OF idence was to break that of the wife also, so far as it could
MANCHESTEE. confer a status of irreinoveability.
T
1'BE QUEEN W »S no intention to return.
BOWEN, J. I am not prepared to differ from the view that the
break of the husband's residence was a break of the residence of
the wife, and that, although the wife had in fact resided the
required year, her residence was not such a residence as iscontemplated by the 1st section of 9 & 10 Viet. c. 66.
Order affirmed, iriih costs.
Solicitors for appellants: Johnson & Weatheralls, for A. Lings,.
Manchester.
Solicitor for respondents: Crofton, Manchester.
J. 11.
Nov. 19.
•
[CKOWN CASE KESEEVED.]
THE QUEEN v. MAKTIN.
Criminal Law—Inflicting
Grievous Bodily Harm—Malice—24 & 25 Viet..
c. 100, s. 20.
Shortly before the conclusion of a performance at a theatre, M., with theintention and with the result of causing terror in the minds of persons leaving
the theatre, put out the gaslights on a staircase which a large number of such
persons had to descend in order to leave the theatre, and he also, with the intention and with the result of obstructing the exit, placed an iron bar across a
doorway through which they had in leaving to pass.
Upon the lights being thus extinguished a panic seized a large portion of the
audience, and they rushed in fright down the staircase forcing those in front,
against the iron bar. By reason of the pressure and straggling of the crowd
thus created on the staircase, several of the audience were thrown down or otherwise severely injured, and amongst them A. and B.
On proof of these facts the jury convicted M. of unlawfully and maliciously
inflicting grievous bodily harm upon A. and B. :—
Held, by the Court (Lord Coleridge, C.J., Field, Hawkins, Stephen, and.
Cave, JJ.), that M. was rightly convicted.
AT the general quarter sessions for the borough of Leeds, held
on the 4th of July, 1881, Edwin Martin was tried upon an
indictment charging that he did unlawfully and maliciously
VOL. VIII.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
55
inflict grievous bodily harm upon George Pybus against the form
1881
of the statute, &c, and, by a second count, that he did unlawfully THE QDEEN
and maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm upon Martin Dacey MARTIN.
against the form of the statute, &c.
The indictment was framed on the 20th section of 24 & 25
Viet. c. 100.
The evidence for the prosecution was to the following effect:—
The gallery in the Theatre Eoyal at Leeds is reached from the
street by a stone staircase, which is lighted by three gaslights,
of which one is at the top, one on a landing about the middle, and
the third over the door of the pay office, which is at the bottom
of the stairs. These lights are all fastened to the walls at the
height of seven feet or thereabouts above the stairs or landings.
Between the street and the bottom of the staircase there are a
pair of folding-doors opening outwards into the street. Each of
these doors is divided into halves, of which the halves nearest to
the door-posts or walls on each side can be kept closed by means
of strong iron bars let into sockets in the stonework of the staircase,
and connected with the doors by iron bolts. These bars are
moveable. The practice was to open only the central halves of
the doors whilst the audience were assembling and passing the
pay office, so as to limit the number of those who could pass in at
the same time, and to remove the iron bars and open the whole of
the doors some time before the conclusion of the performance, so
as to allow the audience to pass out into the street more quickly.
It was proved that on the night of the 30th of April, 1881,
shortly before the conclusion of the performance, the foldingdoors were opened to their full extent, and the iron bars placed
against the wall of the staircase to the right hand of a person
leaving the theatre, and close to the door, according to the usual
practice.
The evidence shewed that the gallery on this night was filled to
the extent of about three-fourths of its total capacity.
The defendant (who was well acquainted with the theatre,
having assisted on several occasions as a supernumerary) was
proved to have been in the gallery on this night, and to have been
the first, or almost the first, to leave it, at the conclusion of the
performance. It was proved that he ran quickly down the gallery
56
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
1881
VOL. VIII.
staircase, and that as he did so he reached up with his hand and
THE QUEBN put out the gaslight on the middle landing, and also that over the
Pay office.
It was also proved that as he passed out into the street he took,
one of the iron bars which was leaning against the wall close to
the door on his right hand side, and threw it or placed it partly
across the doorway. Almost immediately after this had been
done by the defendant the whole of the folding-doors became
closed. The evidence as to how this occurred was extremely
vague. The result however of the doors being closed and the
lower lights extinguished was to leave the lower part of the
gallery stairs in almost entire darkness.
