Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 20.pdf/798

 PUBLISHING FALSE NEWS this way, or to operate himself, but fails, still he has committed, if not the full offense, at least the criminal attempt." l Under the Code the "false news or tale" must be published "wilfully and knowingly." The meaning of particular words in a statute, in the absence of express definition, is to be found not so much in a strict ety mological propriety of language, nor even in popular use, as in the subject or occasion on which they are used, and the object that is intended to be attained.2 The word "wilful," as applied to the action or default of a person, amounts to nothing more than this, that he knows what he is doing, and is a free agent.3 "Wilful misconduct" is misconduct to which the will is a party: it is something opposed to accidental or negli gent; the mis part of it, not the conduct, must be wilful.4 It has been said that the legal meaning of "wilfully" is purposely, without reference to bona fides or collusion; 8 and to "wilfully neglect to do a thing" is intentionally or purposely to omit to do it." An offense implies intention in the offender; and "wilfully" is, in general, equivalent to ' ' knowingly and fraudulently. " 7 "Wilfully and falsely," under 21-22 Viet., c. 90, s. 40 1 I Bishop's New Crim. Law, ss. 520, 522, 524-56, citing 2 Chit. Crim. Law, 527 et seq; Godson on Patents, 16 el seq; and other authorities. 1 Per Abbot, C. J.,in R. v. Hall (1822) I. B. & C. 136; approved in the case of the Lion, 6 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 163, 171; 2 L. R. P. C. 525; 38 L. J. Adm. 51. 1 Per Bowen, L. J., Re Young & Harston (1885), 31 Ch. D. 174; S3 L. T. 837; 34 W. R. 84;soJ. P. 3454 Per Bramwell, L. J., in Lewis v. G. W. Ry. (1877), 47 L. J. Q. B. 135; 3 Q. B D. 195. ' ' In arg. in Hutchinson v. Manchester, Bury & Rossendale Ry. (1846), 15 L.J. Ex. 295; 15 M. &W. 314, citing R. v. Price (1840), n A. & E. 727; 9 L. J. M. C. 49' Per Mellor, J., in R. v. Downes (1875) 45 L. J. M. C. 8; I Q. B. D. 25; 39 J. P. 760. 7 Per Erie, J. in R. v. Badger (1856) 6 El. & Bl. 137; 25 L. J. M. C. 85; and see per Lord Campbell, C. J., Ibid. go. See, also, R. v. Bent (1845) I Den. C.C. 157, 159; Hudson v. McRae (1863) 33 L. J. M. C. 65.

6I7

(Imp.), which imposes a penalty for "wil fully and falsely" pretending to a medical title, means wilful falsity, not mere in correctness. Pollock, C. B., said, "wilfully" cannot here mean merely "intentionally" as opposed to "accidentally" (which is the meaning it sometimes has), fora man cannot accidentally call himself a Doctor of Medi cine; and, therefore, the section must be read as pointing to wilful falsity.1 The word "wilfully," in the ordinary sense in which it is used in statutes, means not merely "voluntarily," but with a bad purpose.2 It is frequently understood as signifying an evil intent without justifiable excuse.8 Doing or omitting to do a thing knowingly and wilfully, implies not only a knowledge of the thing, but a determination, with a bad intent, to do it or omit doing it.4 On the general principles of construction, a statute which makes in unqualified terms an act criminal or penal, would be under stood as not applying where the act was excusable or justifiable on grounds gener ally recognized by law. For example, the sheriff who arrests under a warrant the driver of the mails, is not indictable for knowingly and wilfully obstructing and retarding the mail.5 The importance of the presence, or absence, of the word "knowingly," in statutory definitions of offenses, is dis cussed in a number of cases.8 From the 1 Ellis v. Kelly (1860), 30 L. J. M. C. 35; 6 H. & N. 222; 25 J. P. 279. 1 Per Shaw, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Kneeland) (1838), 20 Pick. (Mass.) 220. 3 Bishop's C. L. 428. See, also, Carpenter v. Mason (1840), 4 Per. & Dav. ^39 112 Ad. & E. 629. 1 Felton v. United States (1877), 6 Otto (U. S. S. C. R.) 702. 6 U. S. v. Kirby (1868), 7 Wallace (U. S. S. C. R.), 482. • See Mullins v. Collins (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 67; L. R. 9 Q. B. 292; Cundv v. Le Cocq (1884) 53 L. J. M. C. 125: 13 Q. B. D. 207, and cases cited therein; R. v. Tolson (1889), 16 Cox C. C. 629; 2.3 Q. B. D. 168; Warb. Lead. Cas. 72. The last named case settled one of the qualifications of the definition of bigamy as set forth in sec. 307 of the Canad^n Code.