TO PARENTS AND GUARDIANS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2092, 17 September 1875, Page 3

TO PARENTS AND GUARDIANS.

j\n interesting judgment was delirered last Saturday in the Court for the < onsideration of Crown Cases reserved. '• 'I he Queen v. Prince "was the case in question. It raised tbe question whether it is a criminal offence to induce a girl under the age of sixteen, though believed to be above that age, to leave her father's house, whether or not the purpose or motive be unlawful. It had arisen thus : —A man was indicted, under the Act .24 and 25 Viet., for "unlawfully taking an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen out of the possession and against the will of her father,' those being the words of the statute. It appeared in the case, as stated by Mr Justice Uenman, who tried it, that all the matters of fact enumerated in. the statute were proved, except that the prisoner was told, and reasonably "believed, that the girl was over the age of sixteen; and it did not appear in the case that the motive or purpose for which he took her away was immoral or unlawful. The learned Judge reserved the case, and it was argued by counsel for the prosecu tion (though not for the prisoner) before all the Judges, except two —that is, before the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chief :ißaion, Baron JBramwell, Mr Justice Blackburn, Mr Justice Mellor, ' Mr Justice Lush,' Mr Justice Brett, Mr Justice throve, Mr Justice Qtiain; Baron Cleasby, Mr Justice. -Penman, Baron Pollock, Baron Amphlelt, Mr Justice Field, and Mr Justice Lindley. The Court had taken time to consider their judgments, and were now divided in opinion, either as to their judgement or the grounds and reasons for it. The great majority, however—indeed, all but one (Mr Justice Brett) —held the confiction right, thought they differed as to their reasons, and delivered several separate judgments. Mr Justice Penman concurred, but delivered a separate judgment with the same result, though wilh some additional reasons of his own, which came to this, thnt a father wa,s his daughter's guardian by the common law, " by nature," up to the age of twenty^one and therefore that v was no defence that the man thought the girl to be over sixteen, for he was doing an uniawiul act. The conviction was therefore confirmed, despite the counter-opinion of Mr Justice Brett.