This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1888 edition. Excerpt: ... CHAPTER I. GENERAL EXPLANATIONS. 71. Mr. Norton says, "This Chapter appears to me to exemplify "vagueness and uncertainty in language," and "to contain many in"correct positions, and some that are arbitrary and inconsistent." 72-Mr. Norton finds vagueness and uncertainty in what appears to us so explicit and definite, that, but for the instance he affords in his own case, we could not have supposed it possible to be misconceived by any instructed person endeavouring to understand it. Thus he says, he "cannot see clearly why (Clause 4) starving a man to IU; "death is considered no act, but an omission." Now in the Clause referred to, it is laid down that "wherever the causing of a "certain effect by an act or by an omission is an offence, it is to be under. "stood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an "omission is the same offence." In the " illustration" the effect supposed is death, partly caused by an act, beating, partly by an omission, not supplying food. The word "starving" used by Mr. Norton, does not ocour. As far as we know, Mr. Norton is singular in his inability to see the distinction between "act" and "omission" so illustrated, and we do not apprehend that there will be any difficulty generally in discerning it. Again it is declared in Clause 9 of this chapter that the U86' words "Government of India" denote the Executive Government of India, unless it be otherwise expressed. Upon this Mr. Norton remarks, --" I do not know what is meant by the Executive Government as the explanation of the Government of India." Now of course Mr. Norton well knows that the constitution of the Government of India for legislative purposes is different from its constitution for all other purposes; that for legislative...

Yeo's work examines the laws of England, Australia and India pertaining to the fault elements required for the crimes of murder and manslaughter. It contends that the Indian laws are superior and suggests a set of draft provisions which could comprise a viable model for reform of the English and Australian laws. The work is directly relevant to issues being considered in the development of the Model Criminal Code.