Luis Alberto Bustamante Robin; Jose Guillermo Gonzalez Cornejo; Jennifer Angelica Ponce Ponce; Francia Carolina Vera Valdes; Carolina Ivonne Reyes Candia; Mario Alberto Correa Manríquez; Enrique Alejandro Valenzuela Erazo; Gardo Francisco Valencia Avaria; Alvaro Gonzalo Andaur Medina; Carla Veronica Barrientos Melendez; Luis Alberto Cortes Aguilera; Ricardo Adolfo Price Toro; Julio César Gil Saladrina; Ivette Renee Mourguet Besoain; Marcelo Andres Oyarse Reyes; Franco Gonzalez Fortunatti; Patricio Ernesto Hernández Jara; Demetrio Protopsaltis Palma; Paula Flores Vargas; Ricardo Matias Heredia Sanchez; Alamiro Fernandez Acevedo; Soledad García Nannig; Katherine Alejandra Lafoy Guzmán;
|
 |
Cross-examined by Mr. SULLIVAN
Do I understand you to say that
these green patches are anything special? They do not represent towns,
do they ? They do not represent towns ; they represent certain areas about
towns.
All these green patches? Not all the green ones, the ones in vivid
green, emerald green; and those in duller green represent woods.
What? The patches of bright emerald green are the ones near
defended towns, garrisons ; the small, dull, olive green patches represent
woods.
Look at Sligo. (Map handed to witness.) You will not tell me that
ollooney is a, garrison town. Could you get a more brilliant green than
decorates Collooney? The only patches on this map in green indicate
woods.
What I wish to point out to you is that Collooney has got the bright
green you have just been speaking of. That you say represents a wood
around Collooney? It is not exactly the same.
Is Limerick a garrison town? No, not a defended port. It is not
what we understand by a garrison town.
Limerick is not a garrison town in what sense? It is a town with a
garrison, is it not? It is a garrison town, but by garrison we understand a
defended port.
Is not the term "garrison town" usually applied to a town that is
well equipped with barracks, and at which large bodies of soldiers are
stationed ? Yes, a town in which there are barracks and bodies of soldiers.
Do you know the town of Limerick ? I have never been there. I have
never been in Ireland.
Will you take that bit of the map which represents Lough Swilly?
There are not five garrison towns on Lough Swilly, are there? Certainly
not.
Are there five of your green patches marked all along Lough Swilly?
Those green patches' do not represent garrison towns. As I say, it is only
conjecture on my part.
If they represent garrison towns, does not that represent that Lough
Swilly has at least five of them dotted all along it? They do not represent
garrison towns.
Then may I take it that it is) pure speculation on your part as to what
these green circles do represent? It is. I have said that already.
Do you see by that map that on Lough Swilly where there are no
towns at all, in a. lonely country, there are five circles ? Seven altogether.
There are seven circles dotted all along Lough Swilly where there are
no towns of any kind, sort, or description? I am merely suggesting that
they represent certain defended areas in the neighbourhood of garrisons.
Will you tell me, looking at these seven patches on Lough Swilly
you see where Lough Swilly runs? Yes.
If you are not giving away any secret, will you tell me what is the
nearest garrison town of any kind to Lough Swilly? Would it not be
'Derry ? I would not be referring to garrison towns at all, only to garrisons.
Do you suggest to my lords that there are seven stations on Lough
Swilly with garrisons in them? This map has not been prepared in this
country.
Is not your answer, that you do not know what those seven patches
on Lough Swilly represent? I have already said several times it is con-
jecture.
Re-examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL To make it quite clear, what
do you mean by the word ' ' garrison " ? Probably " defended port " would
be a better word to use.
Have you looked at the places where these bright green patches are
on the maps? Yes.
Are there at or near those places garrisons in the sense in which you
use the word ? That does not come into my department.
MAURICE MORIARTY, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I live at
Tralee, and I drive a motor car for Mr. Nolan. I remember last Good
Friday. I drove Mr. Nolan's motor on that day. I started about
eleven o'clock, and I got one passenger at Rock Street and two at
Balloonough. Rock Street is a street in Tralee, and I picked up one
passenger there. I took up the two others in Tralee. Ballyheige isi ten
miles from Tralee. That road takes us through Ardfert. I drove
through Ardfert. I gave some evidence at Bow Street Police Court in
London. I saw at Bow Street Police Court one of the persons who had
been in my car on that day. He gave his name to the police as Mulcahy,
but his right name is Bailey.* He was in the dock when I saw him at
Bow Street. I drove these persons to Ballyheige. After we drive
through Ardfert the road takes one near to the sea, to a place called
Banner Strand. Banner Strand is near Curraghane. I got about 300
yards from the sea when the tyre burst. A police sergeant came up to
see the oar then. After that I drove those three persons on to Ballyheige,
and then to Causeway, about six miles from Ballyheige. I then took them
through Abbeydorney back to Tralee.
Mr. SULLIVAN No question. GEORGE CARTER, examined by Mr. BODKIN I am a constable in the
Royal Irish Constabulary. On Saturday, 22nd April, I was in the
neighbourhood of Curraghane, near Abbeydorney. That is not very far
from Ardfert three or four miles. I saw there a man, whom I afterwards
took into custody. I afterwards saw that same man at Bow Street Police
Court in London. He was then in the dock standing beside the prisoner,
Sir Roger Casement. His name was Bailey.
Mr. SULLIVAN No> question. DANIEL O'DONNELL, examined by Mr. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS I am a
detective-inspector at New Scotland Yard. On 28th April I went over to
Dublin, and on 6th May I went to the Royal Irish Constabulary Depot at
Phoenix Park. A man, whose name was afterwards given as Bailey, was
handed over to my custody, and I brought that man over to London.
While he was in Dublin that man was seen by some of the soldiers
who. ha.ve given evidence in this case. He is the same person.
Mr. SULLIVAN No question. EDWARD PARKER, examined by the SOLICITOR-GENERAL I am an
inspector of the Metropolitan Police on duty at New Scotland Yard. On
the morning of 15th May I went with other officers to the Tower of London,
where I saw the accused, Sir Roger Casement. I spoke to him, and said,
" I am a police officer, and have a warrant for the arrest of Sir Roger
"Casement; are you Sir Roger Casement?" He replied "Yes." I
then read through a copy of a birth certificate I had in my hand, and
asked him if he was born on 1st September, 1864, in the district of
Kingstown, County Dublin, and he replied, "Yes." I said, "Was your
" father Roger Casement and your mother Annie Casement? Was your
"father a captain in the Antrim Militia?" and he replied, "Yes." I
* See Appendix for the very interesting statement made by Bailey, taken by
Inspector Britten at Abbeydorney on 23rd April, 1916.
then read the warrant to him, and he made no reply. Exhibit 1 is the
warrant that I read to him. I took Casement to Bow Street Police Station,
where he was subsequently charged. After he was charged he said,
" Am I allowed to say anything now? " He was cautioned that if he did
it would be taken down and used in evidence, and he then said, pointing
to Bailey, who was charged with him, ' ' Well, that man is innocent. I
" think the indictment is wrongly drawn up against him. If it is within
" my power to provide defence for the man I wish him to be in every
' ' way as well defended as myself, and if he has no means to obtain hisi
" defence, I am prepared to obtain them for him." I produce the London
Gazette of 5th August, 1914, exhibit 3. That is the Gazette containing
the official announcement of the declaration of war with Germany.
Mr. SULLIVAN No question.
|
|
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE We are of opinion that this document is
admissible. It is clear upon the evidence as it stands, and we have to
deal with the case at present upon the evidence as it stands, that the
German officers and authorities were attempting to seduce the British
soldiers who were prisoners of war in this camp from their allegiance. This
leaflet was circulated and distributed amongst these prisoners that is, the
British prisoners of war who were all said to be Irish in this camp.
The prisoner Casement had been to the camp and had made a speech or
speeches, and was; attempting to get men to join the Irish Brigade, accord-
ing to the evidence as given at the moment, and he is charged with
adhering to the King's enemies by giving them aid and comfort. The
means by which they, the German authorities, were seeking to assist
themselves was by getting these Irish prisoners of war to join this Irish
Brigade for the purpose stated, and the prisoner was doing the same thing
according to the evidence as at present given. In these circumstances it
seems to us quite clear that this document, having been distributed after
he (Casement) had come upon the scene, and, according to the evidence,
seeking to bring about the same operation and the same result, the evidence
of this document, exhibit No. 4, must be admissible in evidence against
him on this charge. Therefore we admit it.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL My lord, the document has not yet been
read to the jury. Perhaps I had better now read it.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Yes. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL It is in these terms ' ' Irishmen ! Here is>
"a chance for you to fight for Ireland! You have fought for England,
" your country's hereditary enemy. You have fought for Belgium in
" England's interest, though it was no more to you than the Fiji Islands.
' ' Are you willing to fight for your own country ? With a view to securing
" the national freedom of Ireland, with the moral and material assistance
" of the German Government, an Irish Brigade is being formed. , The
" object of the Irish Brigade shall be to fight solely the cause of Ireland,
" and under no circumstances shall it be directed to any German end.
" The Irish Brigade shall be formed and shall fight under the Irish flag
Evidence for Prosecution. ' alone; the men hall wear a special, distinctly Irish uniform, and have
' Irish officers. The Irish Brigade shall be clothed, fed, and efficiently
' equipped with arms and ammunition by the German Government. It
' will be stationed near Berlin, and be treated as guests of the German
' Government. At the end of the war the German Government under-
' takes to- send each member of the brigade who may so desire it to> the
' United States of America, with necessary means to land. The Irishmen
' in America are collecting money for the brigade. Those men who do not
1 join the Irish Brigade will be removed from Limberg and distributed
' among other camps. If interested, see your company commanders.
' ' Join the Irish Brigade and win Ireland's independence ! Remember
" Bachelor's Walk! God Save Ireland! "
The ATTORNEY-GEOSTERAL That, my lords, is the case for the prosecu-
tion. There is no statement.
Motion to Quash Indictment. Mr. SULLIVAN My lords, I intimated at another stage of the case
that I had considerations to address to the Court on the question of
whether the indictment to which the prisoner has since pleaded disclosed
an offence known to the law and triable before your lordships. I fear
I shall have to trespass on the time of the Court for some little period.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Whatever time you may require is at your
disposal. It is essential that you should have all the time you wish.
Please do not hurry.
Mr. SULLIVAN What I was going to say was a matter for the guid-
ance of the Court, that I should probably occupy, in the debate of this
matter at any rate, such a period of the afternoon that I would ask for
personal indulgence that I might not be called upon to speak further
to the evidence, if your lordships would .kindly allow that.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Certainly. Mr. SULLIVAN The indictment which your lordships have before
you under the new statute sets out the charge as being " High Treason
te by adhering to the King's enemies elsewhere than in the King's realm,
" to wit, in the Empire of Germany, contrary to the Treason Act, 1351."
Now, my lords, we are all aware that that statement, in the description
of the offence as far as I have gone, is certainly not taken from the words
of the statute, 25 Edward III. On the contrary, the words " elsewhere
" than in the King's realm," so far from following the charge of adhering
to the King's enemies in the statute, are followed by directly contrary
words, " adhering to the King's enemies within his realm," and, as
we all know, are followed by the further words, " giving them aid or
" comfort within the realm or elsewhere," as it has been translated.
My lords, the matter is not agitated for the first time, but there
is no case as far as I know, and my colleagues, Mr. Artemus Jones, and
Mr. Morgan especially, have assisted me in my search, and have gone
through a great number of cases there is, as far as I know, no case
in which it has ever been submitted to any Court, argued, and decided,
that a statute which in terms commences by a declaration that the offence
shall be committed within the realm has ever after argument been
adjudged to extend to an offence outside the realm; no reported case,
at all events. One case was cited in a previous argument thirteen years
ago on behalf of the Crown as being an authority that way which I shall
have to deal with at some length, and I think I shall prove to almost
mathematical demonstration that, so far from establishing the proposi-
tion for which it was cited, it, in fact, was a case of adhering to the
King's enemies in the realm in the plainest of plain terms, not charged
in the indictment, but the place lay within the realm of England; and
from the nature of the trial and tribunal, I hope to point out to your
lordships that that view must inevitably be taken.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you referring to Vaughan's case?
Mr. SULLIVAN The King v. Vaughan. I hope to establish that in
The King v. Vaughan. The offence charged was actually committed
within the realm, and was tried as such. But, my lords, before I come
to that, may I be permitted to develop on an interior line? Treason
was a generic term applied to a great number of offences, all savouring
of breach of allegiance to His Majesty the King. The subject of all
allegiance itself falls under two totally distinct heads, allegiance of the
person and allegiance of the occupier of a locality, because, as your
lordships are well aware, the occupier, even though he be an alien enemy,
a resident within the realm, owes a local allegiance, if I may use the
term in that context, to His Majesty the King so long as he resides within
the King's peace and has his protection. Such a local allegiance is it
that he, although by birth and personality an alien enemy, may be
indicted and convicted of treason to our Lord the King. That is per-
fectly clear. May I refer your lordships to the first volume of Hale,
page 92 : " If an alien army " it is printed " army," it is obvious it
must be " amy," an alien friend " if an alien amy comes into England,
" and here compass the death of the King, Queen, or Prince, this is a
" man compassing within thisi law; for, though he be the natural subject
" of another Prince, yet during his residence here he owes a local allegiance
" to the King of England, and though the indictment shall not style him,"
a natural born subject. It then proceeds to deal with the form in
which he may be indicted: " If an alien amy subject of another Prince
" comes into this Kingdom and here settles his abode, and afterwards war
" is proclaimed between the two Kings, and yet the alien continues here
"and takes the benefit of the King's laws and protection, and yet com-
" passes the death of the King, this isi a man compassing within this law;
" for, though he be the natural subject of another Prince, he shall be
" dealt with as an English subject in this case, unless he first openly
" remove himself from the King's protection by passing to the other Prince,
" or by a public renunciation of the King of England's protection." We
are not dealing with that. Then further he deals with a merchant coming
into the realm and a foreigner residing and trading here under the King's
protection. I do not think on behalf of the Crown it will be for one
moment contended that a resident within the kingdom, although the
subject of a foreign prince, is not bound by the local allegiance of which
I speak. The importance of that in considering the point to which I am
approaching is that a man may in truth be the subject of two allegiances
Motion to Quash Indictment. so long as he is on land, for he is subject to the allegiance of his natural
prince and he is subject to the allegiance of the prince in whose dominion
he may be. When we come to consider what the statute of Edward III.
dealt with, it will be of importance, I submit, to bear in mind that one
of the reasons why Parliament, or the declaration submitted to Parlia-
ment, contains the words " within the realm " was consciousness of the
fact that once you went without the realm, in the sense of going into
the realm of another prince, you were there dealing with a man who
might be in a difficult position, and who was not in the free untrammelled
allegiance to a single prince that His Majesty's subjects within His
Majesty's own realm might be. That will at once distinguish the position
of one who, going outside the realm, namely, outside the four seas,
nevertheless does not pass into the realm or under the allegiance of
another Sovereign. This case is that of a man upon the high seas, the
natural born subject on the high seas, outside the four seas, which
I will show to your lordships are unquestionably, for the purposes of the
construction of the statute, within the realm of England, with reference
to the cases the man who passes on to the high seas, it is true that
he may be without the realm but I think I will show your lordships
authority that he is still within the King's dominions, and under the
sole duty of allegiance to his one Sovereign, and under allegiance to nobody
else, while he is upon the high seas.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Speaking generally, with reference to the
particular words of the statute for the moment, you are leaving the
words of the statute and dealing with the common law.
Mr. SULLIVAN For the purposes of approaching the wording of the
statute.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is not there authority for this proposition
that a man without the realm may be excused for what would otherwise
be an act of treason if he commits it under terror of death? I thought
the law had always drawn that distinction.
Mr. SULLIVAN I think the authority goes even further, because the
man who within the realm joins in the levying of war upon His Majesty
is excused under the doctrine your lordship mentions.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE If it is right to say there is authority
for the doctrine that I put forward to you, it would seem to indicate
there is the offence of treason apart altogether from whether it is within
this statute if it is a breach of duty or of allegiance committed without
the realm.
Mr. SULLIVAN For the purpose of argument I may be permitted
to concede that, but it would not be treason within the statute.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is another point. Mr. SULLIVAN Nor would it have been charged if sought to allege
it against a person in old times under adhering, but of compassing the
death of the King within the earlier decisions, that everything must
be reduced down to that basis of inference, that once you do any act
of treason it could be said to be evidence of the primary act of treason
which was the compassing and imagining of the King's death. I deal
with this as an approach to the words of the statute and with reference
to the cases cited purporting to be binding with reference to this matter.
Under the statute your lordships will note as an argument that the
words of the statute " within the realm " meant within the realm;
there is no procedure. Procedure was the very essence of common law
in those days. You could not find a venue for the offence committed
outside the realm till a period that I will come to when venue was pro-
vided by statute. Your lordships will find in the 2 Dyer, in the Third
Philip and Mary, case 13 Ib, the opinion of the judges there delivered
was that there was no venue for various treasons until, my lords, it
was provided by the statute of Henry VIII. Accordingly it is, I submit,
abhorrent to the ideas of jurisprudence that a statute should create an
offence that could be only, so to speak, in the air, that a man could be
a criminal by statute, and yet there would be no means, on the con-
struction of the statute which made him criminal, of determining what
should be done with him for the crime that he had committed; and if as
late as the reign of Philip and Mary the opinion of the judges was to
this effect, and it was only cured in the reign of Henry VIII., your
lordships will have all that long period of time between the "passing of
the Act of Edward and the passing of the statute of Henry VIII. , in
which on the construction sought by the Crown there were crimes of
which there was no Court to take cognisance. The mistake with regard
to this matter, for I submit there has been a mistake, originates with
the writings of Coke. So far as the research of my colleagues can
go, they can find no earlier authorities; but when you come to deal
with Lord Coke's writings your lordships will find that this part of the
Third Institute dealing with the subject, in which the statement is made
in plain terms, does not purport to be a portion of his speculative
writings, on which Stephen comments so bitterly, but purports to be
an exposition of the result of the investigation of the authorities which
he cites as supporting him in his contentions. At the bottom of page 10 of
the Third Institute your lordships will find in the marginal note at the bottom
Adherent." This is here explained, viz., " in giving aid and comfort
to the King's enemies within the realm or without, delivery or surrender
of the King's castles or forts by the King's captain thereof to the King's
enemies within the realm or without for reward, &c., is adhering to the
King's enemy, and consequently treason declared by this Act." His
references are interesting because they have nothing whatever to say to
the proposition which he so boldly states, and, as far as we can discover,
states for the first time, that adhering within the realm means adhering
within the realm or without. The first reference is to the Book of
Assize and Pleas of the Crown. His other references are to the Rolls
of Parliament. He gives four references, the 7 Richard II., items 15,
17, and 24, and the 7 Henry IV., item 47. Now, none of those cases
have anything to do with the statute that I ask your lordships to construe.
If your lordships take the 7 Richard II., item 15, one of the matters
cited for the justification of this proposition, it is a case of the surrender
of the King's castle; that is an act of adhering abroad.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is given afterwards by Hale, Foster,
.and a number of authorities.
Mr. SULLIVAN And Hallam's comments on Hole's timid acceptance
Motion to Quash Indictment. of doctrines he would not himself have enunciated is borne out if we find
the foundation of them repeated and obviously copied; the foundation
does not, in fact, exist. When I come, as I will be able to come, of
course, to deal with the statement in Hale, I will again have to point
out that Hale does not purport to be dealing in speculation as to what
construction the statute ought to have ; he only repeats all these authori-
ties as being passages from Lord Coke as being the foundation of the
doctrine which he again quotes from Lord Coke.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What I am not quite clear about in
following your argument is this. Do you say it is not a crime at common
law for a British subject to adhere to the King's enemies without the
realm ?
Mr. SULLIVAN For the moment the argument is not addressed to the
common law at all.
|
JEFE DE JUSTICIA JEFE Somos de la opinión de que este documento es admisible. Está claro sobre la evidencia tal como está, y tenemos que tratar el caso en este momento con la evidencia tal como está, que el Oficiales y autoridades alemanas intentaban seducir a los británicos soldados que fueron prisioneros de guerra en este campo por su lealtad. Esta se distribuyó y distribuyó un folleto entre estos prisioneros, es decir, el Prisioneros de guerra británicos que se decía que todos eran irlandeses en este campo. El prisionero Casement había estado en el campo y había pronunciado un discurso o discursos, y fue; tratando de hacer que los hombres se unan a la Brigada irlandesa, de acuerdo recurriendo a la evidencia dada en este momento, y se le acusa de adhiriéndose a los enemigos del Rey dándoles ayuda y consuelo. los medios por los cuales ellos, las autoridades alemanas, buscaban ayudar ellos mismos fueron haciendo que estos prisioneros de guerra irlandeses se unieran a este irlandés Brigada para el propósito declarado, y el prisionero estaba haciendo lo mismo de acuerdo con la evidencia que se presenta actualmente. En estas circunstancias nos parece bastante claro que este documento, después de haber sido distribuido después él (Casement) había entrado en escena y, según la evidencia, tratando de lograr la misma operación y el mismo resultado, la evidencia de este documento, prueba documental 4, debe ser admisible como prueba contra él por este cargo. Por eso lo admitimos. El SOLICITANTE GENERAL Mi señor, el documento aún no ha sido leer al jurado. Quizás sea mejor que lo lea ahora. EL SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Sí. El SOLICITANTE GENERAL Es en estos términos "¡Irlandeses! Aquí esta> "¡una oportunidad para que luches por Irlanda! Has luchado por Inglaterra, "El enemigo hereditario de tu país. Has luchado por Bélgica en "El interés de Inglaterra, aunque no era más para ti que las Islas Fiji. ¿Estás dispuesto a luchar por tu propio país? Con vistas a asegurar "la libertad nacional de Irlanda, con la asistencia moral y material "del Gobierno alemán, se está formando una brigada irlandesa. "objeto de la Brigada irlandesa será luchar únicamente contra la causa de Irlanda, "y bajo ninguna circunstancia se dirigirá a ningún fin alemán. "La brigada irlandesa se formará y luchará bajo la bandera irlandesa Evidencia de enjuiciamiento. 'solo; el salón de los hombres lleva un uniforme especial, claramente irlandés, y tiene 'Oficiales irlandeses. La brigada irlandesa será vestida, alimentada y eficientemente 'equipado con armas y municiones por el gobierno alemán. Eso 'estará estacionado cerca de Berlín, y será tratado como invitado de los alemanes 'Gobierno. Al final de la guerra, el gobierno alemán 'toma para enviar a cada miembro de la brigada que así lo desee> al 'Estados Unidos de América, con los medios necesarios para aterrizar. Los irlandeses 'en Estados Unidos están recaudando dinero para la brigada. Esos hombres que no 1 unirse a la Brigada irlandesa será eliminado de Limberg y distribuido 'entre otros campos. Si está interesado, consulte a los comandantes de su empresa. '' ¡Únete a la Brigada irlandesa y gana la independencia de Irlanda! Recuerda "¡Paseo de solteros! ¡Dios salve a Irlanda!" El ABOGADO-GEOSTERAL Ese, mis señores, es el caso del fiscal. ción No hay declaración Moción para anular la acusación. Sr. SULLIVAN: Mis señores, he intimado en otra etapa del caso. que tuve que dirigirme al Tribunal sobre la cuestión de si la acusación a la cual el prisionero se ha declarado revelado un delito conocido por la ley y verificable ante sus señorías. Temo Tendré que traspasar el tiempo de la Corte por un pequeño período. EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Cualquier tiempo que pueda necesitar es a su disposición. Es esencial que tenga todo el tiempo que desee. Por favor no te apures. Sr. SULLIVAN: Lo que iba a decir era asunto del guía. ante el Tribunal, que probablemente debería ocupar, en el debate de este en cualquier caso, un período de la tarde que pediría indulgencia personal de que no se me pida que hable más a la evidencia, si su señoría lo permitiera amablemente. El SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Ciertamente. Sr. SULLIVAN La acusación que tienen sus señorías antes usted bajo el nuevo estatuto establece el cargo como "Alta traición te adhiriendo a los enemigos del Rey en otro lugar que no sea el reino del Rey, "a saber, en el Imperio de Alemania, contrario a la Ley de Traición, 1351". Ahora, mis señores, todos somos conscientes de que esa declaración, en la descripción de la ofensa hasta donde he llegado, ciertamente no se toma de las palabras del estatuto, 25 Edward III. Por el contrario, las palabras "en otra parte "que en el reino del Rey", lejos de seguir el cargo de adherirse a los enemigos del Rey en el estatuto, les sigue directamente lo contrario palabras, "adherirse a los enemigos del Rey dentro de su reino" y, como todos sabemos, son seguidos por otras palabras, "dándoles ayuda o "comodidad dentro del reino o en otro lugar", como se ha traducido Mis señores, el asunto no está agitado por primera vez, pero allí no es ningún caso, que yo sepa, y mis colegas, el Sr. Artemus Jones, y Especialmente el Sr. Morgan, me ha ayudado en mi búsqueda y me he ido a través de una gran cantidad de casos, hasta donde yo sé, no hay ningún caso en el que alguna vez ha sido sometido a un tribunal, argumentado y decidido, que un estatuto que en términos comienza por una declaración de que el delito se comprometerá dentro del reino ha sido argumento posterior adjudicado para extender a una ofensa fuera del reino; sin caso reportado, en todo caso. Un caso fue citado en un argumento anterior trece años Hace en nombre de la Corona como una autoridad de esa manera que voy a tengo que lidiar con cierta extensión, y creo que probaré casi demostración matemática que, lejos de establecer la proposición para lo cual fue citado, de hecho, fue un caso de adhesión a la Los enemigos del rey en el reino en el más simple de los términos, sin cargos en la acusación, pero el lugar estaba dentro del reino de Inglaterra; y Por la naturaleza del juicio y el tribunal, espero señalar a su Señores que esa opinión inevitablemente debe ser tomada. EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR ¿Te refieres al caso de Vaughan? Sr. SULLIVAN El Rey v. Vaughan. Espero establecer eso en El rey v. Vaughan. El delito acusado fue realmente cometido dentro del reino, y fue juzgado como tal. Pero, mis señores, antes de venir. a eso, ¿se me puede permitir desarrollar en una línea interior? Traición era un término genérico aplicado a una gran cantidad de delitos, todos saboreando de incumplimiento de lealtad a Su Majestad el Rey. El tema de todos la lealtad misma se divide en dos cabezas totalmente distintas, la lealtad de la persona y lealtad del ocupante de una localidad, porque, como su los señores son muy conscientes, el ocupante, aunque sea un enemigo extraño, un residente dentro del reino, debe una lealtad local, si puedo usar el término en ese contexto, a Su Majestad el Rey, siempre que él resida dentro de la paz del rey y tiene su protección. Tal lealtad local es que él, aunque por nacimiento y personalidad sea un enemigo extraño, puede ser acusado y condenado por traición a nuestro Señor el Rey. Eso es per- fectly claro ¿Puedo referir a sus señorías al primer volumen de Hale, página 92: "Si un ejército alienígena" está impreso "ejército", es obvio que debe ser "amy", un amigo extraterrestre "si una amy extraterrestre entra en Inglaterra, "y aquí compás la muerte del Rey, la Reina o el Príncipe, esta es una "El hombre se complace dentro de esta ley; porque, aunque sea el sujeto natural "de otro Príncipe, sin embargo, durante su residencia aquí debe una lealtad local "al Rey de Inglaterra, y aunque la acusación no lo imitará" Un sujeto natural nacido. Luego procede a tratar con el formulario en que puede ser acusado: "Si un alienígena es sujeto de otro Príncipe "entra en este reino y aquí establece su morada, y luego la guerra "se proclama entre los dos reyes y, sin embargo, el alienígena continúa aquí "y se beneficia de las leyes y la protección del Rey, y aun así "pasa la muerte del Rey, este es un hombre que se rige por esta ley; "porque, aunque sea el sujeto natural de otro Príncipe, será "se trata como un tema de inglés en este caso, a menos que primero abiertamente "retirarse de la protección del Rey pasando al otro Príncipe, "o por una renuncia pública de la protección del Rey de Inglaterra". Nosotros No están lidiando con eso. Luego, más adelante trata con un comerciante que viene en el reino y un extranjero que reside y comercia aquí bajo el Rey proteccion. No creo que en nombre de la Corona sea para uno momento sostuvo que un residente dentro del reino, aunque el sujeto de un príncipe extranjero, no está obligado por la lealtad local de la cual Yo hablo. La importancia de eso al considerar el punto en el que estoy acercarse es que, en verdad, un hombre puede ser sujeto de dos lealtades Moción para anular la acusación. mientras esté en tierra, porque está sujeto a la lealtad de su natural príncipe y él está sujeto a la lealtad del príncipe en cuyo dominio él puede ser. Cuando llegamos a considerar cuál es el estatuto de Eduardo III. tratado, será importante, presento, tener en cuenta que uno de las razones por las cuales el Parlamento, o la declaración presentada a Parlia- ment, contiene las palabras "dentro del reino" era conciencia de la hecho de que una vez que te fuiste sin el reino, en el sentido de entrar en el reino de otro príncipe, estabas allí tratando con un hombre que podría estar en una posición difícil, y quién no estaba libre sin trabas lealtad a un solo príncipe que los sujetos de Su Majestad dentro de Su El propio reino de Majestad podría ser. Eso a la vez distinguirá la posición de alguien que, yendo fuera del reino, es decir, fuera de los cuatro mares, sin embargo, no pasa al reino o bajo la lealtad de otro soberano Este caso es el de un hombre en alta mar, el sujeto natural nacido en alta mar, fuera de los cuatro mares, que Le mostraré a sus señorías que son indudablemente, a los fines del construcción del estatuto, dentro del reino de Inglaterra, con referencia Para los casos del hombre que pasa a alta mar, es cierto que él puede estar sin el reino pero creo que le mostraré su señoría autoridad de que todavía está dentro de los dominios del Rey, y bajo el único deber de lealtad a su único Soberano, y bajo lealtad a nadie si no, mientras él está en alta mar. EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA JEFE Hablando en general, con referencia a la palabras particulares del estatuto por el momento, usted está dejando el palabras del estatuto y el trato con el common law. Sr. SULLIVAN A los efectos de abordar la redacción de la estatuto. JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR ¿No hay autoridad para esta proposición? que un hombre sin el reino puede ser excusado por lo que de otra manera ser un acto de traición si lo comete bajo el terror de la muerte? pensé la ley siempre había hecho esa distinción. Sr. SULLIVAN Creo que la autoridad va más allá, porque el hombre que dentro del reino se une para imponer la guerra a Su Majestad está excusado bajo la doctrina que menciona su señoría. EL SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Si es correcto decir que hay autoridad por la doctrina que les presento, parecería indicar existe la ofensa de traición aparte de si está dentro este estatuto si es un incumplimiento del deber o de lealtad cometido sin el Reino. Sr. SULLIVAN A los fines de la discusión, se me puede permitir admitir eso, pero no sería una traición dentro del estatuto. El SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Ese es otro punto. Sr. SULLIVAN Tampoco habría sido acusado si se hubiera buscado alegar en contra de una persona en los viejos tiempos bajo la adhesión, pero de compás muerte del Rey dentro de las decisiones anteriores, que todo debe ser reducido a esa base de inferencia, que una vez que haces cualquier acto de traición se podría decir que es evidencia del acto primario de traición que fue la brújula e imaginación de la muerte del rey. Yo trato con esto como un acercamiento a las palabras del estatuto y con referencia a los casos citados que pretenden ser vinculantes con referencia a este asunto. Según el estatuto, sus señorías notarán como argumento que el palabras del estatuto "dentro del reino" significan dentro del reino; No hay procedimiento. El procedimiento era la esencia misma del derecho consuetudinario. en esos días. No pudo encontrar un lugar para el delito cometido fuera del reino hasta un período en el que iré cuando el lugar fuera pro Vidado por el estatuto. Sus señorías se encontrarán en el 2 Dyer, en el tercero Felipe y María, caso 13 Ib, la opinión de los jueces allí emitió era que no había lugar para varias traiciones hasta que, mis señores, fue proporcionado por el estatuto de Enrique VIII. En consecuencia, lo presento, aborreciendo las ideas de jurisprudencia de que un estatuto debe crear un ofensa que podría ser solo, por así decirlo, en el aire, que un hombre podría ser un criminal por estatuto, y sin embargo no habría medios, en el acuerdo construcción del estatuto que lo hizo criminal, de determinar qué debe hacerse con él por el crimen que había cometido; y si como tarde como el reinado de Felipe y María, la opinión de los jueces era este efecto, y solo se curó en el reinado de Enrique VIII., su señores tendrán todo ese largo período de tiempo entre el "paso de El acto de Edward y la aprobación del estatuto de Enrique VIII. en que en la construcción buscada por la Corona hubo crímenes de que no había tribunal para tomar conocimiento. El error con respecto a este respecto, porque presento un error, se origina con Los escritos de Coca-Cola. Hasta donde la investigación de mis colegas puede ir, no pueden encontrar autoridades anteriores; pero cuando vienes a tratar con los escritos de Lord Coke, sus señorías encontrarán que esta parte de la Tercer Instituto que trata el tema, en el cual se hace la declaración en términos simples, no pretende ser una parte de su especulación escritos, sobre los cuales Stephen comenta tan amargamente, pero pretende ser una exposición del resultado de la investigación de las autoridades que él cita como apoyo en sus argumentos. Al final de la página 10 de el Tercer Instituto sus señorías encontrarán en la nota marginal en la parte inferior Adherente ". Esto se explica aquí, es decir," al brindar ayuda y consuelo a los enemigos del Rey dentro o fuera del reino, entrega o rendición de los castillos o fortalezas del rey por el capitán del rey de los mismos al rey enemigos dentro del reino o sin recompensa, & c., se adhiere al Enemigo del rey, y en consecuencia traición declarada por esta Ley. "Su las referencias son interesantes porque no tienen nada que decir a la proposición que afirma tan audazmente y, hasta donde podemos descubrir, declara por primera vez, que adherirse al reino significa adherirse dentro del reino o sin él. La primera referencia es al Libro de Assize y súplicas de la corona. Sus otras referencias son a los Rollos. del parlamento. Da cuatro referencias, el 7 Richard II., Ítems 15, 17 y 24, y el 7 Henry IV., Ítem 47. Ahora, ninguno de esos casos tiene algo que ver con el estatuto que les pido a sus señorías que interpreten. Si sus señorías toman el 7 Richard II., Punto 15, uno de los asuntos citado para la justificación de esta proposición, es un caso de rendición del castillo del rey; eso es un acto de adhesión al extranjero. JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Eso es dado después por Hale, Foster, .y una serie de autoridades. El Sr. SULLIVAN y los comentarios de Hallam sobre la tímida aceptación de Hole Moción para anular la acusación. de doctrinas que él mismo no habría enunciado se confirma si encontramos los cimientos de ellos repetidos y obviamente copiados; la Fundación de hecho, no existe. Cuando venga, como podré venir, de Por supuesto, para tratar con la declaración en Hale, nuevamente tendré que señalar que Hale no pretende tratar con especulaciones sobre qué construcción que el estatuto debería tener; él solo repite todas estas autori- lazos como pasajes de Lord Coke como la base de la doctrina que cita nuevamente de Lord Coke. JEFE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Lo que no tengo muy claro en Seguir tu argumento es esto. ¿Dices que no es un crimen en común? ley para que un sujeto británico se adhiera a los enemigos del Rey sin el reino? Sr. SULLIVAN Por el momento el argumento no está dirigido a la ley común en absoluto. |
we cannot lose sight of it, I think. You are quite justified in saying,
if you think it right, that it does not affect your argument; but if we
have to construe the statute of 1351 we have also to bear in mind what
has been said by other great judicial authorities as to the statute, par-
ticularly Lord Blackburn, who said it was declaratory of the common law.
You are thrown back to the common law of the realm in order to under-
stand the statute. I quite agree we still have to construe the language
of the statute and are bound by it, but it is important to see what the
common law of the realm is.
Mr. SULLIVAN I submit by the common law of the realm at the
time of that statute it was perfectly clear that the common law could
not deal with treasons abroad, for the reason that they would not be
triable at common law.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Because you say there was no venue? Mr. SULLIVAN Because I say there was no venue. That is a very
strong argument. Again Lord Coke I will have to cite. He purports to
give authority to show that venue could be found; and that again, on
being searched, does not bear out the proposition for which it is cited.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Are you going to come to the 2 Dyer, to
which you made reference?
Mr. SULLIVAN Yes. On the question both as to the common law
and the statute the opinion of the judges is that the cases of treason
without the realm were not triable before, at the earliest, the 28
Henry VIII. The first item upon which Lord Coke passes his opinion
is the 7 Richard II., item 15 on the rolls. That is not a case of
treason; it is an impeachment of the Bishop of Norwich for peculation
and breach of contract with the Crown. An investigation of the case
shows that it was in his capacity as Army contractor that the Bishop
was impeached, having apparently contracted with the Crown to furnish
forthwith an army of certain dimensions and maintainment, and having
failed to do so, and having also dealt with supplies in a manner which
apparently did not commend itself to the Court. It was not dealing
with treason at all. So far as can be discovered it was not a case
of treason; at all events it is charged in that very general way, and on
investigation it is very hard to say, even if you had got behind the statute
of the old days of accroachment of the Royal prerogative, how that
breach of contract to supply the King with the men he undertook to enlist
could possibly have been treated as treason. At all events, it was not
treated as treason.
Item 17 is a case of two persons named Cressyngham and Spykes-
worth, custodians of the castle in Flanders, who were put in arrest, and
put to their answer in Parliament for surrendering the castle. There is
no mention of treason in the Act. One of the persons was released, and
the other, his answers not being considered satisfactory, was committed
during the pleasure of His Majesty; it does not purport to be treason, nor
is any word savouring of treason alleged in the Act.
Mr. JUSTICE AVOBT What else does it purport to be? Mr. SULLIVAN It was probably a case just as the court-martial on
a naval officer for losing his ship, and investigation of the loss; it was
an investigation of the circumstances under which the castle was cap-
tured. When I come to these cases in Hale I find that I am, in fact,
giving Hale's own answer to this particular case, because the case of the
castle is dealt with in Hale, and when I come to deal with Hale your
lordship will see that he is not satisfied that this is treason, saving that,
of course, it might be treason if he traitorously surrendered the castle,
but the case itself does not show that any such charge was ever involved.
Then item 24: is another case of surrendering a castle, and taking
money as part of the terms. It is not charged, my lord, either under
the statute or as treason, nor is the word " adhering " mentioned.
The defendant is reproved by the Chancellor for treating with the enemy
without the King's authority. One of the knights who were defendants
(they were all put to their answer in Parliament) is accused of accroach-
ing the Royal power by issuing letters of safe conduct without the Royal
authority, and apparently taking money for doing it. That was the
charge in that case. There is no conviction for treason; they were com-
mitted to prison till they paid a ransom, and the charge, which was very
loose, was not under the statute or in respect of treason at all; it seems
to have been some charge of corruption of some sort; but it is impossible
to spell into that any conviction under the statute of Edward. Further-
more, these cases cited are all cases of military commanders in the service
of the King. The military commander in the service of the King was
always within the jurisdiction of the King's Marshal, whoever he was.
The military servants of the Crown have, so far as I know, always been
on a different footing to the ordinary civil subject of His Majesty with
regard to their obligations, and with regard to the means by which they
may have been dealt with for military offences coming within the cog-
nisance of the marshal or constable. At all events, none of these cases
cited for the bold statement in Lord Coke's text have the slightest bear-
ing to justify Lord Coke in making the statement. It is interesting to
note with regard to these military offences that in the reign of Queen
Anne a statute was passed, the Mutiny Act of the 7 Anne, which I will
refer to afterwards, and in the Mutiny Act of the 7 Anne there is an
express section dealing with what would be adhering to the King's
enemies in respect of persons in military service of Her Majesty abroad.
It is then declared to be high treason, and apparently created high
treason, and it certainly would be a strange comment on the statutory
authority, if in truth it has been high treason for hundreds of years,
that, nevertheless, a section should be introduced into a Mutiny Act as
late as the 7 Anne declaring it to be high treason if it clearly had been
within the statute that we are dealing with, the 25 Edward III.
Military persons have always been outside the ordinary jurisdiction, and
for that reason, as I think Sir Matthew Hale agrees, these cases are of
little use, and certainly are little justification for reading the statute in
the way in which it was sought to be read.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The reference to Hale in dealing with this
is pages 168 and 169.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL I was asking my friend for the reference
with regard to the criticism of Coke.
Mr. SULLIVAN It is the criticism of cases. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I thought Hale was more emphatic about
it; he took the same view.
Mr. SULLIVAN I must have misconveyed myself if I suggested to
your lordship that I was going to quote any passages of Hale criticising
Lord Coke; the criticism of Lord Coke was my reference to Stephen's
criticism of Coke.
Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I understood you to say that Hale had dealt
with the case, and had said that if it had been sought to be done
traitorously it might be high treason.
Mr. SULLIVAN I will read it; it is at the bottom of page 168, the
last page.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Will not you read page 167 first, at the
beginning of the second paragraph?
Mr. SULLIVAN If you please. "If an Englishman during war
" between the King of England and France be taken by the French and
" there swear fealty to the King of France, if it be done voluntarily, it is
" adhering to the King's enemy; but if it be done for fear of his life, and
" then he returns, as soon as he might, to the allegiance of the Crown of
" England, this is not adherence to the King's enemies within this Act."
Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE This is the Act of Edward? Mr. SULLIVAN Yes, the Act we are dealing with. |
JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Te digo por qué te estoy poniendo eso;
no podemos perderlo de vista, creo. Estás bastante justificado al decir: si lo piensas bien, eso no afecta tu argumento; pero si nosotros tenemos que interpretar el estatuto de 1351 también tenemos que tener en cuenta qué ha sido dicho por otras grandes autoridades judiciales en cuanto al estatuto, par- Especialmente Lord Blackburn, quien dijo que era declaratoria del derecho consuetudinario. Te devuelven a la ley común del reino para sub- soportar el estatuto. Estoy bastante de acuerdo en que todavía tenemos que interpretar el idioma del estatuto y están obligados por él, pero es importante ver qué La ley común del reino es. Sr. SULLIVAN presento por el derecho consuetudinario del reino en el tiempo de ese estatuto estaba perfectamente claro que el derecho común podría no tratar con traiciones en el extranjero, por la razón de que no serían Confiable en la ley común. EL SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL ¿Porque dices que no había lugar? Sr. SULLIVAN Porque digo que no había lugar. Esa es una muy argumento fuerte De nuevo Lord Coke tendré que citar. Él pretende dar autoridad para mostrar que se puede encontrar el lugar; y eso de nuevo, en siendo buscado, no confirma la proposición para la cual se cita. EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA JEFE ¿Vas a venir al 2 Dyer, a cual hiciste referencia? Sr. SULLIVAN Sí. Sobre la cuestión tanto del common law y el estatuto la opinión de los jueces es que los casos de traición sin el reino no eran confiables antes, como muy pronto, el 28 Enrique VIII. El primer elemento sobre el cual Lord Coke transmite su opinión es el 7 Richard II., elemento 15 en los rollos. Ese no es un caso de traición; Es un juicio político al obispo de Norwich por la peculación. e incumplimiento de contrato con la Corona. Una investigación del caso. muestra que fue en su calidad de contratista del ejército que el obispo fue acusado, aparentemente contratado con la Corona para proporcionar inmediatamente un ejército de ciertas dimensiones y mantenimiento, y que tiene no lo hizo, y después de haber tratado con los suministros de una manera que aparentemente no se encomendó a la Corte. No estaba tratando con traición en absoluto. Por lo que se puede descubrir, no fue un caso de traición en todo caso, se carga de esa manera muy general, y en investigación es muy difícil de decir, incluso si te has atrasado con el estatuto de los viejos tiempos de la prerrogativa real, cómo eso incumplimiento de contrato para suministrar al Rey los hombres que se comprometió a enlistar posiblemente podría haber sido tratado como traición. En todo caso, no fue tratado como traición. El artículo 17 es un caso de dos personas llamadas Cressyngham y Spykes. vale la pena, los custodios del castillo en Flandes, que fueron arrestados, y respondieron en el Parlamento por entregar el castillo. Ahi esta No se menciona la traición en la Ley. Una de las personas fue liberada y el otro, sus respuestas no se consideraron satisfactorias, se comprometió durante el placer de su majestad; no pretende ser traición, ni Es cualquier palabra saborear la traición alegada en la Ley. Sr. JUSTICE AVOBT ¿Qué más pretende ser? Sr. SULLIVAN Probablemente fue un caso tal como el de la corte marcial en un oficial naval por perder su barco e investigar la pérdida; era una investigación de las circunstancias bajo las cuales el castillo fue tapado Tured. Cuando llego a estos casos en Hale, encuentro que, de hecho, dando la propia respuesta de Hale a este caso particular, porque el caso de la el castillo se trata en Hale, y cuando vengo a tratar con Hale tu señorío verá que no está satisfecho de que esto sea traición, salvando eso, por supuesto, podría ser una traición si él traicionó el castillo traidoramente, pero el caso en sí no muestra que tal cargo haya estado involucrado. Luego el ítem 24: es otro caso de entregar un castillo y tomar dinero como parte de los términos. No está cargado, mi señor, tampoco bajo el estatuto o como traición, ni se menciona la palabra "adhesión". El acusado es reprendido por el canciller por tratar con el enemigo. sin la autoridad del rey. Uno de los caballeros acusados. (todos fueron puestos en su respuesta en el Parlamento) se les acusa de acoso ing el poder real mediante la emisión de cartas de conducta segura sin el real autoridad, y aparentemente tomando dinero por hacerlo. Eso fue el cobrar en ese caso. No hay convicción por traición; estaban com mitigado a prisión hasta que pagaron un rescate, y el cargo, que era muy suelto, no estaba bajo el estatuto o con respecto a la traición en absoluto; parece haber sido acusado de corrupción de algún tipo; pero es imposible para deletrear en eso cualquier condena bajo el estatuto de Edward. Promover- Además, estos casos citados son todos los casos de comandantes militares en el servicio del Rey. El comandante militar al servicio del rey era siempre dentro de la jurisdicción del Mariscal del Rey, quienquiera que fuera. Los servidores militares de la Corona, hasta donde yo sé, siempre han sido en un pie diferente al sujeto civil ordinario de Su Majestad con respecto a sus obligaciones, y con respecto a los medios por los cuales puede haber sido tratado por delitos militares que entran dentro del engranaje molestia del mariscal o alguacil. En todo caso, ninguno de estos casos citado por la audaz declaración en el texto de Lord Coke tiene el más mínimo ing para justificar a Lord Coke al hacer la declaración. Es interesante Tenga en cuenta con respecto a estos delitos militares que en el reinado de la Reina Anne se aprobó un estatuto, la Ley de Motín de los 7 Anne, que voy a consulte más adelante, y en la Ley de motines de la 7 Anne hay un sección expresa que trata de lo que se adheriría al Rey enemigos con respecto a personas en el servicio militar de Su Majestad en el extranjero. Luego se declara alta traición, y aparentemente se crea alta traición, y ciertamente sería un comentario extraño sobre la ley autoridad, si en verdad ha sido una alta traición por cientos de años, que, sin embargo, se debe introducir una sección en una Ley de Motín como tarde como el 7 Anne declarando que es una alta traición si claramente hubiera sido dentro del estatuto que estamos tratando, el 25 Edward III. Las personas militares siempre han estado fuera de la jurisdicción ordinaria, y por esa razón, como creo que Sir Matthew Hale está de acuerdo, estos casos son de poco uso, y ciertamente son poca justificación para leer el estatuto en la forma en que se buscaba que se leyera. EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA JEFE La referencia a Hale al tratar con esto son las páginas 168 y 169. El ABOGADO- GENERAL Le pedí a mi amigo la referencia con respecto a las críticas de Coke . Sr. SULLIVAN Es la crítica de los casos. JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Pensé que Hale era más enfático sobre eso; él tomó la misma opinión. Sr. SULLIVAN: Debo haberme portado mal si sugiero su señoría que iba a citar cualquier pasaje de Hale criticando Lord Coke; la crítica de Lord Coke fue mi referencia a Stephen's La crítica de Coca-Cola. Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE. Entendí que dijera que Hale había tratado con el caso, y había dicho que si se hubiera intentado hacerlo traidoramente puede ser una alta traición. Sr. SULLIVAN, lo leeré; está al final de la página 168, el última página. El ABOGADO GENERAL ¿No leerá primero la página 167, en el comienzo del segundo párrafo? Sr. SULLIVAN, por favor. "Si un inglés durante la guerra "entre el rey de Inglaterra y Francia será tomada por los franceses y "juro lealtad al Rey de Francia, si se hace voluntariamente, es "adherirse al enemigo del Rey; pero si se hace por miedo a su vida, y "luego regresa, tan pronto como sea posible, a la lealtad de la Corona de "Inglaterra, esto no es adhesión a los enemigos del Rey dentro de esta Ley". Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE ¿Es este el acto de Edward? Sr. SULLIVAN Sí, la Ley que estamos tratando. |
9
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario