Odger's English Common Law

118 THE ELEMENTS OF A CRIME.
The defendants assaulted a man who, though in plain clothes, was a
police officer engaged in the execution of his duty. They were not aware
that he was so engaged ; nevertheless, they were convicted of assaulting a
police officer in the execution of his duty. The act which they did was
wrong in itself, and the fact that they did not know that the police officer
whom they assaulted was then engaged in the execution of his duty afforded
. them no defence. 1
By 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 55, it is a crime for any one to " unlawfully
take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen
years, out of the possession and against the will of her father." The
defendant did take an unmarried girl under sixteen out of the possession
and against the will of her father. The girl assured him that she was over
sixteen ; she looked that age ; and the defendant bond fide believed that
she was above sixteen years of age. But it was held that this belief
afforded him no defence, as she was in fact under that age. The wrong-
doer in such a case acts at his peril. 2
By 8 & 9 Vict. c. 100, s. 44, it is a misdemeanour for any person to
receive two or more lunatics into a house not duly licensed under the Act,
and not being a duly registered hospital or an asylum. The defendant,
Mrs. Bishop, did receive several patients who were lunatics into her private
house, which was not duly licensed ; but the jury found that she bond fide
and on reasonable grounds believed that they were not lunatics. It was
held by the Court for Crown Cases Reserved that such belief was immaterial,
and that she was rightly convicted. 3
By section 13 of the Licensing Act, 1872, 4 "if any licensed person sells
any intoxicating liquor to any drunken person," he commits an offence
punishable summarily. The defendant sold intoxicating liquor to a
drunken person who had given no indication of intoxication, and without
being aware that the person so served was drunk. It was held by the
Divisional Court that knowledge of the condition of the person served
-with liquor was not necessary to constitute an offence under this section.
Stephen, J., said, " I am of opinion that the words of the section amount to
an absolute prohibition of the sale of liquor to a drunken person, and that
the existence of a bond fide, mistake as to the condition of the person served
is not an answer to the charge, but is a matter only for mitigation of the
penalties that may be imposed." 5
By the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893,* if a person, who sells
any article for use as a fertiliser of the soil or as food for cattle, " causes or
permits any invoice or description of the article sold by him to be false in
any material particular to the prejudice of the purchaser," he is liable on
summary conviction to a fine of £20. The defendants had described certain
1 S. V. Forbes and Webb (1865), 10 Cox, 362.
2 M. v. Prince (1875), L. R. 2 0. C. R. 154. Contrast this decision with those in
R. t. Tolson (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 168 ; ante, p. 115 ; R. v. Green(\%§2\ 3 F. & F. 274
aDd R. v. Hihbert (1869), L. R. 1 C. C. R. 184.
8 R. v. Bishop (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 259.
< 35 & 36 Vict. c. ,94.
5 Cundy v. Le Cocq (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 207, 209.
o 66 & 57 Vict. c. 66., s. 3, sub-s. 1 (b).