Ruling on the Crown v. Corbish, 1767

[garentoft 9265]

Ruling of The Crown v. Corbish

Novellen Palace, 11th of Tobias’ Bounty, 1767

 

---

 

Presiding Justice:

Lauritz Christiansen, J.D. SSE

 

Prosecution:

Edward Williams Galbraith

 

Defendant:

Siegmund Corbish

 

Witnesses:

Mary Lucille d’Arkent

Sir Henry Marshall KL

Sofiya Baruch

 

Charges:

2 x 202.063 - Where an individual knowingly disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

2 x 206.031 - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or unaccepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy, an infraction.

204.081 - Where an individual intentionally threatens another individual for obtaining money, titles, or other benefits for oneself, this shall be the crime of extortion, an infraction.

203.012 - Where an individual intentionally deprives another of moveable property without the consent of its owner, and this property totals greater than one thousand minas but less than ten thousand minas in value, this shall be theft in the second degree, a misdemeanor.

203.042 - Where an individual intentionally or negligently damages or defaces the property of another, and this damage is of great amounts, this shall be vandalism in the first degree, a misdemeanor

203.061 - Where an individual intentionally enters the property of another which a reasonable person would consider to be restricted, this shall be trespassing, an infraction.

203.022 - Where an individual unlawfully enters a property with intent to commit a violent crime, this shall be burglary in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

207.051 - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction.

 

Verdict:

The accused, Siegmund Corbish, is found guilty on the charge of trespassing (203.061), but found innocent on all other charges. The accused is sentenced to a restraining order.

 

---

 

The restraining order will consist of the following:

• Siegmund Corbish is not allowed to communicate with, seek out communication with, or be within ten metres of the victim, Mary Lucille d’Arkent, and her immediate family. Her immediate family consists of herself, her parents, her siblings and any children she may have in the future.

  • This is subject to a knowing infringement clause, wherein Siegmund Corbish will not be found to be in breach of the restraining order if he has unintentionally been within ten metres of one of the aforementioned. Should he become aware of the presence of one of the aforementioned, he should depart immediately.

• Siegmund Corbish is not allowed in the Barony of Carrington or within twenty metres of it.

  • This is subject to a force majeure clause, wherein Siegmund Corbish may be allowed on or near the Barony of Carrington, due to unforeseen circumstances. Such could be the case of chasing bandits away from Helena. Should the unforeseen circumstances subside, he should depart immediately.

• Should Siegmund Corbish be found to be in breach of this contract, he will have to pay a five hundred mina fine.

  • Should he be found to be in breach of this contract again, the fine shall increase at increments of five hundred mina every time.

[TheNunnery 1853]

“Gosh! bees have rights! I guess?” A young doctor said, jokingly, while drinking her tea, right after one sip the woman took a sigh, then saying, “Maybe, they should make laws for Bee rights, I would totally ,BEElieve, anything they shall decree” The woman made a laugh to herself, then taking another sip of her tea.

[John Ivory 4547]

“Finely fought case by both prosecutor and defendant. The most exemplary trial I have ever seen with my own two eyes, a commendation of the institution.”

 

The Duke of Helena remarks to his brother George as he reviews the opinion of the case.

[sergisala 3451]

“A fair ruling.” Edward Williams Galbraith would say before going to the Carrington Barony to celebrate it with his Carrington friends!

[Juststan147 277]

Amazing, a perfect victory for the defendant “LLewelyn would remark”

[frill 2277]

13 hours ago, EgirlSilky said:

“Gosh! bees have rights! I guess?” A young doctor said, jokingly, while drinking her tea, right after one sip the woman took a sigh, then saying, “Maybe, they should make laws for Bee rights, I would totally ,BEElieve, anything they shall decree” The woman made a laugh to herself, then taking another sip of her tea.

 

“Truly it is stunning to see the supreme court’s personhood for insects and all other beasties be fresh in the hearts and minds of the citizenry.” quoth a Harrenite, mouth stuffed with his tea-time bread pudding so greatly that his voice was affected with sibilant lisp.