Almost immediately after the lights were put out, a panic seized
the audience, who rushed down stairs and endeavoured to find
their way into the street. In consequence of the presence of the
iron bar, which the defendant had placed or thrown across one
part of the doorway, and of the doors being shut, it was some
time before any of them could reach the street, and in the
meantime the pressure from behind forced those in front against
and under the iron bar and against the doors, and a large number
of persons were very seriously injured and had to be removed to
the infirmary. Amongst those injured were George Pybus and
Martin Dacey. The medical evidence was to the effect that
George Pybus shewed signs of fracture of the base of the skull,
which was probably caused by his slipping and falling backwards
as he was running down the stairs after the gaslights had been
extinguished, and so striking his head upon the stairs, and that
Martin Dacey was suffering from collapse, the result of partial
suffocation arising from the pressure to which he had been
subjected in the crowd on or at the foot of the stairs.
It was clearly proved that the defendant was on the stage of
the theatre after the accident assisting the injured persons who
had been brought there. There was no evidence of any previous
quarrel or dispute between him and the managers or officials of
the theatre, or between him and any person in the gallery.
The defence set up for the defendant was an alibi.
In summing up the evidence to the jury the learned Recorder
directed them that malice was an essential, ingredient in the
VOL. VIII.
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
57
offence charged against the defendant, and intimated to them that
1881
if they were of opinion that the conduct of the defendant in ex- THE QDEBN
tiuguishing the lights and throwing the iron bar across the doorway amounted to nothing more than a mere piece of-foolish
mischief they might acquit him; but that if they believed the
acts were done with a deliberate and malicious intention they
ought to convict.
The following questions were left to the jury:
1. Did the prisoner extinguish the gaslights, or either of
them?
2. Did he place or throw the bar across the doorway in such a
manner as to make the means of exit more difficult ?
3. If he did extinguish the lights or either of them, did he do
so with the intention of causing terror and alarm in the minds of
the persons leaving the gallery ?
4. If he did throw or place the bar across the doorway, did he
do so with the intention of wilfully obstructing the means of exit
from the gallery ?
5. Were Pybus or Dacey, or either of them, injured by reason
of any of the acts of the prisoner ? and if so by which of them ?
The jury found the defendant guilty, answered the first four
questions in the affirmative, and stated that they found that both
Pybus and Dacey were injured by reason of each of the acts of
the defendant mentioned in the first and second questions.
The question for the consideration of the Court was, whether
the defendant was properly convicted on the above facts and
finding of the jury.
No counsel appeared.
LOBD COLERIDGE, C.J. I am unable to entertain any doubt as
to the propriety of this conviction. The prisoner was indicted
under 24 & 25 Viet. c. 100, s. 20, which enacts that " whosoever
shall unlawfully and maliciously wound, or inflict any grievous
bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any
weapon or instrument, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, &c."
The learned judge after stating the facts, continued: Upon
these facts the prisoner was convicted, and the jury found all that
5S
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION.
1881
VOL. VIII.
Was necessary to sustain
the conviction. The prisoner must be
TUE QUEEN taken to have intended the natural consequences of that which
ue
MAHTIN.
did. He acted " unlawfully and maliciously," not that he had
any personal malice against the particular individuals injured, but
in the sense of doing an unlawful act calculated to injure, and by
which others were in fact injured. Just as in the case of a man
who unlawfully fires a gun among a crowd, it is murder if one of
the crowd is thereby killed. The prisoner was most properly
convicted.
FIELD and HAWKINS, JJ., concurred.
STEPHEN, J. I am entirely of the same opinion, but I wish to
add that the Eecorder seems to have put the case too favourably
for the prisoner, for he put it to the jury to consider whether the
prisoner did the act "as a mere piece of foolish mischief." Now,
it seems to me, that if the prisoner did that which he did as a mere
piece of foolish mischief unlawfully and without excuse, he did it
" wilfully," that is " maliciously," within the meaning of the
statute. I think it important to notice this as the word " malicious" is capable of being misunderstood. Lord Blackburn
(then Mr. Justice Blackburn) in the. cases of Reg. v. Ward (1)
and Reg. v. Pemhliton (2), lays it down that a man acts " maliciously " when he wilfully and without lawful excuse does that
which he knows will injure another.
CAVE, J., concurred.
Conviction affirmed.
No Solicitors were instructed.
(1) Law Rep. 1 C. C. B. 356, 360.
(2) Law Rep. 2 C. C. K. 119, 122.
CD.