LAW, CRIMINAL. The object of the English, as of every other system of criminal law is the prevention of injuries by the terror of it is not every injury the commission of which the Law think, fit to prevent by such mains ; iu most cases it is satisfied with the redress of injuries after they have been committed, by either restoring the party injured to his right, where that is possible, or by giving him oempensation In damage*. In law, an injury is any violation of a legal right or =lesion of a legal duty a crime, than, may be defined to be such a violation of a legal right or omission of a legal duty as subjects the person guilty of it to punishment. Such acts or omissions for which the law affords redress only have, in England, been usually denominated civil injuries as contradistinguished from crimes. It is to be observed, however, that, in strictness, every crime includes an injury, in respect of which some individual or the public may be entitled to rwiress. in felony, indeed, such injury is said to be merged hi the crime; but this doctrine appears to have originated in the eireurn stance of all felonies having, with one or two exceptions,been originally punishable with death and having worked a forfeiture of all the offender's property, and so rendered redraws impossible.
Crimea, according to the English law, are divisible into two great classes, which depend upon the mode of proceeding peculiar to each, namely, into— l. Such as are punishable on indictment or information (the common law methods of proceeding).
2. Such as are punishable on summary conviction before a justice or jellies of the peace or other authorised persona, without the inter vention of a jury (a mode of proceeding derived entirely from special statutory enactments).
It is proposed, in the first place, to treat of offences punishable on indictment or information, and afterwards to shortly refer to those punishable on summary conviction.
OfencapunishoGle on Indictment or Information.
Indictable offences are distributable into four classes or divisions— namely, treasons, prtemmiree, felonies, and mislemeanore I'ersons who commit the offences which constitute the last-mentioned division may also be prosecuted by criminal information instead of being indicted.
The distinction between these chimes is for the most part a merely arbitrary one, without any apparent reference to rule or principle, the consequence of which is, that offences in their nature undistin gnioshable are, in many instances, separated and subjected to punish ments widely disproportionate, and to forms of procedure widely dissimilar. In fact, the only real distinguishing feature between one
claw of crimes and another, at the present day, is to be found in certain peculiarities of punialnnent and procedure incident to each. Formerly, however, the claws of crimes were marked by distinctive characteristics ; but they have subsequently, either by artificial con structions of the courts or by legislative enactments, been made to sanl-raco offences of a very differtnt nature from those originally included within them. For instance, the crime of treason, whether high or petit, implied a violation of the allegiance duo from an inferior to • superior. In the case of high treason, so called " by way of eminent distinction," it was the violation of the allegiance duo from a *object to his liege lord and sovereign ; and in case of petit treason, which was limited to the murder of mi husband by his wife, a master by his servant, or an ecclesiastic by his inferior who owed him faith awl obedience, it was the breach of the allegiance of private and domestic faith.* The characteristic above pointed out can no longer be traced in many of the various constructive treasons which have been from time to time created by the courts. It will be sufficient here to give n tangle illustration of the mode in which the law of treason has been stretched to reach mac* totally inconsistent with its original design. By one of the clauses of the statute of treasons (25 Edw. III. c. 2) it is declared to be treason to trey war against the Ling. A riotous assembly attempting by form to redrew a public grievance—as, for example, to pull down ell Incloeures or to burn all nieeting.honses—has been held to be a leryisg of war within the meaning of this clause, although there has been no direct intention or design whatever against either the state or the person of the king. This construction is said to depend upon the generality of the design. If the intention be to pull down particular inclosurea or mecting-houses only, the offence is a mere riot, and in quality a simple misdemeanor. Although the gene. rality of the design may be a reason for awarding a higher punishment in the former than in the latter case, there appears to be no fouudation in re en er principle for construing an offence, which but for such generality would be a misdemeanor only, to amount to the crime of treessen in levying war against the king.