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;
|
 |
| Funeral de estado de Irlanda |
| The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Mr. Attorney, would you assent to this view of the construction, taking the words "or elsewhere," may they not govern both the adhering to the King's enemies within the realm or elsewhere, and also giving to them aid and comfort in the realm or elsewhere 1 The ATTORNEY-GENERAL There are two possible views; that is one of them, and the one I have indicated to your lordships is the other. The conclusion which follows from either of those views has been variously supported, one or the other, by various writers. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It seems a little difficult to understand why one should limit giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies in the realm. I do not know why it should not be equally an offence without the realm when in an island in all probability the King's enemies will mostly be found without the realm. Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That is what I was going to ask. Assuming that, "elsewhere" might govern both. The ATTORNEY-GEJNERAL Your lordship suggested that yesterday. Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I do not see why the statute should limit the giving of aid and comfort in the realm when it may extend, according to your submission, to adhesion outside the realm. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICES That seems to me to get added force if one bears in mind and recollect that the words " giving to them aid and "comfort" are really a parenthesis, and describing what is meant by adhering to the King's enemies. If you. read it in that way it would seem to me that the words must necessarily govern both adherence and the descriptive words; you are dealing with the same offence. | JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR
Sr. Abogado, ¿aceptaría usted esta opinión?
de la construcción, tomando las palabras "u otro lugar", que no
gobernar tanto la adhesión a los enemigos del Rey dentro del reino o
en otro lugar, y también darles ayuda y consuelo en el reino o
en otro lugar 1
El ABOGADO GENERAL Hay dos puntos de vista posibles; ese es uno
de ellos, y el que les he indicado a sus señorías es el otro. los
La conclusión que se deriva de cualquiera de esos puntos de vista ha sido diversamente
apoyado, uno u otro, por varios escritores.
JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR Parece un poco difícil entender por qué
uno debería limitar la ayuda y el consuelo a los enemigos del Rey en el
reino. No sé por qué no debería ser igualmente un delito sin el
reino en una isla con toda probabilidad, los enemigos del Rey en su mayoría
ser encontrado sin el reino.
Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Eso es lo que iba a
preguntar. Asumiendo
eso, "en otra parte" podría gobernar ambos.
El ABOGADO-GEJNERAL Su señoría sugirió eso ayer.
Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE No veo por qué el estatuto debería limitar el
Brindar ayuda y comodidad en el ámbito cuando puede extenderse, de acuerdo con
su sumisión, a la adhesión fuera del reino.
JEFES PRINCIPALES DEL SEÑOR A mí eso me parece tener fuerza adicional si uno
recuerda y recuerda que las palabras "darles ayuda y
"comodidad" es realmente un paréntesis, y describe lo que se entiende
por
adhiriéndose a los enemigos del rey. Si tu.leerlo de esa manera lo haría
me parece que las palabras necesariamente deben regir tanto la adherencia como la
palabras descriptivas; Estás lidiando con el mismo delito.
|
| The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Quite. It may be from that point of view it covers the whole phrase, including the levying of war. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That is also possible. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I do not mind which of those views is taken. Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGB The quotation from Mr. Justice Willes merely leaves that out, and makes it govern the adherence. The ATTORNEY- GENERAL Yes. As to the position in law which followed upon the passing of the statute of Edward III., it seems to me the passage quoted from Hawkins I apologise to my learned friend for mentioning such as authority is very apposite. He says on page 306, under " Indictment," " It seems to have been a great doubt before the " making of the statute of 35 Henry VIII., chapter 2, in what manner and " in what place high treason done out of the realm was to be tried. For " some seem to have holden that it was triable only upon an appeal before " the constable and marshal; others that it might be tried upon an indiot- ' ( ment, laying the offence in any county where the King pleased ; . and 1 ' others that it was triable by way of indictment in that county only "wherein the offender had lands; but surely it cannot reasonably be " doubted but that it was triable some way or other. 77 I think my learned friend called this the cry of despair, " for it cannot be imagined " that an offence of such dangerous consequence, and expressly within the "purview of 25 Edward III., should be wholly dispunishable, as it must " have been if it were DO way triable." As I understand the significance of this passage, it is very great, because between the statute of Edward III. and the statute of Henry VIII. the learned author, who had been giving great attention to these matters, says that there were great doubts. But what did the doubts relate to? Did the doubts relate to the question whether high treason done out of the realm was an offence? He does not enumerate that as among the many grounds of doubts he thinks it worth while to call attention to. The doubts were as to in what manner and detail high treason done out of the realm was to be tried. He gives various views that had been held by various authorities. " For some seem to have holden that it was triable ' ' only upon an appeal before the constable and marshal ; others that it " might be tried upon an indictment, laying the offence in any county " where the King pleased " that is, leaving the King to choose the venue where the offender had lands. He states in weighty language his conclusion, "That it was triable some way or other; for it cannot be "imagined that an offence of such dangerous consequence, and expressly " within the purview of 25 Edward III., should be wholly dispunishable." So that the high authority of Hawkins says again, in the plainest possible way, in this statement, which is not in the least an answer, but a positive conclusion, that high treason done out of the realm is expressly within the purview of 25 Edward III. | El ABOGADO GENERAL.
Puede ser desde ese punto de vista
Cubre toda la frase, incluida la recaudación de la guerra.
El SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Eso también es
posible.
El ABOGADO GENERAL No me importa cuál de esas opiniones se toma.
Sr. JUSTICIA HORRIDGB La cita del Sr. Juez Willes simplemente
deja eso fuera y lo hace gobernar
la adherencia.
El ABOGADO GENERAL GENERAL Sí. En cuanto a la posición legal que
seguido a la aprobación del estatuto de Edward III., me parece la
pasaje citado de Hawkins Me disculpo con mi amigo sabio por
mencionar como autoridad es muy apropiado.Él dice en la página 306:
bajo "Acusación", "Parece haber sido una gran duda antes de la
"elaboración del estatuto de 35 Enrique VIII., capítulo 2, de qué manera y
"en qué lugar la alta traición hecha fuera del reino debía ser juzgada.
"algunos parecen haber sostenido que solo se podía confiar en una apelación antes
"el alguacil y el mariscal; otros que podrían ser juzgados por un indigente
'(ment, imponiendo el delito en cualquier condado donde el Rey quisiera; y
1 'otros que se podía juzgar a modo de acusación en ese condado solamente
"en el que el delincuente tenía tierras; pero seguramente no se puede
razonablemente
dudar", pero que se podía confiar de una manera u otra. 77 Creo que mi
amigo erudito llamó a esto el grito de desesperación, "porque no se puede
imaginar
" que un delito de consecuencias tan peligrosas, y expresamente dentro del
"alcance del 25 Eduardo III., Debería ser totalmente despreciable, como debe ser
" si hubiera sido MUY verificable ".
Según entiendo el significado de este pasaje, es muy bueno,
porque entre el estatuto de Eduardo III y el estatuto de Enrique VIII.
el autor erudito, que había estado prestando gran atención a estos importa
dice que hubo grandes dudas. ¿Pero a qué se referían las dudas?
¿Se relacionaron las dudas con la pregunta de si la alta traición hecha fuera
del reino era un delito? No enumera eso entre los
muchos motivos de dudas a los que cree que merece la pena llamar la atención. los
había dudas sobre de qué manera y detalle se
iba a juzgar la alta traición hecha fuera delreino. Da varias opiniones que habían sido sostenidas por
varias autoridades. "Para algunos parece haber mantenido que era confiable
'' solo con una apelación ante el alguacil y el mariscal; otros que
" podrían ser juzgados por una acusación formal, imponiendo el delito en cualquier condado
"donde el Rey quisiera", es decir, dejando el Rey para elegir el lugar
donde el delincuente tenía tierras. Afirma en un lenguaje pesado su
conclusión: "Que era confiable de una forma u otra; porque no se puede
" imaginar que sea un delito de tan peligrosa consecuencia, y expresamente
"dentro del alcance de 25 Eduardo III.debe ser totalmente despreciable ".
De modo que la alta autoridad de Hawkins dice nuevamente, de la manera más simple posible
, en esta declaración, que no es en lo más mínimo una respuesta, sino una
conclusión positiva , que la alta traición hecha fuera del reino está expresamente
dentro
del alcance de 25 Edward III.
|
| The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE Is there any authority of which you have cognisance which says that if high treason is committed without the realm it is not an offence at common law ? | JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL DEL SEÑOR ¿Hay alguna autoridad de la que tenga
conocimiento que diga que si se comete alta traición sin el
reino no es un delito de derecho común?
|
| The ATTORNEY- GENERAL No, and I may boldly say there is none. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE I know of none. Even in the case in 2 Dyer, to which reference is made, it was assumed that the doing of the act is an offence. All that it does is to say it is not triable by the course of the common law. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. The emphasis is on the word " triable " in that connection. I will come to the case in Dyer later. Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Before you leave that, it may be the statute does not deal with specific treason by adherence, there may be treason outside the particular one which was an offence, although there was no means of trying it ; he is not dealing with the particular case of adherence there. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is perfectly true. It might have been expected, I submit, that if in making this grave statement that the offence was expressly within the purview of 25 Edward III., he wanted to put forward the view that there was 1 a distinction to be drawn between certain treasons 1 under the Act, he would have done so. | El ABOGADO GENERAL NO, y puedo decir con valentía que no hay ninguno.
El SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL No sé de ninguno. Incluso en el caso de 2
Dyer, al que se hace referencia, se asumió que la realización del
acto es un delito. Todo lo que hace es decir que no es confiable
curso del derecho consuetudinario.
El ABOGADO GENERAL Sí.El énfasis está en la
palabra
"confiable" en ese sentido. Iré al caso en Dyer más tarde.
Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Antes de dejar eso, puede ser que el estatuto
no se ocupe de la traición específica por adherencia, puede haber traición
fuera del particular que fue un delito, aunque no había
forma de intentarlo; él no está lidiando con el caso particular de adherencia
ahí.
|
| Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE I think that is quite a fair comment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL And such' being the case, namely, that doubts had arisen in the language of Hawkins, as to what the proper method of trying these admitted offences was, the statute of Henry VIII. wasi passed; and I may remind your lordships, as possibly an additional reason why that statute should have been thought necessary, that there had been a great increase in the number of constructive treasons* in the reign of King Henry VIII., all kinds of dynastic considerations intervened, and doubt was felt as to the proper method of dealing with them. That is at page 1032 of Archbold. The note is, " Venue for treasons committed " abroad." The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The title is not in Archbold, but it is " An " Act concerning the trial of treasons committed out of the King's " Majesty's dominions 1 ." | El ABOGADO GENERAL Eso es perfectamente cierto. Podría haber
esperado, afirmo, que si al hacer esta grave declaración de que el
delito estaba expresamente dentro del alcance de 25 Edward III., Quería
presentar la opinión de que había 1 distinción entre
ciertas traiciones 1 según la Ley, lo habría hecho.
Sr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE Creo que es un comentario bastante justo.
El ABOGADO GENERAL Y como tal, a saber, que
surgieron dudas en el lenguaje de Hawkins, en cuanto a cuál era el método apropiado para
juzgar estos delitos admitidos, el estatuto de Enrique VIII. wasi pasado;
y puedo recordarles a sus señorías, como posiblemente una razón adicional por la
cual
ese estatuto debería haberse considerado necesario, que hubo un
gran aumento en el número de traiciones constructivas * en el reinado del
Rey Enrique VIII., intervinieron todo tipo de consideraciones dinásticas, y
se sintió la duda sobre el método adecuado para tratar ellos. Eso está en la
página 1032 de Archbold. La nota es, "lugar para traiciones comprometido
" en el extranjero."
El Presidente del Tribunal Supremo el título no está en Archbold, pero es 'un
' Acta relativa al juicio de traiciones cometidas fuera de del rey
'dominios de Su Majestad 1.'
|
| The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes, it is purely machinery. " Forasmuch " as some doubts and questions have been moved, that certain kinds " of treasons, misprisdons, and concealments of treason done, perpetrated, " or committed out of the King's Majesty's realm of England cannot, " by the common laws of this realm be inquired of, heard, and deter- " mined within this his said realm of England; for a plain remedy, " order, and declaration therein to be had and made, be it enacted by " authority of this present Parliament that all manner of offences being " already made, declared, or hereafter to be made or declared, by any "of the laws and statutes of this realm, to be treasons, misprisionsi of " treasons, or concealments of treasons, and done, perpetrated, or com- " mitted, or hereafter to be done, perpetrated, or committed, by any " person or persons out of this realm of England, shall be from henceforth " inquired of, heard, and determined before the King's justices of his " Bench for pleas to be holden before himself, by good and lawful men " of the same shire where the said Bench shall sit and be kept, or else "before such commissioners and in such shire of the realm as shall be " assigned by the King's Majesty's commission, and by good and lawful " men of the same shire, in like manner and form to all intents and " purposes as if any such treasons, inisprisions of treasons, or concealments " of treasons had been done, perpetrated, and committed within the same "shire where they shall be so inquired of, heard, and determined as is " aforesaid." It is worthy of notice, perhaps, that the form of the statute supports the view which, as I have said, all the great authorities over so long a period of time have taken, as to its content and scope, because it purposes' to be a declaration for the purpose of relieving doubts as to the precis method in which these crimes universally conceded to be triable somehow ought to be dealt with. | El Procurador GENERAL: Sí, es puramente maquinaria. "Por cuanto
", ya que algunas dudas y preguntas se han movido, ciertos tipos
"de las traiciones, los malos tratos y los encubrimientos de la traición hecha,
perpetrada
" o cometida fuera del reino de Inglaterra de la Majestad del Rey no
puede
" , según las leyes comunes de este reino se debe investigar, escuchar y determinar
dentro de esto", dijo. reino de Inglaterra; para un remedio simple,
"orden y declaración en el mismo que se debe tener y hacer, ya sea promulgada
por
" la autoridad de este Parlamento actual que toda clase de ofensas sean
ya "cometidas, declaradas, o en lo sucesivo hechas por cualquiera
" de las leyes y estatutos de este reino, que sean traiciones, malas interpretaciones de
"traiciones u ocultaciones de traiciones, y hechos, perpetrados o
cometidos, o en adelante hechos, perpetrados,o comprometido, por
cualquier
"persona o personas fuera de este reino de Inglaterra, serán
consultadas, oídas y determinadas ante los jueces del Rey de su
" Banco para que las súplicas sean retenidas ante él, por hombres buenos y
legítimos
"de la misma comarca donde dicho banco se sentará y se mantendrá, o de lo
contrario
"ante los comisionados y en el condado del reino que sea
" asignado por la comisión de la Majestad del Rey, y por
"hombres buenos y legítimos " del mismo condado, de la misma manera y forma a todos los
efectos y "propósitos como si tales traiciones, intrigas de traiciones u
ocultamientos " de traiciones se hubieran hecho, perpetrado y cometido dentro de la misma "condado donde se les preguntará, escuchará y determinará tal como está "antes mencionado".Cabe señalar, tal vez, que la forma del estatuto respalda la opinión que, como he dicho, todas las grandes autoridades durante tanto tiempo han tomado, en cuanto a su contenido y alcance, porque tiene el propósito de ser una declaración con el propósito de aliviar dudas sobre el método preciso en el que estos crímenes universalmente reconocidos como verificables de alguna manera deben ser tratados.
|
| The LOED CHIEF JUSTICE So far a one can follow from the reference to the cases cited yesterday and to-day the doubts that have arisen were all as to the mode of the trial and the venue. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE No doubt, so far as I can follow, is any- where expressed as to the act being an offence, and an offence punishable according to the law of England; the only question was, if you had got the person, where were you to try him? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I have given some attention to this matter, and I have had the assistance of my learned friends, who are both industrious and persevering in these matters, and I think I may say there is no past case that any of us know in the books in which any doubt whatever has been thrown upon the view that it was an offence ; I know of none, and I do not think my learned friends are in a position to call attention to any. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE The words in Dyer, the only words that are relied upon, seem to point just the other way. These are the words relied upon, " Because no offence of treason committed out of the realm " was triable here by the course of the common law, therefore this statute 1 ' enlarges the power and authority of the trials of the realm in this " point/' It seems that it isi an offence to commit treason without the realm, but it says the difficulty is, according to the course of common law, where is the offence to be tried. | LA JUSTICIA DE LOED CHIEF
Hasta ahora, uno puede seguir de la referencia
a los casos citados ayer y hoy, las dudas que surgieron fueron
todas sobre el modo del juicio y
el lugar.
"punto / "Parece que es un delito cometer traición sin el
reino, pero dice que la dificultad es, de acuerdo con el curso del
derecho consuetudinario, dónde está el delito para ser juzgado.
|
| The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is the same view that Hawkins takes. It is worth noticing about the case in Dyer, the charge in question, as I understand the very short report, is contained in a memorandum which is not, I think, the conclusion of the judges, because the conclusion is given below. The conclusion, I think, begins about seven lines from the bottom of the page, " And for the cause above, the judges, Sir John " Baker and Hare, Master of the Rolls, were assembled, and they thought " as above, and by the words 1 above, according to the order and course " of the common law, it shall be intended that the trial shall be in the " county where the indictment is " I rather think the earlier part is the case put before them, and the conclusion arrived at is set out in the last six lines. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE It is not unimportant to observe how it came before them. There was the statute of 35 Henry VIII., then came the statute of 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, and Philip and Mary having said a certain thing, "that all trials hereafter to be had, awarded, or made " for any .treason shall be had and used only according to the due order " and course of the common laws of this realm, and not otherwise/' had that statute of Philip and Mary in any way repealed or modified the effect of 35 Henry VIII. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That was the whole point. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That was the whole point they were discussing? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. Mr. JUSTICE AVORY The resolution was that trial should be in the county where the indictment was; that was the only resolution that was come to. | El ABOGADO GENERAL
Esa es la misma opinión que Hawkins tomas.
vale la pena notar sobre el caso en Dyer, el cargo en cuestión, como lo
entiendo informe muy breve, está contenida en un memorando que es
no, creo, la conclusión de los jueces, porque la conclusión está dada
abajo.La conclusión, creo, comienza alrededor de siete líneas desde la
parte inferior de la página, "Y por la causa anterior, los jueces, Sir John
" Baker y Hare, Maestro de los Rollos, se reunieron, y pensaron
"como arriba, y según las palabras 1 anteriores, de acuerdo con el orden y el
curso
"del derecho consuetudinario, se pretende que el juicio se realice en el
" condado donde se encuentra la acusación ". Creo que la parte anterior es el
caso presentado ante ellos, y La conclusión a la que se llega se expone en las últimas
seis líneas.
JEFE DE JUSTICIA DEL SEÑOR No es importante observar cómo se les
presentó. Hubo el estatuto de 35 Enrique VIII., Luego vino
el estatuto de 1 y 2 Felipe y María, y Felipe y María habiendo dicho
una cierta cosa, "que todas las pruebas de aquí en adelante se tendrán, otorgarán o harán
" por cualquier razón se tendrán y usarán solo de acuerdo con el debido orden
" y el curso de las leyes comunes de este reino, y no de otro modo /' tenía
ese estatuto de Felipe y María de ninguna manera derogado o modificado el efecto
de 35 Enrique VIII.
el fiscal general ese era el punto entero.
el Presidente del Tribunal Supremo eso fue todo el punto que estaban
discutiendo?
El ABOGADO GENERAL Sí.
|
| The ATTORNEY-GENERAL That is quite true. I do not propose to say anything more about that now. It might be useful to call your lordships' attention to the various oases I think I can do it compendiously some of them of considerable antiquity, some more recent, in which the view of the statute which I am endeavouring to press upon your lordships has been accepted and acted upon in one way or other. There was a case of William de Weston, which is reported in 1 Richard II., Roll of Parliament, volume iii., pages 10 to 12. In that case it was found by Parliament, as recorded on the roll, that William, having undertaken to keep safely the Castle of Outkrewyk, in Flanders, without any duress or lack of victuals, wickedly delivered and surrendered it to the King's enemies by his own default alone, against all right and reason, and against his allegiance and undertaking. There is the resolution of Par- liament that he was sentenced to be drawn and hanged. Then there is the case of John de Gomenys, who was sentenced for delivering up the Castle of Ardes. Now, it was held, a little strange to say, that as he was a gentleman, and had served Edward III., he was not a liege man of Richard II., he was only to be beheaded. Now the question arose, in reference to both those matters, whether the charge was treason. Both the acts, and they would have been acts of adherence in surrendering the castles if they were treason at all, were committed in Flanders. Now, Hale has considered his case in his Pleas of the Crown at pagesi 167 and 168, and in the second paragraph of 167 he says, " If an Englishman ' ' during war between the Kings 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 an adhering to the King's enemies; but if it be done " for fear of his life, and that he returns, as soon as he might, to the " allegiance of the Crown of England, this is not an adherence to the "King's enemies within this Act." Then in the next paragraph, "If "a captain or other officer, that hath the custody of any of the King's " castles or garrisons, shall treacherously, by combination with the King's "enemies or by bribery or for reward, deliver them up, this is adherence "to the King's enemies. This was the case of William Weston for ' ' delivering up the Castle of Oughtrewicke and John de Gomenys for " delivering up the Castle of Ardes, in France, both which were impeached " by the Commons, and had judgment of the Lords in Parliament, " Rot. Par. 1 R. 2, p. 40, namely, William Weston to be drawn " and hanged, but execution was respited." Then it gives Gomenys' judgment, and says, " The execution was respited." Then the learned author adds this note, which is very much in point, ' ' And note, though " the charge was treason, and possibly the proofs might probably amount to " it, and Walsingham, sub anno, 1 R. 2, tell us it was done by treason ; " yet the reason expressed in the judgment against Weston is only " then he puts it in Norman French, on the ground of surrender. Then it goes on. " The truth is if it were delivered up by bribery " or treachery it might be treason, but if delivered up upon cowardice or " imprudence without any treachery, though it were an offence against the " laws of war, and the party subject to a sentence of death by martial law, "as it once happened in a case of the like nature in the late times of " trouble, yet it is not treason by the common law, unless it was done " by treachery." The learned author took those two cases on the whole as conclusive that the matter was dealt with under the head of treason, and is of opinion that if it was delivered up not by cowardice but from treachery it might properly be dealt with as treason. Mr. JUSTICE HOBRIDGB And that is, at the earlier portion of the passage, specially stated to be adhering to the King's- enemies. | El ABOGADO GENERAL
Eso es bastante cierto. No me propongo
decir nada más sobre eso ahora. Podría ser útil llamar la atención de su
señoría sobre los diversos oasis. Creo que puedo hacerlo de manera competitiva,
algunos de ellos de considerable antigüedad, algunos más recientes, en los cuales la
visión del estatuto que estoy tratando de presionar sobre sus señorías
ha sido aceptado y actuado de una forma u otra. Hubo un
caso de William de Weston, que se informa en 1 Richard II., Rollo del
Parlamento, volumen iii., Páginas 10 a 12. En ese caso fue encontrado por
El Parlamento, según consta en la lista, que William, que se había comprometido a
mantener a salvo el Castillo de Outkrewyk, en Flandes, sin ningún tipo de coacción o
falta de victorias, lo entregó perversamente y lo entregó a los
enemigos del Rey solo por su propio incumplimiento, contra todo derecho. y razón, y
contra su lealtad y empresa. Existe la resolución del
Parlamento de que fue sentenciado a ser sorteado y ahorcado.
Luego está el caso de John de Gomenys, quien fue sentenciado por
entregar el Castillo de Ardes. Ahora, se sostenía, un poco extraño
decirlo, que como era un caballero y había servido a Edward III., No era un
señor feudal de Ricardo II, solo debía ser decapitado. Ahora la pregunta
surgió, en referencia a ambos asuntos, si el cargo era traición.
Ambos actos, y habrían sido actos de adhesión al entregar
los castillos si fueran traición, se cometieron en Flandes. Ahora,
Hale ha considerado su caso en sus Súplicas de la Corona en las páginas 167 y
168, y en el segundo párrafo de 167 dice:
"Si un inglés " durante la guerra entre los reyes de Inglaterra y Francia fuera tomado por los
"franceses", y juro lealtad al Rey de Francia, si se hace
"voluntariamente, se adhiere a los enemigos del Rey; pero si se hace
" por temor a su vida, y que regrese, tan pronto como sea posible, a la
"lealtad de la Corona de Inglaterra, esto no es una adhesión a los
" enemigos del Rey dentro de esta Ley ". Luego, en el siguiente párrafo," Si"un capitán u otro oficial, que tiene la custodia de cualquiera de los
" castillos del Rey o guarniciones,traicionero, en combinación con el Rey
"enemigos o por soborno o por recompensa, entrégalos, esto es adhesión
" a los enemigos del Rey. Este fue el caso de William Weston por
"entregar el Castillo de Oughtrewicke y John de Gomenys por
" entregar el Castillo de Ardes, en Francia, ambos fueron destituidos
"por los Comunes, y tenían el juicio de los Lores en el Parlamento,
"Rot. Par. 1 R. 2, p. 40, a saber, William Weston para ser sorteado
" y ahorcado, pero la ejecución fue interrumpida. "Luego da el
juicio de Gomenys , y dice:" La ejecución fue relegada ". Entonces el el
autor erudito agrega esta nota, que es muy precisa, '' Y tenga en cuenta, aunque
Luego continúa: "La verdad es que si fue entregado por soborno " o traición, podría ser traición, pero si se entrega por cobardía o "imprudencia sin ninguna traición, aunque fuera un delito contra las " leyes de la guerra, y el partido sujeto a una sentencia de muerte por ley marcial, "como sucedió una vez en un caso de naturaleza similar en los últimos tiempos de " problemas, sin embargo, no es traición por la ley común, a menos que se haya hecho "por traición".El autor erudito tomó esos dos casos en general como concluyente de que el asunto se trató bajo la cabeza de la traición,
y es de la opinión de que si se entregó no por cobardía sino por
traición, podría tratarse adecuadamente como traición.
Sr. JUSTICE HOBRIDGB Y eso es, en la parte anterior del
pasaje, especialmente declarado que se adhiere a los enemigos del Rey.
|
| The ATTORNEY-GENERAL I am indebted to your lordship ; in terms it is so stated. I have other cases, but the most useful to refer to now is Lord Wentworth's case, a case reported in the 4 State Trials at page 314. In this case the indictment has been found, and is available for the purpose of consideration. The indictment charges and sets forth that Lord Wentworth, Edward Grimston, and Ralph Chamberlain were indicted jointly with others for that occupying and exercising their aforesaid several offices at Calais in parts beyond the seas, on 20th December they traitorously were adhering, aiding, and comforting, and procuring to Henry, King of the French, the public enemy of the said King and Queen and of this realm of England, in order to traitorously deprive the said King and Queen from their possession of the said town of Calais and the castle of the same, and deliver the same into the hands and possession of the said Henry, now King of the French. As regards Lord Wentworth the indictment was removed into the House of Lords, where he was found not guilty. Grimston was tried before Commissioners, which, as your lordships will recollect, is another alternative method of trial, and found not guilty. Chamberlain was tried before the same Commission, found guilty, and executed. That was a case of treason without the realm, in Calais. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE What was the date of that? The ATTORNEY-GENERAL 1558. Mr. JUSTICE HORRIDGE That was when Calais was a portion of the King's dominions, but it was not within the realm. Calais was ceded in the time of Queen Mary. Mr. SULLIVAN Calais was represented in Parliament as late as James I. Parliament purported to legislate with regard to a place outside of the realm, up to the time of James I. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE There was a conviction only in one case, the case of Ralph Chamberlain. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL Yes. | El ABOGADO GENERAL
Estoy en deuda con su señoría; en términos
a Henry, Rey de los franceses, el enemigo público de dicho
James I. El Parlamento pretendía legislar con respecto a un lugar fuera
del reino, hasta la época de James I.
EL JEFE DE JUSTICIA JURÍDICA Hubo una condena solo en un caso,
el caso de Ralph Chamberlain.
El ABOGADO GENERAL Sí.
|
| The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE That could be explained, could it not, without praying in aid the doctrine required for this case. The conviction on that indictment may have been perfectly right because, if the offence was committed at Calais in the circumstances, it was not necessarily the special treason of adhering to the King's enemies without the realm. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL It was not necessarily, but the facts, so far as they are set out, I should have thought rendered the conclusion a probable one that it was that part of the statute that was considered. They were " Aiding and comforting and procuring," so the indictment says, "to Henry, King of the French ... in order to traitorously *' deprive the said King and Queen from their possession of the said. | El SEÑOR JUSTICIA PRINCIPAL Eso podría explicarse, no podría, sin
orar en ayuda de la doctrina requerida para este caso. La condena en
esa acusación puede haber sido perfectamente correcta porque, si el delito se
cometió en Calais en esas circunstancias, no era necesariamente la
traición especial de adherirse a los enemigos del Rey sin el reino.
El ABOGADO GENERAL No fue necesariamente, pero los hechos, en la
medida
en que se exponen, debí haber pensado que la conclusión era
probable de que se considerara esa parte del
estatuto.
Estaban "ayudando, consolando y
procurando",
dice la acusación , "a Henry, rey de los franceses ... para traicionar
* 'privar a dicho Rey y Reina de su posesión de dicho.
|
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario