IN connection with the proposal of the Government that general elections shall take place on one and the same day, and that that day shall be Saturday, attention should be called to the provisions of the Ballot Act, which regulate the voting by Jews on Saturday. Rule 26 of schedule 1 of that Act directs that if a poll be taken on Saturday, any voter declaring that he is of the Jewish persuasion, and objects on religious grounds to vote in manner prescribed by that Act, may procure his vote to be marked on the ballot-paper by an official in the way directed by him, instead of marking it himself in the ordinary manner. The reason for this provision, which was inserted in committee on the motion of the late Mr Crawford as member for the City of London, was stated by him to be that the Jewish religion prohibits writing by Jews on Saturday, but allows dictation (see Chitty's Statutes, vol. iv., tit. "Parliament," at p. 1075). It is obvious that Saturday elections, which have hitherto been very rare, may be made more difficult to conduct in the event of Jews availing themselves to any considerable extent of this provision, especially as rule 29 prescribed that votes so given must be marked by the presiding officer and recorded on a separate list as so marked under the head of "Jews," and placed in a separate packet, with a statement of "the number of the voters whose votes are so marked under the heads of Physical Inability,' 'Jews,' and 'Unable to Read.'"-Law Journal. COURT OF SESSION.--The Court of Session resumed its sittings, after the spring vacation, on Saturday last. The provisions of the statute require that the Court shall meet on 12th May, otherwise it may be inferred that that day would not have been selected on this occasion for the opening of the summer session. Tuesday of this week being the Whitsunday term day, the Courts did not sit, as it is in the highest degree inconvenient for agents to attend on that day. Consequently, after a sederunt of an hour or so on Saturday, the Courts adjourned until Wednesday, and a great deal of scarcely sincere grumbling was heard about interrupted holidays. In deference, probably, to those who meant to go out of town again for the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, the Lord Justice-General did not hold his reception of the Bar until Wednesday evening. The Judges no longer breakfast together or go in procession to court on the first morning of the new session as they used to do. Some years ago the timehonoured ceremony was discontinued. Processions, indeed, have gone out of fashion with the Scottish judges in recent years, although one notices that there was a revival of the usual circuit ceremonies in Glasgow last week. All the Judges were present at the opening of the Courts on the 12th inst. except Lord M'Laren, who was indisposed, and Lord Wellwood, whose blank day is Saturday. Mr Thomas Shaw, Q.C., M.P., presented to the Court his commission as SolicitorGeneral. He wore the usual court dress, and many ladies were present to witness the ceremony. The Courts will not sit on Saturday, 26th inst., that being the day on which Her Majesty's birthday will be celebrated. EVIDENCE AGAINST PRISONERS OF PREVIOUS MISDEEDS. As a Though common-sense would, perhaps, lead one to say that a person charged with one offence is more likely to be guilty if it were known that he had committed similar offences before, yet that is not the result that students of the law are trained to arrive at. One of the early lessons of the industrious apprentice is this, that it is no evidence of one offence that the offender had been proved to have committed other offences before. And sometimes the learner is so proud of having mastered this valuable maxim, that he is apt to forget that even that maxim is not by any means an inflexible rule, for if he insists upon it in every case he will turn out to be wrong. general rule, it has always been advocated and defended on the ground that the object of an indictment is to give the accused distinct information of a specific charge, and, therefore, giving evidence of facts unconnected with that charge would be to take the accused by surprise. Nobody, it is said, can be prepared to answer and explain away every transaction of his life, and hence the Courts have almost an inflexible rule that evidence of other crimes and misdeeds must be shut out, and the whole attention of court and jury confined to the single issue before them. It is well, therefore, to keep in mind that there are occasions when collateral facts are allowed to be given in evidence, especially if there is some connection between the present charge and the misdeeds which tend to throw light on the prisoner's conduct. This qualifying doctrine. seems to have haunted the Courts for half a century or more. Thus, in R. v. Voke (R. & Ry. 531), the twelve judges held that if, on an indictment for maliciously shooting, it be questionable whether the shooting was by accident or design, evidence may be given that the prisoner at another time intentionally shot at the same person. In answer to the objection that the prosecutor ought not to give evidence of two distinct felonies, one of the judges remarked that it was unavoidable in that case, as it seemed to him one continued transaction in the prosecution of the general malicious intent of the prisoner. The case of R. v. Dossett (2 C. & K. 306) was authority on the subject, yet in Lord Campbell's an indictment for feloniously setting fire to a rick time a slight reaction took place. In R. v. of wheat-straw. It took fire by the prisoner Oddy (2 Den. C. C. 264), the defendant was having fired a gun very near to it. It was pro- indicted for stealing, also for receiving, woollen posed by the prosecution to go into evidence that cloth from a warehouse in the night-time. On the rick had been on fire also the day before, and the arrest of the prisoner and searching his house, that the prisoner was then close to it with a gun. four other pieces of cloth, which were alleged to Marl, J., allowed the evidence, giving the follow-be stolen from other mills, were found, and the ing reason --Although the evidence offered may be proof of another felony, that circumstance did not render it inadmissible, if the evidence be otherwise receivable. In many cases it is an important question whether a thing was done accidentally or wilfully. If a person were charged with having wilfully poisoned another, and it were a question whether he knew a certain white powder to be poison, evidence would be admissible to show that he knew what the powder was, because he had administered it to another person who had died, and although that might be proof of a distinct felony. And so as to proof of other utterings of forged bank-notes than the one charged. The case of R. v. Geering (18 L. J. M. C. 215) was a reproduction of the same doctrine. The indictment was for murdering the prisoner's husband by arsenic, and there were three other indictments for poisoning her three sons. The prosecution tendered evidence that arsenic had been taken by the prisoner's two sons; one of whom died three months after the husband, another six months after, and a third son, also six months later, had taken arsenic, but did not die. Proof was given of a similarity of symptoms in the four cases. Evidence was also tendered that the prisoner lived in the same house with her husband and sons, and that she prepared their tea, cooked their victuals, and distributed them to the four parties. The medical man deposed that the symptoms in all the four cases were precisely the same. The four parties all lived with the prisoner, being part of the same family. The judge, Pollock, C.B. (with whom Alderson, B., and Talfourd, J., concurred after consultation), admitted the evidence as proving that the death of the three sons proceeded from the same cause, namely, arsenic. He said that the tendency of such evidence was to prove and to confirm the proof already given, that the death of the husband, whether felonious or not, was occasioned by arsenic. In this view it was wholly immaterial whether the deaths of the sons took place before or after the death of the husband. The domestic history of the family during the period that the four deaths occurred was also receivable in evidence to show that during the time arsenic had been taken by four members of it with a view to enable the jury to determine as to whether such taking was accidental or not. The evidence was not inadmissible by reason of its having a tendency to prove or to create a suspicion of a subsequent felony. Though these cases seemed to form a body of prosecutor tendered evidence of these facts. The judge admitted the evidence, and the prisoner was convicted; and a case was reserved as to the admissibility of the evidence. Lord Campbell, C.J., took the professional view, and said that the evidence tendered was only evidence of the prisoner being a bad man, and likely to commit the offences there charged. But the English law does not permit the issue of criminal trials to depend on this species of evidence. The cases of uttering with a guilty knowledge certainly go very far; still the reason there was, that the prisoner might be supposed from previous utterings of forged notes to have acquired knowledge of what is a forged document, and what is not. But if that be so, there was no analogous scienter in this case. And Alderson, B., said: "We are asked to say that, in order to show that the prisoner had committed oue felony, the prosecutor may prove that he committed a totally different felony some time before." It was the decision, therefore, of five judges that the finding in the prisoner's possession of similar cloth to that stolen, with proof that that kind of cloth had been recently stolen, was inadmissible. And in another case of R. v. Winslow (8 Cox, 397), decided in 1860, a judge (Martin, B.) held, on an indictment for murder by poison, that evidence was not admissible that three others in the same family died of similar poison, and that the prisoner was present at all the deaths, and administered something to two of these patients. According to the report of this last case, however, no authority seems to have been referred to, and the case of R. v. Deering was not alluded to. The same judge, moreover, seems to have concurred in a later decision to a contrary effect in R. v. Gray (4 F. & F. 1102), where Willes, J., was the judge. In this last case, the prisoner was indicted for setting fire to his house with intent to defraud an insurance company. He had insured his furniture for £270, and the house went on fire during the night. The prisoner had been seen to leave the premises an hour before the fire was visible, and on examination suspicious arrangements were seen in the rooms and fireplaces. The prosecutor proposed, in order to show that the fire was not the result of accident, to prove that the prisoner had previously occupied two houses in succession, both of which had been insured, that fires had broken out in both, and that the prisoner had made claims upon and been paid by the insurance companies in respect of the loss caused by each fire. The judge admitted the evidence, and refused to reserve any point for the con sideration of the Court for Crown Cases found that there had been a considerable current Reserved. There seem to be no more authorities on this particular point of law, between the case last cited and one decided very recently by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, where there has been something like a review of the whole series by the same Court, it being, moreover, a Court composed of seven judges, half of whom were versed in common law. This case of Makin v. Attorney-General (1894, Ap. C. 57) was an appeal from the Courts in New South Wales as to the ruling of a judge on a trial for murder. Two persons, Makin and his wife, were tried on an indictment for the murder of a young child, nine weeks old, named Murray. The child was an illegitimate child of a domestic servant, who had discovered the prisoners, and arranged with them for the support and care of the child. The discovery of the vocation of the prisoners arose from the dead bodies of six infants being found buried in the back yards of two houses which the prisoners had inhabited. The mother of the child Murray had paid the prisoners a small sum of £3 on the representation that they wished to adopt her child, and while the mother was able to meet the prisoners, so as to ask after the child, they gave her plausible accounts of its good health, sufficient to put off inquiry. On one of the infants' bodies that were buried was found the baby's gown in which the mother had clothed the child Murray at the time of parting with it. On tracing the residences and doings of the prisoners, it was found that the prisoners had been seen in possession of other babies. And during the imprisonment, the male prisoner had told a witness that he was in prison for baby farming, and of authority to that effect, and only one or two doubtful cases. The conclusion is thus expressed by the Court: "It is, undoubtedly, not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely, from his criminal conduct or character, to have committed the offence for which he is being tried. On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears on the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental, or to rebut a defence which would otherwise be open to the accused.” The Court also adds this remark, that the statement of these general principles is easy, but it is obvious that it is very difficult to draw the line, and to decide whether a particular piece of evidence is on one side or the other. This last case will serve as a leading case on the subject, and it opens up in future criminal trials a wide field for the ingenuity of counsel and the acuteness and research of detectives in coping with forgers, baby farmers, poisoners, incendiaries, and other systematic miscreants.-Justice of the Peace. that that was what a man gets for obliging people. A BILL TO AMEND THE LAW RELAT The evidence at the trial was chiefly circumstantial so far as related to the identification of the infant, but the prosecutors, besides trying to satisfy the jury as to identification, tendered evidence that several other infants had been received from their mothers on like representations, and upon payment of a sum inadequate for the support of the child for more than a very limited period, and that the bodies of infants had been found buried in a similar manner in the gardens of several houses occupied by the prisoners. The judge who tried the case admitted the evidence as to the other infants' bodies, but the Court of Appeal in New South Wales held that the evidence was wrongly admitted, and this appeal to the Privy Council was brought to determine which of the Courts was right. All the authorities bearing on the matter (in the English law books were referred to, and hence the considered judgment of this Court of last resort is of great weight. The Judicial Committee came to the conclusion that the evidence tendered was properly admitted at the trial of the prisoners for murder of the baby mentioned in the indictment. It was ING TO HERITABLE SECURITIES IN SCOTLAND. Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: I. This Act may be cited for all purposes as the Heritable Securities Realisation (Scotland) Act, 1894. II. This Act shall apply to Scotland only, and shall come into operation on the first day of January one thousand eight hundred and ninetyfive. III. Any bondholder, after the term of payment, may give notice by registered letter to the debtor under the bond at his last known address in the form as nearly as may be of Schedule (A) annexed to this Act, and by registered letter to the tenants of the subjects disponed in security in the form as nearly as may be of Schedule (B) annexed to this Act, that he intends to enter into possession thereof, and from and after the date when such notice is received by the tenants they shall be interpelled from making payment of the rents due by them in the same manner and to the same effect as if called as defenders to an action of maills and duties according to the present law and practice, and shall be under obligation to pay said rents in the same manner as if decree of maills and duties had been granted according to such law and practice. Provided always that no notice shall affect the tenants' right to refuse payment of rent on any ground not affecting the title of such bondholder, or the right of any prior bondholder to enter into possession, and nothing herein contained shall prevent an action of maills and duties being brought in the form heretofore in use. IV. Any party interested may take proceedings to interpel the bondholder from entering into possession or collecting said rents if he is not entitled so to do. V. Where a bondholder desires to enter into possession and the proprietor of the subjects of security is in personal occupation of the same, or any part thereof, he shall be deemed a tenant at will, and the bondholder may take proceedings to eject him in all respects in the same way as if he were such tenant. VI. Any bondholder in possession may let the subjects, or part thereof, on lease, for a period not exceeding seven years in duration. VII. Any bondholder in possession may apply to the Sheriff for warrant to let the subjects or part thereof, for a period exceeding seven years, setting forth the name of the proposed tenant or tenants, the period of the lease, and the conditions thereof; and the Sheriff may, after such intimation and inquiry as he may think proper, and if satisfied that a lease for a longer period than seven years is expedient for the beneficial occupation of the subjects, approve of the proposed lease on the proposed or other terms and conditions. Provided always that said lease shall in no case exceed nineteen years. VIII. Any bondholder who has exposed for sale under his bond the subjects comprised in his bond, at a price not exceeding the amount due under the said bond and under any prior bond exclusive of the expenses attending the exposure or prior exposures, or at any lower price, and has failed to find a purchaser, may apply to the Sheriff for an order, in the terms of Schedule (C) hereto annexed; and the Sheriff may, after such intimation and inquiry as he may see fit, grant such application and issue an order in the said terms, or otherwise he may appoint the said subjects to be re-exposed for sale at a price to be fixed by him, and in that event the said bondholder shall have right to bid for and purchase said subjects at such sale; and, in the event of the bondholder purchasing, the Sheriff shall issue an order in the form aforesaid finding the bondholder has right to and is vested in the said subjects as absolute proprietor thereof. The said order shall have the same effect as a disposi tion by a bondholder to a purchaser according to the present law and practice, and an extract thereof may be recorded to the same effect as such a disposition in the appropriate register of sasines, with a warrant thereon in favour of the said bondholder. IX. Upon such order being issued and upon consignation of the surplus of the price, if any be, in terms of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868, or upon the execution and recording of a certificate of no surplus, in terms of the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, the title of the bondholder to the subjects shall be absolute and irredeemable, and the subjects shall be completely disencumbered of all securities and diligences posterior to the security of such bondholder as well as of the security and diligence of such bondholder himself. Provided always that the personal obligation of the debtor shall be reserved in full force and effect so far as not extinguished by the price at which the subjects have been acquired. X. No purchaser from the bondholder or other successor in title in the subjects shall be concerned to inquire into the regularity of the proceedings under which such bondholder has acquired right to said subjects, without prejudice to any competent claim of damages against such bondholder. XI. Any bondholder holding a security ranking pari passu with another security who desires to sell the subjects comprised in his bond, and who is unable to obtain the consent of the holder of such other pari passu security to a sale, may apply to the Sheriff for warrant to sell said subjects, calling said holder as defender; and the Sheriff, after hearing parties and making such inquiry as he sees fit, may order a sale, if in his opinion it is reasonable and expedient that such sale should take place; and in case of difference of opinion, the Sheriff may fix the price, authorise both or either of the parties or other person to carry through the sale, and to grant the conveyance and disencumber the subjects of the said bonds in the same way and as fully as if the holders thereof were by agreement carrying through said sale, and adjust the times and conditions of sale. And in the payment, allocation, and disposal of the prices. or proceeds of sale the holders of such pari passu securities shall be ranked pari passu. XII. The following provisions shall have effect with regard to applications under sections seven, eight and eleven of this Act : (1) The interlocutor of the Sheriff who pronounces any order or decree shall be final, and not subject to review. (2) The Sheriff may award expenses, or may direct the expenses to be treated as a charge on the subjects of security or as part of the expenses of sale. XIII. The rights and powers conferred by this Act may be exercised by any bondholder, whether the debtor or the proprietor for the time, or any other bondholder over the same subjects, or other person to whom intimation may require or be ordered to be given is of full age, or in pupillarity or minority, or although he should be subject to any legal incapacity, and any action or proceeding under this Act shall have the same force and effect as it would have had if such debtor, proprietor, bondholder, or other person had been of full age and capacity when such action or proceeding was taken; and trustees, curators, judicial factors, and other officers of Court may exercise all or any of the powers conferred by this Act. XIV. From and after the passing of this Act the powers of sale contained in bonds and assignations in security granted in terms of the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857, may be conducted and carried through by adopting the procedure provided in the case of sales under the powers of sale contained in bonds and dispositions in security by the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868, and the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874, and this Act, and any sales under such bonds and assignations in security carried through by adopting the said procedure shall be as valid and effectual in every respect as if they had been carried through in accordance with the provisions of the Registration of Leases (Scotland) Act, 1857. XV. The Sheriff of the county in which the subjects or part thereof are situate shall have jurisdiction in all cases instituted under or in connection with this Act, whatever be the value of the subjects. XVI. Nothing herein contained shall prejudice or restrict the powers, rights, and privileges of bondholders according to the present law and practice. XVII. In this Act the words "deed," " conveyance," "heritable security," and " security" shall have the same respective meanings as in the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1868. The word "bond" shall extend to and include all heritable and other securities containing power of sale, which are or may be used for the purpose of constituting a security over lands or other heritable subjects or long leases, or over the rents and profits thereof, but shall not include securities by way of ground annual, whether redeemable or irredeemable. The word "bondholder" shall extend to and include the holder of a "bond" or part of a "bond" as above defined. "Debtor" shall include heir or representative. The word "subjects" shall extend to and include all heritable subjects, securities, and rights, and also long leases. The Sheriff having resumed consideration of the said petition, finds and declares that A.B. (design him), the petitioner, has right to, and is vested in, the subjects described in the petition as absolute proprietor thereof, at the price of £ (here mention the price at which the subjects were last exposed if no re-exposure is ordered, or the price at which the subjects have been bought in by bondholder if there has been a re-exposure and purchase by him), and decerns: and grants warrant to record the decree to be extracted hereon in the register of sasines. |