Odger's English Common Law

44 PUBLIC WRONGS.
" wite " in respect of most penal offences ; and in Cnut's time there was a
clear list of the King's "rights" (ham-socne [burglary], flymenafyrmCte
[harbouring of runaways], mund-bryce [breach of the peace], &c). The
Norman Kings and still more the Plantagenets built up a strong central
criminal jurisdiction, which was enforced either in the King's own Court
or in the county courts, by the King's visiting justices. Nevertheless,
appeal of felony was not for centuries abolished 1 and was at first no doubt
encouraged, at least negatively, the King being concerned rather with the
fines to which he was entitled than with the crimes themselves. It was not
till the reign of Henry VIII. that theie came into vogue the system of
prosecution by indictment, which was a nearer approach to our modern
criminal procedure. The history of our law thus ever disappoints those
who expect to find in it any scientific theory or nice analysis of modern
jurisprudential conceptions.
It follows from the above definitions that the same "wrong-
ful act may be both a tort and a crime ; for an act which
injures an individual and entitles him to compensation may
at the same time be such that its repetition would be most
harmful to society. So in a few cases a breach of contract
may be a crime. 2 But these coincidences in no way affect
the position, or alter the action, taken by the State with
reference to an act which it has forbidden under pain of
punishment. In such cases the wrong-doer is liable to pro-
ceedings of two kinds—the individual whom he has injured
may bring a civil action against him for damages : the State
may prosecute him for the crime which he has committed.
Nevertheless the object of the criminal proceedings will be
in every case to punish the offender and to prevent any
repetition of the offence ; the object of the civil proceedings
will be to compensate the person injured by giving him
damages or other relief. The person injured conducts the
civil action, irrespective of the Crown; the Crown conducts
the prosecution independently of the plaintiff. Only the
plaintiff can settle the action; only the Crown can pardon
the crime.
When the same wrongful act is both a tort and a crime, no one can bring
an action for damages for the tort unless he has suffered some special
injury over and above what every one else has sustained. The mere fact
that A. has committed a crime is no reason why all the citizens of London
1 It was not absolutely abolished till 1819, though it had then long been obsolete :
see Ashford v. Thornton (1818), 1 B. & Aid. 405.
2 See post, p. 106.